Bartosz Sleczka vs Pawel Stankiewicz
2010 · Result 0–1 · Sicilian Defense: Scheveningen Variation, Classical Variation (B84).
Turn this game into your next win
Replay Bartosz Sleczka vs Pawel Stankiewicz 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
- Bartosz Sleczka (1886)
- Black
- Pawel Stankiewicz (1930)
- Result
- 0–1
- Year
- 2010
- Opening
- Sicilian Defense: Scheveningen Variation, Classical Variation (B84)
About this chess game
This chess game between Bartosz Sleczka (1886) and Pawel Stankiewicz (1930) was played in 2010 and finished 0–1. The opening was the Sicilian Defense: Scheveningen Variation, Classical Variation (B84). 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 Bartosz Sleczka games or Pawel Stankiewicz games? This Bartosz Sleczka vs Pawel Stankiewicz 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, Classical Variation.
Frequently asked questions
Who won Bartosz Sleczka vs Pawel Stankiewicz?
Bartosz Sleczka vs Pawel Stankiewicz (2010) finished 0–1, a win for Pawel Stankiewicz.
What opening was played in Bartosz Sleczka vs Pawel Stankiewicz?
The game opened with the Sicilian Defense: Scheveningen Variation, Classical Variation (ECO B84).
Can I replay this chess game move by move?
Yes. Use the interactive board on this page to step through every move of Bartosz Sleczka vs Pawel Stankiewicz, or open it on the CipherChess analysis board to review it with the Stockfish engine.