Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish) (Read 36451 times)
AMM
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 110
Location: Barcelona - Spain
Joined: 11/08/07
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #54 - 03/13/09 at 13:32:24
Post Tools
Gambit wrote on 03/13/09 at 06:26:39:
Any games with 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Nf6 ? I tried it years ago, and it looks interesting.


3.Nxe5 Nf6!?

This may become one of th main lines in future. Black loses a whole pawn, but without embroiling  himself in complex variations. Often  there is an  exchange  of queens and also  the queenside pawns  with a draw on account  the resulting 3 vs.2  pawns on  the kingside.

            - 4.d4 fxe4 is a transposition to 3.d4, not  a problem  for Black
            - 4.Nc3 permits Black the complete freedom in the old well-known line 4..fxe4 5. Bc4 d5! 6.Nxd5 Nxd5 7.Qh5+ g6 8.Nxg6 hxg6!, so it's one of the the Main Lines of Chapter 12  in Kosten's book "The Latvian gambit lives!", now:  
                     9.Qxh8?! can be met by 9..Qf6 or 9..Nb4!? and even 9..Qg5!?,
                     9.Qxg6+ Ke7!? 10.d3 (!? Kosten) 10..Qd6!? i.e. 11.Bg5+ Kd7 12.Qf5+ Kc6 13.Qxc8 Qe5 etc. ,
             Alternately 9.Qxg6+ Kd7 is not problem  either (10. Bxd5 Qe8!? -Destrebecq -, or 10..c6 )
           -4.exf5 d6 is O.K.
            Or 4..Qe7 5.Qe2 d6 the Queens  may be exchanged with reasonable drawing chances.
           -4.Bc4 is only relatively "dangerous"
            After 4..Qe7 5.d4 Nc6 by trasposition we are in Morgado System named after his success at the beginning of '70s.
            6.0-0 White has only a slight adventage according Kosten's book
            6.Nc3!? may be stronger.
            6... Nxe5 7.dxe5 Qxe5 8.0-0 returns  the pawn, but  opens up the position leaving Black's King and Queen on the same file. Now 8..fxe4 9.Nd5! threatening Bf4 is dangerous for Black.
           Instead Kosten suggests 8..Bd6!? 9.g3 fxe4 and, if 10.Bf4 directly, 10..Qc5 11.Bxd6 Qxc4 or 12.Re1 Bb4 playable for Black.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1383
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #53 - 03/13/09 at 06:26:39
Post Tools
Any games with 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Nf6 ? I tried it years ago, and it looks interesting.
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
AMM
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 110
Location: Barcelona - Spain
Joined: 11/08/07
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #52 - 03/12/09 at 21:42:07
Post Tools
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
AMM
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 110
Location: Barcelona - Spain
Joined: 11/08/07
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #51 - 03/07/09 at 03:48:11
Post Tools
Is Latvian gambit dead?, .. or not? .. again ..:

http://www.zimbeckchess.com/chess_site_006.htm

Lines are quite interesting, although in Main Line article I prefer 7..Be7!?, but against 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3 and now "old" 5..Qg6 seems playable


Alejandro Melchor
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
AMM
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 110
Location: Barcelona - Spain
Joined: 11/08/07
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #50 - 12/03/08 at 14:39:53
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 12/03/08 at 00:28:38:
Isn't 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Nxc6 dxc6 5.d3 just a Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit with colours reversed so Black being a tempo down?


Yes, probably it is, but according my notes 5.d3 is not so dangerous for Black, and usually it will almost certainly traspose into the considered Main Line, once White plays Nc3 (5.d3 Nf6 - 5...Bc5 - 6.Nc3 or 5.Nc3 Bc5 - 5...Nf6 - 6.d3).

Another exampes: 5.d3 Bc5 - this is perhaps the most logical move,controlling d4 and takimg aim at f2 - 6.Nd2 - instead of 6.Nc3, White filters the knigth across to kingside where it can support an eventual d4 (6.Qe2 Qf6 7.c3 slight advantage Tartaglini-Cimmino, cr. Coppa Silli, 1992) 6...Nf6 (6...Ne7 7.Be2 0-0 8.0-0 Ng6 9.Nf3 Berry-Briscoe, ENG Surrey ch, 2002) 7.Be2 0-0 8.0-0 Qe7 9.Bf3 slight White adventage, Eck-Schaub, Gocher op, 1997
« Last Edit: 12/03/08 at 23:45:46 by AMM »  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10341
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #49 - 12/03/08 at 00:28:38
Post Tools
Isn't 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Nxc6 dxc6 5.d3 just a Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit with colours reversed so Black being a tempo down?
  

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: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #48 - 12/02/08 at 15:01:50
Post Tools
Well, it seems a conversation "with bulging eyes" !!.

Now I don' t understand your last reply ("what is White in this for?"), not in English gramatical words, if not in whole lineal sense ... so now I am misunderstood !?.

Summarizing, Latvian gambit reputation is nowadays under a cloud if White choose critical 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4! with Budovskis' line 7.d3! (http://www.jeremysilman.com//chess_opng_anlys/040223_more_splat_the_lat.html and rest of articles into this web) so first player position is very strong and Black can only hope to get a draw in a rook endgame with a pawn less. Also I've seen quite a few people try to make 3. Nxe5 Nf6 work, that doesn't appear to look good for Black either but at least is playable; and therefore I've suugested 6...d5!? (see analysis above) as last chance to dispute the initiative. I hope that I can find something in this line to rehabilitate it, but alas, for now, the burden is on Black to find something playable against the Leonhardt, if not otherwise, Latvian can be theoretically "refuted".

Another possible line is 3.Nxe5 Nc6 and now against John Nunn's best move 4.d4! Black should to test 4..Qe7!? or even 4...Qf6!? with a reasonable play. Some example with 4...Qe7!?:

- 5.Nxc6 Qxe4+ 6.Be2 Qxc6 (6...dxc6) 7.0-0 d5 8.Nc3 (Canfell-Flitney, Canberra Doeberl Cup, 1998) and now 8...Kf7 instead of game's move 8...Bd7?!, seems better.

- 5.Nc3 Nf6 (5...Nxe5? 6.Nd5 Qh4 - 6...Qd8 7.dxe5 fxe4 8.Bg5! - 7.dxe5! Qxe4+ 8.Be2 Bb4+ 9.c3 Aa5 10.0-0 White advantage Vinogradnik-Panchenko,F; UKR ch, 2000) 6.Nxc6 dxc6 (6...bxc6 7.e5 Nd5 8.Nxd5 cxd5 9.Qf3 Qe6 10.Bd3 Melchor-Petit, cr. ICCF thematic, 2001) 7.e5 Nd5 8.Nxd5 cxd5 9.Qf3 Be6 10.Bb5+ c6 11.Bd3 g6 12.c3 Bg7 13.Qg3 Qf7 14.0-0 0-0 15.Qh4 Qd7 16.Re1 a5 17.Bg5 Rfe8 18.Rad1 a4 19.Bh6 Qd8 20.Bg5 Qd7 21.Re3 Bh8 22.Rde1 b5 23.Rh3 Ra7 24.Bf6 Qf7 25.f4 Bd7 26.Bxh8 1/2-1/2 Melchor-De Jong,S; cr ICCF thematic, 2001. As usual in 3...Nc6 lines, Black has a pawn down but White can not improve and find an advantageous or winning way.  
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #47 - 11/29/08 at 21:11:32
Post Tools
AMM wrote on 11/29/08 at 19:54:10:
Markovich wrote on 11/26/08 at 14:50:30:
Well pardon me if I misunderstand, but how is this line a refutation if, as indicated in the last post, Black has good play for a draw?  Personally I mistrust the Latvian so much that I would hope for more as White than a pawn-up but probably drawn ending.  A pawn-up and probably won ending I would consider a refutation, not this.


We are trying that Latvian "survives" ( paradoxically of Kosten's book "The Latvian gambit lives!" ) so it is demonstrated in past analysis line 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3 Qf7 6.Ne3 c6 7.d3! exd3 8.Bxd3 d5 9.0-0 Bc5 10.b4! is terrible for Black. Yes indeed, a possible draw is a sad baggage - even with a pawn down for Black in the opening -, therefore I suggest 6..d5!? and the lines quoted previously so second player has drawn the major part of the games. Another thing is the "philosophical" question about the Word "refutation" - here or in another gambits -, I would appreciatte some analysis on quoted lines, and not if "that or this" is a "refutation".

Of course, I asume objectively Latvian is receiving hard knocks last years. The aim of this forum is to discuss specific lines, nor general pressumptions about Latvian or Chess in general.

 PD. I know you are very polemist about, so I've readen many of your thoughts in several forums here.  Smiley  


Well then, I assume you know that I am not reluctant to analyze a line that interests me.   I'm not sure this one does, so I was asking in all sincerity, what is White in this for?  That seems like a fair question to me, given that you are an apparent expert on the relative chances in this line.
  

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: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #46 - 11/29/08 at 19:54:10
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 11/26/08 at 14:50:30:
Well pardon me if I misunderstand, but how is this line a refutation if, as indicated in the last post, Black has good play for a draw?  Personally I mistrust the Latvian so much that I would hope for more as White than a pawn-up but probably drawn ending.  A pawn-up and probably won ending I would consider a refutation, not this.


We are trying that Latvian "survives" ( paradoxically of Kosten's book "The Latvian gambit lives!" ) so it is demonstrated in past analysis line 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3 Qf7 6.Ne3 c6 7.d3! exd3 8.Bxd3 d5 9.0-0 Bc5 10.b4! is terrible for Black. Yes indeed, a possible draw is a sad baggage - even with a pawn down for Black in the opening -, therefore I suggest 6..d5!? and the lines quoted previously so second player has drawn the major part of the games. Another thing is the "philosophical" question about the Word "refutation" - here or in another gambits -, I would appreciatte some analysis on quoted lines, and not if "that or this" is a "refutation".

Of course, I asume objectively Latvian is receiving hard knocks last years. The aim of this forum is to discuss specific lines, nor general pressumptions about Latvian or Chess in general.

 PD. I know you are very polemist about, so I've readen many of your thoughts in several forums here.  Smiley  
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #45 - 11/26/08 at 14:50:30
Post Tools
Well pardon me if I misunderstand, but how is this line a refutation if, as indicated in the last post, Black has good play for a draw?  Personally I mistrust the Latvian so much that I would hope for more as White than a pawn-up but probably drawn ending.  A pawn-up and probably won ending I would consider a refutation, not this.
  

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: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #44 - 11/25/08 at 23:11:05
Post Tools
(Appendix2)

Also some analysis / games with my another recommendation 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4! fxe4 5.Nc3Qf7! 6.Nc3 d5!?. I would like to point out that LG experts are currently trying this relatively unexplored line. IM's I. Oren and I. Budovksis in the past, and French C. Deneuville in our days, have drawn some games in easy way. From this position White can choose 7.Ncxd5 or 7.Nexd5 and sometimes even they transposes:


A) 7. Ncxd5 and now:

  A1) 7...Be6 8.Bc4 Bd6 (8...c6 9.Nc7+ Qxc7 10.Bxe6 ; 8...Na6 9.Bxa6 Bxd5 10.Nxd5 Qxd5 11.c4) 9.0-0!? (9.Bb3 Nc6 10.Nce Nf6 11.0-0 = Schoenherr-Scholvin, cr BdF, 1980 ; also 9.b3!?) 9...Nc6 (9...c6?! 10.Nc3 Bxc4 11.Nxe4 Bxh2+ 12.Kxh2 Qc7+ 13.Kg1 Bxf1 14.Kxf1 with compensation, White threatens Qh5+ and Nc4) 10.f3 exf3 11.Rxf3 Qd7 (11...Nf6 12.Nxf6+ gxf6 13.Bxe6 Qxe6 14.d4) 12.d4 0-0-0 13.c3 with a small plus Melchor-Ardila, cr. email LADAC thema, 2008 1-0 in 61 moves, White got the initiative gradually in the middle game and with a good technique won in the ending

  A2) 7...c6 8.Nc3 (the same position arises from 7.Nexd5 c6 8.Ne3) 8...Nf6 and now:
 
         A2a) 9.d3 Bb4 it will analyzed in B2 by trasposition
         A2b) 9.Bc4 Be6:
- 10.Qe2 is unexplored
- 10.d3 exd3 (10...Nbd7 in first place is more accurate) 11.Qxd3 Nbd7 12.Bxe6 Qxe6 13.0-0 0-0-0 (13...Bc5 14.Qf5! Qxf5 15.Nxf5 0-0 16.Be3 ) 14.Qf5! and White maintain some initiative Malmström-Oren, cr. 2nd  LG World Ch., 1997 but the game finished in draw after 61 hard moves.
- 10.Bxe6 Qxe6 11.d3 (or 11.0-0 Na6 – 11...Nbd7 12.d3 0-0-0 Kozlov-Oren, 1st. LG World Cg., cr. 1994 1/2-1/2 in 29 is another possibility – 12.Qe2 0-0-0 13.a3 Nc7 14.Re1 Bc5 15.b4 Bd4 etc. Svendsen-Budovskis, cr. 2nd. LG World Ch., 1997 game was draw in 37 moves, or 12.f3 exf3 13.Rxf3 Marrone-Zanolin, cr. email ICCF, 2007 and now f.i. 13...0-0-0 14.d4 g6) 11...Bb4 (11...Nbd7!? ; 11...exd3) 12.0-0 exd3 13.Re1!? 0-0 14.cxd3 Na6 15.Nc4 Qf5 16.Re5 Qd7 17.Re2 with a small preassure although game was draw after 45 moves Budovskis-Oren, cr. 1st LG World Ch., 1994


B)7. Nexd5 and now:

 B1) 7... Be6 is the move played actually instead of “old” 7..c6 which it will be quoted in B2 (if 7...Af5? 8.Bc4 Nc6? 9.Nb5 1-0 Nagley-Robbiani, cr email IECC, 2000 ; or 7...Bc5?! 8.Qe2 - 8.d4!? – 8...c6? – better 8...Kf8 – 9.Nxe4 +- winning Malmström-Logunov, cr. 2nd. LG World Ch. cr. 1997) 8.Bc4 (8.Ne3 Nf6 9.f3 Bc5 10.fxe4 Nc6 – 10...0-0 – 11.Bb5 0-0 12.0-0 Qg6 and Black have a good development in spite of  momentary two pawns down Elburg-Deneuville, cr. email 6th LG World Ch. sf.A, 2008 1/2-1/2 in 33 moves) 8...Na6!? ! new evolutions ! (8...Bd6 9.Qe2 ; and 8...Nc6 fails by 9.Nxc7+ Qxc7 10.Bxe6):
         
        B1a) 9.d4 0-0-0 10.Bxa6 Bxd5 11.Nxd5 Qxd5 12.Be2 Qxd4 13.Qxd4 Rxd4 14.Be3 Rd8 15.0-0 Nf6 = the game was draw in a few moves Melchor-Deneuville, cr. email 6th LG World Ch. sf.A, 2008
        B1b) 9.Qe2 0-0-0 10.Bxa6 Bxd5 11.Nxd5 Qxd5 12.Bc4 Qf5 13.0-0 Nf6 14.d3 Bc5 15.dxe4 Qxe4 16.Bg5 Qg6 draw in 45 moves after opposite-bishop ending where the extra White pawn in not sufficient Melchor-Malmström, cr. email 6th LG World Ch. sf.A, 2008
       B1c) 9.d3 0-0-0 10.Bxa6 Bxd5 11.Nxd5 Qxd5 12.Bc5 Qc6 – 12...Qf5 is also good – 13.Qg4+ Kb8 14.0-0 Nf6 15.Qg5 exd3 16.Bxd3 Bc5 – or 16...Rd5!? – maybe White is a bit better, but I think Black will not have any problem although logically it will not win the game Domingo-Melchor, cr. email 6th LG World Ch. sf.A, 2008
 
 B2)
7…c6 8.Nc3 Nf6 9.d3 (9.Bc4 Be6 trasposes to previous A2b) 9...Bb4 with the lines:

       B2a) 10.Be2 0-0 (better is 10...Be6 11.0-0 exd3 12.Qxd3 Nbd7) 11.0-0 exd3 12.Qxd3 (12.cxd3 Be6 13.f4 Qe7 14.d4 Nbd7 15.a3 Bd6 16.Nc4 Nd5 aprox. = Elburg-Malmström, cr. email 6th LG World Ch. sf.A, 2008 draw in 44) 12...Na6 (12...Re8 13.Rd1 Be6 14.Qd4 Be7 15.b3 with advantage) 13.Ne4 (13.a3) 13...Nxe4 14.Qxe4 Re8 15.Qf3 (or best 15.Qd4) 15...Qxf3 (15...Be6!?) 16.Bxf3 Bd6 17.a3 with a small advantage, finally White won after some mistakes of second player Rosenstielke-Pecis, cr. email 5th. LG World Ch. final, 2005
        B2b) 10.Bd2 and now again three lines:
- 10...0-0 11.Be2 (11.f3 exf3 12.Qxf3 Qg6 13.h3?! Nd5 14.Qe2? Bxc3 – 14...Nf4! 15.Qf2 Nxh3 – 15.bxc3 Qg3+  Logunov-Budovskis, cr. 2nd LG World Ch., 1997 ; or 11.dxe4 Bxc3 12.Bxc3 Nxe4 13.Bc4 Be6 14.Bxe6 Qxe6) 11...exd3 12.Bxd3 Bxc3 13.Bxc3 Nd5 14.0-0 Nxc3 15.bxc3 Be6 16.f4 Re8? (16...Qe8 is a bit better) 17.f5! Bd5 18.Nxd5 cxd5 19.f6! and soon White have  a strong attack and Black castle ruined Pecis-Melchor, cr. email 5th LG World Ch. final, 2005
- 10...Rf8 (1/2-1/2 Logunov-Oren, cr. 1st LG World Ch., 1994) 11.Qe2 exd3 12.Qxd3 Be6 13.a3 Bc5 14.f4 Nbd7 15.f5 Bd5 16.Nexd5 Nxd5 17.Qe2+ Kd8 18.0-0-0 Nxc3 19.Bxc3 Qxf5 20.Kb1 Kc7 Black built a fortress and draw was agreeded on 35 moves Melchor-Deneuville, cr. ICCF thema, 2001.
- 10...exd3 11.Bxd3 0-0 12.0-0 (12.Bc4 Be6 13.Qe2 Bxc4 14.Qxc4 Qxc4 15.Nxc4 Re8+ -15...Nbd7 – 16.Kf1?! - 16.Ne3 Ng4 – 16...Nbd7 17.f3 b5 etc. Surpresively Black won at move 22 Logunov-Oren, cr. 2nd LG World Ch., 1997) 12...Na6 ( but not 12...Be6?? 13.Ne4! Nxe4 14.Bxb4 Rd8 15.f3 winning a piece Strautins-Oren, cr. 2nd LG World Ch., 1997 : neither 12...Bxc3 13.Bxc3 Be6 14.Qf3 – 14.Be5!? – 14...Nbd7 15.Rfe1 Nc5 16.Bf5! with advantage Budovskis-Oren, cr. 2nd. LG World Ch., 1997) 13.a3 Bd6 14.Nf5 Bxf5 15.Bxf5 Rad8  

That's all!

Alejandro Melchor  amelchor@eresmas.net
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
AMM
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 110
Location: Barcelona - Spain
Joined: 11/08/07
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #43 - 11/25/08 at 13:59:26
Post Tools
(Appendix)

Some analysis with my reccomendation 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4! fxe4 5.Nc3 Na6!?: ( to avoid 5..Qf7 6.Ne3 c6 7.d3! exd3 8.Bxd3 d5 9.0-0 Bc5 10.b4! which it seems +- for White)


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.Bd3 - 8.e5 Qc6 9.Bd2 0-0 - 8..d5 or 8..Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Qxc3+ 10.Bd2 Qf6 11.0-0 0-0 etc. ) 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

Alejandro Melchor   amelchor@eresmas.net
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
AMM
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 110
Location: Barcelona - Spain
Joined: 11/08/07
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #42 - 11/25/08 at 07:15:31
Post Tools
Re. Strategy_Rules and SWJediknight:-

7.Nxe4 d5 8.Nxg5 Qf6 9.Nf3 is analyzed briefly in Nunn's book "Secrets of practical chess" pages 74-75. He says that in terms of development, both sides is approximately equal; we admit that White has moved several times his knight, but Black cannot really be proud of it, since the unique piece that is been moving is his queen. The White position does not have weaknesses, and in fact, Black compensation is simply invisible. Tony Kosten has been proposing two main lines, already known from long time ago, 9...Be6 in order to long castle, and 9...Bd6, with the idea of the short castling.

I've wrote a long article in Spanish evaluating and improving both Kosten and Nunn analysis with the key games in these lines. If you want I can copy a summary here, but I don't think it is the objective in this forum. I don't know Acers & Laven book, but as is pointed by SWJediknight, Black has some compensation for the pawn, the positions are very positional ones and it's very correctly analyzed in Kosten's book (pages 79-83 of " The Latvian gambit lives! ").

Re. Gambit- 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 etc., remember not initially object of this debate

I answered in a old debate about this. I will you repeat my arguments
.
Your line seems "playable" (not loser at least as 4.Nc4 and 10.b4!), but 4...Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.Nc3 of SWJediknight - played in five games before yours of 2003 -, or better 6.Nc3! Qxd4 7.Bd3 of Swaffield-Ortiz, corr., 1969 is extremely 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, the REAL problem is 3..Qf6 4.Nc4 and the move 10.b4!

In any case if you want to improve Black game, we turn our attention on 3...Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3 Qf7 6.Ne3 d5!?  , or a relatively less-known 3..Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3 Na6!? . In whole, move 6..d5!?, my first suggestion, is actually the only chance to 10.b4! .....



  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 897
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #41 - 11/16/08 at 22:35:39
Post Tools
7.Nxe4 is given in Jude Acers and George Laven's book on the Italian Gambit System as a route to a White plus, and it's mentioned in one of Jeremy Silman's articles.

It gives rise to positions where Black has some compensation for the pawn but not enough- objectively a simple route to advantage, but perhaps practically speaking not as good as 7.d3.

Re. Gambit- the lines under discussion start 4.Nc4 not the old main line 4.d4.  And after 4.Nc4, Black cannot transpose to your line because after 4...Nc6?! or 4...d6, 5.Nc3! is much stronger than 5.d4.  And in any case, after 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 Nc6, simply 6.d5 Ne5 7.Nc3 and now what does Black play?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1383
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #40 - 11/16/08 at 19:26:44
Post Tools
You can also try the Cedar Knolls Variation , 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Qf6 4 d4 d6 5 Nc4 Nc6!?  invented by myself back in 2003.
  
Back to top
YIM  
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