Caius Emilian Kempe vs Niclas Sperling
2019 · Result ½–½ · King's Indian Defense: Sämisch Variation, Closed Variation (E87).
Turn this game into your next win
Replay Caius Emilian Kempe vs Niclas Sperling 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
- Caius Emilian Kempe (1835)
- Black
- Niclas Sperling (1656)
- Result
- ½–½
- Year
- 2019
- Opening
- King's Indian Defense: Sämisch Variation, Closed Variation (E87)
About this chess game
This chess game between Caius Emilian Kempe (1835) and Niclas Sperling (1656) was played in 2019 and finished ½–½. The opening was the King's Indian Defense: Sämisch Variation, Closed Variation (E87). 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 Caius Emilian Kempe games or Niclas Sperling games? This Caius Emilian Kempe vs Niclas Sperling 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: Sämisch Variation, Closed Variation.
Frequently asked questions
Who won Caius Emilian Kempe vs Niclas Sperling?
Caius Emilian Kempe vs Niclas Sperling (2019) finished ½–½, and the game was drawn.
What opening was played in Caius Emilian Kempe vs Niclas Sperling?
The game opened with the King's Indian Defense: Sämisch Variation, Closed Variation (ECO E87).
Can I replay this chess game move by move?
Yes. Use the interactive board on this page to step through every move of Caius Emilian Kempe vs Niclas Sperling, or open it on the CipherChess analysis board to review it with the Stockfish engine.