Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) The Latvian Gambit!! (Read 36064 times)
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10388
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Latvian Gambit!!
Reply #46 - 05/17/06 at 01:30:58
Post Tools
After 11.Ne2 Nd7 12.Nd4 o-o-o there is nothing wrong with 13.Ng4. But being a simple guy, noticing that White has a lead in development and Black has a weakness (pawns on c6 and a7) I am tempted to go for the king.
13.b4 Ne5 14.Nxe6 Qxe6 15.Bb2 Nxd3 16.cxd3 Ng6 17.Qa4 (17.b5 is playable, but I have not found an advantage) Nf4 18.Qxa7 Nxd3 19.Bd4! is a very promising exchange sac.
  

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(Guest)
Guest


Re: The Latvian Gambit!!
Reply #45 - 05/16/06 at 13:36:05
Post Tools
MNb, I am absolutely in agreement with your analysis, 11.Ne2 is another way to get adventage ( besides 11.f4! ); even after 11..Nd7 12.Nd4 0-0-0 I would suggest too 13.Ng4!? Nc5 14.Nxe6 Nxe6 15.Ne5 played in two games of 1994 and 2000 respectively

In your line 13.b4 ( prevents ..Nc5 ) 13..Ne5 14.Nxe6 Qxe6 15.Bb2 Nxd3 16.cxd3 ( Palmkoeck-Van Willigen, 1999 ) I am not sure White attack is faster, f.i. 16..Ng6 17. Nc2 ( 17.Qb3 Nf4 18.b5 d4 ) 17..Qf7 18.Qg4+ Qd7.

In Rozzoni-Ruggeri ( see above previous reply and its evolution ) White won convincigly, and Black analyzed in detail the game, but I myself found some reasonable defence in the following line: 18..Re8 ( instead of game's move 18..Nf5 ) 19.Bd4 Bf8 20.Qd2 ( 20.b3 Nf5!? ) 20..Nf5 21.Bf2 Be6 22.Rad1 Nd6 23.Bd4 ( 23.Rxe6 Rxe6 24.c4 b6 25.b4 Kc7 26.c5 Rd8 unclear ) 23..Bg4 24.Rxe8+ Kxe8 25.Re1 Kf7 also unclear INDEED, ENGINES ARE NOT VERY USEFUL HERE ...again ...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10388
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Latvian Gambit!!
Reply #44 - 05/16/06 at 02:01:46
Post Tools
I find that Rozzoni-Ruggeri game not too convincing - three pieces can make life of the white queen very hard yet, even if Black suffers from a centralized king. So I suggest 9...Be6 10.Re1 Ne7 11.Ne2 Nd7 (c5 12.Nf4) 12.Nd4 o-o-o 13.b4 Ne5 14.Nxe6 Qxe6 15.Bb2 Nxd3 16.cxd3 and White's attack is faster.
  

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(Guest)
Guest


Re: The Latvian Gambit!!
Reply #43 - 05/15/06 at 23:32:02
Post Tools
Some analysis with my reccomendation 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4! fxe4 5.Nc3 Na6!?:

a) 6.Qe2 Qe6 7.d3 d5 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxd5 Nb4 10.Qxe6+ Bxe6 11.Ne3 exd3 12.Nb5 0-0-0 1/2-1/2 unclear, Kinne-Budovskis, corr. 1979

b) 6.Ne3 Qg6 ( 6..Nc5 7.b4 Na4 8.Ned5 F. Destrebecq; 6..Qd4 ) 7.d3 Bb4 8.Bd3 Nf6 9.Nxe4 Nxe4 10.dxe4 Qxe4 11.Bd3 Bxd2+ 12.Qxd2, adventage Borrmann-Svendsen, corr. 1986

c1) 6.Nxe4 Qe6 ( 6..Qe7 7.Qh5+ g6 8.Qe5 Bg7 9.Qxe7+ Nxe7 10.Ne3 ) 7.Qh5+ Ke7 8.Qe5 d5 ( better 8..Qxe5 9.Nxe5 d6 ) 9.Ng5 Qxe5+ 10.Nxe5 Nb4 11.Kd1 Kf6?! ( better 11..Nh6 ) 12.f4 White won in 35 moves, Cook-Dreibergs, corr. 1960

c2) 6.Nxe4 Qe6 7.Qh5+ g6 8.Qe5 Qxe5 9.Nxe5 Nb4 10.Kd1 Bg7 11.d4 ( 11.Nd3?! Nxd3 12.Bxd3 d5 ) 11..d6 12.Bb5+ Kf8 13.Bd2! ( 13.Nf3 Bf5 ) 13..Nxc2 14.Kxc2 dxe5 15.Bb4+ White won in 31 moves, Destrebecq-Kozlov, corr. 1981

c3) 6.Nxe4 Qe6 7.Qh5+ g6 8.Qe5 Qxe5 9.Nxe5 Nb4 10.Kd1 d6 11.Nf3 Bg4 12.Be3 Bg7 13.a3 Nd5 14.d3 Nge7 15.c4 Nb6 16.Nc3 0-0-0, draw in 47 moves Jackson jr.-Svendsen, corr. 1992

d1) 6.d3 Bb4 7.Bd2 ( 7.dxe4 Ne7 8.e5 -8.Bd3 d5 - 8..Qc6 9.Bd2 0-0 ) 7..exd3 8.Bxd3 Qe6+? ( 8..Ne7 9.0-0 ) 9.Ne3 Bxc3 10.Bxc3 Nf6 11.0-0 Nc5 12.Bxf6 Nxd3 13.Bxg7 Rg8 14.Qd3 Kd8 15.Qf5 1-0 Kozlov-Trobatto, corr. 1979

d2) 6.d3 Bb4 7.Bd2 Qe6 ( 7..Ne7 8.dxe4 0-0 9.Qe2 d6 best according Fritz8 ) 8.Ne3 ( 8.dxe4 Nf6 9.Qe2 ) 8..Nf6 9.dxe4 Bxc3? 10.Bxc3 with attack White soon could have win, but it doesn't do it until 40 moves, Dravnieks-Svendsen, corr. 1987

d3) 6.d3 Bb4 7.Bd2 Qe6 8.Ne3 Nf6 9.dxe4 Nxe4 10.Bc4 Bxc3 11.Bxe6 Bxd2+ 12.Kf1 dxe6 13.Qh5+ Kf8 14.Qf3 Budovskis-Müller, corr. 1979

  Also notorius is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4! fxe4 5.Nc3 c6!?. A relatively "recent" unknown game was: 6.Qg4 ( 6.Nxe4 ) 6..Qe7 7.Nxe4 Nf6 8.Ncd6+ Kd8 9.Qh4 ( 9.Qe2 ) 9..Nxe4! 10.Nf7+ Ke8 11.Qxe7+ Bxe7 12.Nxh8 d5 13.d3 Nf6 14.Be2 Kf8 15.0-0 Kg8 16.Ng6 hxg6 17.Bf3 Bd6 18.Re1 Na6 ( 18..Nbd7 19.d4 Nb6 ) 19.a3 Bd7 and the position is not easy to evaluate for the engines, in fact Black ( an IM ) won in 46 moves in Melchor-Budovskis, corr., 1st. LG World Tourney, 1994-96
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
AMM(Guest)
Guest


Re: The Latvian Gambit!!
Reply #42 - 05/15/06 at 22:27:47
Post Tools
Not, Bubu13, 9..Be6 reccomended by Kosten as !?, but he is wrong, you can see his book but very specially have been refuted in some unknown games ( Watson and Bucker have analyzed this move as well, indeed !? ). Examples after best 10.Re1:

  a) 10..Be7 ( or 9..Be7 10.Re1 Be6 ) 11.Ne2! Bc5 12.Nf4! Qxf4 13.Nf5 Qxf2+ 14.Kh1 Kf7 15.Rf1 Qxf1+ 16.Qxf1 Nf6 17.Qf4 Bxf5 ( 17..Re8 18.Nxg7! ) 18.Bf5 White won easily in a few moves Migala-Melchor, corr.ICCF thematic, 2001-02, but worst, Bucker analysis on Kosten's book is also possible: 12.Ng4 Bxg4 13.Nf4+ Ne7 14.Qxg4 0-0 15.Be3 -Bucker- 15..Bxe3 16.Rxe3 Nf5 17.Qh3! ( Fritz7 ).

  b) 10..Nd7 11.Nexd5! (TN) 11..cxd5 12.Qe2 Nc5 13.Bb5+ Kd8 14.b4 with a terrible preassure, White won in Sakai-Fredriksen and Melchor-Malmström, both in 4th. LG World Tourney, 2002-04

  c) 10..Bb4? of Grivainis-Alloin, 1985 is analized in Kosten book

  d) also 10..Bc5? of Tiemann-Alloin, 1985-86

  e) 10..Ne7 11.f4! ( IM John Watson, and also he hymself suggested 11.Ng4 Nd7 12.Qe2 with idea Bg5 ) 11..g6 12.Nc4! dxc4 13.Bxc4 Bxc4 14.Ne4 Qg7 15.Nd6+ Kd8 16.Nf5+ Nd7 17.Nxg7 Bxg7 18.Be3 with adventage Rozzoni-Ruggeri, 3th. LG World Tourney, 2002-04
Hmm, also 9..Be7 and 9..Bd6 are not valid, the last one was refuted only a copuple of years too in two of my own games precisely.

 Alejandro Melchor.



  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bubu13
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Chess is not a science
! It is a game !!

Posts: 48
Location: Marseille
Joined: 11/25/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Latvian Gambit!!
Reply #41 - 05/15/06 at 21:17:37
Post Tools
Sorry if i am not very well informed, but : 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3 Qf7 6.Ne3 c6 7.d3 exd3 8.Bxd3 d5 9.OO Be6!? (instead of 9...Bc5) seems to be quite well in order to avoid all the problems with the b4 sac idea !? Black intends to long castle. Am i wrong ??
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
AMM(Guest)
Guest


Re: The Latvian Gambit!!
Reply #40 - 05/15/06 at 20:09:52
Post Tools
Hmm.., Gambit, well your line seems playable, but 4..Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.Nc3 or better 6.Nc3! Qxd4 7.Bd3 of Swaffield-Ortiz, corr., 1969 is strong, f.i. if 7..fxe4 8.Be3 Qf6 9.Nxe4 Qe7 10.0-0! I don't like particularly Black's game ...
As it has been pointed in the long analysis of Latvian ( see several mails above ), the REAL problem is 3..Qf6 4.Nc4 quoted in http://www.jeremysilman.com//chess_opng_anlys/040223_more_splat_the_lat.html and the move 10.b4!
As I told in this forum I reccomend 3..Nf6 or a relatively less-known 3..Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3 Na6!? or even the "old" 5..c6!? 6.Nxe4 Qe6 etc. with a pawn down, but very difficult to win in the practice
3..Nc6?! is refuted with 4.d4, but also with old 4.Qh5+

Alejandro Melchor
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
CraigEvans
God Member
*****
Offline


If I can't sacrifice a
pawn, I'll throw my rook
in

Posts: 587
Location: Kidderminster
Joined: 07/14/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Latvian Gambit!!
Reply #39 - 05/15/06 at 08:01:54
Post Tools
All this would be fine, Lev, if you hadn't ignored 4.Nc4. Leonhardt's Variation is the one causing black all the headaches at the moment - in fact it's being considered a refutation, hence Melchor's attempts here to prove that the Philidor CG is actually playable (or lines which avoid 3...Qf6).

Regards,
Craig
  

"Give a man a pawn, and he'll smell a rat. Give a man a piece, and he'll smell a patzer." - Me.

"If others have seen further than me, it is because giants have been standing on my shoulders."
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1384
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: The Latvian Gambit!!
Reply #38 - 05/14/06 at 23:02:15
Post Tools
I  play the Latvian Gambit myself in blitz and tournament chess.  Now, after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5  3 Nxe5  Qf6
4  d4  d6  5 Nc4 Nc6!  an  interesting position arises. My experiences shows that after  6 e5  dxe5  7 dxe5 Qf7!  Black gets a lead in development and attacking chances for the pawn. 

Some ideas:

- ...Bd7, ...000  for Black.

- In some lines, Black Castles King-side, and pushed the pawn, ...f5-f4, attacking.

Anyone want to try this one?
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Papyn Chase(Guest)
Guest


Re: The Latvian Gambit!!
Reply #37 - 04/25/06 at 12:37:55
Post Tools
I have read with interest the posts for this opening. I would, however, like to understand the many ideas behind the gambit. Playing positionally would spell another chat session in the loser's lounge and whereas tactical ideas and pitfalls would only work against a weak player and those thoroughly unfamiliar with the gambit.

Don't get me wrong, I defend the Latvian myself, really enjoy playing it, though I would only use it playing blitz. I have experimented with the Fraser variation, the 3..Bxc5, and a tempo-down reverse King's Gambit and would usually aim for a quick build-up of forces (piece majority) going straight for a kingside attack. Here I would like to ask the players here; Are there other ways to play this gambit besides those mentioned in Kosten's Latvian Lives and analyses found on the internet? I have experimented taking control of the centre but already too many weaknesses arise after White takes the centre pawn (with little compensation!).

I value suggestions given.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Ben_Hague
Full Member
***
Offline


I'm always happier when
I'm a pawn down.

Posts: 157
Location: Oldham
Joined: 06/20/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Latvian Gambit!!
Reply #36 - 04/06/06 at 15:47:56
Post Tools
As well as 3...Nc6, 3...d6, 3...Nf6 and 3...Qf6 there is also 3...Qe7 which I did play for a while on the ICC. I don't think it's sound, but it does have the advantage that White has to try to refute it with 4.Qh5+ if he wants to get an advantage. The main line is then 4...g6 5.Nxg6 Qxe4+ 6.Be2 Nf6 7.Qh3 hxg6 8.Qxh8 Qxg2 9.Rf1 Kf7 when Black almost certainly doesn't have enough for the exchange, but not everything is clear.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Michael Ayton
God Member
*****
Offline


‘You’re never alone with
a doppelgänger.’

Posts: 1811
Location: durham
Joined: 04/19/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Latvian Gambit!!
Reply #35 - 04/06/06 at 15:24:17
Post Tools
What's the refutation of the Philidor CG then, Craig? I'm not contending there isn't one, I'm just interested. Is 4 Nc3 fe 5 Ne4 Nf6 bad for Black?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
CraigEvans
God Member
*****
Offline


If I can't sacrifice a
pawn, I'll throw my rook
in

Posts: 587
Location: Kidderminster
Joined: 07/14/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Latvian Gambit!!
Reply #34 - 04/06/06 at 13:29:36
Post Tools
I'm not sure that the Albin is too much better than the Rousseau, since in all honesty they're both junk. It seems that white can get an edge against the budapest which is more than he should expect as white, as well.
However, all of this is detracting from the topic at hand, which is the Latvian. The Philidor Counter-Gambit, despite it's occasional use by Mestel and the pamphlet by West, is known to be unsound (although, I agree, it is unlikely that white will be prepared for it). 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Nc6?! and now 4.Nxc6, 4.Qh5+ and 4.d4 should all be giving white a huge advantage (the queen check is obviously critical and a refutation, but OTB the position is complicated enough to go wrong). This leaves 3...Nf6? (loses a pawn for nothing inparticular, Mr Melchor's best line leaves black grovelling an endgame a pawn down), 3...d6 (Kosten dismisses this rather quickly in his books), or the main line 3...Qf6. After this, Leonhardt's 4.Nc4 is all but a refutation it seems, since there seems no good way of avoiding the line with 10.b4!!

The Latvian is dying... it shouldn't take too much more to knock the final nails in the coffin.
  

"Give a man a pawn, and he'll smell a rat. Give a man a piece, and he'll smell a patzer." - Me.

"If others have seen further than me, it is because giants have been standing on my shoulders."
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Willempie
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 4312
Location: Holland
Joined: 01/07/05
Re: The Latvian Gambit!!
Reply #33 - 04/06/06 at 11:51:31
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 03/29/06 at 15:58:19:
I can only conclude from these comments that your opponents are very weak.   Such opponents can also be defeated with 1...h5.

1. e4 e5  2. Nf3 Nc6  3. Bc4 and now 3...f5 is "fun to play?"  Un freaking believable.  McGrew is promoting this??  I take back what I said about hanging; he should be drawn and quartered.   

Play gambits by all means, but play sound ones, for crying out loud.  There are the Two Knights Defense, Rubinstein's Defense to the Four Knights, Marshall's Gambit against the Spanish (or for that matter, many lines of the Archangel involve pawn and piece sacs).  Versus 1. d4, 2. c4 there are the Budapest and the Albin.   

Sorry, there are no viable gambits against 1. d4, 2. Nf3 or against 1. Nf3.  Oh dear, what shall we do after 1. Nf3?  Just die of boredom, I suppose, since chess played well is such an impossibly dull game.


I have to agree 110%, except that there are decent gambits available against 1Nf3 just not on the first few moves.
  

If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Latvian Gambit!!
Reply #32 - 03/30/06 at 02:20:50
Post Tools
Quote:
Answer to Markovich ( or in general, to other gambit fans ).

In essence, the “philosophical” question about gambits – in our case, the Latvian - , is what makes a gambit playable ?, and the ways for the answer are various.
Firstly, we should to think about our own personal style ( of play and personality ). If I prefer open, tactical positions with attack and counter-attack I will build a repertoire based in positions of those characteristics ( Pelikan, Dragon, Open Spanish, Spanish Jaenish, King’s Indian, Latvian g., Grunfeld ).
Second, the surprisevely value. A gambit is easily brought about, full of pitfalls for the opponent. Your opponent, in all probability, is playing something he has never studied and has no hope of understanding as well as I myself do. It matters little whether there is a path to an objective advantage for him so long as that path is well hidden among a plethora of plausible alternatives. I have experimented a great surprising, a psychological impact, a bewildering for all and even the “relatively” best prepared opponents when I moved 2..f5!?. It is not enough to make “fairly natural moves”, they need to be the right natural ones !!
As I told in previous letter, I am 2133 ELO FIDE player and usually I play tournaments where my opponents have 2000-2300 Itn. Elo. Anybody can to think that if I defend the Latvian is because I am low rated player, but paradoxically I represent the 90% of these players in the World (!), and thus I don’t see why we can not play the gambit ( also Evans, Albin, sidelines of Two Knights, etc. ) if “ theoretically” speaking it is not refuted in OTB. It is very reasonable that in the “peaceful” of our own home –see all past answers -, with the helping of the engines we can study or even “refute” a chess variation ..of any line of play of chess ...but I can confirm that with the board in front of your eyes, in a REAL OTB game, matters are very different .... My opponents, on average, play far worse than Fritz, Hiarcs or Shredder !?. I am not averse to play a move ( or an opening ) that I know can be refuted if I think my opponent would only be likely to find the refutation if he has the “engine” in his mind, which is impossible indeed. I note if I myself or any of the readers of this forum has had recourse to computer assistance to come up with the gambit, and if the moves or “refutations” are so natural, why we use computers at all ?. If they ( or I ) aren’t, then what does that say about one’s practical chances with the LG at levels far below the 2300 plane on which we play ?. I will assume ( only ) that above 2300 FIDE Latvian is a bit unsound ( but only, against well-prepared players, and also they would win with us another opening ... ), but below of this, I don’t see any problem on playing it ( remember, we are 90% of the players of the World ).
Last words about: I’ve won several times in official OTB games opponents close 2200-2250 FIDE ELO with the gambit, and generally I’ve seen he doesn’t know even the Main Lines far from 9-10 moves, or worse the “spirit” of the middle game positions, so I must to assume the “shock” value !. Apart from this, paradoxically 2..f5 only represents 25% of the whole of my official games, so I usually play often 2..Nc6, and also the Sicilian, so the “problem” is not the LG, the problem is opposed !!, any  players know a correct way against the LG ! ( in CC the question is quite different indeed ).
When you select an opening, you are not selecting the position that arises at move 20 after best play by both sides. You are selecting the whole opening with all of its traps and twists, its side lines and main lines, and so you are an authentic specialist on LG ( for instance ), and your opponent don’t .... for a player who has a high tolerance for risk it does not constitute a conclusive argument against playing such gambit

Is funny, but Emil Diemer once wrote: “In order to win, one must sometimes have the courage to play badly.”. At present LG is being needed of some new improvements ( see ALL the serie of my past answers ), but I don’t believe is already dead, maybe many people don’t know some of the best specialists, ( Budovskis, Strautins, Krantz, Rosenstielke, Oren, Zemitis, etc. ) are finding new ideas and improvements. Silman’s theorethical article is truly hard ( even I myself have collaborated discrediting Black ! ) , but many of us will continue with our private analysis encouraging Blacks play !?. The same to Philidor Countergambit 3..f5 ( played by NM James West, Kosten and Mestel ) or Rousseau gambit 2..Nc6 and 3..f5. I suggest any person with interest to know updates of LG visit www.gambitchess.com and the series of LG World Tournaments ( and many theory or games ).

Alejandro Melchor, Barcelona, Spain
amelchor@eresmas.net


I salute the elegance and originality of your posts here, your love of chess, and your good humour!  But since the object of this game is TO WIN, I would avise anyone of moderate strength or more to stop playing this gambit.  I do think that it could have a place in very low-level competitions, say, in scholastics.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo