Joachim Just vs Derek William Coope
VWC10 /pr 9, 2017 · Result 1–0 · King's Indian Defense: Normal Variation, Rare Defenses (E90).
Turn this game into your next win
Replay Joachim Just vs Derek William Coope 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
- Joachim Just (1930)
- Black
- Derek William Coope (1854)
- Result
- 1–0
- Event
- VWC10 /pr 9
- Year
- 2017
- Opening
- King's Indian Defense: Normal Variation, Rare Defenses (E90)
About this chess game
This chess game between Joachim Just (1930) and Derek William Coope (1854) was played at VWC10 /pr 9 in 2017 and finished 1–0. The opening was the King's Indian Defense: Normal Variation, Rare Defenses (E90). 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 Joachim Just games or Derek William Coope games? This Joachim Just vs Derek William Coope 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: Normal Variation, Rare Defenses.
Frequently asked questions
Who won Joachim Just vs Derek William Coope?
Joachim Just vs Derek William Coope (2017) finished 1–0, a win for Joachim Just.
What opening was played in Joachim Just vs Derek William Coope?
The game opened with the King's Indian Defense: Normal Variation, Rare Defenses (ECO E90).
Can I replay this chess game move by move?
Yes. Use the interactive board on this page to step through every move of Joachim Just vs Derek William Coope, or open it on the CipherChess analysis board to review it with the Stockfish engine.