AMM wrote on 09/01/13 at 16:08:45:


Are you the same AMM who said that the "real refutation" of the Latvian was simple after 3.Nxe5?  Even saying that the lines are so readily available elsewhere that it is not necessary to repeat them here?

Now there is a very interesting point, Jon Tait.  But beyond that, I don't think that the study of obsolete or suboptimal variations is necessarily useless.  It is not worthwhile, perhaps, for repertoire preparation, but it can be quite amusing and educational.  The Traxler should be met by 5.Bxf7+, but the lines with 5.Nxf7 definitely bear study.

I do find these sort of lines fun to analyse.  There are many such dodgy gambits which offer a manageable disadvantage with counterplay in most variations, but have one significant problem response (in the case of the Latvian Gambit 3.Nxe5 is certainly it).

I think that in the variation 10.d3 Nd7 11.g3, Black's best is probably to change plans with 11...Ngf6.  Then 12.0-0 exd3 13.Qh4 c5 transposes back to the aforementioned Conte-Beutel game, which continued 14.cxd3 Ne5 15.Nd2.  In that game, Black could have tried 15...Qb6, with some counterplay, though I think objectively White should still have a strong "+=".

The other problem for 3.Bc4 is the deviation 6...Nf6 above- even if Black doesn't quite get enough for the pawn in that line, in my view it puts Black a lot closer to full equality than anything following 3.Nxe5.

Agreed. Nope, need not repeat.
Latvian is dodgy.
Next opening please.

I've looked up on around the internet, and according to the Wikipedia article on the Latvian:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_Gambit
Tony Kosten mentioned the line 6...Nf6, which he gave as giving "considerable positional compensation" for a pawn, which seems believeable on the basis of the line I found above.  Thus 6...Nf6 may be a reasonable "fall-back" option for Black.

The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit fan Guido de Bouver offered the very continuation you gave against 6...hxg6 7.Qxh8 Kf7: 8.Bb3 Bg7 9.Qh7+ (8.Qh7+ Bg7 9.Bb3 transposes):
http://blackmardiemergambit.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/this-cant-be-true.html
The problem for Black is 9...Qg5? 10.h4!, which my silicon assistant, like his, picks out as virtually winning for White within a couple of seconds.   

However, I don't know of a convincing refutation of 9...Be6.  Most popular in the Chesslive.de database is 10.d3, but then Black plays 10...Nd7 threatening 10...Nf8 winning the white queen, and after 11.g3 exd3 12.0-0 Ngf6 (V.Lo Conte-H.Beutel, Latvian Gambit 'thematic' email 2001) White may be slightly better with best play, but Black has a fair amount of play for the exchange- as White I'd be quite worried about the half-open h-file.

The computer initially prefers 10.f3, with the idea 10...e3 11.f4?! (rather than the 11.g4 Nh6 of J.Gierke-P.Leisebein, corr. 1984, which gave Black reasonable compensation) but switches to assessing the position as slightly better for Black after 11...Nh6, recognising that White will find it very hard to save the queen without making significant concessions.

Thus it seems that 8.Qh7+ Bg7 9.Bb3 is best met by 9...Be6 when Black is still able to get good play.  All of this said, I, too, doubt that Black's sacrifice is fully sound- but it's hard to prove more than a slight advantage for White.

My impression is that following the moves 3.Bc4 fxe4 4.Nxe5 d5 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Nxg6:


I haven't seen any mention of 6...Nf6 anywhere but it appears playable, though maybe White can get an edge by settling for a one-pawn advantage (7.Qe5+ Be7 8.Bb5+ c6 9.Nxe7 Qxe7 10.Qxe7+ Kxe7).  

In the main 6...hxg6 line it appears that Black may well be able to get equality, as well as counterplay, after 7.Qxg6+ and either 7...Kd7 or 7...Ke7 (Stefan Bücker pointed out the key idea that 8.d4 is met by 8...e3).  Thus White's best is probably to grab the exchange with 7.Qxh8 Kf7 8.Qd4 (suggested by Stefan Bücker).  The computer slightly prefers White in this line, but I certainly wouldn't fancy defending that position with White- Black's pieces come out very quickly while White has long-term problems getting the queenside developed and finding a safe home for the queen.

In contrast the exchange sacrifice with 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Qh5+ g6 5.Nxg6 Nf6 6.Qh3 hxg6 appears to have been refuted in a couple of ways.  (6...Rg8 7.Nxf8 Rxf8 (7...Kxf8 8.d3) 8.exf5 Qe7+ 9.Qe3 and I don't think Black has enough compensation for one or two pawns.) 7...Qe7 (7...fxe4 8.d4 intending 9.Bg5, 7...Kf7 8.Bc4+ d5 9.exd5 Nd4 10.Bd3) and White chooses between 8.d3 (Tony Kosten) and 8.Nc3 intending 8...Nb4 (8...Nxe4 9.Nd5) 9.d3 (Stefan Bücker) both of which should lead to a winning advantage if White knows what he/she is doing.  The point of that last line is that if 9...Nxc2+ 10.Kd1 Nxa1, then after 11.Bg5 Black cannot defend the knight on f6 and White takes over the attack.

Jonathan Tait wrote on 08/27/13 at 06:54:53:


Essentially, now it has no great interest these two games, but also line 4 .. Qg5?! and 9 .. Qxc1 has been refuted several months ago and as it was indicated by SW Jediknight, against 3.Bc4 correct variation is 4.Nxe5 fxe4 Svedenborg line 4 .. d5! and against 6.Nxg6 5.Qh5 + g6! continuing 7.Qxg6 + Kd7 etc or even 7 .. Ke7!?

Indeed biggest problem remains 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3 noted as the "best" defense 5 .. QF7 is completely discarded, and Black is back with the old 5 .. Qg6, but White can retain the initiative. Besides the classical 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Nc3 Qg6 7.f3 continues giving big problems even with the "best" last attempt 7 .. Nf6!?

Finally, the refutation of 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 ) 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. ) 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, corr. 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 again 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 - necessary 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 as Morcillo-Melchor, cr. e-mail Spain Cup prev., 2012/13 although anyway game ended draw five moves later

Then, where is the Refutation ?. Here:

20. Qf7! Kc6 - unique - ( 20..Qxb2 21.Nxe7!! Qza1+ 22.Kf2 c5 23.Ne4! ) 21. Nxe7+ Kb6 22. Nd5+`etc with a terrible adventage




 

Interesting, thanks

Does anyone have those games?

GMTonyKosten wrote on 04/15/12 at 11:06:12:


Isn't 3 Bc4 virtually a forced win for White?

e.g. 3...fxe4 (3...d6 4. d4 exd4 5. Ng5 Nh6 6. 0-0 Nc6 7. exf5 Bxf5 8. Re1+ Kd7 9. Be6+ Bxe6 10. Nxe6 Qh4 11. Bxh6 gxh6 12. Qf3) 4. Nxe5 d5 (4...Qg5 5. d4 Qxg2 6. Qh5+ g6 7. Bf7+ Kd8 8. Bxg6 Qxh1+ 9. Ke2) 5. Qh5+ g6 6. Nxg6 Nf6 7. Qe5+ Be7 8. Bb5+ c6 9. Nxe7 Qxe7 10. Qxe7+ Kxe7 11. Bf1! and what does Black really have here?

kshorg wrote on 03/17/12 at 13:39:54:

'Refutation' is a strong word, there are lines that are promising for White but no single refutation as far as I am aware - if there was then there wouldn't be much point holding the LG World Championship ... as White would win every game!
The LG is still a reasonable opening OTB if you are happy with the typical positions that arise.

No, it is not. He beats masters with his opening. In 2002, he beat GM Maurice Ashley!

6. Nxe5 doesn't seem so clear to me. Maybe this is also fine for white, but it's not really clear-cut. Neg5 though seems just terrible for Black. 'Gambit' mentioned exd4 and Qe7 in response, but this is just a clear advantage for white - you don't really need any analysis on this position even. Black is just some tempi down in a wide open position.

Side comment:  seeing people trying to defend things like 5...d5, 5...Nf6 6. Nxf6+ gf, or some Latvian lines which have come up before in which Black was a pawn down for approximately nothing, somehow put me in mind of an article about American politician Lowell Weicker.  It commented that at some point Weicker decided to devote himself to liberal Republicanism, "which is rather like deciding to become a whooping crane."

James West has analyzed the PCG line you mention, AMM. He does not play 5...Nf6! but rather, 5...d5 instead. It leads to very complicated play.

So when is the LG tournament starting?

Isn't the simple 3.Nc3 a large advantage for White?
3...d6 4.d4 is a well-known (from the Philidor move order) torture machine.
3...Nc6 3.d4 is even worse.
3...Nf6 4.ef5 e5 5.Ng5 d5 6.d3 and here Costen in his old book suggests 6...Bb4 7.de4 Qe7, but isn't white just winning after 8.Be2?
3...fe4 4.Nxe5 Qf6 (4...Nf6 5.Ng4!) 5.d4 (of course there's also 4.Nc4 which transposes) ed3 6.Nxd3! and now 6...c6 7.Qe2+ Be7 8.Ne4!? white is just better.

kshorg wrote on 03/17/12 at 13:39:54:


The Latvian gambit has been one of the lines has generated more controversy in this forum recently ( see very specially http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1262014233/all ). The FM and theoretical Stefan Buecker feel after 3.Nxe5 Nf6 is the last attempt of the Black on surviving ( see http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/pastarch.htm#Over the Horizons ) but I still think best is 3..Qf6. I don't know which variation you are referring of a possible refutation. Probably Black still have resources, but it has been written thousands of analysis, most of them very updated. In a few days I myself organize 7th World Tournament of the gambit ( email ) where we will see the ways of the current theory. Although at the moment, it is still dubtious ( or risky ), many players below f. i. 2200 FIDE can continue on playing it. It's my opinion !!

I heard about a refutation of this gambit. What is the line?