Tristian See vs Jonathan C Wells
GBR Ch Wk2/pm, 2015 · Result 0–1 · Sicilian Defense: Scheveningen Variation, Modern Variation (B83).
Turn this game into your next win
Replay Tristian See vs Jonathan C Wells 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
- Tristian See (1484)
- Black
- Jonathan C Wells (1560)
- Result
- 0–1
- Event
- GBR Ch Wk2/pm
- Year
- 2015
- Opening
- Sicilian Defense: Scheveningen Variation, Modern Variation (B83)
About this chess game
This chess game between Tristian See (1484) and Jonathan C Wells (1560) was played at GBR Ch Wk2/pm in 2015 and finished 0–1. The opening was the Sicilian Defense: Scheveningen Variation, Modern Variation (B83). 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 Tristian See games or Jonathan C Wells games? This Tristian See vs Jonathan C Wells 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 Sicilian Defense: Scheveningen Variation, Modern Variation.
Frequently asked questions
Who won Tristian See vs Jonathan C Wells?
Tristian See vs Jonathan C Wells (2015) finished 0–1, a win for Jonathan C Wells.
What opening was played in Tristian See vs Jonathan C Wells?
The game opened with the Sicilian Defense: Scheveningen Variation, Modern Variation (ECO B83).
Can I replay this chess game move by move?
Yes. Use the interactive board on this page to step through every move of Tristian See vs Jonathan C Wells, or open it on the CipherChess analysis board to review it with the Stockfish engine.