Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) C40: New move in the Latvian (Read 75891 times)
AMM
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 110
Location: Barcelona - Spain
Joined: 11/08/07
Gender: Male
Re: C40: 7th Latvian gambit World Tournament
Reply #147 - 01/08/12 at 17:49:56
Post Tools
I know this is a forum for opening Theory, but let me know an announcement of the following next Tourney ( after all I've collaborated in the forum too ):

7th World Championship Latvian Gambit

2012/2017 cycle

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5

The tournament will be played in three stages: Preliminary, Semifinal and
Final.

The tournament will be played normally by e-mail and ICCF rules will
apply (60 days for 10 moves, the time may NOT be exceeded).

It is planned to start the preliminary stage on middle/end of January 2012.

The first two players of each Preliminary group will qualify for the Semifinal Round.

Each competitor will play 2 games with the same opponent (one with White and
one with Black), each section of the preliminary stage will involve 5/6 players.

Each entry (containing name, email,  country, elo rating), should be sent by email
to Alejandro Melchor ( amelchormunoz@gmail.com), not later than 25. 01. 2012.


    Horacio Fragola ( ARG, 1767 ICCF ); Juan H. Prado ( ARG, 2274 ICCF ); Lance Vicary ( CAN, 2027 ICCF ); David R. Lonsdale ( CAN, 1989 ICCF ); Kevint Plant ( ENG, 2137 ICCF ); Jaroslav Pech ( CZE, 1919 ICCF ); Fernando Ardila ( COL, 2278 ICCF ); Adam Christiansen ( USA - North Carolina ? - ); Duncan Foster ( USA - New York - ); Daniel Todd ( USA - Missouri - ); Jonathan King ( USA - Nevada - ); Lev Zilbermintz ( USA - New Jersey -, 2027 FIDE ); Steve Ferrero ( USA - New Jersey -, 2082 FIDE ); Stan W. Evans ( USA - Kentucky -, 1738 ICCF ); Khaleeg Kaashif ( USA - Maryland - ); Vladislav Sivak ( UKR ); Paiva Moreira ( POR, 2406 ICCF IM, 1923 FIDE ); Sergej Zielinski (GER, 2175 ICCF ); Fritz Borrmann ( GER, 1983 ICCF ); Itamar Oren ( ISR , 2181 ICCF IM ); Fredèric Fournier ( FRA, 2098 ICCF, 1875 FIDE ); Alexandre Bouget ( FRA, 2176 FIDE ); François Godart ( BEL, 2263 FIDE ); Gianfranco Pecis ( ITA, 2314 ICCF ); Alessandro Di Tora ( ITA ); Maurizio Mariscoli ( ITA ); Filiberto Pivirotto ( ITA, 1843 ICCF ); John Elburg ( NED, 2300 ICCF ); David Koetsier ( NED, 2409 ICCF ); Edward Wormar ( GER ); Hagen Tiemann ( GER, 2430 ICCF SIM ); Jordi Domingo ( ESP, 2221 FIDE ); Pedro  Cañizares ( ESP, 2160 ICCF, 1912 FIDE ) besides I myself, Alejandro Melchor ( ESP, 2050p ICCF, 2031 FIDE ).

Edited:
Moderator's Note: this has been approved for this site. ~SF January 9, 2012
« Last Edit: 01/10/12 at 08:42:58 by Smyslov_Fan »  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1318
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: New move in the Latvian
Reply #146 - 07/15/11 at 12:19:34
Post Tools
(1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5) 3...Nf6 was played 216 times in the Melchor database, score 60% for White. The overwhelming majority of these games, I'd estimate 75% or more, were corr. games.

Only in 49 games found White 4.Bc4 (57% score); 34 of those were corr. games (score 60%). Black replies 4...Qe7, the Melchor database contains 129 games, often in a different move-order (score 50%). The right response is 5.d4, in 118 games (53%).

Black answers 5...Nc6. The database has 78 games (51%). The critical move 6.Nc3! appears in 20 games (score 58%). So the probability that these White opponents (mainly corr. players) reached this critical position was 5.3% - and much less if you include cases with other third moves.

Black can try 6...fxe4 (14 games; 77%), hoping that White doesn't find 7.Ng4! (in those 14 games, no one did). Or the untested 6...d6? 7.Nf7 d5; or the best 6...Nxe5! 7.dxe5 Qxe5 8.0-0 fxe4 (22 games, 62%). In the latter case, 10 White players found 9.Nd5. As we have seen, even this position isn't hopeless, as in +-, but I admit that it is +/- (one pawn behind without compensation).

In today's corr. play, to end in this painful situation and have to defend it for months is no fun. So I'll avoid it in corr. chess. But a chance of 2% of pain vs maybe 30% of White failure [= slight plus or more for Black] and else "normal life", well, I have done stranger things with Black. 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10095
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: New move in the Latvian
Reply #145 - 07/15/11 at 11:01:46
Post Tools
Just like LDZ claims of the various Zilbermintz Gambits.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1104
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: New move in the Latvian
Reply #144 - 07/15/11 at 08:10:13
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 07/14/11 at 22:51:22:
After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5, the reason why I still believe that 3...Nf6 is more promising in OTB play: because the probability that White goes wrong seems high to me. Objectively 3...Nf6 may be +/-, while 3...Qf6 may be just +=. I don't see a big contradiction here. When the chance that your opponent finds the path to +/- is small, and the sidelines are harmless, why not take that risk? The evaluation of +/- means a position, say, where Black is a pawn behind. But opponents who are able to convert such an advantage are rare enough.

What I don't like in 3...Qf6 is the greater number of serious options for White. I'd rather play with fire and risk 3...Nf6, hoping that White doesn't find the best moves 4.Bc4 Qe7 5.d4 Nc6 6.Nc3 ... +/-.

MNb's argument that he wouldn't dare to play f5 in corr. chess is something I can agree with - I played the Balogh and the Vulture in Corr., but 2...f5 is stronger as a surprise in OTB chess. Just what AMM says...

This Latvian gambit is just like Portuguese variation in Scandinavian. Very hard to play in corr. chess, but yet very pleasant OTB. White can walk straight into the trap with every dubious move.  Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1318
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: New move in the Latvian
Reply #143 - 07/14/11 at 22:51:22
Post Tools
After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5, the reason why I still believe that 3...Nf6 is more promising in OTB play: because the probability that White goes wrong seems high to me. Objectively 3...Nf6 may be +/-, while 3...Qf6 may be just +=. I don't see a big contradiction here. When the chance that your opponent finds the path to +/- is small, and the sidelines are harmless, why not take that risk? The evaluation of +/- means a position, say, where Black is a pawn behind. But opponents who are able to convert such an advantage are rare enough.

What I don't like in 3...Qf6 is the greater number of serious options for White. I'd rather play with fire and risk 3...Nf6, hoping that White doesn't find the best moves 4.Bc4 Qe7 5.d4 Nc6 6.Nc3 ... +/-.

MNb's argument that he wouldn't dare to play f5 in corr. chess is something I can agree with - I played the Balogh and the Vulture in Corr., but 2...f5 is stronger as a surprise in OTB chess. Just what AMM says...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
AMM
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 110
Location: Barcelona - Spain
Joined: 11/08/07
Gender: Male
Re: New move in the Latvian
Reply #142 - 07/14/11 at 00:28:34
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 07/14/11 at 00:15:28:
AMM wrote on 07/13/11 at 21:04:29:
Remember, the Latvian is extremely complicated and has lots of possible lines, many of these leading to promising situations for Black. Many players below master level and indeed some masters are not familiar with the maze of variations that arise from this gambit so it could be a useful weapon in your arsenal and you may be able to score some good victories with Black using it's variations.

This is the kind of argument LDZ uses to defend all the openings he attached his name to. On this site the question is: is the Latvian =, += or +-?
As far as I follow the debate Latvian prospects are quite gloomy. It's certainly not something I would dare to play in corr. chess.


The Latvian has a reputation as being both tactically and positionally suspect. That reputation is fairly well deserved, but only if White knows his stuff and plays accurately. When it is sprung on an unsuspecting opponent, its aggressiveness can occasion a surprisingly muted response. Weak players with little or no book knowledge are often reduced to 3 d3, which simply hands the initiative to Black. Players who know little about the Latvian shy away from the most critical lines because they don’t want to be the victim in a game

I personally think Latvian is only += ... if Blak know he is doing .. and specially if you have -2200 FIDE. Of course, is also dangerous in CC, even today WITHOUT machines !?  Roll Eyes
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10095
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: New move in the Latvian
Reply #141 - 07/14/11 at 00:15:28
Post Tools
AMM wrote on 07/13/11 at 21:04:29:
Remember, the Latvian is extremely complicated and has lots of possible lines, many of these leading to promising situations for Black. Many players below master level and indeed some masters are not familiar with the maze of variations that arise from this gambit so it could be a useful weapon in your arsenal and you may be able to score some good victories with Black using it's variations.

This is the kind of argument LDZ uses to defend all the openings he attached his name to. On this site the question is: is the Latvian =, += or +-?
As far as I follow the debate Latvian prospects are quite gloomy. It's certainly not something I would dare to play in corr. chess.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
AMM
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 110
Location: Barcelona - Spain
Joined: 11/08/07
Gender: Male
Re: New move in the Latvian
Reply #140 - 07/13/11 at 21:04:29
Post Tools
g2-g4 wrote on 07/13/11 at 19:03:14:
The key question is Black must force a trasposition with 11..Nc6 to the Main line; thus 8..Nf6 9.Bd3 Qg4 10.Qe3+ Be7 11.0-0 Nc6 ( Kosten, "The Latvian Gambit Lives !" p.27 ). However, Black can, with accurate play, a playable position, being perhaps White "best" reply positional 12.d5

After 12.d5 Nb4 13.Rf4 Qd7 14.Bf5 Qd8 15.Bxc8 Qxc8 T.Kosten gave 16.Nxd6 cxd6 17.Rxb4 0-0 18.Bd2 Bd8! =
But there are two improvements.
18.Rf4 Bd8 19.Qd3 Ng4 20.Rxf8+ Kxf8 21.Ne4 Bb6+ 22.Kh1 Ne5 23.Qe2 Qg4 24.Qxg4 Nxg4 25.Bf4 Re8 26.Nxd6 (26.Bxd6?= 1/2 Viola,M (2393)-Elburg,J (2350)/SEMI email 2002) Nf2+ 27.Kg1 Nh3+ 28.Kf1 Nxf4 29.Nxe8 Kxe8 30.c4 +=
16.Qe2 1-0 Vegjeleki,A-Voracek,M/cr ICCF WSTT/1/07/2 e-mail 2007 (41) and 1-0 Zielinski,S-Acedo,H/cr LADAC thema prel 2006 (32)
Or was 15...Rxc8 found to be better?



Ops !, g2-g4 you are a tough interlocutor, but this is fine !? and maybe we could to write a book on Latvian gambit !!.

This line started with 14.Bf5 was known on a remarkable game Rublevsky-Maljutin, Jurmala, 1991 ( as you must to know ), and published in the "Informator". In the aboved game Viola-Elburg perhaps 18.Rf4 Bd8 19.Qd3 Bb6+ 20.Be3 Qc7 is better - with some White advantage ( more space ). Tatlow and Ruggeri later on developed some analysis.

16.Qe2!? 0-0 17.Ne3 is certainly more promising and I don't see Black's game improvement.

15..Rxc8 is discredited as you can see in Kosten book.

Nimzowitch suggested 14.Nb6!? axb6 15.Rxb4 and Karl Bething in 1940 told after 15..0-0 (=) it's unclear that White's spacial advantage amounts to anything. I think personally after 16.Bd2 first player chances are a little bit favourable; and so Kosten give 15..Ng4!?

Thus I recommend 7..Nc6!? and 7..Be7!? for instance to avoid 16.Qe2! etc. and even variations with 10.Qxg4 or 10.Qf2!?
Both Diagram moves was developed after Kosten's book was published:

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

Remember, the Latvian is extremely complicated and has lots of possible lines, many of these leading to promising situations for Black. Many players below master level and indeed some masters are not familiar with the maze of variations that arise from this gambit so it could be a useful weapon in your arsenal and you may be able to score some good victories with Black using it's variations.

« Last Edit: 07/14/11 at 00:00:12 by AMM »  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
g2-g4
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline



Posts: 38
Location: Moscow
Joined: 11/01/08
Gender: Male
Re: New move in the Latvian
Reply #139 - 07/13/11 at 19:03:14
Post Tools
AMM wrote on 07/11/11 at 23:03:23:
The key question is Black must force a trasposition with 11..Nc6 to the Main line; thus 8..Nf6 9.Bd3 Qg4 10.Qe3+ Be7 11.0-0 Nc6 ( Kosten, "The Latvian Gambit Lives !" p.27 ). However, Black can, with accurate play, a playable position, being perhaps White "best" reply positional 12.d5

After 12.d5 Nb4 13.Rf4 Qd7 14.Bf5 Qd8 15.Bxc8 Qxc8 T.Kosten gave 16.Nxd6 cxd6 17.Rxb4 0-0 18.Bd2 Bd8! =
But there are two improvements.
18.Rf4 Bd8 19.Qd3 Ng4 20.Rxf8+ Kxf8 21.Ne4 Bb6+ 22.Kh1 Ne5 23.Qe2 Qg4 24.Qxg4 Nxg4 25.Bf4 Re8 26.Nxd6 (26.Bxd6?= 1/2 Viola,M (2393)-Elburg,J (2350)/SEMI email 2002) Nf2+ 27.Kg1 Nh3+ 28.Kf1 Nxf4 29.Nxe8 Kxe8 30.c4 +=
16.Qe2 0-0 (16...Na6 17.Ne3 0-0 18.Nf5 etc, see below) and now 17.Ne3 c5? 18.a3 Na6 19.Nf5 Bd8 20.Nxd6 Qd7 21.Nde4 +-1-0 Vegjeleki,A-Voracek,M/cr ICCF WSTT/1/07/2 e-mail 2007 (41), or 17...Na6 18.Nf5 Bd8 19.Be3+/-, or 17...a5 18.a3 Na6 19.Nf5 Bd8 20.Be3 Qd7 21.Raf1 +/-1-0 Zielinski,S-Acedo,H/cr LADAC thema prel 2006 (32)

Or has been 15...Rxc8 found to be better?
« Last Edit: 07/13/11 at 21:59:28 by g2-g4 »  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
AMM
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 110
Location: Barcelona - Spain
Joined: 11/08/07
Gender: Male
Re: New move in the Latvian
Reply #138 - 07/11/11 at 23:03:23
Post Tools
g2-g4 wrote on 07/11/11 at 19:16:05:
AMM wrote on 07/11/11 at 01:46:02:
Paradoxically if you choose 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3 Qg6 6.d4 I could to try 6..d6 ( 6..Nf6?? 7.Ne5 Qf5 8.g4 was played at once or 6..Bb4 7.Ne5 Qf5 8.Bc4 is playable ) and we have trasposed to another old important Main Line 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Nc3 Qg6 not considered so dangerous for Black. This variation is the usual in Latvian works.

OK. Let's make one step at a time. I will browse my notes for more. At the moment I come across a refutation of Stefan's recommendation (sorry) in the so called Main line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Nc3 Qg6 7.f3 exf3 8.Qxf3 Nf6 9.Bd3 Qg4 10.Qe3+ Be7 11. 0-0 Qh5 (The Latvian Gambit Lives! p.14).

12.Nb5

Now 12...Kd8 is lost after 13.Nxc7! Ng4 14.Qg3 Kxc7 15.Bf4 (even queen sac 14.Qxe7!? Kxe7 15.Bf4 may be playable). Black can't defend d6. 15...Rd8 16.Rae1 Nc6 17.Rxe7 Nxe7 18.Bxd6 or 15...Qd5 16.Rae1 etc
So, 12...Na6 13.h3! and Black is out of good moves. Neither one, nor three Smiley
  • 13...0-0 14.Nxc7 Nxc7 15.Qxe7

  • 13...Nd5 Now 14.Ncxd6+ cxd6 15.Nxd6+ Kd7 16.Qg3 (16...Nab4 17.Bf5+ Kd8 18.Bg5!!) Bxd6! 17.Qxg7+ Kc6 18.Qxh8 Bxh3! 19.Qxa8 Bg4 20.Bf4 Nxf4 21.Be4+ Kd7! (21...Nd5 22.Bxd5+ Qxd5 23.Qe8+) 22.Qxb7+ Nc7 is just a mess, so White should probably play 15.Qe4 and only then 16.Nxd6 with edge.

  • 13...Bd7? 14.Rxf6 gxf6 15.Ncxd6+ cxd6 16.Nxd6+ Kd8 (16...Kf8? 17.Qh6+ with mate) 17.Nxb7+ Ne8 18.Bxa6 +-

  • 13...Kd8 14.a4! Nd5 (14...Re8 15.Bd2+-) 15.Qg3 Rg8 16.Ncxd6 cxd6 17.Nxd6 Nab4 18.Bg5 +-


So called "relatively" classical Main line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Nc3 Qg6 sets up probably one of the most encountered position in the Latvian, but now some new ideas has been found as Black. It's important to note second player must be prepared to answer White's considerable array of 7th. moves, but at the moment come on with your suggestion: 7.f3 exf3 8.Qxf3 Nf6 9.Bd3 Qg4 10.Qe3+ Be7 11.0-0. Now 11..Qh5?! is very dubtious; I know Buecker put two exclamations marks once ( and Kosten in his own book an interesting one indeed, !? ), but both are wrong !!. Your analysis above are convincing and even it was played two times by the same Spanish player Jordi Domingo in 2007 and 2010 respectively ... losing both games ... ( f.i. 12.Nb5 Na6 13.h3! Kd8 14.a4! Re8 15.Bd2 etc. Mueller-Domingo, FICGS class M015, e-mail, 2007 1-0, 32 ).

The key question is Black must force a trasposition with 11..Nc6 to the Main line; thus 8..Nf6 9.Bd3 Qg4 10.Qe3+ Be7 11.0-0 Nc6 ( Kosten, "The Latvian Gambit Lives !" p.27 ). However, Black can, with accurate play, a playable position, being perhaps White "best" reply positional 12.d5

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*
     
The true problem with 8..Nf6 is 9.Ne3! ( followed by 10.Bd3 ). I can not write here vaste theory about, but to sum up, White have won 90% of the games ! ( I myself have lost four ).

Instead, if Black try on trasposing to "our" line with 8..Nc6 then he must to face well-known by Latvian players 9.Nb5! Bg4 10.Qc3! already pointed in Kosten's book.

In the year 2006 I myself started on analyzing deeply unexplored move 7..Be7!? ( played by Argentinian IM Perez Pietronave at the end of '90 decade ) and since then, most Latvians funs chose this move as Main Line against 4.d4; 6.Nc3 variation. Usually game continues 8.fxe4 and now 8..Nh6!? ( or 8..Nc6 and 9..Nh6!? ) in the spirit of the Kjell Krantz's idea 7..Nf6 8.fxe4 Be7 9.e5 Ng4; the point in "my" pawn sac line is similar: 10..0-0 combined with ..Bg5-Bh4+/Ng4. Many games has been played so far, but now I've seen a bit of inconvenience ( but's it's a secret ! ) and past year I started ( again ! ) my last improvement !,
7..Nc6!? ( only three games are known ). If 8.fxe4 Be7 often we trasposes to 7..Be7 lines, but in better conditions; against both 9.Be3 or 9.Nc3, always 9..Nh6!?. Finally if logical 8.d5 Ne5 9.Nxe5 dxe5 10.Nxe4 ( 10.fxe4 a6 ) 10..Bf5 11.Bb5+ ( 11.Qe2 0-0-0 ) 11..c6! etc. was a nice Black surprise in Van Willigen-Jove, corr. ICCF thema, TT/4/98/4, 1998-99

I think we need the inspiration of great players as Buecker or our Director Tony Kosten on iluminiting us !!.

  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
g2-g4
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline



Posts: 38
Location: Moscow
Joined: 11/01/08
Gender: Male
Re: New move in the Latvian
Reply #137 - 07/11/11 at 19:16:05
Post Tools
AMM wrote on 07/11/11 at 01:46:02:
Paradoxically if you choose 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3 Qg6 6.d4 I could to try 6..d6 ( 6..Nf6?? 7.Ne5 Qf5 8.g4 was played at once or 6..Bb4 7.Ne5 Qf5 8.Bc4 is playable ) and we have trasposed to another old important Main Line 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Nc3 Qg6 not considered so dangerous for Black. This variation is the usual in Latvian works.

OK. Let's make one step at a time. I will browse my notes for more. At the moment I come across a refutation of Stefan's recommendation (sorry) in the so called Main line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Nc3 Qg6 7.f3 exf3 8.Qxf3 Nf6 9.Bd3 Qg4 10.Qe3+ Be7 11. 0-0 Qh5 (The Latvian Gambit Lives! p.14).
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*
12.Nb5
Now 12...Kd8 is lost after 13.Nxc7! Ng4 14.Qg3 Kxc7 15.Bf4 (even queen sac 14.Qxe7!? Kxe7 15.Bf4 may be playable). Black can't defend d6. 15...Rd8 16.Rae1 Nc6 17.Rxe7 Nxe7 18.Bxd6 or 15...Qd5 16.Rae1 etc
So, 12...Na6 13.h3! and Black is out of good moves. Neither one, nor three Smiley
  • 13...0-0 14.Nxc7 Nxc7 15.Qxe7

  • 13...Nd5 Now 14.Ncxd6+ cxd6 15.Nxd6+ Kd7 16.Qg3 (16...Nab4 17.Bf5+ Kd8 18.Bg5!!) Bxd6! 17.Qxg7+ Kc6 18.Qxh8 Bxh3! 19.Qxa8 Bg4 20.Bf4 Nxf4 21.Be4+ Kd7! (21...Nd5 22.Bxd5+ Qxd5 23.Qe8+) 22.Qxb7+ Nc7 is just a mess, so White should probably play 15.Qe4 and only then 16.Nxd6 with edge.

  • 13...Bd7? 14.Rxf6 gxf6 15.Ncxd6+ cxd6 16.Nxd6+ Kd8 (16...Kf8? 17.Qh6+ with mate) 17.Nxb7+ Ne8 18.Bxa6 +-

  • 13...Kd8 14.a4! Nd5 (14...Re8 15.Bd2+-) 15.Qg3 Rg8 16.Ncxd6 cxd6 17.Nxd6 Nab4 18.Bg5 +-
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: New move in the Latvian
Reply #136 - 07/11/11 at 02:33:16
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 07/10/11 at 20:13:18:
Markovich wrote on 07/10/11 at 18:06:12:
The only rule I can recall having promulgated is that the better player as White should not allow his opponent to embark upon the Mar del Plata Variation.  All the rest has been mere advice to lower-rated but improving players.

You are too modest, e. g. you proposed an improved set of evaluation symbols http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1266527927/0 . Excerpt:

=b   Scant winning chances on either side, Black's play is easier
b    Some winning chances for Black, scant ones for White
B    Good winning chances for Black, scant ones for White

You seem perfectly qualified to refine Cordel's thumb rule. By the way, in our context another quote by Tartakower seems quite relevant: "If an opening is said to be incorrect, it is playable." 


Actually I still think that that, or some closely related idea, makes good sense. But it presupposes no chess expertise on my part, nor indeed do I have very much.

Regarding Tartakover's dictum, it might be worth observing that it was uttered in an altogether different epoch of the game.

  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
AMM
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 110
Location: Barcelona - Spain
Joined: 11/08/07
Gender: Male
Re: New move in the Latvian
Reply #135 - 07/11/11 at 01:46:02
Post Tools
g2-g4 wrote on 07/10/11 at 13:29:02:
Stefan Buecker wrote on 07/06/11 at 01:16:11:
Very impressive analysis, g2-g4! I am grateful to you that you shot down my little novelty in such an overwhelming way - there is little doubt left now that a possible rescue has to start very, very early...

As early as at the move number two? Wink
AMM wrote on 07/06/11 at 00:09:00:
I have told Key serie of moves is 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3 Qg6

I have a bit rudimentary analysis of what can happen after 6.d4. If there's no known refutation of 6.d4 - I'll share it. Black (in my humble analysis) doesn't manage to equalize.


g2-g4 : Paradoxically if you choose 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3 Qg6 6.d4 I could to try 6..d6 ( 6..Nf6?? 7.Ne5 Qf5 8.g4 was played at once or 6..Bb4 7.Ne5 Qf5 8.Bc4 is playable ) and we have trasposed to another old important Main Line 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Nc3 Qg6 not considered so dangerous for Black. This variation is the usual in Latvian works.
« Last Edit: 07/11/11 at 13:06:43 by AMM »  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1318
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: New move in the Latvian
Reply #134 - 07/10/11 at 20:13:18
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 07/10/11 at 18:06:12:
The only rule I can recall having promulgated is that the better player as White should not allow his opponent to embark upon the Mar del Plata Variation.  All the rest has been mere advice to lower-rated but improving players.

You are too modest, e. g. you proposed an improved set of evaluation symbols http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1266527927/0 . Excerpt:

=b   Scant winning chances on either side, Black's play is easier
b    Some winning chances for Black, scant ones for White
B    Good winning chances for Black, scant ones for White

You seem perfectly qualified to refine Cordel's thumb rule. By the way, in our context another quote by Tartakower seems quite relevant: "If an opening is said to be incorrect, it is playable." 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: New move in the Latvian
Reply #133 - 07/10/11 at 18:06:12
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 07/10/11 at 14:52:31:
g2-g4 wrote on 07/10/11 at 14:14:02:
Stefan Buecker wrote on 07/10/11 at 13:49:11:
But there is also Cordel's rule: in a given position, there is usually either one single best move, or three good moves. So in a position with two good moves, the analysis has to go on (but not necessarily today).
Cheesy

So, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 we have "one single best" 2...Nf6, haven't we? Thus, there's no need to seek for the 3-rd "good move". Smiley

Once I asked Bent Larsen whether computers are reducing the number of playable lines or increase them, and he replied that the latter was the case. So maybe Cordel's rule is a bit dated. Unfortunately, modern opening book writers are no big help in this respect. Someone should develop new helpful rules like Tartakower's or Cordel's. OK, there's Markovich...


The only rule I can recall having promulgated is that the better player as White should not allow his opponent to embark upon the Mar del Plata Variation.  All the rest has been mere advice to lower-rated but improving players.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo