Thomas Hagenlueke vs Klaus van Riesen
2010 · Result 1–0 · King's Indian Defense: Fianchetto Variation, Long Variation (E68).
Turn this game into your next win
Replay Thomas Hagenlueke vs Klaus van Riesen with deep analysis, save the moments that matter, fold the ideas into your own opening repertoire, and drill the positions until they're second nature. CipherChess turns the games you study into the results you get — free to start.
Start Free on CipherChessMore Games By These Players
Game details
- White
- Thomas Hagenlueke (2032)
- Black
- Klaus van Riesen (2070)
- Result
- 1–0
- Year
- 2010
- Opening
- King's Indian Defense: Fianchetto Variation, Long Variation (E68)
About this chess game
This chess game between Thomas Hagenlueke (2032) and Klaus van Riesen (2070) was played in 2010 and finished 1–0. The opening was the King's Indian Defense: Fianchetto Variation, Long Variation (E68). You can replay the full game move by move on the interactive board above, or open it on the CipherChess analysis board to study every move with the Stockfish engine.
Looking for more Thomas Hagenlueke games or Klaus van Riesen games? This Thomas Hagenlueke vs Klaus van Riesen encounter is one of millions of chess games indexed in the CipherChess mega database. Browse both players' full records, the openings they play most, and head-to-head results, then load any game onto the board to prepare your own lines against the King's Indian Defense: Fianchetto Variation, Long Variation.
Frequently asked questions
Who won Thomas Hagenlueke vs Klaus van Riesen?
Thomas Hagenlueke vs Klaus van Riesen (2010) finished 1–0, a win for Thomas Hagenlueke.
What opening was played in Thomas Hagenlueke vs Klaus van Riesen?
The game opened with the King's Indian Defense: Fianchetto Variation, Long Variation (ECO E68).
Can I replay this chess game move by move?
Yes. Use the interactive board on this page to step through every move of Thomas Hagenlueke vs Klaus van Riesen, or open it on the CipherChess analysis board to review it with the Stockfish engine.