Max Merbis vs Frank Erwich
4. LCT, 2010 · Result 0–1 · Nimzo-Indian Defense: Classical Variation, Berlin Variation, Pirc Variation (E39).
Turn this game into your next win
Replay Max Merbis vs Frank Erwich 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
- Max Merbis (2159)
- Black
- Frank Erwich (2333)
- Result
- 0–1
- Event
- 4. LCT
- Year
- 2010
- Opening
- Nimzo-Indian Defense: Classical Variation, Berlin Variation, Pirc Variation (E39)
About this chess game
This chess game between Max Merbis (2159) and Frank Erwich (2333) was played at 4. LCT in 2010 and finished 0–1. The opening was the Nimzo-Indian Defense: Classical Variation, Berlin Variation, Pirc Variation (E39). 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 Max Merbis games or Frank Erwich games? This Max Merbis vs Frank Erwich 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 Nimzo-Indian Defense: Classical Variation, Berlin Variation, Pirc Variation.
Frequently asked questions
Who won Max Merbis vs Frank Erwich?
Max Merbis vs Frank Erwich (2010) finished 0–1, a win for Frank Erwich.
What opening was played in Max Merbis vs Frank Erwich?
The game opened with the Nimzo-Indian Defense: Classical Variation, Berlin Variation, Pirc Variation (ECO E39).
Can I replay this chess game move by move?
Yes. Use the interactive board on this page to step through every move of Max Merbis vs Frank Erwich, or open it on the CipherChess analysis board to review it with the Stockfish engine.