Luis Monty Osswald vs Daniel Gelfenbaum
2013 · Result ½–½ · Caro-Kann Defense: Two Knights Attack, Mindeno Variation (B11).
Turn this game into your next win
Replay Luis Monty Osswald vs Daniel Gelfenbaum 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
- Luis Monty Osswald (1965)
- Black
- Daniel Gelfenbaum (1809)
- Result
- ½–½
- Year
- 2013
- Opening
- Caro-Kann Defense: Two Knights Attack, Mindeno Variation (B11)
About this chess game
This chess game between Luis Monty Osswald (1965) and Daniel Gelfenbaum (1809) was played in 2013 and finished ½–½. The opening was the Caro-Kann Defense: Two Knights Attack, Mindeno Variation (B11). 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 Luis Monty Osswald games or Daniel Gelfenbaum games? This Luis Monty Osswald vs Daniel Gelfenbaum 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 Caro-Kann Defense: Two Knights Attack, Mindeno Variation.
Frequently asked questions
Who won Luis Monty Osswald vs Daniel Gelfenbaum?
Luis Monty Osswald vs Daniel Gelfenbaum (2013) finished ½–½, and the game was drawn.
What opening was played in Luis Monty Osswald vs Daniel Gelfenbaum?
The game opened with the Caro-Kann Defense: Two Knights Attack, Mindeno Variation (ECO B11).
Can I replay this chess game move by move?
Yes. Use the interactive board on this page to step through every move of Luis Monty Osswald vs Daniel Gelfenbaum, or open it on the CipherChess analysis board to review it with the Stockfish engine.