Breizatao,

Maybe you remember me so I wrote in your blog ( Alejandro Melchor, Barcelona, Spain ). The relation between Latvian and PCG is often very close. In this last case I wrote several long articles in previous letters; exactly on "realpolitik" quote

http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1138114865/15 I wrote the following article:

The sequence 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nc3 d6 4.d4 fxe4 5.Nxe4 or 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 is cited in some of the classical works I know, at least in "Winning with the Philidor" (Kosten, 1992) and "The Philidor Countergambit" (West, 1996), but in this point they don't say anything on 5..Nf6, the correct answer instead of 5..d5. This last move is also known in Latvian gambit circles from long time ago as dubtious, not only for 6.Nxe5!?, if not also specially on 6.Neg5 h6 7.Nf7! - indeed, it is not Motwani's reccomendation, the move is known from a game Stepanov-Maljutin, Moscow, 1992 -.

The reply 5..Nf6 is the only correct one and it has been tried by M. Downey ( first LG World Tournament champion ), Holland S. De Jong and I myself (!?). In "Myers Opening Butlletin", Maurits Wind already reccomended 6.Nxf6+ gxf6! but the line was already known by Alapin and Zuckertort who analyzed 6.Qe2 and 6.Bd3 respectively - I don't see anything after 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Nxf6+ Bxf6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 either or even 7..gxf6!? -.

After 5..Nf6 6.Nxf6 gxf6! ( it's easy to imagine logical 6..Qxf6?! is dubtious after 7.Bg5 ) I have 13 games in my base. It would be appropiate to think on benefiting relatively on Black King's broken flank after 7.Nh4 but 7..Be6 8.Qh5+ Bf7 doesn't anything, Hence, 7.dxe5 is played awaiting 7..fxe5? 8.Ng5! ( 8.Bc4 h6 still with some defence ) 8..Qf6 9.Bc4 with attack according Polugaievsky and played in Schwertel-Burghardt, corr., 1990-91, but, of course, the correct way is 7..dxe5!.

Now the changes of Queens it is not suitable for White, the position is innocuous and Black's King have not any danger in the centre. Some examples:

8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.Be3 Bg4 10.h3 Ba6 11.0-0-0 Nd7 12.Kb1 Bd6 13.Nd2 Ke7 (Sebastian-Hector, Spain, 1989, 0-1,39)

8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.Bd3 Be6 10.0-0 Nd7 11.Nh4 c6 12.Bf5 Bxf5 13.Nxf5 Kc7 = (Gnirk-Melchor, corr. ICCF thematic, 2004-06)

8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.Bd2 Bc5 or 9..Bg4 (Maurits Wind)

Another tries:

8.Bd3 Nc6? 9.Bd2 Be6 10.0-0 Qe7 11.Qe2 Rg8 12.Rfe1 0-0-0 = (Drüke-Downey, corr. LG thematic, 1990)

8.Bd3 Nc6? 9.Ng5!! fxg5 10.Qh5+ Kd7 11.Bxg5 Be7 12.Bf5+ ( or 12.Bb5!? Qg8 13.0-0-0+ Bd6 14.Bf6 is even better) 12..Kd6 13.0-0-0+ Nd4 14.Bf4! +- with a very strong attack (Leko-Tornyai, Keckskemet, 1992, 1-0,22)

but 8.Bd3 Bg4 ( or 8..Be6 9.0-0 Nc6 10.Be4 Qd6, but not firstly 8..Nc6? by 9.Ng5! again ) 9.Qe2 Nc6 10.Bd2 ( 10.Be3 Qd5 = ) 10..Nd4 ( 10...Dd7 too ) 11.Qe3 ( some better 11.Qe4 ) 11..Bxf3 12.gxf3 Qd7 ( 12...Qd5!? ) 13.0-0-0 0-0-0 = (Schmidt-Lenz, Platz, 1996).

The most interesting ( and exciting ) games, almost identical, was:

8.Nd2!? Be6 9.Qf3 Bd5?! 10.Ne4 Be7 11.Be3 c6 12.0-0-0 Nd7 13.Rxd5!! cxd5 14.Qh5+ Kf8 15.Bb5! Nb6 16.Rd1 with:

a) 16..h6 17.Qg6 Rg8 18.Ng3 Bc5 19.Nh5 Be7 20.Bxh6+ Rxh6 21.Qxh6+ Kf7 22.Rd3 Rg8 23.Rf3 Rxg2 24.Rxf6+ Kg8 25.Ng3 Qh7 26.Qg5+ 1-0 (Krantz-Downey, corr.,1990-91), and

b) 16..Kg8 17.Rd3 Bf8 18.Be8! Qe7 19.Bc5 1-0 (De Jong-Melchor, corr., ICCF thematic, 1998-99)

Of course, it is necessary to improve Blak's play; a simple idea is 9..Nc6 10.Bb5 Qd7 with idea Bg4 and / or 0-0-0 ( also 10..h5!? 11.0-0 Be7 ) 11.Ne4 ( 11.Qxf6 Rg8 12.0-0 Be7 and 0-0-0 with clear compensation ) 11..0-0-0! 12.Nxf6 e4!?.

Another idea: 9..c6 10.Ne4 Nd7 ( 10..Bg7 11.Bh6! ) 11.Be3 Qa5+

SO YOU SEE BREIZATAO ( Frederic ) we must learn already very much with the traspositions !?.

Best wishes !