Recapitulation: (
Update and English translation of a well-known article by myself originally published in Spanish at
www.ajedreznd.com over the refutation of Latvian gambit and extensively analyzed in this Forum and older ones ).
Summarizing, Latvian gambit reputation is nowadays under a cloud if White choose critical 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4! with Budovskis' line 7.d3! so first player position is very strong and Black can only hope to get a draw in difficcult endgames with a pawn down, but I think I've found new resources from known positions of Latvian theory
Let's go with my long article:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Undoubtedly this move is the only way to question the Black game. Traditionally has been considered strongest one, and additionally is the most natural. Older books suggested
3.Bc4 but this move it's not easy to learn. After
3..fxe4 4.Nxe5 d5! or crazy
4..Qg5!? you need to have quite an amount of concrete knowledge to play it. That is not unlike many other openings, but here the consequences of forgetting something can be fatal due to the very tactical nature and so I don't recommend it. It may be fine for White, but it involves too much study for a line that doesn't come up very often. Also it's impossible to remember all the tricks, but if someone plays this, it's very likely that they at least know this line and White players have to constantly be on their guard.
3...Qf6. The possibility 4.Dh5+ should be avoided. The other Main Variation starts with
3..Nc6. A great amount of theory it has accumulated with this move in which Black offers a pawn (at least) to get the initiative. The devotees of the Fraser variation tend to ignore the merits of the main line 3...Qf6, because this covers a territory very broad and requires a very thin judgement. Obviously, there are two moves that we see quickly: 4.Cxc6 and 4.Dh5+. With the last one, White enters to the speculative game that allows his rival and is going to win material after 4...g6 5.Cxg6 etc. With 4.dxc6 Cxc6 one feels that is playing with Black: the smaller pieces came into play quick and easily, pressing in open central columns, especially when castling Queens flank; meanwhile, White has not moved his‘d’ pawn to give life to his bishop of 'c1', even more, it doesn’t have pieces in the King flank and if try castle in this corner, this deficiency will launch Black the attack. Although is extensively analyzed, sceptics can point out all of this discussion is sterile due to it doesn’t take into account the supposed refutation of GM John Nunn with the move 4.d4, but really the variation is on whole refuted from long time ago and paradoxically with the classical 4.Qh5+ g6 5.Nxg6 etc. in several ways
There is another move which we should focus some attention:
3..Nf6 analyzed in
www.chesscafe.com by German theorician and FM Stefan Bücker ( see "Over the Horizons" into the Archives file ). It is not the purpose of this article but the importance of this move is one of the last resources as Black on Latvian gambit.
With this answer we avoid 4.Dh5+ and at worst Black loses totally a pawn, but avoiding complicated variations as is usual in the rest of lines. Often a premature exchange of Queens is also produced with a subsequent exchange of flank pawns; Black gets good drawing prospects in this King flank on the later resulting three pawns against two
4.Nc4 The most obvious move is
4.d4 but it’s necessary to know amount of theory. Usually the way follows with
4..d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 and now White can choose between the positional manoeuvres 6.Be2 or 6.Ne3, and more open lines from 6.Nc3 Qg6. The move chosen as Main variation, was an invention of Leonhardt, which intends a rapid game pieces and allow the possibility of attacking the pawn ‘e4’ with ‘d3’ at sometime.
4...fxe4 5.Nc3 5.d3 immediately is very innocuous
5...Qf7 At the beginning of the gambit, the moves
5...Qg6 and
5...Qe6 -, by the way, often they transposes - were invariably played, but for years have forgotten; the queen was subject to persecution by White - even if it was necessary sacrificing pawns- thing that allowed a rapid development mounting devastating attacks. In 1970, the German theoretical Gerhard Gunderam proposed
5...Qf7!, here the queen is safer, and with it the Black prepares to solve their problems of development, ( to be threat ..d5 forming a solid center and released box f6 for the knight ), but all this implies neglect their own pressure on 'e4' and that many times the pawn is slaughtered. This variation is by far the most practiced from long time ago, specially by CC players. The other one is the
IMPORTANT 5..d5!? 6.Ne3 Stops ..d5 and threat Bc4, so the Black should make a move that paralyzed such a possibility, otherwise will have a great difficulty of development. There is another alternative considered by Minev as even better,
6.d4!? but Black has sufficient resources to equalize, but should play with caution. Of course not 6.Nxe4?? d5 7.Ne5 Df5 -+ losing the knight.
6...c6 As it has been said, because of it can not stand up to Bc4 and Nxe4, with this move the pawn is abandoned to your destination on exchange for a slight progress in development and a large amount of fun !. In other words everything that is denied on the other lines !. Now for the first player is open two possibilities: to refuse the pawn with the move of IM CC Inesis Budovskis
7.d3, - known for a long time - or capture with
7.Nxe4. Both are considered as the critical lines of the whole of gambit, and where from few years ago has been built his prosecution. It is difficcult to predict which is the most successful and really is almost a matter of taste: 7.d3 leads to a very much alive game with constant sacrifices that will need to know well, while 7.Nxe4 leads to a game very technical and positional where it closes in extreme and White has difficulties to assert the advantage material. We will focus on 7.d3 because it leads to the "refutation" we are looking for and we will leave 7.Nxe4 to another day.
7.d3 exd3 8.Bxd3 d5 White has a substantial progress in development, but the Black has achieved some strategic assets at long term. He has an extra central pawn and the position of his queen will turn out to be quite useful if he castles kingside since it will pressure along the f-file. Indeed, it becomes apparent that Black will have a fine if he has a few tempi to complete his development. After ..Bd6, ..Ne7, and 0-0 his king will be safe while the white knights are poorly placed. Black's central pawns prevent the knights from moving forwards and the e3 knight blocks bishop c1. The only problem for Black is in most of the lines he must put attention to the sacrifices by Nexd5 or Nc4 to disturb Black before he can castle.
9.0-0 and we have reached to the critical position; Black has tested most of the legal moves -
up to 9 !! - but finally only two of them has been called to be satisfactory:
A) 9...Bc5 has always been the first line that was played, it was considered refuted during years but Black got some success with the rehabilitated line
10.Na4 Bd6 11.c4 Ne7 12.cxd5 cxd5 13.Nc3 0-0! ( or
12.Nc3 0-0! 13.cxd5 cxd5 ) where it was also spurred thanks to a series of games wherever Black achieved comfortable positions; see for instance
http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_opng_anlys/040703_anthr_olk_atth_ltvn_gmbt.htm... However, at the end of the year 2005 the amateur English player Steve James proposed the surprising move
10.b4!! analyzed firstly in
www.jeremysilman.com/chess_letters/040223_splat_the_lat.html and one year later again by the same author (
so I myself found new defensive resources ) in
www.jeremysilman.com//chess_opng_anlys/040223_more_splat_the_lat.html ) and the strong player Swedish Magnus Rosenstielke was the first to put it into practice in three of his games. Long analysis and definitive refutation was also noted HERE in the forum
http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1194567910/15 and the collaboration of Russian I.Terenin was highly appreciated. As we know, this variation is being a true massacre for Black in last games and we can finish is nearly lost, and subsequently many people told Latvian was definitebely refuted, BUT ....
B) 9..Bd6 Trickiest, this move it was also well-known, and objetively was the first tested. It was rejected after strong Novelty of CC IM Viiljams Strautins at 16th. move in the Main Line. Come on with the analysis:
10.Re1 ( 10.Nexd5!? cxd5 11.Nb5 is also dangerous but at present is known 11..Bc7 or 11..Qd7!? are sufficient )
10..Ne7 ( Unique, any other move is loser so White prepares for instance 11.Nexd5 )
11.Nexd5! ( the exclamation mark is on NCO; Kosten say " this move is better than 11.Nc4!? so focuse on this more direct way of assaulting the solid Black centre" )
11..cxd5 12.Nb5 White has translated his lead in development into an attack. Most opponents will not last long in such a position, but even if they know the best moves they will still stand worse. This is a highly tactical position and it is easy for Black to make fatal missteps; logically 12.Nxd5?? is a blunder so after 12..Qxd5 13.Bg6+ Kd8 leaves the queen defended.
12..0-0 ( Any other move as 12..Qf6?; 12..Bxh2+? and 12..Bf4?! are bad and there are many games about )
13.Nxd6 Qxf2+ 14.Kh1 Bg4 the only reasonable try
15.Qd2 ( better than 15.Be3 Bxd1 16.Bxf2 Bxc2 17.Bxc2 Rxf2 = as played by myself in 1989 )
15..Qh4 ( the exchange of queens isn't good: 15…Qxd2 16.Bxd2 threatens Rxe7 and Nxb7, but the big point is White's lead in development and Black's weaknesses such as e6 )
16.b4! ( Strautin's idea. White prepares to bring his bishop to the a1-h8 diagonal, whilst at the same time b4-b5 can be a useful resource. 16.Nxb7 is the other played move, but is too time consuming; in the seven known games Black has easy play )
16..Nbc6 ( First Black reaction would be to play 16..Qf6 menacing the rook, in fact many play
Pages: [1] 
C40: New move in the Latvian (Read 164593 times)
