Henry Slater-Jones vs David Cannon
2019 · Result 0–1 · King's Indian Defense: Orthodox Variation, Aronin-Taimanov Defense (E97).
Turn this game into your next win
Replay Henry Slater-Jones vs David Cannon 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
- Henry Slater-Jones (1965)
- Black
- David Cannon (2043)
- Result
- 0–1
- Year
- 2019
- Opening
- King's Indian Defense: Orthodox Variation, Aronin-Taimanov Defense (E97)
About this chess game
This chess game between Henry Slater-Jones (1965) and David Cannon (2043) was played in 2019 and finished 0–1. The opening was the King's Indian Defense: Orthodox Variation, Aronin-Taimanov Defense (E97). 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 Henry Slater-Jones games or David Cannon games? This Henry Slater-Jones vs David Cannon 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 King's Indian Defense: Orthodox Variation, Aronin-Taimanov Defense.
Frequently asked questions
Who won Henry Slater-Jones vs David Cannon?
Henry Slater-Jones vs David Cannon (2019) finished 0–1, a win for David Cannon.
What opening was played in Henry Slater-Jones vs David Cannon?
The game opened with the King's Indian Defense: Orthodox Variation, Aronin-Taimanov Defense (ECO E97).
Can I replay this chess game move by move?
Yes. Use the interactive board on this page to step through every move of Henry Slater-Jones vs David Cannon, or open it on the CipherChess analysis board to review it with the Stockfish engine.