Cornelis Kolkman vs Ricardo Joaquim Rodney
WS/O/816, 2015 · Result 1–0 · English Opening: King's English Variation (A20).
Turn this game into your next win
Replay Cornelis Kolkman vs Ricardo Joaquim Rodney 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
- Cornelis Kolkman (1845)
- Black
- Ricardo Joaquim Rodney (1629)
- Result
- 1–0
- Event
- WS/O/816
- Year
- 2015
- Opening
- English Opening: King's English Variation (A20)
About this chess game
This chess game between Cornelis Kolkman (1845) and Ricardo Joaquim Rodney (1629) was played at WS/O/816 in 2015 and finished 1–0. The opening was the English Opening: King's English Variation (A20). 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 Cornelis Kolkman games or Ricardo Joaquim Rodney games? This Cornelis Kolkman vs Ricardo Joaquim Rodney 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 English Opening: King's English Variation.
Frequently asked questions
Who won Cornelis Kolkman vs Ricardo Joaquim Rodney?
Cornelis Kolkman vs Ricardo Joaquim Rodney (2015) finished 1–0, a win for Cornelis Kolkman.
What opening was played in Cornelis Kolkman vs Ricardo Joaquim Rodney?
The game opened with the English Opening: King's English Variation (ECO A20).
Can I replay this chess game move by move?
Yes. Use the interactive board on this page to step through every move of Cornelis Kolkman vs Ricardo Joaquim Rodney, or open it on the CipherChess analysis board to review it with the Stockfish engine.