Conquistador wrote on 12/30/09 at 04:41:35:


I continue trying to improve the Black game in the considered "last option" for the second player.

Instead of 10..Be6 I suggest 10..Bc5 ( to avoid 11.d4 ); thus: 11.Ne4 Nxe4 12.Qxe4+ Qe6 13.Qh4 Be7 14.Qd4 Bf6 15.Qf4 Qe7!? and the White game is a bit uncomfortable, Queen is continuously pursued, we cannot try d4, and the pressure by the Black diagonal and in d3 square does not allow a proper development to the first player.

Then, perhaps 11.Be2 is better following with 11..0-0 12.0-0 Qe7 13.Qf4 Be6 14.d4 Bb6 15.Nc4 Nbd7as similar than other lines, always with pawn down, but totally playable.

Greco wrote on 01/10/10 at 13:59:44:

5.Be2 in that position would lose a piece, but I guess you're referring to the line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Be2, which prevents the queen from settling on g6 and threatens disruptive checks on h5 in some lines.

I've looked at this line myself in the past and can't find anything convincing for Black.  This, of course, is in addition to the problems Black is facing after the immediate 4.Nc4.

  What paradoxical !. Since 70 years ago is being analyzed the gambit, and finally we have seen some of the lines for its refutation are oldest ones.

  Summarizing, some of the main lines which give advantage to the first player are:

3.Nxe5 Nf6 4.Bc4 Qe7 5.d4 Nc6 6.0-0 fxe4 7.Ng4!

3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Qh5+ g6 5.Nxg6 Nf6 6.Qh4 Rg8 7.Nxf8 Rg4 8.Qh6 Rxe4+ 9.Be2 Qe7 10.Nxh7 Rxe2+ 11.Kd1 Ng4 12.Qg6+ Kd8 13.Qg8+ 
 Qe8 14.Qxe8+ Rxe8 15.Rf1 Rh8 16.h3 Rxh7 17.hxg4 fxg4 18.d3

3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Qh5+ g6 5.Nxg6 Nf6 6.Qh4 hxg6 7.Qxh8 Qe7 8.Nc3 Nb4 9.d3 Nxc2+ 10.Kd1 Nxa1 11.Bg5 Kf7 12.Nd5 Bg7 13.Qxg7+ 
 Kxg7 14.Nxe7
 
3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3 Qg6 6.Nd5!

3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3 Qf7 6.Ne3 d5 7.Nexd5 Be6 8.Bc6 Na6 9.Bxa6 bxa6 10.Ne3 Nf6 11.f4

3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3 Qf7 6.Ne3 c6 7.d3 exd3 8.Bxd3 d5 9.0-0 Bc5 10.b4! Bd6 11.Nexd5 cxd5 12.Re1+ Ne7 13.Nb5 Bxb4  
 14.Rb1!

3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Nc3 Qg6 7.f3 Be7 8.Nxe4 Nf6 9.Nxf6+ Qxf6 10.Bd3

3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Nc3 Qg6 7.f3 exf3 8.Qxf3 Nf6 9.Ne3! and 10.Bd3

3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Nc3 Qg6 7.f3 exf3 8.Qxf3 Nc6 9.Nb5! Bg4 10.Qc3!

Latvian have died (R.I.P.).
Any forum about is already neccesary !?

I've seen all these lines, and to be honest, I think it's a bit crazy for anyone to reasonably assume that both

1. A White player will know this encyclopaedically off the top of his head!

or

2. Black will not be able to innovate ANY novelties to throw him off track

Of course, if both these two propositions fail, then White is likely to win--but Black IS expected to lose more than he wins, anyways... and in my experience with the Latvian, the open positions lead to few draws, so when Black fights hard, he CAN win... we all know several greats in chess who have lost to the Latvian. I do understand, of course, that recently it's been a fight to prove equality for Black, or achieve a draw in an endgame, but if you like or are more comfortable with these positions as Black, it shouldn't be MUCH worse than in most openings... just my two cents though.

More to the point, though:

All these new lines for Black don't mean much if one of the old lines is still so fun to play as White! For instance:

1. P-K4 P-K4 2. Kt-KB3 P-KB4!? 3. KtxP Q-B3 4. P-Q4 P-Q3 5. B-K2!

As suggested by Bronstein. Kosten even states that Black has yet to find an adequate response! So... maybe earlier, 4. ...Kt-QB3!? is necessary (it's what I'd play, anyways!)

And paradoxically, salvation may come from the Fraser Defence! LOL

Greco

The starting position in chess is somewhere between = and +=.  For argument's sake let's assume it's += so that we get one category difference between the two colours.  By that measure, an =+ opening for White would be as bad as a +/- opening for Black.

I have a lot less confidence in Black's chances of getting a += (as opposed to +/-) in the Latvian than in White's chances of getting equality with best play in the Blackmar-Diemer.  

Therefore, I think the Latvian is less sound than the BDG, and it also doesn't score as well (though it can still be effective at low levels/fast time limits).  I can understand why people like to play the Latvian, but you're just as likely to get open, tactical gambit play with a Schilemann or Two Knights, both of which are much sounder (the former is probably += and the latter may even be =).

But in my head, Latvian can give a real advantage to White, while I believe the BDG can't get worse than equality (ok to be honest there might be somes lines where I am not so happy and not really sure to equalize but that can't arrive against weaker opponents OTB) where my knowledge and skill will make the difference easily. The real surprise for me is that a top corr player of today could not beat the Latvian gambit, and in case of defeat I would be almost shocked!

I must agree that I don't know the results of the Latvian in corr. But the result of the BDG in corr. is clearly good (maybe better score than the Latvian but ok we can't compare theses openings like this). With your level you could beat the sames opponents with far less risks of having not so good positions, but well, I have been critized a lot with my own opening

ArKheiN wrote on 01/05/10 at 20:22:34:


My current ELO is 2206 and in serious OTB games use LG usually against weaker opposition. But in online blitz (which is less serious, of course) where I use it quite often (usually getting very playable positions), I have won also higher rated and titled players