Jim Paterson vs John Zhang
Scarborough CC ch reserves, 2011 · Result ½–½ · King's Indian Defense: Fianchetto Variation, Yugoslav Variation (E65).
Turn this game into your next win
Replay Jim Paterson vs John Zhang 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
- Jim Paterson (1825)
- Black
- John Zhang (1612)
- Result
- ½–½
- Event
- Scarborough CC ch reserves
- Year
- 2011
- Opening
- King's Indian Defense: Fianchetto Variation, Yugoslav Variation (E65)
About this chess game
This chess game between Jim Paterson (1825) and John Zhang (1612) was played at Scarborough CC ch reserves in 2011 and finished ½–½. The opening was the King's Indian Defense: Fianchetto Variation, Yugoslav Variation (E65). 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 Jim Paterson games or John Zhang games? This Jim Paterson vs John Zhang 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 Indian Defense: Fianchetto Variation, Yugoslav Variation.
Frequently asked questions
Who won Jim Paterson vs John Zhang?
Jim Paterson vs John Zhang (2011) finished ½–½, and the game was drawn.
What opening was played in Jim Paterson vs John Zhang?
The game opened with the King's Indian Defense: Fianchetto Variation, Yugoslav Variation (ECO E65).
Can I replay this chess game move by move?
Yes. Use the interactive board on this page to step through every move of Jim Paterson vs John Zhang, or open it on the CipherChess analysis board to review it with the Stockfish engine.