Samuel Batista Rocha vs Issac Panicker Dias
POR Ch Blitz 2017, 2017 · Result 0–1 · Italian Game: Two Knights Defense (C55).
Turn this game into your next win
Replay Samuel Batista Rocha vs Issac Panicker Dias 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
- Samuel Batista Rocha (2383)
- Black
- Issac Panicker Dias (1430)
- Result
- 0–1
- Event
- POR Ch Blitz 2017
- Year
- 2017
- Opening
- Italian Game: Two Knights Defense (C55)
About this chess game
This chess game between Samuel Batista Rocha (2383) and Issac Panicker Dias (1430) was played at POR Ch Blitz 2017 in 2017 and finished 0–1. The opening was the Italian Game: Two Knights Defense (C55). 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 Samuel Batista Rocha games or Issac Panicker Dias games? This Samuel Batista Rocha vs Issac Panicker Dias 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 Italian Game: Two Knights Defense.
Frequently asked questions
Who won Samuel Batista Rocha vs Issac Panicker Dias?
Samuel Batista Rocha vs Issac Panicker Dias (2017) finished 0–1, a win for Issac Panicker Dias.
What opening was played in Samuel Batista Rocha vs Issac Panicker Dias?
The game opened with the Italian Game: Two Knights Defense (ECO C55).
Can I replay this chess game move by move?
Yes. Use the interactive board on this page to step through every move of Samuel Batista Rocha vs Issac Panicker Dias, or open it on the CipherChess analysis board to review it with the Stockfish engine.