Aleksey S. Sitnikov vs Alexander G Beliavsky
TCh-UKR Teams, 2009 · Result 0–1 · Italian Game: Two Knights Defense (C55).
Turn this game into your next win
Replay Aleksey S. Sitnikov vs Alexander G Beliavsky 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
- Aleksey S. Sitnikov (2490)
- Black
- Alexander G Beliavsky (2662)
- Result
- 0–1
- Event
- TCh-UKR Teams
- Year
- 2009
- Opening
- Italian Game: Two Knights Defense (C55)
About this chess game
This chess game between Aleksey S. Sitnikov (2490) and Alexander G Beliavsky (2662) was played at TCh-UKR Teams in 2009 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 Aleksey S. Sitnikov games or Alexander G Beliavsky games? This Aleksey S. Sitnikov vs Alexander G Beliavsky 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 Aleksey S. Sitnikov vs Alexander G Beliavsky?
Aleksey S. Sitnikov vs Alexander G Beliavsky (2009) finished 0–1, a win for Alexander G Beliavsky.
What opening was played in Aleksey S. Sitnikov vs Alexander G Beliavsky?
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 Aleksey S. Sitnikov vs Alexander G Beliavsky, or open it on the CipherChess analysis board to review it with the Stockfish engine.