Latest Updates:
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish) (Read 36975 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: 1384
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: 10365
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: 1384
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
 
Strategy_Rules
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 226
Joined: 08/05/06
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #39 - 11/12/08 at 16:29:56
Post Tools
Isnt the 7.Nxe4-line (instead of d3) an easy way to a clear advantage ? Not winning, ok, but clearly better and easy to play for white.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
g2-g4
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline



Posts: 38
Location: Moscow
Joined: 11/01/08
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #38 - 11/06/08 at 21:36:54
Post Tools
Shall we turn our attention to 3...Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3 Qf7 6.Ne3 d5!?  Cheesy

And after all, Carthage must be destroyed Smiley
  
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 #37 - 11/06/08 at 21:00:33
Post Tools
Well Ok, all is ruined after 14.Rb1!, so definitevely 10.b4! is very dangerous, perhaps winning, and also whole 7.d3! "Main" Line.

Black only chance are 3...Nc6; 3...Nf6 -losing a pawn without embroliling himself in complex calculations - and last fashion 3...Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3 Qf7 6.Ne3 d5!?. In these variations Black is a pawn down but often Black chances are on exchanging of queens and he hopes to swap off the two queenside pawns and then draw the resulting three vs. two - pawns on the kingside- rook endgame.

As Jeremy Silman points, "...why would anyone wish to play a gambit that forces them to defend various pawn down endgames where they can make a draw at best?" "...Black accepts an apparently miserable defensive task in the belief that it can be drawn after a long and dour defense": if so, Latvian gambit days are finishing ....

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



Posts: 38
Location: Moscow
Joined: 11/01/08
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #36 - 11/05/08 at 22:15:09
Post Tools
BLACK’S LAST HOPE

11…Ne7 12.Nexd5 cxd5 13.Nb5 Bxb4

is ruined after 14.Rb1!? Now rook e1 is safe (Nd6+). 14...0-0 15.Rxb4 Qxf2+ (15...Nbc6 or 15...Ng6 also lose) 16.Kh1 and as lines in the attached pgn demonstrate, white has big, perhaps decisive, advantage.
  

Rb1.pgn ( 1 KB | Downloads )
Back to top
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3063
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #35 - 11/05/08 at 14:15:50
Post Tools
Alejandro just sent me the attached analysis, which I have edited into a sufficiently small PGN file (attached), plus a Word document in English, the most important excerpt is as follows:

BLACK’S LAST HOPE

11…Ne7 12.Nexd5 cxd5 13.Nb5 Bxb4 (instead of 13…0-0).

White now has two ways to play the position:

B.3.a) our hands slipped with 14.Nc7+ Kd8 15.Nxa8 Bxe1 16.Qxe1 Nbc6 when Black’s King will always be a source of discomfort, but White’s Knight is trapped and in many lines won’t get out alive. White’s chances are probably better, but it’s by no means clear how big that advantage will turn out to be. 17.Bg5 (17.Rb1 b6 18.a4 Bb7 19.Nxb6 axb6 20.Rxb6 Nc8 21.Rb1 and now, instead of 21...Nd6 which after 22.f3 leaves White with some compensation for the sacrificed piece according Jeremy Silman, I suggest 21..h6 avoiding Bg5+, or even 21..Re8 or 21..Ba8!? and Black is resolving their problems !). In this point, Silman only analyzes 17...Be6 proposing 18.Rb1!?, 18.Qe3!?, and 18.Bh4!?, but I would suggest 17...Bd7!? as more accurate and even totally best !. We see:

* 18.Rb1 h6 (18..Kc8?! is dangerous 19.Qe3 Nf5 20.Qf4 Be6 21.Qa6 menacing Ba6!) 19.Bxe7+ Qxe7 20.Qxe7+ Kxe7 21.Nc7 Kd6 22.Rxb7 Ne5 23.Bb5 Rc8 24.Bxd7 Kxd7 25.Na6+ Kd6 26.f4 Ng6
* 18.f3 h6 19.Bh4 g5 20.Bg3 Nf5 21.Nc7 Nxg3 22.Qxg3 Qf6 23.Re1 Nb4 24.Ne6+ Bxe6 25.Qd6+ Kc8 26.Qxb4 Rd8
Of course it will have many other lines all need to be analyzed though I don’t have the time to do the position justice – perhaps a reader will find something? ...).


B.3.b) 14.Bd2(!) (If 14.Nc7+ doesn’t lead to a serious advantage, then this simple and safe move should be enough.) 14…0-0 15.Bxb4 Nbc6 (15…Qxf2+?? 16.Kh1 leaves Black’s pieces hanging to threats like Bxe7 and/or Nc7. Silman) 16.Bxe7 Nxe7 17.Nc7 Rb8 18.Qe2 Nc6 (18...Ng6 is weaker 19.Nxd5 Bf5 20.Bc4 Kh8 21.Bb3 Rbe8 24.Qf3 Ne5 25.Qf4 Ng6 26.Qc7! –A.M.-) 19.Nxd5 Bf5 20.Bc4 Kh8 21.Ne3 and a forced series of moves has left White with a solid extra pawn, analysis by Silman again.

But in this point, for instance after 21..Be6 22.Rad1 Rbe8 Hiarcs11 only give a slight advantage!; in fact, it must be better for White, but Black has chances to exchange the queenside pawns and draw the resulting 3 vs. 2 on the kingside situation as is usual in other lines as 10.Na4 Bd6 11.c4 Ne7 12.cxd5 cxd5 13.Nc3 0-0 or 3.Nxe5 Nf6 4.exf5. Another chance is in 20th. move if White try 20.Bxf5 Qxf5 21.Rad1 and now not logical 21..Rbe8 so 22.Qxe8!, if not 21...Qf7; 21...Qg6 or 21...Rbd8; perhaps even 19...Bd7!? preparing Rbe8 and personally I like for White this position than Silman’s previous one, but Black is solid and he has solved the worst of it.  


Thanks!  Smiley
  

Latvian.pgn ( 42 KB | Downloads )
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 #34 - 11/05/08 at 00:22:41
Post Tools
"g2-g4", my analysis was simple little sketchs, of course more accurates are needed, I assume 21...Qf7; 21...Qg6 or 21...Rbd8 are better (or even 19..Bd7 preparing 20...Rbe8). I would appreciate readers typing his ideas
Indeed, if you want to see long articles on LG you can see in this forum of Chess Publishing as well:

http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1138114865
« Last Edit: 11/05/08 at 13:18:49 by AMM »  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
g2-g4
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline



Posts: 38
Location: Moscow
Joined: 11/01/08
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #33 - 11/04/08 at 19:22:28
Post Tools
AMM wrote on 11/03/08 at 01:51:57:
 

10. b4 Cd6 11.Re1 Ne7 12.Nexd5 cxd5 13.Nb5 Bxb4 14.Bd2 0-0 15.Bxb4 Nbc6 16.Bxe7 Nxe7 17.Nc7 Rb8 18.Qe2 Nc6  19.Nxd5 Bf5

Another chance is in 20th. move if White try 20.Bxf5 Qxf5 21.Rad1 Rbe8 22.Qd2 Rxe1 23.Rxe1 b5 24.f3 Personally I like for White this position than Silman’s previous one, but Black is solid and he has solved the worst of it.


22.Qxe8! looks better. Now if 22...Qxf2+ 23.Kh1 Rxe8 24.Rxe8 Kf7 then 25.Re3! and black queen will be eventually captured with won R vs. N endgame. Else, after 22...Rxe8 23.Rxe8 Kf7 24.Ne3 white rooks are too active for black to cope with.
« Last Edit: 11/04/08 at 21:03:53 by g2-g4 »  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
MilenPetrov
Senior Member
****
Offline


Winnie the Pooh Rules
:)

Posts: 353
Location: Varna, Bulgaria
Joined: 04/03/08
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #32 - 11/04/08 at 09:53:57
Post Tools
Hi again - yes the variation with 10.b4 and with 3.Bc4.
Just create a PGN and attach in a post. There is a limitation of 50 KB per file.
  
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 #31 - 11/03/08 at 21:11:32
Post Tools
MilenPetrov wrote on 11/03/08 at 19:23:13:
Hello, I am interested in contributing to the refutation of the Latvian Smiley. So I would like to ask AMM if it is possible to post the PGNs, so it will be easy to upload them again with the additions. Otherwise we have to spend some time entering the moves and variations.
If we have them then we can only point the new additions and attaching the corrected PGN.
In any case if he do not wish to do that then we have to do tis work ourselves Wink

Regards


I would need to know exactly what variation/s or games are you interested (perhaps 10.b4!?). I don't know if its possible to do (and how ...) the work in PGN here, but at least I can write for the forum the evolution of that games.



To "g2-g4" Member the continuation of the Rosenstielke's games in my previous note was:

*** 9...Qxc1 10.Nf7+ Ke8 11.Nxh8+ hxg6 12.Qxg6+ Kd8 13.Nf7+! (the point of the interpolation of this move before 14.Nc3 is to deny Black the opportunity to rapidly relocate his Queen by 13..Qf4; thus, if 13.Qxg8 Qf4 14.Nd2 d6 15.Rg1 - or 15.Ng6 Qg4+ 16.Kf1 Nd7 17.Qf7 Qh3+ 18.Kg1 Qh6 19.Nxe4 c6 unclear - 15...Qf5 - also 15..Nc6!? - 16.Rg5 Qf6 17.Nxe4 Qf4 very unclear in F.Tejero (2165)-A.Melchor (2133), Spain Catalonia team ch. (9), 2006 but Black won in a few moves by a great mistake of first player) 13...Ke7 14.Nc3! Qxc2+ 15.Ke1 d6 (15..c6? 16.Nd6 etc. threatening mate in two is loser) 16.Nd5+ Kd7 17.Qxg8 (slight White advantage, NCO) 17...e3! (striving to get the Queen back into play. As well as this 17...Qxb2? 18.Rd1 e3?! was known, but after f.i. 19.fxe3 Qa3 Kosten reccomendation follow 20.Qg4+ Ke8 21.Qh5!) 18.fxe3 ( If 18.Nxe3 Qxb2 19.Rd1 Nc6! or 18.Ne5+!? dxe5 19.Qf7+ Kd6 20.Nxe3 Qe4 21.Qxf8+ Kd7 as Elburg-Voliani, cr. e-mail friendship game, 2001 still looks unclear to Kosten, although White can force a draw if he desires) 18...Be7 19.Ng5 (19.Qg4+ Ke8 20.Qxc8+ Kxf7 is more confuse O'Connor-Domingo, cr. e-mail LADAC thema prel., 2006) 19...Na6 20.Qxe6+ Kc6 and:

A) 21.Qg6 Qc4 22.Nxe7+ Kb6 23.Nf3 Bh3 24.Nd2 Qe6 25.Qxe6 Bxe6 26.Ng6 Bf7 (26...Nb4!?) 27.Nf4 Rh8 (27...Nb4) 28.h3 Nb4 draw in 53, Rouzaud-Rosenstielke, cr. e-mail 5th. LG World Ch. sf. B, 2004/05

B) 21.Nxe7+ Kb6 22.Qb3+ Qxb3 23.axb3 Nb4 24.Kd2 Bd7 25.Rf1 Rh8 26.Rf2 c5 27.dxc5+ dxc5 28.e4 Rh5 and draw agaain in 36 moves, Koudelka-Rosenstielke, cr. e-mail 5th. LG World Ch. sf. B, 2004/05 , but we think White can improve a bit the game if he tries 22.Nxc8+ Rxc8 23.Qxc8 Qxh2 - neccesary if Black Queen can threaten annoying lateral checks - 24.Qe6 Qg1+ 25.Ke2 Qxa1 26.Qb3+ or 24.Rd1 Qg1+ 25.Kd2 Qf2+ 26.Kc3 Qxe3+ 27.Rd3 Qxg5 28.a3


« Last Edit: 11/03/08 at 22:56:29 by AMM »  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MilenPetrov
Senior Member
****
Offline


Winnie the Pooh Rules
:)

Posts: 353
Location: Varna, Bulgaria
Joined: 04/03/08
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #30 - 11/03/08 at 19:23:13
Post Tools
Hello, I am interested in contributing to the refutation of the Latvian Smiley. So I would like to ask AMM if it is possible to post the PGNs, so it will be easy to upload them again with the additions. Otherwise we have to spend some time entering the moves and variations.
If we have them then we can only point the new additions and attaching the corrected PGN.
In any case if he do not wish to do that then we have to do tis work ourselves Wink

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



Posts: 38
Location: Moscow
Joined: 11/01/08
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #29 - 11/03/08 at 16:54:07
Post Tools
Thanks a lot. I didn't know that move, 17...e3!
  
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 #28 - 11/03/08 at 15:50:21
Post Tools
g2-g4 wrote on 11/03/08 at 13:03:41:
I beg pardon for intervening your discussion of 3.Nxe5. Maybe my question is stupid one, but why does nobody here consider 3.Bc4 in Latvian gambit? Is it due to 3...fe4 4.Nxe5 Qg5 or 4...d5?


For many years 3.Bc4, a move which Keres burned a lot of midnight oil over, was considered White's best, but today it offers White no adventage. Its very messy (and unnecesary !) and honestly I think Keres busted with this.
The move develops a piece, prepares to castle, and threatens an immediate assault on f7. It is even listed as the Main Line against the Latvian Gambit is Nunn's Chess Openings, but this is a perfect example of how unreliable chess opening books are sometimes. It leads to some of the most complex situations to be found in the Latvian.

Yes indeed, there are many reasonable replies (f.i. 3..Nc6 or even transposing to Philidor countergambit with 3..d6 - remember 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 f5 -), but the more usual answers are 3..fxe4 4.Nxe5 Qg5 and 4...d5 (Svedenborg variation):

A) 4...Qg5 ("Poisoned pawn" line) was the first idea against 3.Bc4; it produces some of the most hair-raising variations known in chess. After Main Line 5.d4 Qxg2 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Bf7+ Kd8 8.Bxg6! Qxh1+(not taking the Rook has its drawbacks) 9.Ke2 and then it has been demostrated only few time ago UNIQUE correct move is 9..Qxc1 10.Nf7+ Ke8 11.Nxh8+ hxg6 12.Qxg6+ Kd8 13.Nf7+ Ke7 14.Nc3! Qxc2+ 15.Ke1 d6 16.Nd5+ Kd7 17.Qxg8 e3! 18.fxe3 Be7 etc. of Koudelka-Rosenstielke and Rouzaud-Rosenstielke both games from 5th. LG Word Ch. sf. B, cr. e-mail, 2004/05; for decades the capture 9..Qxc1 was considered dubtious, but in these games, extensively analyzed, White didn't demonstrate an absolute forced win, and in fact, both games was draw.

Diemer's "old" defensive move 9..c6 opening an escape square for the King while Black's threats remain is absolutely refuted on lineal way after 10.Nc3 e3 ( 10..Nf6 and 10..Kc7 are also  losers ) 11.Nf7+ Kc7 12.Qg5! or 12.Qh4! - so they usually transposes - with idea both 13.Qd8+ and/or 13.Qg3+/Be4 +- as it has been played is some games.


B) 4..d5! is clearly a more accurate and simple move; Black is expanding in the centre and at the same time shutting out White's king bishop. First player is obliged to play 5.Qh5+ (5.Bb3?! Qg5 6.d5 Qxg2 7.Rf1 Bh3) 5..g6 6.Nxg6 and now Black can choose 6..hxg6 or natural 6..Nf6 to play and endgame a pawn down, but with compensation. There are many books analizing games and lines with that variations.  


« Last Edit: 11/03/08 at 23:03:28 by AMM »  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
g2-g4
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline



Posts: 38
Location: Moscow
Joined: 11/01/08
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #27 - 11/03/08 at 13:03:41
Post Tools
I beg pardon for intervening your discussion of 3.Nxe5. Maybe my question is stupid one, but why does nobody here consider 3.Bc4 in Latvian gambit? Is it due to 3...fe 4.Nxe5 Qg5 or 4...d5?
  
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 #26 - 11/03/08 at 01:51:57
Post Tools
   Some new ideas to try improve as Black on 10.b4!? line, so as we know is being a true massacre in last games. The key-lines, at the end of the article, are marked in red
             

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.O-O Bc5 10.b4!?


This is the known new idea to fight against 9..Bc5 instead of "old" 10.Na4 rehabilitated after 10..Bd6 11.c4 Ne7 12.cxd5 cxd5 13.Nc3 0-0! ( or 12.Nc3 0-0! 13.cxd5 cxd5 )

Now Black can take the pawn or decline it. The point is that if 10…Bxb4 11.Ncxd5 cxd5 12.Nxd5 seems to give White very dangerous, perhaps winning compensation as has been shown in many games so far. Thus, let's me considerer 10…Bd6 as the best defence for Black ( "The life or death of this line" according Jeremy Silman point of view ).

** 10…Bd6 and now:

B.1) 11.b5 Nf6! (11…Ne7 12.bxc6 bxc6 13.Nexd5! seems strong: 13…cxd5 - if 13...Nxd5 Silman give 14.Re1+ Kf8 15.Bc4 and now 15..Be6 16.Rxe6! and Nxd5 with a powerful attack A.M. - 14.Nb5 and now Fritz8 give 14...Be5!? 15.f4! Bxa1 16.Nd6+ Kf8 17.Nxf7 Kxf7 with complicated position so Black isn’t doing badly as far as material goes; Silman analyzes 18.Ba3 not a bad move, but I prefer 18.c4! and Black has still a playable position though a tough's one. American player also note 14..Qf6 15.Bb2 Qxb2 16.Nd6+ Kd7 17.Nxc8 but I don't see any thing !, after 17..Rxc8 yes indeed Black position is ugly but still playable, he has an extra piece only for one pawn !? Probably are betters 17.Rb1 Qf6 18.Ne4 or 17.Nf7!? Rf8 18.Qg4+ Ke8 19.Nd6+ Kd8 20.Nxc8 Nxc8 21.Rab1 - A.M.-) 12.bxc6 (12.Nf5 Bxf5 13.Bxf5 0-0 - A.M.-) 12...bxc6 13.Nexd5?! ( I prefer any other move though Black will play soon the castle and get the equality - A.M.-) ) 13...cxd5! (13…Nxd5 14.Re1+ gives White more than enough for the sacrificed piece, Silman) and White have not anything.  

B.2) 11.Nexd5 cxd5 and now the order of the moves is very important, so we have the following possibilities:

  B.2.a) 12.Nb5 Bc7 (12...Bxb4?! of Rosenstielke-Koudelka, cr. e-mail 5th. LG World Ch. final, 2005/06 one of the first games with this variation, is very risky. Now 13.c3 a6 - 13...Bf8 14.Re1+ Kd8 15.Bc4! Nf6 16.Bg5 - 14.Qa4 axb5 15.Qxa8 Bd6 16.Re1+ Kf8 17.Ba3; but I suggest as very interesting 12...Qd7!? - A.M.-) 13.Re1+ Kf8 14.Nxc7 Qxc7 15.c4 Nd7 unclear, Fritz8.

  B.2.b) 12.Re1+ (best) 12...Ne7 and we are transposing to the next chapter under B.3
if instead Black retreat his King, he will have admit a powerful attack:

   * 12...Kd8 13.Bc4 (or 13.Be4) 13...Nf6 14.Bxd5 Qh5 15.Bf4 Qxd1 16.Raxd1 Bxb4 17.Bxb7+ Nbd7 18.Bxa8 Bxc3 19.Re3 as Melchor-Paiva Moreira, cr. e-mail LADAC thema sf. 1, 2008
   * 12...Kf8 13.Bc4 Nc6 (13...Nf6 14.Nxd5 Bxh2+ 15.Kxh2 Ng4+ 16.Qxg4! Bxg4 17.b5 Be6 18.Ba3+ Ke8 19.Rxe6+ Kd8 20.Be7+ - also 20.Rae1- 20...Kc8 21.Re4 with attack, Hiarcs10) 14.Nxd5 until here Rosenstielke-Rouzaud, cr. e-mail 5th. LG World Ch. final, 2005/06 another of the first games with 10.b4, and now besides of game's move 14...Nf6? 15.Nxf6+ Qxf6 16.Bb2 +-, is a bit better 14..Be6 15.b5 or 14...Rb8 15.Bb2 b5 16.Bb3 but with a clear advantage and dangerous initiative for White in both lines.

B.3) 11.Re1! is by far the most critical response:

11…Ne7 12.Nexd5 cxd5 13.Nb5 0-0 14.Nxd6 Qxf2+ 15.Kh1 Bg4 16.Qd2 and now so both 16…Qxd2 17.Bxd2 and 16…Qh4 17.Bb2 are terrible, Black must to choose 16…Qf6 and paradoxically we have transposed to a very known line from another move order (9...Bd6 10.Re1 Ne7 11.Nexd5! cxd5 12.Nb5 0-0 13.Nxd6 Qxf2+ 14.Kh1 Bg4 15.Qd2 Qh4 with the Strautins' idea of 16.b4! preparing to bring his bishop to the a1-h8 diagonal, whilst at the same time b4-b5 can be a useful resource) 17.Qg5! where Black’s getting stomped. Some examples:

  B.3.a) 17…Qxa1? 18.Qxg4 is simply winning for White, 18...Nbc6 (18..Qf6 19.Bg5 Qxd6 20.Bxe7 Re8 21.Bxh7+ Kxh7 22.Qh5+ Qh6 23.Qxe8 +- analysis by Viljams Strelis and also played in Sireta-Zaniratti, cr. e-mail 5th. LG World Ch. gr. F, 2002

  B.3.b) 17..Qxg5 18.Bxg5 Nec6 19.b5 Nb4 20.Be7 Rf2 21.Bh4! Fritz8 (or 21.Rf1 of Strautins, V)

  B.3.c) 17..Nbc6 - relatively best - 18.Qxg4 Qxd6 and now:

   * 19.Re6 Qxb4 20.Qxb4 (20.Qh3 Ng6 21.Bg5 Qc3 with a small plus for Black Borrmann-Gnirk, cr. ICCF thematic, 2000/01 20...Nxb4 21.Rxe7 Nxd3 22.Ba3 Nf2+ 23.Kg1 Ng4 24.Rxb7 Rf7 is equal according Hiarcs10
   * 19.Bd2 Bf7 (19...Ng6? 20.Re6 is worse ) 20.Re6 Qc7 Melchor-Gnirk, cr. ICCF thematic, 2001/02 and now instead of game's move 21.b5?! Ne5 etc. I myself suggest 21.Rae1 Raf8 22.Bc3 with advantage.
   * 19.Bb2 (the natural move and by far the most played at present) 19...Rf7 20.a3 (or 20.Qh3!? h6 21.a3) 20...Ng6 (if 20..Raf8 21.b5 Nb8 - 21...Nd8 22.a4 with idea Ba3- 22.Be5 Qd7 23.Qxd7 Nxd7 24.Bd6 Re8 25.Re6) 21.Re6 (also 21.Bf5!? Qf4 22.Be6 Qxg4 23.Bxg4 with advantage, played by John Elburg in two of his games) 21...Qf4 22.Qh5 with advantage was played three times with wins for White in all cases    


Since all this is obviously unplayable for us, Latvian fanatics!, I myself has placed my hopes on Black’s last possibility: 11…Ne7 12.Nexd5 cxd5 13.Nb5 Bxb4 (instead of 13…0-0).

White now has two ways to play the position:

  B.4.a) our hands slipped with 14.Nc7+ Kd8 15.Nxa8 Bxe1 16.Qxe1 Nbc6 when Black’s King will always be a source of discomfort, but White’s Knight is trapped and in many lines won’t get out alive. White’s chances are probably better, but it’s by no means clear how big that advantage will turn out to be. 17.Bg5 (17.Rb1 b6 18.a4 Bb7 19.Nxb6 axb6 20.Rxb6 Nc8 21.Rb1 and now, instead of 21...Nd6 which after 22.f3 leaves White with some compensation for the sacrificed piece according Jeremy Silman, I suggest 21..h6 avoiding Bg5+, or even 21..Re8 or 21..Ba8!? and Black is resolving their problems !). In this point, Silman only analyzes 17...Be6 proposing 18.Rb1!?, 18.Qe3!?, and 18.Bh4!?, but I would suggest 17...Bd7!? as more accurate and even totally best !. We see:

   * 18.Rb1 h6 (18..Kc8?! is dangerous 19.Qe3 Nf5 20.Qf4 Be6 21.Qa6 menacing Ba6!) 19.Bxe7+ Qxe7 20.Qxe7+ Kxe7 21.Nc7 Kd6 22.Rxb7 Ne5 23.Bb5 Rc8 24.Bxd7 Kxd7 25.Na6+ Kd6 26.f4 Ng6
   * 18.f3 h6 19.Bh4 g5 20.Bg3 Nf5 21.Nc7 Nxg3 22.Qxg3 Qf6 23.Re1 Nb4 24.Ne6+ Bxe6 25.Qd6+ Kc8 26.Qxb4 Rd8

Of course it will have many other lines all need to be analyzed though I don’t have the time to do the position justice – perhaps a reader will find something? ...).

  B.4.b) 14.Bd2(!) (If 14.Nc7+ doesn’t lead to a serious advantage, then this simple and safe move should be enough.) 14…0-0 15.Bxb4 Nbc6 (15…Qxf2+?? 16.Kh1 leaves Black’s pieces hanging to threats like Bxe7 and/or Nc7. Silman) 16.Bxe7 Nxe7 17.Nc7 Rb8 18.Qe2 Nc6 ( 18..Ng6 is weaker 19.Nxd5 Bf5 20.Bc4 Kh8 21.Bb3 Rbe8 24.Qf3 Ne5 25.Qf4 Ng6 26.Qc7! –A.M.-) 19.Nxd5 Bf5 20.Bc4 Kh8 21.Ne3 and a forced series of moves has left White with a solid extra pawn, analysis by Silman again.


  But in this point, for instance after 21..Be6 22.Rad1 Rbe8 Hiarcs11 only give a slight advantage!; in fact, it must be better for White, but Black has chances to exchange the queenside pawns and draw the resulting 3 vs. 2 on the kingside situation as is usual in other lines as 10.Na4 Bd6 11.c4 Ne7 12.cxd5 cxd5 13.Nc3 0-0 or 3.Nxe5 Nf6 4.exf5. Another chance is in 20th. move if White try 20.Bxf5 Qxf5 21.Rad1 Rbe8 22.Qd2 Rxe1 23.Rxe1 b5 24.f3 Personally I like for White this position than Silman’s previous one, but Black is solid and he has solved the worst of it.



 Alejandro Melchor, Barcelona, Spain;  amelchor@eresmas.net
« Last Edit: 11/03/08 at 19:55:59 by AMM »  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Matemax
God Member
*****
Offline


Chesspub gives you strength!

Posts: 1302
Joined: 11/04/07
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #25 - 01/30/08 at 11:51:27
Post Tools
Quote:
Your reaction makes me feel sorry. Friends again?

Of course!  Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10365
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #24 - 01/29/08 at 20:34:26
Post Tools
Matemax wrote on 01/29/08 at 07:56:58:
Please refute my analysis, my thoughts about chess, my evaluation of position ... - but please dont tell me what to post - this is human respect. I may feel censored - well not now, cause I am a sunny person  Smiley


Alas I am not that sunny after reading this, as you seem to accuse me of showing a lack of human respect. That was not my intention at all; neither it was to tell you what to post or what not. I only gave my honest opinion on your activity and also an explanation why with my evaluation of two positions. If you still want to go on analysing this position, how could I prevent it?
Your reaction makes me feel sorry. Friends again?
  

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
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3063
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #23 - 01/29/08 at 10:58:41
Post Tools
I had quick run through the lines and they almost all seem very convincing to me, I particularly liked the ...g5 variation where White parts with 3 pieces - this would have made a very pretty game! Smiley
I tend to agree with MNb, though, 15...Ne5 looks like the best chance, Black has to get the queens off. In the resulting position White has a pawn more, two powerful bishops and a lead in development, but his pawn structure is a complete mess. Offhand I would say he has better chances of winning here than in the line I gave in my update so 15 Bc4 appears to be an improvement.
If 14...Nd7 is no good then the 9...Bc5 line is probably refuted.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Matemax
God Member
*****
Offline


Chesspub gives you strength!

Posts: 1302
Joined: 11/04/07
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #22 - 01/29/08 at 07:56:58
Post Tools
Quote:
I am sorry, but would you say in English just what the frig your point is?  You supply no evaluations, y'see?
Dear Markovich - did you read my "introduction": Quote:
With the following variations I try to close this "emergency exit"
- so the evaluation is clear: "white wins" -  and no more has to be added....

Quote:
Matemax, no pun intended, but I don't think it's very fruitful to analyse the position after 14...Nd7.
Hmm ... Perhaps I should have sent an e-mail directly to Tony cause it was intended as a reaction on his latest update (and I thought it is interesting for some of us) - there 14...Nd7 is given as a possible last (?) escape for black. The other variations are all mentioned in the analysed game and at the beginning of the thread.

Huh

And I want to add a chess point as well:
Quote:
I don't like 14...Nd7 15.Bc4 Ne5! 16.Bxe5 Qxf3 17.gxf3 Bf5 and White will find it hard to convert his extra pawn.
Furthermore IMO white has the clearly better position - it could be even enought to win without the extra pawn

Please refute my analysis, my thoughts about chess, my evaluation of position ... - but please dont tell me what to post - this is human respect. I may feel censored - well not now, cause I am a sunny person  Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10365
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #21 - 01/29/08 at 02:41:40
Post Tools
I don't like 14...Nd7 15.Bc4 Ne5! 16.Bxe5 Qxf3 17.gxf3 Bf5 and White will find it hard to convert his extra pawn. Fortunately White also can try 15.Rfe1 and 15.Nc7. Only LG-fanatics will try to defend this as Black.
Matemax, no pun intended, but I don't think it's very fruitful to analyse the position after 14...Nd7. White has sacced a piece. Black's king is vulnerable on f8, he still has four pieces on the back row. Is that really what (s)he wants when playing ...f5 ? At the other hand I wish that I always would get such promising positions when I sac a piece.
  

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
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #20 - 01/29/08 at 01:04:57
Post Tools
Matemax wrote on 01/28/08 at 19:10:06:
Etc., etc.


I am sorry, but would you say in English just what the frig your point is?  You supply no evaluations, y'see?
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3063
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #19 - 01/28/08 at 20:03:39
Post Tools
Actually, I can't take the credit for finding this move, it was Alejandro's analysis, but I couldn't refute it myself. I will have a good look at your analysis as soon as I persuade my computer to stop giving me a blue wall of death every time I use an analysis engine! Angry
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Matemax
God Member
*****
Offline


Chesspub gives you strength!

Posts: 1302
Joined: 11/04/07
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #18 - 01/28/08 at 19:10:06
Post Tools
In the January update Tony featured the Latvian gambit variation of this thread.

As far as I understood the analysis the only way to escape should be 14...Nd7. With the following variations I try to close this "emergency exit" and keep the fire burning for the Latvian - 15.Bc4:

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

Here are my suggestion for the variations (I cut early - please give your comps some seconds at the end  Smiley - they will find the rest....)

a) 15...Ne7 16.Nxe7 Qxc4 17.Bd6+ Ke8 18.Rfe1 Kd8 19.Nf5 Rf8 20.Bxf8 Bxf8 (20. ... Nxf8 21.Nxg7 Ng6 22.Re4 Qxc2 23.Ne6+ Bxe6 24.Rxe6) 21.Rad1 Qf7 22.Qh3

b) 15...g5 16.Rfe1 gxf4 (16. ... Ne7 17.Nc7 Qxc4 18.Bxg5+ Kg8 19.Bxe7;  16. ... h5 17.Qc3) 17.Nxf4 Qxc4 18.Ne6+

c) 15...Ndf6 16.Nxf6 Qxc4 (16. ... Qxf6 17.Rad1 Be7 (17. ... g5 18.Qd5 Qxf4 19.Qxc5+ Kg7 20.Rd6 Nf6 21.Rd4 Ne4 22.Qe7+ Kh6 23.Rxe4) 18.Rfe1 Bf5 19.Bxg8 Rxg8 20.Rxe7 Kxe7 21.Qxb7+) 17.Nd7+ Ke8 18.Nxc5 Qxc5 19.Rfe1+ Ne7 20.Qg3

d) 15...Ngf6 16.Rae1

e) 15...Ne5 16.Bxe5 Qxf3 17.gxf3 Bh3 18.Rfe1

Anyone from the Latvian firebrigade to safe the day  Wink ?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10365
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #17 - 12/25/07 at 22:02:06
Post Tools
Thanks, I probably would have found it myself if I not had been too lazy.
  

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
 
Sacapawn
Full Member
***
Offline


International Master

Posts: 119
Location: Stockholm
Joined: 05/27/05
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #16 - 12/25/07 at 20:32:01
Post Tools
Quote:
Well, my instinct also tells me that 12...Nxe7 13.Nxe7 Kxe7 cannot be right, but what after 14.Re1+ Kf8 ?

15.Re4 seems devastating;
15...Bf5 16.Rf4 g6 17.Bxf5 gxf5 18.Qf3 or
15...Nd7 16.Bc4 Qg6 17.Re6

Quote:
I maintain that Black should deviate as early as on move 2.

I agree, but maybe Tony will reveal in his January update if there is a way for Black to get a playable position in the Latvian (sorry AMM, neither I think that the line with 5...c6 you gave is very convincing, I think Black is just a pawn down without compensation).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10365
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #15 - 12/25/07 at 01:46:14
Post Tools
Well, my instinct also tells me that 12...Nxe7 13.Nxe7 Kxe7 cannot be right, but what after 14.Re1+ Kf8 ?
I maintain that Black should deviate as early as on move 2.  Wink
  

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 #14 - 12/25/07 at 01:16:34
Post Tools
MNb,

In 12..Ne7 13.Nxe7 Qxe7 14.Re1 Be6 15.Qh5+ Kf8 16.Qf3+ and Rxe6 with a clear adventage. I don't understand 13..Kxe7?? so 14.Re1+ Be6 15.Bc4 +- ( maybe you confused 13..Kxe7 with 13..Qxe7 )

In the line 12..Ne7 13.Bc4 Be6 14.Nxb6 axb6 15.Bxe6 Qxe6 and now perhaps 16.Bg5 instead of 16.Re1 but logically simple 14.Re1 as is pointed is definitive.

I continue thinking 5..c6!? is neccesary, or at least return again to 5..Qg6 instead of 5..Qf7
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10365
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #13 - 12/24/07 at 22:57:15
Post Tools
Now it's my turn to ask: is there a direct win after 12...Ne7 13.Nxe7 Kxe7 14.Re1+ Be6 15.Qe2 Be6 ? Not that I would want to play this as Black.
  

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
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3063
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #12 - 12/24/07 at 11:14:47
Post Tools
Sacapawn wrote on 12/24/07 at 08:05:54:
12...Ne7 13.Nxe7 Qxe7 14.Re1 looks good for White.

Yes, true, 14...Bxf2+ 15 Kxf2 0-0+ looks forced, when 16 Kg1 Qxb4 looks pretty miserable for Black - he is behind in development and White has two massive bishops. Cry
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Sacapawn
Full Member
***
Offline


International Master

Posts: 119
Location: Stockholm
Joined: 05/27/05
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #11 - 12/24/07 at 08:05:54
Post Tools
Quote:
Can Black survive 9.0-0 Bc5 10.b4 Bb6 11.Ncxd5 cxd5 12.Nxd5 ? As 12...Be6 13.Nxb6 axb6 14.Re1 looks very good for White, only Ne7 13.Bc4 (13.Nxb6 axb6 14.Re1 0-0) Be6 remains. But 14.Nxb6 axb6 15.Bxe6 Qxe6 16.Re1 Qf6 17.Qh5+ Qf7 18.Qh4 is quite my idea of a nice evening - as White.


Quote:
18...Nd7 planning ...Nf8 or ...Nf6 seems reasonable. If White has a clear win here I don't see it.


12...Ne7 13.Nxe7 Qxe7 14.Re1 looks good for White.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3063
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #10 - 12/24/07 at 00:59:01
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 12/23/07 at 20:31:07:
Can Black survive 9.0-0 Bc5 10.b4 Bb6 11.Ncxd5 cxd5 12.Nxd5 ? As 12...Be6 13.Nxb6 axb6 14.Re1 looks very good for White, only Ne7 13.Bc4 (13.Nxb6 axb6 14.Re1 0-0) Be6 remains. But 14.Nxb6 axb6 15.Bxe6 Qxe6 16.Re1 Qf6 17.Qh5+ Qf7 18.Qh4 is quite my idea of a nice evening - as White.

18...Nd7 planning ...Nf8 or ...Nf6 seems reasonable. If White has a clear win here I don't see it.
Anyway, Alejandro has sent me lots of analysis and I will definitely look at all this for the January update - my December one is already finished and waiting to go online. Smiley
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4496
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #9 - 12/23/07 at 23:28:59
Post Tools
I submit that the assessment "if White does stand better, it cannot be by much" may set a new record for optimism.
  
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 #8 - 12/23/07 at 22:43:36
Post Tools
Markovich and MNb,

Obviously as "Warrior defender" of the "essences" and "spirit" of Latvian I must to admit that the gambit is close to dead, but logically I will defend it at the end of the days (!? ...) and so I will suggest another idea, already noted in a previous discussion here in ChessPublishing:

If Main Line is definitevely bad as Black, I improve with the old move 5..c6!? - instead of 5..Qf7 -.The move was brought to focus attention when it was suggested by V.Sokolov in the “Informator” issue nr. 13 of 1972 and also Ken Smith in his “Latvian gambit” (1977) say that 5..c6! is probably the most safe and simplest of the replies against White’s 5.Nc3

It seems, correct way for White is 6.Nxe4 Qe6 7.Qh5+ (7.Qe2 d5 8.Ncd6+ Kd8 9.Ng5 Qxe2+ 10.Bxe2 Bxd6 11.Nf7+ Ke7 12.Nxh8 Kf8!) 7.. g6 8.Qe5 now Black is a pawn down but hopes to swap off the two queenside pawns and then draw the resulting three vs. two (all pawns on the kingside) Rook endgame similar to other positions on LG; best line would be 8..Qxe5 9.Nxe5 d5 10.Ng5 Nh6 11.d4 Bf5 12.Bd3 Nd7 if White does stand better, it cannot be by much, f.i. 13.Ngf3 Nxe5 14.Nxe5 Bxd3 15.Nxd3 Nf5 16.Bf4 Be7 17.Be5 0-0 Black has a sound pawn structure with the “adequate” bishop and the pawns limiting the mobility of White knight which may encounter difficulty finding a suitable squares, and rooks have open lines on the “e” and “f” files.

Otherwise, I will admit that the following words of Jeremy Silman does seem right to me:

There are some theoretical opening lines where Black accepts an apparently miserable defensive task in the belief that it can be drawn after a long and dour defense. Apparently, this is the modern attitude taken in the Latvian Gambit. However, I'm left wondering why people choose to play the Latvian in the first place. Isn't this kind of gambit all about having fun and fighting for the initiative? If so, why would anyone wish to play a gambit that forces them to defend various pawn down endgames where they can make a draw at best?
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10365
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #7 - 12/23/07 at 20:31:07
Post Tools
Can Black survive 9.0-0 Bc5 10.b4 Bb6 11.Ncxd5 cxd5 12.Nxd5 ? As 12...Be6 13.Nxb6 axb6 14.Re1 looks very good for White, only Ne7 13.Bc4 (13.Nxb6 axb6 14.Re1 0-0) Be6 remains. But 14.Nxb6 axb6 15.Bxe6 Qxe6 16.Re1 Qf6 17.Qh5+ Qf7 18.Qh4 is quite my idea of a nice evening - as White.
  

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 #6 - 12/23/07 at 13:56:07
Post Tools
Hi everybody !,

Essentially for now, the burden is on black to find something playable against the Leonhardt 4.Nc4! fxe4 5.Nc3 Qf7 6.Ne3 c6 7.d3! (better than positional 7.Nxe4) 7..exd3 8.Bxd3 d5 9.0-0 Bc5 and 10.b4! ( Stuart James and Magnus Rosenstielke ), if not, the Latvian is theoretically refuted or it will be neccesary to find some relatively "playable" move earlier, f.i. 3..Nf6 or 5..c6 6.Nxe6 De6 etc. Yes indeed, in previous Rosenstielke's games 10..Bb6 seems better than 10..Bxb4 or 10..Bd6 but I am not sure is enough.

I congratulate that Tony ( Kosten ) - is well known he wrote two books on gambit - send a judgement about this line. I give you in a private message a PGN games with the latest theory on this line, and also 9..Bd6.

Otherwise, I continue thinking is a hard knock for the Latvian ...

    Alejandro Melchor.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3063
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #5 - 12/22/07 at 10:50:43
Post Tools
Is 10 b4 Bb6 mentioned anywhere?
  
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 #4 - 12/20/07 at 18:17:06
Post Tools
thibdb13 wrote on 11/11/07 at 01:13:40:
These are surely very pessimistic analyzes done by people who do not want to see the truth Cheesy Cheesy


So long as it spoke only in Spanish, I would not know the truth even if it walked up and kicked me in the posterior.  But the point seems to be that the Latvian is refuted; can this be controversial?

Ye gods, I hope I don't invite a lengthy upholding here of the virtues of this system.  Pace Arkhein and his fellow BDG enthusiasts.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3063
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #3 - 12/20/07 at 15:10:57
Post Tools
Any chance of this analysis being attached as a PGN file so I can refute it? Wink
  
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 #2 - 12/20/07 at 01:53:26
Post Tools
  The first part of the article ( in SPANISH ) can be read at http://www.chessprojekt.es/diedlg.htm .

  Precisely my previous article on this forum is the refutation-game, which it will be enclosed on the second part in the same web.

  Alejandro Melchor  
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
thibdb13
God Member
*****
Offline


Tal was the best

Posts: 974
Location: Mechelen
Joined: 01/25/07
Gender: Male
Re: Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
Reply #1 - 11/11/07 at 01:13:40
Post Tools
These are surely very pessimistic analyzes done by people who do not want to see the truth Cheesy Cheesy
  

Yusupov once said that “The problem with the Dutch Defence is that later in many positions the best move would be ...f5-f7” but he is surely wrong.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
AMM
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 110
Location: Barcelona - Spain
Joined: 11/08/07
Gender: Male
Latvian Gambit refuted (in Spanish)
11/09/07 at 00:25:10
Post Tools
Also see http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_opng_anlys/040223_more_splat_the_lat.html and

            http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_opng_anlys/040410_latvian_gambit.html

..and sorry for the article in Spanish, is only a short part of a long one which it will be published in a Spanish web.

Rosenstielke,M - Melchor,A
cr V LG World Ch. final e-mail, 2005-06

1.e4 e5 2.Cf3 f5 3.Cxe5 Df6 4.Cc4 fxe4 5.Cc3 Df7 6.Ce3 c6 7.d3 exd3 8.Axd3 d5 9.0-0 Ac5 10.b4!? Esta es la jugada sugerida por el aficionado Steve James, en vez de la mas conocida 10.Ca4 10...Axb4 [ para eludir el marasmo que se produce, se sugirió también 10...Ad6, con las posibilidades siguientes: A) 11.b5 A1) 11...Ce7 12.bxc6 bxc6 13.Cexd5! cxd5 (13...Cxd5 14.Te1+ Rf8 15.Ac4) 14.Cb5 Df6 (14...Ae5!? 15.f4 Axa1 16.Cd6+ Rf8 17.Cxf7 Rxf7 con posición nada clara según Fritz8) 15.Ab2 Dxb2 16.Cxd6+ Rd7 17.Cxc8 con ventaja, Silman,J; A2) 11...Cf6 12.bxc6 bxc6 13.Cf5 (13.Tb1 0-0) 13...Axf5 14.Axf5 0-0 Hiarcs10; B) 11.Cexd5!? cxd5 12.Cb5 (12.Te1+) 12...Ac7 (si12...Axb4 13.c3 Af8 14.Te1+ Rd8 15.Ac4 Cf6 16.Ag5; pero juzgo interesante 12...Dd7!? Melchor,A) 13.Te1+ Rf8 14.Cxc7 Dxc7 15.c4 Cd7 con posición complicada Fritz8; C) la respuesta crítica es seguramente 11.Te1 Ce7 12.Cexd5 cxd5 13.Cb5 donde: C1) 13...Axb4 14.Cc7+ (lo apropiado parece 14.Ad2 0-0 15.Axb4 Cbc6 16.Axe7 Cxe7 17.Cc7 Tb8 18.De2 Cc6 19.Cxd5 Af5 20.Ac4 Rh8 21.Ce3 y tras esta serie de movimientos forzados el Blanco se ha quedado con un peón extra. Análisis de Silman,J) 14...Rd8 15.Cxa8 Axe1 16.Dxe1 Cbc6 17.Ag5 (17.Tb1 b6) 17...Ae6 18.Tb1 Rc8 19.Dc3 d4 según Fritz8; C2) 13...0-0 14.Cxd6 Dxf2+ 15.Rh1 Ag4 16.Dd2 Df6 (16...Dh4 17.Ab2; 16...Dxd2 17.Axd2± ) 17.Dg5! y paradójicamente trasponemos a la conocida línea, ya citada en la primera parte del artículo, 9..Ad6 10.Te1 Ce7 11.Cexd5 cxd5 12.Cb5 0-0 13.Cd6 Dxf2+ 14.Rh1 Ag4 15.Dd2 Dh4 16.b4! Qf6 17.Qg5! que como es sabido desde hace tiempo es claramente favorable al primer jugador] 11.Cexd5 cxd5 12.Cxd5 Ac5 [12...Cc6? 13.De2+ Rf8 (13...Ae6 14.Cxb4 Cxb4 15.Ac4) 14.Cxb4 Cxb4 15.Aa3 a5 16.c3; 12...Ad6 13.Ac4 Cc6 14.Te1+ … Cb6; 12...Ae7 13.Ac4 Dg6 14.Cc7+ Rf8 15.Cxa8; 12...Aa5 A) 13.De2+ De6 (13...Ae6?? 14.Cf4; 13...Rd8? 14.Ag5+ Cf6 15.Ac4!‚ Silman,J) 14.Dh5+ g6 15.Dg5 James,S; B) 13.Te1+ 13...Axe1 14.Dxe1+ Rd8 (14...Ae6 15.Cf4) 15.Ag5+ Cf6 16.De5 Cc6 17.Dd6+ Dd7 18.Axf6+ Re8 19.Df4 Dxd5 20.Te1+ De6 21.Txe6+ Axe6 22.Axg7+-] 13.Af4 Rf8 [13...Cc6 14.Cc7+ Rf8 15.Df3 traspone a la partida] 14.Df3! [la jugada “natural” sería 14.Ac4 pero increíblemente el Negro puede salvarse si encuentra las jugadas apropiadas: 14...Cc6 15.Ae3 (15.Te1 Ae6 16.Txe6 Dxe6 17.Cb6 Td8) 15...Ad6 (15...Ae7 16.Cb6 Ae6 17.Axe6 Dxe6 18.Cxa8 Dc8 19.Axa7 Dxa8 20.Ad4±) 16.Cb6 Axh2+ 17.Rh1 A) 17...De7 18.Df3+ (18.Cxc8 Dh4 traspone a la línea siguiente con 17..Df6) 18...Cf6 19.Cxc8 Txc8 20.Dh3 Te8 21.Dxh2 Ce5 22.Ae2 b6 23.Tae1±; B) 17...Df6 B1) 18.Ac5+ Re8 19.Cxc8 Dh6 20.Ae6 Ad6+ (20...Dxe6 21.Te1 Ae5 22.Cd6+ Rd7 23.Cf7+ Rc7 24.Cxe5 Cxe5 25.Dh5 Cf6 26.Txe5 Cxh5 27.Txe6 The8 28.Tae1 Txe6 29.Txe6ƒ) 21.Ah3 Axc5 22.Dd7+ Rf8 23.Df5+ Re8 24.Dd7+= draw; B2) 18.Cxc8 18...Dh4 19.Ae6 B2a) 19...Ae5+?! 20.Ah3 B2a1) 20...Txc8 21.Ag5 Dc4 (21...De4 22.Axc8 h6 23.Ad8 Axa1 24.Dd6+±) 22.Axc8 (22.Df3+ Df7 23.Dxf7+ Rxf7 24.Axc8 Axa1 25.Txa1 b6 ligera ventaja blanca) 22...Axa1 23.Dxa1 b5 24.Te1 h6 25.Ad2±; B2a2) 20...Axa1 21.Ac5+ Cge7 22.Cxe7 Cxe7 23.Df3+ Af6 24.Axe7+ Rf7 25.Tb1 Dg5 (25...Tab8 26.Tb4 Dg5 27.Te4 con idea de Db3+) 26.Axf6 gxf6 27.Dxb7+ (27.Txb7+ Rg6 28.Af5+ Dxf5 29.Tg7+ Rxg7 30.Dxf5 con complicaciones) 27...Rg6 28.Tb3 Rh6 29.Ae6 Dc1+ 30.Rh2 Df4+ 31.Tg3+-; B2b) 19...Ac7+! 20.Ah3 Txc8 21.Ac5+ Cge7 22.Dd7 Rf7 23.De6+ Re8= tablas] 14...Cc6? precipita la derrota [ pero tampoco 14...Cd7 sería suficiente: 15.Cc7 g5 16.Tae1 (16.Ag3 Cdf6 17.Ab5 Tb8 18.Dc3±) 16...Cdf6 17.Axg5 Ag4 18.Dxb7 Tc8 (18...Td8 19.Af4 Ab6 20.h3 Ac8 21.Dc6 Rg7 22.Df3±) 19.Af4 Ab6 20.h3 Txc7 21.Axc7 Dxc7 22.Dxc7 Axc7 23.hxg4±] 15.Cc7 Tb8 [15...Cd4 16.Dg3 Tb8 17.Ae3!] 16.Ac4 Df5 17.Tfe1 Cf6 [17...Ae7 18.Tad1‚; 17...Cge7 18.Tad1 g5 19.Axg5 h5 20.Dc3! Dxf2+ 21.Rh1 Ad4 22.Da3+-] 18.Dg3 [18.Ce6+ Axe6 19.Axe6 Cd4 20.Axf5 Cxf3+ 21.gxf3 Td8 22.Ae3 Axe3 23.fxe3 Re7; 18.Ad3 Cd4 (18...Dh5?! 19.Te8+ Dxe8 20.Cxe8 Ag4 21.Cxf6 Axf3 22.Cd7+ Rf7 23.Cxc5) 19.Dg3 Dd7 20.Ae5±] 18...g5 19.Axg5 Axf2+ 20.Rh1!!+- [20.Dxf2 Dxf2+ 21.Rxf2 Rg7 22.Af4 Af5 23.Tab1 Rg6 24.Ad3 Axd3 25.cxd3±] 20...Rg7 21.Axf6+ Rxf6 22.Cd5+ Dxd5 23.Dxf2+ Df5 24.Dh4+ Rg7 25.Tf1 1-0

    En el mismo Torneo, a la vez que se producía esta partida, Magnus Rosenstielke también ganó convincentemente contra 10..Ad6; veamos:

Rosenstielke,M - Rouzaud,P
cr V LG World Ch. final e-mail, 2005-06

1.e4 e5 2.Cf3 f5 3.Cxe5 Df6 4.Cc4 fxe4 5.Cc3 Df7 6.Ce3 c6 7.d3 exd3 8.Axd3 d5 9.0-0 Ac5 10.b4!?Ad6 11.Cexd5!? [la otra posibilidad, como se ha indicado, es11.Te1 Ce7 12.Cexd5 cxd5 13.Cb5 11...cxd5 12.Te1+ [12.Cb5 Ac7 (12...Axb4 13.c3 Af8 14.Te1+ Rd8 15.Ac4 Cf6 16.Ag5; 12...Dd7!? Melchor,A) 13.Te1+ Rf8 14.Cxc7 Dxc7 15.c4 Cd7 con juego poco claro según Fritz8] 12...Rf8 [12...Rd8 13.Ae4! Cf6 14.Axd5; y 12...Ce7 traspone a 11.Re1 Ne7 12.Nexd5 cxd5 13.Cb5 – pueden verse los análisis en la anterior partida -] 13.Ac4 Cc6 [13...Cf6 14.Cxd5 Axh2+ 15.Rxh2 Cg4+ 16.Dxg4 Axg4 17.b5 Ae6 18.Aa3+ Re8 19.Txe6+ Rd8 20.Ae7+ Rc8 21.Tae1] 14.Cxd5 Cf6 [14...Ae6 15.b5 Td8 16.bxc6 bxc6 17.Ag5 Td7 18.Txe6 Dxe6 19.Cb6 Axh2+ 20.Rxh2 Txd1 21.Txd1 De5+ 22.f4 Dc7 23.Ca8 15.Cxf6 Dxf6 16.Ab2 [16.Ag5!? Dg6 17.Te6! Axh2+ 18.Rxh2 Axe6 19.Dd6++] 16...Ae5 17.Axe5 Cxe5 18.De2 Cf3+ 19.Dxf3 1-0

- 9...Ad6 es la otra jugada empleada y mecánicamente en el 95% de los casos (de 206 partidas que conozco) se ha optado por los sacrificios temáticos  10.Te1 Ce7 11.Cc4 o 11.Cexd5, aunque también es muy peligroso mi preferida  10.Cexd5!? cxd5 11.Cb5 en primera instancia. Durante mucho tiempo no se sabía con claridad que variante era mas apropiada, si esta, o la que estudiaremos a continuación con el alfil en c5, pero por ahora debo comentar porqué se abandonó 9..Ad6. No aburriré al lector con dificilísimas variantes que han sido diseccionadas con la jugada 10.Cexd5!?, solo debe quedar en la cabeza que mueva lo que mueva el Negro, la secuencia 12.Te1+ y Ag5 es instintiva y da un ataque muy violento debido a la mala situación del Rey en medio de la presión de todas las piezas Blancas por las dos columnas centrales; de hecho el Blanco ha ganado prácticamente casi todas las veinte y dos partidas que se conocen pues el segundo jugador debe ir haciendo casi las mejores y a veces únicas jugadas durante mucho tiempo.
    Me centraré pues en la variante lineal que refuta esta defensa:

   10.Te1 Ce7 (ante la descubierta) 11.Cexd5! (la admiración viene suscrita en el “Nunn Chess Openings” –NCO-, y es el camino mas directo para asaltar el sólido centro Negro) 11...cxd5 12.Cb5 (el Blanco ha transformado su superior desarrollo en un ataque. La mayoría de jugadores no alargarían con Negras en esta posición, pero incluso si conocen las mejores respuestas, siempre estarán peor; es una línea altamente táctica y es fácil pasar por alto un olvido fatal):

12..Rd7?? 13.Dg4+ Rc6 14.Da4 +-  se ha llegado a dar hasta en ¡ 6 partidas ¡
12.. Df6? 13.Dh5+ g6 14.Ag5! con clara ventaja, Malmstrom-Niemand, corr. I World LG Tourn., 1994
12..Axh2+? 13.Rxh2 Rd8 ( 13..0-0? 14.Cc7 ) 14.Ag5 Cbc6 15.Cd6 Df8 16.Dh5 con dominio aplastante
12..Bf4?! (era la jugada inicial mas antigua, pero es igualmente insuficiente) 13.Axf4 Dxf4 14.g3 ( mejor que 14.De2 o Dh5+) 14..Df6 15.Cc7+ Rd8 16.Cxa8 b6 ( 16..Cbc6 es igualmente conocida, pero 17.Ae4! jugada en diversas partidas, da una clara ventaja también ) 17.c4 lleva a una clara ventaja, ante la mala situación del rey Negro, así 17..Ab7 18.cxd5 (ó 18.Cxb6 cxb6 19.cxd5 Tf8 20.Dd2 con gran ventaja Tiemann-Kosten, e-mail, 2001 ) 18..Axa8 19.Tc1, análisis de uno de los mejores especialistas del letón, GM V.Strautins; a la misma posición se llegó en Melchor-Ferro, e-mail temático LADAC, 2006.
Comparativamente, la mejor defensa viene dada por la casi secuencia obligada de jugadas, 12..0-0 13.Cxd6 Dxf2+ 14.Rh1 Ag4 donde tras 15.Dd2 el cambio de Damas no es bueno, ya que si por ej. 5..Dxd2 16.Axd2 se amenaza Txe7 y Cxb7, pero el gran chance es el gran desarrollo Blanco contrarestado por las debilidades Negras tales como e6.
Así, el mejor movimiento es 15..Dh4, y ahora en vez de la natural 16.Cxb7, la jugada de Strautins 16.b4! que prepara tanto el dominio de la diagonal a1-h8 mediante Ab2, como constreñir las piezas Negras con b5, permite una persistente iniciativa. Esta línea ha sido puesta a prueba estos cuatro últimos años, ..pero el segundo jugador ha perdido prácticamente todas las partidas.  

  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo