Marcin Jarczewski vs Jakub Litowski
2008 · Result 1–0 · Queen's Gambit Declined: Orthodox Defense, Capablanca Variation (D63).
Turn this game into your next win
Replay Marcin Jarczewski vs Jakub Litowski 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
- Marcin Jarczewski (1836)
- Black
- Jakub Litowski (1815)
- Result
- 1–0
- Year
- 2008
- Opening
- Queen's Gambit Declined: Orthodox Defense, Capablanca Variation (D63)
About this chess game
This chess game between Marcin Jarczewski (1836) and Jakub Litowski (1815) was played in 2008 and finished 1–0. The opening was the Queen's Gambit Declined: Orthodox Defense, Capablanca Variation (D63). 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 Marcin Jarczewski games or Jakub Litowski games? This Marcin Jarczewski vs Jakub Litowski 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 Queen's Gambit Declined: Orthodox Defense, Capablanca Variation.
Frequently asked questions
Who won Marcin Jarczewski vs Jakub Litowski?
Marcin Jarczewski vs Jakub Litowski (2008) finished 1–0, a win for Marcin Jarczewski.
What opening was played in Marcin Jarczewski vs Jakub Litowski?
The game opened with the Queen's Gambit Declined: Orthodox Defense, Capablanca Variation (ECO D63).
Can I replay this chess game move by move?
Yes. Use the interactive board on this page to step through every move of Marcin Jarczewski vs Jakub Litowski, or open it on the CipherChess analysis board to review it with the Stockfish engine.