Simon Mertlitsch vs Thomas Stolzlechner
Schwarzach op-B, 2000 · Result 0–1 · Nimzo-Indian Defense: Three Knights Variation (E21).
Turn this game into your next win
Replay Simon Mertlitsch vs Thomas Stolzlechner 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
- Simon Mertlitsch
- Black
- Thomas Stolzlechner (2159)
- Result
- 0–1
- Event
- Schwarzach op-B
- Year
- 2000
- Opening
- Nimzo-Indian Defense: Three Knights Variation (E21)
About this chess game
This chess game between Simon Mertlitsch and Thomas Stolzlechner (2159) was played at Schwarzach op-B in 2000 and finished 0–1. The opening was the Nimzo-Indian Defense: Three Knights Variation (E21). 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 Simon Mertlitsch games or Thomas Stolzlechner games? This Simon Mertlitsch vs Thomas Stolzlechner 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: Three Knights Variation.
Frequently asked questions
Who won Simon Mertlitsch vs Thomas Stolzlechner?
Simon Mertlitsch vs Thomas Stolzlechner (2000) finished 0–1, a win for Thomas Stolzlechner.
What opening was played in Simon Mertlitsch vs Thomas Stolzlechner?
The game opened with the Nimzo-Indian Defense: Three Knights Variation (ECO E21).
Can I replay this chess game move by move?
Yes. Use the interactive board on this page to step through every move of Simon Mertlitsch vs Thomas Stolzlechner, or open it on the CipherChess analysis board to review it with the Stockfish engine.