Steffen Rittemann vs Jakob Leon Pajeken
2016 · Result 1–0 · Vienna Game: Stanley Variation, Three Knights Variation (C28).
Turn this game into your next win
Replay Steffen Rittemann vs Jakob Leon Pajeken 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
- Steffen Rittemann (2143)
- Black
- Jakob Leon Pajeken (2002)
- Result
- 1–0
- Year
- 2016
- Opening
- Vienna Game: Stanley Variation, Three Knights Variation (C28)
About this chess game
This chess game between Steffen Rittemann (2143) and Jakob Leon Pajeken (2002) was played in 2016 and finished 1–0. The opening was the Vienna Game: Stanley Variation, Three Knights Variation (C28). 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 Steffen Rittemann games or Jakob Leon Pajeken games? This Steffen Rittemann vs Jakob Leon Pajeken 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 Vienna Game: Stanley Variation, Three Knights Variation.
Frequently asked questions
Who won Steffen Rittemann vs Jakob Leon Pajeken?
Steffen Rittemann vs Jakob Leon Pajeken (2016) finished 1–0, a win for Steffen Rittemann.
What opening was played in Steffen Rittemann vs Jakob Leon Pajeken?
The game opened with the Vienna Game: Stanley Variation, Three Knights Variation (ECO C28).
Can I replay this chess game move by move?
Yes. Use the interactive board on this page to step through every move of Steffen Rittemann vs Jakob Leon Pajeken, or open it on the CipherChess analysis board to review it with the Stockfish engine.