1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 g6 4.d4 exd4 5.Bg5 Be7 6.Bf4 and white has a slight advantage.

3. ... f5 4.d3 white has a slight advantage.

3. ... d6 4.d4 (4.c3 Bg4 unclear position) 4. ... exd4 5.Nxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.0-0 0-0 8.h3 (8.Nf5!? white has a slight advantage) 8. ... Re8 9.Re1 Sermek-Mestrovic Portoroz 1996. (Note: This all taken from NCO.)

[Round "?"]
[White "me"]
[Black "NN"]
[Result "0-1"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. c3 Nf6 4. d3 Be7 5. Bg5 O-O 6. Bxf6 Bxf6 7. d4 Nc6 8. d5 Ne7 9. Be2 c6 10. c4 cxd5 11. cxd5 Bd7 12. O-O Ng6 13. Nc3 Nf4 14. Bb5 Be7 15. Bxd7 Qxd7 16. Ne2 Rac8 17. Nxf4 exf4 18. Qd2 Bf6 19. Rab1 Rfe8 20. Qxf4 Rc2 21. Rfc1 Re2 22. Nd2 Be5 23. Qf5 Qxf5 24. exf5 Rxd2 25. Re1 Rxd5 26. f4 Bd4+ 27. Kf1 Rxe1+ 28. Kxe1 Be3 29. g3 Rd2 30. Rc1 Re2+ 31. Kxe2 Bxc1 32. b3 Kf8 33. Kd3 Ke7 34. Kc4 Kf6 35. Kd5 Ba3 36. Ke4 Bc5 37. g4 h6 38. h4 Ke7 39. g5 h5 40. g6 f6 41. Kd5 Be3 42. Ke4 Bf2 43. Kf3 Bxh4 44. b4 b5 0-1

click for larger view

My opponent has given me the bishop pair and now the opportunity to open the game.

Every single chess textbook out there would recommend exd. My instincts told me to play exd.

I don't know why I didn't play this move. Maybe because it was just a "friendly" game. Maybe I underestimated my opponent. Maybe I just wanted to see what happened if I didn't do it.

click for larger view

Its amazing how much I was still thinking about the opening and what I could have done there. I did have the option to play safely but by now I was sensing that my opponent was very comfortable in safe positions. So I thought I would try to lure him into my trap by trying to make it look as if I was going to lose a pawn.

click for larger view

Again I had the opportunity to exchange rooks and play safely. I decided that he obviously didn't like having my rook on the second rank so I took a gamble on Re2 instead.

Had he played Re1 after this I would have exchanged my rook pair for his queen.

click for larger view

He took my bait and here I had planned on Bd4. Then just before I reached for my piece I saw a better move. The rest as they say is A.M.O.T (a matter of time).

Overall I was more worried than my analysis shows. After reviewing the game with Fritz 9 I was relieved as I was more pessimistic about my situation especially if I was playing against a higher rated player.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Bc4 fxe4 4. Nxe5 Qg5 5. Nf7 Qxg2 6. Rf1 d5 7. Nxh8 dxc4 8. Qh5+ g6 9. Qxh7

click for larger view

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.h3 f6 4.Nc3 a6 5.d4 c6 6.dxe5 fxe5 7.Bg5 Be7 8.Bxe7 Qxe7 9.Bc4 b5 10.Bxg8 Rxg8 11.Qd2 Qf7 12.O-O-O g6 13.Qxd6 Bd7 14.Qxe5+ Be6 15.Rd6 Ke7 16.Ng5 Qf6 17.Rxe6+ Qxe6 18.Qxe6+ Kd8 19.Qxg8+ Kc7 20.Qxh7+ Nd7 21.Qxg6 Ne5 22.Qg7+ Nd7 23.e5 Re8 24.e6 lack resigned 1-0

http://www.chessville.com/instructi...

click for larger view

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 d5 4. exd5 Qxd5 5. Qb3 Qe4+ 6. Be2 Na5 7. Qxf7+ Kxf7 8. Ng5+ Ke8 9. Nxe4 Bf5 10. Ng3 Bxb1 11. Rxb1 Nf6 12. O-O Be7 13. d3 Kf7 14. Be3 Rhe8 15. d4 e4 16. b4 Nc6 17. Bc4+ Kf8 18. Nf5 Nd8 19. Rbe1 Bd6 20. f3 g6 21. Bh6#

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunder...

If I recall it right he named it "De7-Komplex" but I don't know how to translate 'Komplex' adequate.

M Thaler vs S Sloan, 2003

As a modest club player 4.Nc4 probably would appear fairly often and is a sound alternative. I believe however that 4.Qh5 is the only move to put serious pressure on Black's position.

I'm glad you mentioned 6.Kd1 because after seeing all of the featured games on this database a line frequently talked about goes 6...Nf6 7.Qh3/Qh4 hg6 8.Qh8 and after 8...Ng4, Black appears to have tremendous compensation for the exchange. There may well be a way out for White but I can't see anything. What do you think?

---
In essence, the “philosophical” question about gambits – in our case, the Latvian and PCG of previous answers- , is what makes a gambit playable ?, and the ways for the answer are various.

Firstly, we should to think about our own personal style ( of play and personality ). If I prefer open, tactical positions with attack and counter-attack I will build a repertoire based in positions of those characteristics ( Pelikan, Dragon, Open Spanish, Spanish Jaenish, King’s Indian, Latvian g., Grunfeld ).

Second, the surprisevely value. A gambit is easily brought about, full of pitfalls for the opponent. Your opponent, in all probability, is playing something he has never studied and has no hope of understanding as well as I myself do. It matters little whether there is a path to an objective advantage for him so long as that path is well hidden among a plethora of plausible alternatives. I have experimented a great surprising, a psychological impact, a bewildering for all and even the “relatively” best prepared opponents when I moved 2..f5!?. It is not enough to make “fairly natural moves”, they need to be the right natural ones !!

I am 2070 ELO FIDE player and usually I play tournaments where my opponents have 2000-2300 Itn. Elo. Anybody can to think that if I defend the Latvian is because I am low rated player, but paradoxically I represent the 90% of these players in the World (!), and thus I don’t see why we can not play the gambit ( also Evans, Albin, sidelines of Two Knights, etc. ) if “ theoretically” speaking it is not refuted in OTB. It is very reasonable that in the “peaceful” of our own home, with the helping of the engines we can study or even “refute” a chess variation ..of any line of play of chess ...but I can confirm that with the board in front of your eyes, in a REAL OTB game, matters are very different .... My opponents, on average, play far worse than Fritz, Hiarcs or Shredder !?. I am not averse to play a move ( or an opening ) that I know can be refuted if I think my opponent would only be likely to find the refutation if he has the “engine” in his mind, which is impossible indeed. I note if I myself or any of the readers of this forum has had recourse to computer assistance to come up with the gambit, and if the moves or “refutations” are so natural, why we use computers at all ?. If they ( or I ) aren’t, then what does that say about one’s practical chances with the LG at levels far below the 2300 plane on which we play ?. I will assume ( only ) that above 2300 FIDE Latvian is a bit unsound ( but only, against well-prepared players, and also they would win with us another opening ... ), but below of this, I don’t see any problem on playing it ( remember, we are 90% of the players of the World ).

Last words about: I’ve won several times in official OTB games opponents close 2200-2250 FIDE ELO with the gambit, and generally I’ve seen he doesn’t know even the Main Lines far from 9-10 moves, or worse the “spirit” of the middle game positions, so I must to assume the “shock” value !. Apart from this, paradoxically 2..f5 only represents 25% of the whole of my official games, so I usually play often 2..Nc6, and also the Sicilian, so the “problem” is not the LG, the problem is opposed !!, any players know a correct way against the LG ! ( in CC the question is quite different indeed ).

When you select an opening, you are not selecting the position that arises at move 20 after best play by both sides. You are selecting the whole opening with all of its traps and twists, its side lines and main lines, and so you are an authentic specialist on LG ( for instance ), and your opponent don’t .... for a player who has a high tolerance for risk it does not constitute a conclusive argument against playing such gambit

Is funny, but Emil Diemer once wrote: “In order to win, one must sometimes have the courage to play badly.”. At present LG is being needed of some new improvements ( see ALL the serie of my past answers ), but I don’t believe is already dead, maybe many people don’t know some of the best specialists, ( Budovskis, Strautins, Krantz, Rosenstielke, Oren, Zemitis, etc. ) are finding new ideas and improvements. Silman’s theorethical article is truly hard ( even I've have collaborated discrediting Black http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_o... ) , but many of us will continue with our private analysis encouraging Blacks play !?. The same to Philidor Countergambit 3..f5 ( played by NM James West, Kosten and Mestel ) or Rousseau gambit 2..Nc6 and 3..f5. I suggest any person with interest to know updates of LG visit www.gambitchess.com and the series of LG World Tournaments ( and many theory or games ).

Alejandro Melchor, Barcelona, Spain
amelchor@eresmas.net