Latvian Gambit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Latvian Gambit
a b c d e f g h
8
Chessboard480.svg
a8 black rook
b8 black knight
c8 black bishop
d8 black queen
e8 black king
f8 black bishop
g8 black knight
h8 black rook
a7 black pawn
b7 black pawn
c7 black pawn
d7 black pawn
g7 black pawn
h7 black pawn
e5 black pawn
f5 black pawn
e4 white pawn
f3 white knight
a2 white pawn
b2 white pawn
c2 white pawn
d2 white pawn
f2 white pawn
g2 white pawn
h2 white pawn
a1 white rook
b1 white knight
c1 white bishop
d1 white queen
e1 white king
f1 white bishop
h1 white rook
8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
a b c d e f g h
Moves 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5
ECO C40
Origin 17th century
Named after Latvian players
Parent King's Knight Opening
Synonym(s) Latvian Counter-Gambit
Greco Counter-Gambit

The Latvian Gambit is a chess opening characterised by the moves:

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 f5?!

The opening has the appearance of a King's Gambit with colours reversed. It is an aggressive but dubious choice for Black which often leads to wild and tricky positions.[1][2] As assessed by Paul van der Sterren :

What is required to play the Latvian Gambit with any degree of success is a sharp eye for tactics and a mental attitude of total contempt for whatever theory has to say about it.

—Paul van der Sterren, Fundamental Chess Openings

The Latvian is uncommon at the top level of over-the-board play, but some correspondence chess players are devoted to it.[2][3]

The ECO code for the Latvian Gambit is C40 (King's Knight Opening).


History[edit]

The opening was originally known as the Greco Counter-Gambit, and some modern writers still refer to it as such.[4] That name recognised the Italian player Gioachino Greco (1600–34), who contributed to the early theory of the opening. The new name Latvian Gambit was made official by the FIDE Congress of 1937. The name was a tribute to the Latvian players, notably Kārlis Bētiņš, who analysed it in the early part of the 20th century.

White's third move[edit]

Many responses for White have been analyzed.[5] The most important of these are:

3.Nxe5[edit]

White's 3.Nxe5 is the main line. After the usual 3...Qf6, White chooses between 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 and the immediate 4.Nc4, which has the advantage of allowing White to open the center with d3, for example 4...fxe4 5.Nc3 Qg6?! 6.d3 exd3? 7.Bxd3 Qxg2? and now White is winning after 8.Qh5+ Kd8 (or 8...g6 9.Qe5+ and 10.Be4) 9.Be4. The main line continues 5...Qf7 6.Ne3! Black usually responds with 6...c6!?, when White can either accept the pawn sacrifice with 7.Nxe4 d5 8.Ng5 Qf6 9.Nf3, or decline it with the more popular 7.d3 exd3 8.Bxd3 d5 9.0-0.[6] The latter variation has been deeply analyzed; the British Grandmaster Anthony Kosten analyzes one line to move 32.[7] One line discussed by International Master Jeremy Silman is 9...Bc5 10.Na4 Bd6 11.c4 d4 12.Nc2 c5 13.b4 Ne7 14.Nxc5 Bxc5 15.bxc5 Nbc6 16.Bb2 0–0 17.Nxd4 Nxd4 18.Bxd4 Bf5 19.Bxf5 Nxf5 20.Be3 Qxc4 21.Qb3 Nxe3!? 22.fxe3 Rxf1+ 23.Rxf1 Qxb3 24.axb3 Rc8 25.Rf5 and now 25...Rd8 or 25...Rc6 gives Black an excellent chances to draw the pawn-down endgame.[8] Silman later argued that 10.b4!! and now 10...Bxb4 11.Ncxd5 cxd5 12.Nxd5 or 10...Bd6 11.Re1! Ne7 12.Nexd5 cxd5 13.Nb5 is close to winning for White, and that the "old, discredited" 9...Bd6 (rather than 9...Bc5) might be Black's best try, though still insufficient for equality.[9]

Also possible is the eccentric 3...Nc6?!, against which John Nunn recommends 4.d4.[10] After 4.d4, Kosten analyzes 4...Qf6!? 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.exf5! Nxe5 7.Qe2.[11] Instead of 4.d4, Kosten says that White can accept the proffered rook with 4.Qh5+ g6 5.Nxg6 Nf6 6.Qh3 hxg6 7.Qxh8 Qe7 (7...fxe4? 8.d4! is strong) 8.d3! (Stefan Bücker gives an alternative 8.Nc3! Nb4 9.d3 as also winning for White)[12] 8...fxe4 9.Be3 d5 10.Bc5! Qxc5 11.Qxf6 Bf5 12.dxe4 Nd4 13.exf5! Nxc2+ 14.Kd1 Nxa1 15.Bd3 Qd6 16.Re1+ Kd7 17.Qf7+ Be7 18.Re6 winning.[13]

3.Bc4[edit]

White's 3.Bc4 may lead to perhaps the most notorious and heavily analysed line of the Latvian, which begins 3...fxe4 4.Nxe5 Qg5 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+ Kd8 13.Nf7+ Ke7 14.Nc3![14]

However, instead of 4...Qg5, "nowadays players often give preference to 4...d5", the Svedenborg Variation.[15] According to Latvian Gambit experts Kon Grivainis and John Elburg, Black wins more often than White in this line.[16] After 4...d5 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Nxg6, Black chooses between 6...Nf6 and 6...hxg6. 6...Nf6 usually leads, after 7.Qe5+ Be7 8.Bb5+! c6 9.Nxe7 Qxe7 10.Qxe7+ Kxe7 11.Be2 (11.Bf1!?), to an endgame where Black is a pawn down but has considerable positional compensation.[17] Sharper is 6...hxg6, when 7.Qxh8 Kf7 9.Qd4 Be6 gives White a large material advantage, but his "position is constantly on the edge of a precipice", and the line has accordingly fallen out of favor.[18] More often, White plays 7.Qxg6+ Kd7 8.Bxd5 Nf6, leading to sharp and unclear play.[19]

3.Nc3[edit]

White's 3.Nc3 was originally analyzed by the American master Stasch Mlotkowski (1881–1943) in the 1916 British Chess Magazine.[20] Kosten gives as Black's two main responses 3...Nf6 4.Bc4 (4.exf5 is also possible) fxe4 5.Nxe5 d5 6.Nxd5! Nxd5 7.Qh5+ g6 8.Nxg6! hxg6! 9.Qxg6+ Kd7 10.Bxd5 Qe7 11.Qxe4 Rh4 12.Qxe7+ Bxe7, reaching an endgame where White has four pawns for a minor piece, and 4...fxe4 5.Nxe5 Qf6, when White can choose from 6.Nc4! (transposing to the main line 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 6.Nc3), 6.d4, and 6.f4!?[21] Black can also play 3...d6, when 4.d4 transposes to the Philidor Counter-Attack (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5!?), which was favored by Paul Morphy in the mid-19th century and is still seen occasionally today.[20][22]

3.exf5[edit]

White's 3.exf5 followed by e4 4.Ne5 Nf6 5.Be2 is recommended by John L. Watson and Eric Schiller.[23] 4.Qe2, 4.Nd4, and even 4.Ng1!? (leading to a sort of King's Gambit with colours reversed) are also possible.[24]

3.d4[edit]

White's 3.d4 followed by fxe4 4.Nxe5 Nf6 5.Bg5 d6 leads, as usual, to sharp play. White often offers a piece sacrifice with either 6.Nc3!? or 6.Nd2!?, but Black seems to have adequate resources against both.[25]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ John Nunn, Graham Burgess, John Emms, and Joe Gallagher, Nunn's Chess Openings, Everyman Chess, 1999, p. 285. ISBN 1-85744-221-0.
  2. ^ a b Nick de Firmian, Modern Chess Openings, 15th edition, Random House Puzzles & Games, 2008, p. 144. ISBN 978-0-8129-3682-7.
  3. ^ Latvian Gambit analyzed by correspondence chess players, Wikichess.
  4. ^ Larry Evans, The Chess Opening for You, RHM Press, 1975, p. 29. ISBN 0-89058-020-0.
  5. ^ Tony Kosten, The Latvian Gambit Lives!, Batsford, 2001, pp. 7, 117, 175, 199, 210, 217. ISBN 0-7134-8629-5. The responses not mentioned in this article are 3.d3, 3.b4?!, 3.c4!?, 3.Qe2!?, 3.b3?!, and 3.g4? None of those moves offer White any advantage. Id. at 217.
  6. ^ Kosten 2001, pp. 78-79, 83-84.
  7. ^ Kosten 2001, p. 96.
  8. ^ Jeremy Silman, Two Wild Black Systems. Jeremysilman.com. Retrieved on 2009-06-11.
  9. ^ More Splat the Lat. Jeremysilman.com. Retrieved on 2006-06-11.
  10. ^ Nunn, Burgess, Emms & Gallagher 1999, p. 297.
  11. ^ Kosten 2001, p. 112.
  12. ^ Lower Life in the Latvian Gambit Part 1. Retrieved on 2010-05-09.
  13. ^ Kosten 2001, pp. 107-12.
  14. ^ Kosten 2001, pp. 124-39. Kosten calls 4...Qg5 "probably one of the sharpest and most extensively analyzed opening variations of all." Id. at 117.
  15. ^ Kosten 2001, p. 117.
  16. ^ Kon Grivainis and John Elburg, New Developments in the Latvian Gambit, Chess Enterprises, 1998, p. 6. ISBN 0-945470-69-X.
  17. ^ Kosten 2001, pp. 159-64.
  18. ^ Kosten 2001, p. 151.
  19. ^ Kosten 2001, pp. 140-50.
  20. ^ a b Kosten 2001, p. 210.
  21. ^ Kosten 2001, pp. 213-14.
  22. ^ Christian Bauer, The Philidor Files, Gloucester Publishers, 2006, pp. 22-32. ISBN 978-1-85744-436-0.
  23. ^ Latvian Gambit. jeremysilman.com. Retrieved on 2009-04-05.
  24. ^ Kosten 2001, pp. 188-98.
  25. ^ Kosten 2001, pp. 199-209.

External links[edit]