|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Chessville
Green
Regulation
|
The Latvian Gambit Revisited - Part Two By Prof. Nagesh Havanur
In Part One we looked at the following variations: 1.
Greco Variation 3.Nxe5 Qe7 Now we will take a look at:
5.
3.exf5 Variation 3.exf5 e4 (or 3…Bc5!?)
Now White has 3 alternatives: 4.Qe2, 4. Nd4 and 4.Ne5. I. 4.Qe2 Qe7 5.Nd4 Nc6 6.Nxc6 dxc6 7.Qh5+ Kd8 8.Nc3 Nf6 9.Qg5 Qe5! = II. 4.Nd4 Nf6 Black has pleasant prospects of development as the following lines would show: A) 5.Bc4? is bad on account of 5…c5 6.Nb3 d5 7.Bb5+ Kf7 threatening ..c4 threatening to trap the bishop. B) 5.d3 c5 6.Nb3 exd3 7.Bxd3 d5 8. Bb5+Kf7 9.0-0 Bxf5 with active piece play. Or 6.Nb5 a6 7.N5c3 Now 7…exd3 8.Bxd3 d5 with the threats of ..c4! and …d4 gives Black the advantage according to Kosten. C) 5.Be2 Bc5!? 6.Bh5+ Kf8 7.Nb3 Bb6 is unclear. III. 4.Ne5 This knight move seems to cause Black the most problems. 4...Nf6 5. Be2 Be7 6.Bh5+ Kf8 The point of Black's 5th move. The bishop is developed first so that the king moves to a safer square. 7.Nc3 (The immediate 7.Nf7?! is premature: 7…Qe8 8.Nxh8 Qxh5 9.Qxh5 Nxh5 10.g4 Nf6 11. g5 Nd5 12.g6 h6) 7… d6 8.Nf7 Qe8 9.g4! cutting down on Black's options. (But not 9.Nxd6 ? Qxh5 10.Qxh5 Nxh5 11.Nxc8 Bd8 ,trapping the knight.) 10.Nxh8 Nf6 11.g5 Bxf5!? 12.gxf6 Bxf6 13.Nd5 Bd8 is unclear according to Kosten. A number of Latvian Gambit players are not comfortable with the positions arising out of 3..e4 4.Ne5. For such players, who prefer to attack at first opportunity, John Elburg’s speculative line would be the right choice: 3…Bc5!?
Now White has 2 candidate moves: 4.Nc3 and 4.Nxe5. I) 4.Nc3 b5!? Incredible stuff. Black permits both 5.Nxb5 and 5.Bxb5. However, White refuses to accept the gauntlet. 5.Ne4 Qe7 6.Nxc5 Qxc5 7.Qe2 Ne7 (Davis–Elburg 2002) leads to a rather murky position and is unclear. Instead of 4...b5 Black can play the sober 4...Nc6. II) 4.Nxe5 This is not as dangerous as it looks if White is willing to go into an ending. 4...Bxf2+ 5.Kxf2 Qh4+ 6.g3 Qd4+ 7.Kg2 Qxe5 8.Qe2 d6 9.Qxe5+ dxe5 10.g4 h5 11.h3 b6 12.Bb5+ c6 13.Be2 = Problems arise for White if he wants more as in the following variation: 6.Kf3 b5 7.d4 Nf6 8.Nc3 Bb7+ 9.Ke2 b4 10.Nb5 A curious position. Kosten believes that Black has no compensation for the piece. But after 10…0-0!? Black’s attack will have just begun. For example, 11.Nxc7 Nc6 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 13.Nxa8 Bb5+. The White monarch is caught in a crossfire. White has to play the more circumspect 13.Be3 in stead of rushing to grab material. For more on this variation, take a look at this analysis by John Elburg which first appeared in the 5/2003 issue of Chess Mail, an excellent Correspondence Chess magazine published by Tim Harding. 3…fxe4 4.Nxe5 Nf6
Now White has a choice among 4 moves: 5.Be2, 5.Nc3, 5.Bc4 and 5.Bg5. I. 5.Be2 d6 6.Nc4 d5 7.Ne5 Bd6 8. Bf4 Be6 9.0-0 0-0 10. Bg3 c5 11.Nc3 Nc6 Black is better. II. 5.Nc3 d6 6. Nc4 d5 7.Ne5 Bd6 8.Be2 0-0 = III. 5.Bc4 d5 6.Bb3 Be6 7.Bg5 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 should be level. But after Kosten's suggestion 9.c4! the struggle lies ahead. IV. After 5.Bg5 Black has two alternatives: 5...Be7 and 5...d6 A) 5…Be7 Now not 6.Bxf6? Bxf6 7.Qh5+ g6 8.Nxg6 hxg6 9.Qxg6+ Kf8 10.Bc4 Qe7 11.Nc3 Qxg7 12.Qxe4 Rh4 13.f4 c6 0-1 Magee - Svendsen, corr. 1991. After the correct 6.Nc3 d5 7.f3 exf3 8.Qxf3 c6 9.Bd3 0-0 10.0-0-0 White is only slightly better. B) But Black has something more provocative in 5…d6. White has two apparently powerful moves: 6.Nc3 and 6.Nd2. B1) 6.Nc3 dxe5 7.dxe5 Qxd1+ 8.Rxd1 h6 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Kd7! 11.Nb6+ Kc6 12. Nxa8 fxe5! 13.Bc4 Bd6 14.Bd5+Kd7 15.Bxe4 c6 unclear. Black will now play …Ke7 and …Na6 with active play. White's knight continues to remain trapped. B2) 6.Nd2?! A violent piece sacrifice that simultaneously prevents the exchange of queens. 6…dxe5 7.dxe5 Qd5! 8.exf6 Qxg5! 9.Nxe4 Qa5+ 10.c3 Be6! White is lost in all variations as demonstrated by Kosten:
a) 11.Bd3 Nd7 12.fxg7 Bxg7 13.0-0 0-0-0. White has only two pawns for the
piece. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Bc4 A favorite of Keres.
Now 3 …fxe4 4.Ne5 Qg5 heralds the Poisoned Pawn Variation. After 5.d4 Qxg2 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Bf7+ Kd8 8.Bxg6! Qxh1+ 9.Ke2 Qxc1 (9...c6 is a major alternative) 10.Nf7+ Ke8 11.Nxh8+ hxg6 12.Qxg6+ Kg8 13.Nf7+ Ke7 14.Nc3! Qxc2 15.Ke1 d6 Currently White is faring a little better than Black in this razor sharp variation, which has been analyzed up to 35 moves or so. 3…fxe4 4.Nxe5 d5!
Named after the former Norwegian Champion Paul Svedenborg
who rehabilitated this line, although it has been known for ages.
Now not 5.Bb3? Qg5 6.d4 Qxg2 7.Rf1 Bh3 with attack.
The thematic continuation is 5.Qh5+.
Now White has a dilemma. Should he win the exchange or chase the Black king? It appears that there are quite a few surprises in store for him. 7.Qxh8 Kf7 Now the complacent 8.Bb3? runs into 8…Bg7 9.Qh7 Be6! and now: I. 10.f3 e3! 11.dxe3 Nd7 12.Bxd5 Bxd5 13.Qh3 Qe7 TN. We are following the fine analysis by Leisebein and Bangiev in ChessBase Magazine 94. Black has sufficient compensation for the exchange as shown in the following lines:
A) 14.Nc3 Be6 15.Qg3 Be5 16.Qf2! = II. 10.0-0 Nd7 11.f3 e3! 12.Bxd5 Bxd5 Black has a winning advantage. III. 10.d3 Nd7 11.g3 exd3 12.cxd3 Ne5 13.0-0? Nf6 0-1 Borrmann-Leisebein corr.1985. So White plays 8.Qd4!? Be6! Now White has to decide how to retreat his bishop on account of the threat ...Nc6. A) 9.Nc3 Nc6 10.Qe3 Bh6 11.Qc5 dxc4 12.Nxe4 Nd4 Black holds the trumps. B) 9.Be2 Nc6 10.Qe3 Bh6 11.f4 d4 12. Qf2 Here Kosten's recommendation 12..d3!? 13.cxd3 exd3 14.Bd1 Bg7 not allowing White to castle offers Black excellent attacking chances. C) 9.Bb3 Nc6 10.Qe3 Bh6 11.f4 Nge7 12.0-0 Nf5 13.Qf2 Bg714.c3 Nb4! 15.d4 Nd3 16.Qe2 Qh4 threatening ...Rh8. Black has the upper hand. D) 9.Bb5 Nc6 10.Bxc6 bxc6 11.f3 Bg7 12.Qf2 e3 Now 13.dxe3 or 13.Qxe3 may be met by 13… Nh6 !? Back to our last diagram:
Instead of winning the exchange, White opts to chase the Black king: 7.Qxg6+ Kd7! It was with this move that Svedenborg revived the whole variation. If the White queen chases the king, she will only surrender the initiative to Black: 8.Qf7+ [8.Qf5+ Kc6 9.Bxd5+ Qxd5 10.Qxf8 Nd7 11.Qg7 Qe5] 8...Kc6 9.Bb3 [9.Bxd5+ Qxd5 10.Qxf8 Nd7 11.Qg7 Qe5 12.Qf7 Nc5] 9...Nf6 10.Nc3 Bc5 8.Bxd5 Nf6 Now if the White bishop behaves like a glutton and gobbles up the third pawn, it will be one pawn too many. 9.Bxe4? Qe7! Now White has several candidate moves, none of which is satisfactory: A) 10.Nc3 Rg8 11.Qf5+ Kd8 12.Qf3 Nc6 13.0-0 [13.h3 Nxe4 14.Nxe4 Ne5 wins the g-pawn] 13...Nd4 14.Qd3 Qd6 15.b3 Ng4 16.f4 Qb6 17.Kh1 Nxh2 18.Kxh2 Bc5 wins. Nyffeler-_Elburg corr.1988 B) 10.d3 Rg8 11.Qf5+ Kd8 12.Qf3 Nc6. Black scores in spectacular fashion as in the following lines: 1) 13.0-0 Nd414.Qd1 Bh3 15.Kh1? Qxe4! 2) 13.Be3 Bg4 14.Qf4 Nh5. The queen is trapped. 3) 13.Nc3? Nd4 14.Qd1 Rxg2 15.Be3 Bg4 16.Qd2 Nf3+ 17.Bxf3 Bxf3 18.Ne2 Nd5 Black wins. So White plays the sober 9.Nc3 Qe7 with a hand-to-hand combat in prospect: A. 10.0-0 Qd6!11.h3 Nxd5 12.Qf5+ Kd8 13.Qxd5 Qxd514.Nxd5 Bf5 or 14..Be6. The Black Bishop is more than a match for the pawns. B. 10.b3 Rh6! 11.Qf5+? Kd8 12.Qf4 Qg7! targeting g2 and also eyeing the knight on c3. White is in trouble. It may be better to exchange queens. But even here the position is not without danger for White. 11.Qf7 Qxf7 12.Bxf7 Nc6 13.Bb2 Bc5! Now: 1) 14.0-0? Ke7 15.Bc4 Bd6 16.h3 Bxh3! 17.Rfe1 Rg6 wins. De Paz-Miguel, corr.1995. 2) 14.Nd5? Nxd5 15.Bxd5 Nb4 16.Bxe4 Re6 17.f3 Nxc2+ 18.Kd1 Nxa1 Hemsley-Crimp 1994. After 19.Bf5 Nxb3 20.Bxe6+ Kxe6 21.axb3 White can put up some resistance, although he is lost in the long run. 3) 14.h3 Best. After 14...Bd4 Black is better. C. The only critical line for Black is the following: 10.d3 exd3+ 11.Be3 dxc2 12.Qxc2 Bh6 13.0-0-0 Bxe3+ 14.fxe3 c6 [Not 14...Qxe3+? 15.Kb1 c6 16.Rhe1 wins.] 15.Bxc6+ Kc7 16.Be4 Nc6 17.Rhf1 Be6 Black is ready to consolidate material and win. Oren-Niemand, corr.1994-1997. Here White has to find an improvement, if any, demonstrating his lead in development. The secret of the Latvian Gambit's appeal lies in its infectious optimism and the puckish humor with which the players confront adversity. Here is a little-known example: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nc3
Named after Mlotkowski, the American master who introduced it in 1916. 3..fxe4 4.Nxe5 Not 4.Nxe4 d5 and now 5.Nxe5?? drops a piece after 5… Qe7. Also bad for White is 5. Nc3 e4. Hereabouts the continuation favored by theory is 4... Qf6 (4...Nf6). White has a choice between I) 5.f4 and II) 5.d4. I) 5.f4!? Here Kosten offers a number of lines with 5…exf3 6.Nxf3. The opening of the f-file only helps White. 5…d6!? is an interesting alternative. 6.Ng4 Qxf4 7.Ne3 c6 preparing …d5. 6.Nc4 Be6 7.d3 (Not 7.Nxe4? Qd4!) d5 8.Nb5 Na6 with favorable complications. II) 5.d4 exd3 6.Nxd3 (6.f4 Bb4 7.Bxd3 d6 8.0-0!? Bxc3 9.bxc3 dxe5 10.fxe5. Now instead of the obvious 10..Qb6+,10...Qe6 is recommended by Kosten. After 11.Ba3 Ne7 it is for White to demonstrate that he still has the attack. Black hopes to proceed with …Nbc6 ,…Bd7 …and ..0-0-0.) 6...c6 7.Be2 d5 8.0-0 [8.Bf4 alt .] 8...Bd6 9.Bh5+ g6 10.Re1+ Ne7= After 3.Nc3 fxe4 4.Nxe5, 4...Nf6 is frowned upon by theory as White wins a pawn with 5. Ng4! So goes the conventional wisdom. But in the game Jackson-Zemitis corr.1998, Black came up with the remarkable move 5...Ng8?!! Yet another paradoxical retreat as in the Bronstein variation of the Main Line - Black undevelops the only piece he had developed just one move before and retires to the base. Now 6.Nxe4?? loses immediately to 6…d5! After 7.Nc3 Qe2+! and either 8.Be2 or 8.Qe2 there follows 8…Bxg4! winning the knight. 8.Ne3 is the lesser evil. There follows 8…d4 9.Nb5 dxe3 10.dxe3. White has only two pawns for the piece and should lose. White ignored the sly trap and played the complacent 6.Ne3 and even managed to lose the game in the end. He could have played 6.Bc4! calling the bluff. White may not capture the pawn on e4 immediately on account of 6…c6. However, Black would have real problems in completing his development. But Zemitis had made his point. Established theory can not dictate terms to the lively imagination of the Latvian player. Therein lies the hope for the gambit. I would like to conclude this analysis with Tony Kosten's words: If the Latvian Gambit is playable in correspondence chess where the antagonists have access to theoretical works and further, where both White and Black themselves are experts in the opening, then how much more effective it will be over-the-board with clocks ticking away? The Latvian Gambit is the practical opening par excellence. Note: Readers interested in playing this wonderful system with the motto "Black To Play And Win" may look up Kosten's excellent Book: The Latvian Gambit Lives (Batsford) and also the terrific CD Latvian Gambit Into The Next Millennium by John Elburg and Georgio Ruggeri Laderchi. Readers who would like to play a Latvian game against Mr. Elburg can do so at http://www.gambitchess.com. Acknowledgements: We would like to thank GM Knaak, Editor ChessBase Magazine, and Tim Harding, Editor Chess Mail, for offering valuable material from their recent issues. We would also like to thank Mr. Alejandro Melchor, veteran of the Gambit and Semi-Finalist in the current cycle of the Latvian Gambit World Championship for offering his personal database of games and updates for our perusal. Publisher: Free Download - a 278 kb zipped pgn database containing 1430 Latvian Gambit games ranging from 1620 to 2002. Use these games as a study aid to supplement your study of the Latvian Gambit. See the Latvian in the hands of Greco, Saint Amant, Blackburne, Tarrasch, Spielmann, Tartakower, Nimzowitsch, as well as more contemporary masters, including Hector, Sokolov, Karklins, and Aagaard. Or maybe you want to know how to win when you face it as White, then you can see how it was dealt with by the likes of Bisguier, Yudasin, Ivanov, and McShane. You'll even find Viktor Pupils famous win with the Latvian against a young Bobby Fischer in the 1955 US Championship.
|
Place Your Ad Advertise to Single insert:
The
|
||||
|
||||||
