Timothy J Kett vs Richard J E McNally
GBR-ch107 Over 50, 2021 · Result 1–0 · King's Gambit Accepted: King's Knight's Gambit (C34).
Turn this game into your next win
Replay Timothy J Kett vs Richard J E McNally 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
- Timothy J Kett (2156)
- Black
- Richard J E McNally (1923)
- Result
- 1–0
- Event
- GBR-ch107 Over 50
- Year
- 2021
- Opening
- King's Gambit Accepted: King's Knight's Gambit (C34)
About this chess game
This chess game between Timothy J Kett (2156) and Richard J E McNally (1923) was played at GBR-ch107 Over 50 in 2021 and finished 1–0. The opening was the King's Gambit Accepted: King's Knight's Gambit (C34). 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 Timothy J Kett games or Richard J E McNally games? This Timothy J Kett vs Richard J E McNally 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 Gambit Accepted: King's Knight's Gambit.
Frequently asked questions
Who won Timothy J Kett vs Richard J E McNally?
Timothy J Kett vs Richard J E McNally (2021) finished 1–0, a win for Timothy J Kett.
What opening was played in Timothy J Kett vs Richard J E McNally?
The game opened with the King's Gambit Accepted: King's Knight's Gambit (ECO C34).
Can I replay this chess game move by move?
Yes. Use the interactive board on this page to step through every move of Timothy J Kett vs Richard J E McNally, or open it on the CipherChess analysis board to review it with the Stockfish engine.