Edward Porper vs Robert Gardner
CICC, 2010 · Result 1–0 · Queen's Indian Defense: Classical Variation, Traditional Variation (E18).
Turn this game into your next win
Replay Edward Porper vs Robert Gardner 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
- Edward Porper (2431)
- Black
- Robert Gardner (2144)
- Result
- 1–0
- Event
- CICC
- Year
- 2010
- Opening
- Queen's Indian Defense: Classical Variation, Traditional Variation (E18)
About this chess game
This chess game between Edward Porper (2431) and Robert Gardner (2144) was played at CICC in 2010 and finished 1–0. The opening was the Queen's Indian Defense: Classical Variation, Traditional Variation (E18). 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 Edward Porper games or Robert Gardner games? This Edward Porper vs Robert Gardner 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 Queen's Indian Defense: Classical Variation, Traditional Variation.
Frequently asked questions
Who won Edward Porper vs Robert Gardner?
Edward Porper vs Robert Gardner (2010) finished 1–0, a win for Edward Porper.
What opening was played in Edward Porper vs Robert Gardner?
The game opened with the Queen's Indian Defense: Classical Variation, Traditional Variation (ECO E18).
Can I replay this chess game move by move?
Yes. Use the interactive board on this page to step through every move of Edward Porper vs Robert Gardner, or open it on the CipherChess analysis board to review it with the Stockfish engine.