Alexandra Potievskaya vs Artem K. Sladkov
2012 · Result ½–½ · French Defense: Tarrasch Variation, Closed Variation (C05).
Turn this game into your next win
Replay Alexandra Potievskaya vs Artem K. Sladkov 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
- Alexandra Potievskaya (1906)
- Black
- Artem K. Sladkov (1821)
- Result
- ½–½
- Year
- 2012
- Opening
- French Defense: Tarrasch Variation, Closed Variation (C05)
About this chess game
This chess game between Alexandra Potievskaya (1906) and Artem K. Sladkov (1821) was played in 2012 and finished ½–½. The opening was the French Defense: Tarrasch Variation, Closed Variation (C05). 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 Alexandra Potievskaya games or Artem K. Sladkov games? This Alexandra Potievskaya vs Artem K. Sladkov 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 French Defense: Tarrasch Variation, Closed Variation.
Frequently asked questions
Who won Alexandra Potievskaya vs Artem K. Sladkov?
Alexandra Potievskaya vs Artem K. Sladkov (2012) finished ½–½, and the game was drawn.
What opening was played in Alexandra Potievskaya vs Artem K. Sladkov?
The game opened with the French Defense: Tarrasch Variation, Closed Variation (ECO C05).
Can I replay this chess game move by move?
Yes. Use the interactive board on this page to step through every move of Alexandra Potievskaya vs Artem K. Sladkov, or open it on the CipherChess analysis board to review it with the Stockfish engine.