Junkyard Openings 2.0: The Latvian Gambit

**Kevin Pacey** · Thursday, 30th July, 2009, 02:34 PM

Re: Junkyard Openings 2.0: The Latvian Gambit

In my first post, after the moves

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5!? 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4

here I previously considered only 4...b5!? (which I labelled variation 'B'). I would now like to offer for consideration the following analysis, which begins with Black's main move in this position,

C. 4...fxe4

5.Nc3

Now Black has two main moves, both of which may be of interest to anyone trying to rehabilitate the Latvian Gambit

C1. 5...Qg6

here play continues 6.d3 Bb4

and now there is a two-pronged branch

C11. 7.dxe4

7...Qxe4+ 8.Ne3 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3

Here ECO gives 9...Ne7 10.Bc4 d6 11.0-0 with a big edge for White, Zude-K.-J. Lutz, Germany 1994. Instead Fritz prefers:

9...Nf6!?

Play might continue 10.Bc4 d6 11.0-0

Here there seems to be more hope for Black, though he is admittedly close to being totally on the defensive. Now Fritz' 11...Kd8 seems better than 11...Qh4, for example.

C12. 7.Bd2

Here play continues

7...Bxc3 8.Bxc3

Now I drew no inspiration from 8...d5, which lead to a big advantage for White following 9.Ne5 in an ECO note. Instead I think Black should prefer

8...Nf6 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.dxe4 Qxe4+ 11.Ne3

Now ECO finishes with 11...d6 12.Qh5+ Kd8 13.0-0-0 leading to a big advantage for White in the game Strautinsh-Castelli, corr 1971, which again gave me no inspiration. Instead Fritz suggests Black bite the bullet with the greedy-looking

11...Qb4+!?, when Fritz thinks best play is 12.Qd2 Qxb2

Again Black is on the verge of being totally on the defensive, but at least he has a pawn for his troubles.

C2. 5...Qf7

Here White has two choices of interest

C21. 6.d4

At this point 6...Bb4 7.Be2 Nf6 8.0-0 d5 holds little interest for me; it leads to a big edge for White in ECO after 9.Ne5 etc.; instead after

6...Nf6

play continues 7.Bg5 Bb4 8.Ne5 Qe6 9.Bc4

here 9...d5!? could be worth exploring. ECO gives

9...Qf5 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Ng4

Now Fritz suggests 11...c6!?; instead ECO continues 11...Qg6 12.Ne3 f5 13.Ned5 Bxc3+ 14.bxc3 Kd8 15.Qd2 c6 16.Nf4

with a large edge for White, Dubinsky-Chebotarev, USSR 1968. This is a true enough verdict.

C22. 6.Ne3

Here I drew no inspiration from 6...Nf6, which leads to a big edge for White in ECO after 7.Bc4 etc. Instead I'll look at

6...c6

Play continues 7.Nxe4 d5

MCO-15 stops here and calls this position "okay for Black". Now there is a two pronged branch:

C221. 8.Ng3

8...h5 9.d4 h4 10.Ne2 Nf6 11.Nf4 Bd6 12.Nd3

ECO evaluates this position as White having a large edge. Carl-Pirrot, BRD continued

12...Qc7 13.h3 Be6 14.Be2 Nbd7

Black intends ...0-0-0. This position doesn't seem so bad for Black, in spite of his pawn less.

C222. 8.Ng5

8...Qf6 9.Nf3

Here 9...d4 doesn't give me much confidence. ECO's main line continues:

9...Bd6 10.d4 Ne7 11.c4

Now 11...0-0 (Tanner-Leisebein, corr 1989) looks inaccurate due to ECO's 12.Qb3 Kh8 13.Be2, with a big edge for White. Instead I prefer

11...Be6

Here there is a (final) two-pronged split:

C2221. 12.cxd5

12...Nxd5 13.Nc4

Grobe-Grvainis, corr 1977. ECO evaluates this as favouring White with a large edge. Fritz disagrees, claiming Black' s compensation gives him close to equality after 13...Bb4+.

C2222. 12.c5

12...Bc7 13.Bd3 Nd7 14.Bd2

Analysis by Nunn, quoted in ECO, ends with 14...0-0 15.Qc2, with a large edge for White. Instead Fritz' 14...Ng6 looks like an improvement, with a position that may be just unclear, or only slightly better for White.

**Stephen Wright** · Thursday, 30th July, 2009, 04:00 PM

Re: Junkyard Openings 2.0: The Latvian Gambit

See Stefan Bücker's last few columns at http://www.chesscafe.com

**Kevin Pacey** · Saturday, 1st August, 2009, 08:31 PM

Re: Junkyard Openings 2.0: The Latvian Gambit

Originally posted by Stephen Wright View Post

See Stefan Bücker's last few columns at http://www.chesscafe.com

For some reason I can't seem to stay connected when I try to access previous Bucker articles on the Latvian Gambit in chesscafe's archives.

If anyone wishes to post any contrary/supporting analysis Bucker has concerning my covered lines of 3.Nxe5 Qf6 in the Latvian, I (and perhaps other viewers) would be happy to see it.

**Kevin Pacey** · Wednesday, 5th August, 2009, 08:39 PM

Re: Junkyard Openings 2.0: The Latvian Gambit

I wish to thank Halldor Palsson for providing me a printout of Bucker's three articles (so far) on the Latvian Gambit, from the archives of chesscafe.

Bucker's analysis in the first of his articles (Lower Life in the Latvian Gambit, Part 1) includes material contrary to my hopes for Black (though I'll try to counter Bucker's stuff), in the line I provided as variation C in my second post of this thread, i.e. after the moves

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5!? 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3

My two choices for Black began with

C1. 5...Qg6

6.d3 Bb4 7.Bd2

Here Bucker analyses 7...Nf6 out to endings where Black has active pieces and reasonable drawing chances; this may be objectively best (as variation C1 could be as a whole); however I'll try to defend Black's cause after the continuation I gave here in my earlier post, namely

7...Bxc3 8.Bxc3 Nf6 9.Bxf6 gxf6

Here Bucker merely states that [instead of 10.dxe4, as in my earlier post],

10.Ne3

"! +/- was often played", providing no further analysis.

So, what could Black try? It seems that 10...d6 may be inaccurate due to 11.Be2 (+/- Fritz).

Instead Fritz suggests 10...Kd8:

Black is on the verge of being totally on the defensive, but his disadvantage may be managable, if not temporary (as he would hope). Play might continue

11.Qd2 d6

12.Qc3 (if 12.0-0-0 Fritz suggests 12...f5) 12...Nd7

Now if 13.0-0-0 Fritz suggests 13...Nc5.

My second main branch for my variation C, in my earlier post, began with

C2. 5...Qf7

Here Bucker examines what I labelled in my earlier post as variation C22, which continues

6.Ne3 c6

Now [instead of 7.Nxe4, the only move I looked at in my earlier post] Bucker gives

7.d3 "! Budovskis' refinement..."

Play continues 7...exd3 8.Bxd3 d5 9.0-0

This position has been much analysed apparently, with grim results for Black. Bucker gives many of the details after the tactical lines 9...Bc5 10.b4! etc., and 9...Bd6 10.Re1 Ne7 11.Nexd5 cxd5 12.Nb5 etc.; after playing around with this position a bit I came up with an idea for Black:

9...Nf6!?

Bucker doesn't mention this move. It may have been assumed that Black would just get into trouble on the e-file after the obvious 10.Re1,

but then it occured to me that Black might not be doing so badly after the cheeky

10...Kd8

Fritz seems to have trouble finding the position after this move as anything other than slightly better for White, in its opinion. At least the position is not clearly cheerless for Black yet.

**Craig Sadler** · Thursday, 6th August, 2009, 08:29 AM

Re: Junkyard Openings 2.0: The Latvian Gambit

Originally posted by Kevin Pacey View Post

Some time ago, for fun, I examined the Latvian Gambit from Black's point of view.

transposition time...if white plays the lisistin gambit (1.Nf3 f5 2.e4) a way to offer the gambit back is 2. ...e5 transposing to the latvian gambit. i guess it depends if you prefer to have the pawn or not :)

**Alan Baljeu** · Thursday, 6th August, 2009, 01:53 PM

Re: Junkyard Openings 2.0: The Latvian Gambit

Diagrams are nice, but on the web I find they are too many. It loads slow, and I can't easily follow the flow of the text. It would be much better for me if diagrams only came after 4-8 half moves instead of 2.

**Kevin Pacey** · Friday, 7th August, 2009, 01:47 PM

Re: Junkyard Openings 2.0: The Latvian Gambit

Originally posted by Alan Baljeu View Post

Diagrams are nice, but on the web I find they are too many. It loads slow, and I can't easily follow the flow of the text. It would be much better for me if diagrams only came after 4-8 half moves instead of 2.

I had imagined diagrams really should be shown at least for every labelled variation's starting point. I also tended to put one before a minor (unlabelled) variation was offered. It may be feasible to keep these criteria and otherwise use the 4-8 half move diagram rule you suggest, in case I or anyone else make similiar posts regarding openings/games/analysis in future, assuming there are not too many labelled variations.

I assume slow loading of diagrams is, for this thread (so far) at least, only really a problem for dial-up users, of which I assume you are one.

Btw, though I now have high speed myself, by some quirk I sometimes get 'disconnected' (though at all times while I'm on the internet I apparently have a dial tone on my phone line). Perhaps it's because we previously had a dial-up account, and it may not have been discontinued properly

.

**Kevin Pacey** · Friday, 7th August, 2009, 02:28 PM

Re: Junkyard Openings 2.0: The Latvian Gambit

Originally posted by Craig Sadler View Post

transposition time...if white plays the lisistin gambit (1.Nf3 f5 2.e4) a way to offer the gambit back is 2. ...e5 transposing to the latvian gambit. i guess it depends if you prefer to have the pawn or not :)

Believe it or not, I did think of this transposition ages ago; I do spend a (small?) portion of my study time being on the look-out for transpositions, and 3-fold repetitions, which books can fail to mention. In case of the Lisistin (sp?) Gambit, it is of course objectively better to accept with 2...fxe4 than transpose to a Latvian. In case of the sequence 1.f4 e5 2.e4 d5, a Faulkbeer Counter-Gambit KG by transposition, I'm not sure either player's play can be easily criticized, except that 1.f4 is probably not one of White's best first moves (certainly not if going by typical large database results).

Btw, a pet peeve of mine with chess opening books is that, besides missing important transpositions sometimes (though excusable since there are so many transpositions in chess), a lot of them assume Black will always be content with a draw. Either that or they 'hide' an apparently critical forced draw (or drawish variation, or recommended draw) that one side, usually Black, should take in the sub-notes of the book. In fact, many books just put an '=' sign after a drawing line, as if it were a normal line, though this is excusable if the line can be easily avoided by Black. Another type of case I can think of is the down-playing of a drawing line with words, as in one Schiller book I can recall. There the parting comment about an apparently important sub-line was to the effect '...and Black can go home with his half-point'.

If I was to write an opening book on some defence that I felt could be used as a winning attempt, I'd do my darndest to find ways Black could play for a win, without resorting to clearly inferior stuff, in problematic cases. Not that I'm always against Black drawing, but it's for the integrity of a player's repertoire, assuming he's not content to always draw with Black.

**Kevin Pacey** · Friday, 7th August, 2009, 07:54 PM

Re: Junkyard Openings 2.0: The Latvian Gambit

Originally posted by Kevin Pacey View Post

...If I was to write an opening book on some defence that I felt could be used as a winning attempt, I'd do my darndest to find ways Black could play for a win, without resorting to clearly inferior stuff, in problematic cases. Not that I'm always against Black drawing, but it's for the integrity of a player's repertoire, assuming he's not content to always draw with Black.

Speaking of defences that are used as winning attempts for Black, an interesting topic for debate is whether it's best to settle for playing one (or more) defence(s) that are 'dual purpose', i.e. one can use them to play for a win or for a draw with as Black, as opposed to having one (or more) all-out winning attempt defence(s) plus one (or more) all-out drawing attempt defence(s).

At the highest levels most players use many defences, and most don't hesitate to include all-out drawing attempt defences. On the other hand Kasparov, arguably the greatest (human) player ever, apparently never played such defences as the Petroff, even when a draw would do. I think he also kept a narrower repertoire as Black than as White, though he switched defences every so often.

There is also the matter of what first move White may have played. In case of 1.d4 the Nimzo+QID/Ragozin+Catalan defence complex is an ideal dual-purpose defence for Black, and also it's generally the most highly regarded defence to 1.d4 amongst GMs. The high level play win % is good for Black even against some/(all?) of White's duller/safer options (not the case for the KID or even the Benoni).

However, in case of 1.e4 by White, the Najdorf is the best bet if you want to go all-out for the win as Black, just going by high level play and database stats. The only fly in the ointment is the little known fact that 2.c3 Sicilians tend to result in many draws in high level play (though there is only a small sample played so far, in my databases at least). A complimentary all-out drawing defence at the highest levels is often based on 1.e4 e5, e.g. the Petroff, Berlin Lopez or even [Anti-]Marshall Lopez.

The most respectable dual-purpose defence against 1.e4 which has winning stats anywhere near the Sicilian, even against White's most solid lines, would seem to be the French Defence, but it is not so popular at the top these days as an all-out winning attempt. It seems the Classical (3.Nc3 Nf6) without ...dxe4, and the Winawer, like the French as a whole, aren't the height of fashion. If someone at the top decides to take on the Sicilian game after game with 2.c3 in order just to draw, we may see more interest in the French at the top again.

**Craig Sadler** · Monday, 10th August, 2009, 08:42 AM

Re: Junkyard Openings 2.0: The Latvian Gambit

Originally posted by Kevin Pacey View Post

Speaking of defences that are used as winning attempts for Black, an interesting topic for debate is whether it's best to settle for playing one (or more) defence(s) that are 'dual purpose', i.e. one can use them to play for a win or for a draw with as Black, as opposed to having one (or more) all-out winning attempt defence(s) plus one (or more) all-out drawing attempt defence(s).

i think most players should have an all-out winning attempt defense as well as their usual....even if it's in the same line (e.g. open lopez v. closed lopez)

Originally posted by Kevin Pacey View Post

...

The most respectable dual-purpose defence against 1.e4 which has winning stats anywhere near the Sicilian, even against White's most solid lines, would seem to be the French Defence, but it is not so popular at the top these days as an all-out winning attempt. It seems the Classical (3.Nc3 Nf6) without ...dxe4, and the Winawer, like the French as a whole, aren't the height of fashion. If someone at the top decides to take on the Sicilian game after game with 2.c3 in order just to draw, we may see more interest in the French at the top again.

i think if the top guys were to play 2.c3 and aim for a draw, Black would keep on playing the Sicilian and the guys who were playing for a draw as White would finish in the bottom part of the crosstable. Your optimism of the French reminds me of a tale about Ivanchuk after Kasparov retired (paraphrasing) : "If he is tired of playing the Najdorf play something else...he could play the French!"

**Kevin Pacey** · Monday, 10th August, 2009, 03:50 PM

Re: Junkyard Openings 2.0: The Latvian Gambit

Originally posted by Craig Sadler View Post

i think most players should have an all-out winning attempt defense as well as their usual....even if it's in the same line (e.g. open lopez v. closed lopez)

I'm guessing, but I think you mean that the Open Lopez is an all-out winning attempt defence, in your view; also guessing, I'm not sure if you think the Closed Lopez is a dual-purpose defence or should only be used an all-out drawing defence.

My idea of what consitutes a proper all-out winning attempt defence depends, rightly or wrongly, on whether modern era top players use it for such, as can be gathered in part by win-draw-loss stats. The Petroff for example scores well below 10% wins for Black in top level play in my databases, and on top of that there are very drawish lines available to White if he wants to play them (by contrast, the Najdorf easily scores over 20% Black wins at the highest levels, in most lines).

The Open Lopez also has a relatively low win % at the top level, but there seems (as far as I can tell, so far) to be certain ways to avoid the dullest lines White has when one is playing Black, so the stats could be skewed, maybe, in my databases, as sampling only by ECO codes C80-C83 would include all Open Lopez games, including those involving even dull/drawish lines. The Closed Lopez has to be considered one variation at a time (e.g. the Zaitsev is sharp, but White has a quick 3-fold repitition available if he wants it); I assume you refer to the main line Chigorin Closed Lopez, which does have a low Black win % at the top.

Originally posted by Craig Sadler View Post

i think if the top guys were to play 2.c3 and aim for a draw, Black would keep on playing the Sicilian and the guys who were playing for a draw as White would finish in the bottom part of the crosstable.

Yes, most of the time White goes for a win in high level play, or when he is not the weaker player by far. However if someone had a healthy lead in a match or tournament they could be content to draw, even with White. There is also the case where this happens in more than one match or tournament, and the opposition might notice if the 2.c3 Sicilian player is salting away draws time after time. Btw, there was one Montreal master who used to play in Ottawa who specialized in solid 1.e4 variations, as he was content to have the draw in hand, even in weekend swisses. Against the Sicilian it was 2.c3, vs. 1e4 e5 it was the Scotch, and against the Winawer he played 4.Nge2.

Originally posted by Craig Sadler View Post

Your optimism of the French reminds me of a tale about Ivanchuk after Kasparov retired (paraphrasing) : "If he is tired of playing the Najdorf play something else...he could play the French!"

LOL - Ivanchuk once beat Kasparov with the Winawer. Indeed, the French is a good choice against Kasparov, or computers. Kasparov might learn something if he took it up as Black, but he seems to have the same sort of anti-French Defence bias as Fischer (and someone we all know...) :)

**Craig Sadler** · Tuesday, 11th August, 2009, 07:54 AM

Re: Junkyard Openings 2.0: The Latvian Gambit

Originally posted by Kevin Pacey View Post

I'm guessing, but I think you mean that the Open Lopez is an all-out winning attempt defence, in your view; also guessing, I'm not sure if you think the Closed Lopez is a dual-purpose defence or should only be used an all-out drawing defence.

i was just giving an example of two lines that are very different but have the same opening. this was for all the people who play the najdorf but wouldn't be caught dead playing the pirc :) personally, the Caro is my regular defense and the Alekhine is my "sharp" defense.

**Kevin Pacey** · Tuesday, 11th August, 2009, 01:03 PM

Re: Junkyard Openings 2.0: The Latvian Gambit

Originally posted by Craig Sadler View Post

i was just giving an example of two lines that are very different but have the same opening. this was for all the people who play the najdorf but wouldn't be caught dead playing the pirc :) personally, the Caro is my regular defense and the Alekhine is my "sharp" defense.

One problem with using 1.e4 e5 as an all-out winning attempt defence is that there isn't a completely reliable choice against the Exchange Lopez. Though Black's winning stats are okay at all levels, there are some key dull lines that White might try to steer for in all cases, if he wants a draw. Black can avoid them with some risky/little-tried ideas, however, as far as I can tell. Aside from that, most lines of the Lopez score low win % at the top level. The Open Lopez, [Anti-]Marshall and Breyer would be my choices (though only as dual purpose or all-out drawing attempt defences), but they come with the same warning as in the case of the Exchange Lopez.

As I mentioned in some thread or another, one possible problem I have with the Najdorf is 6.Bg5, which is surprisingly tough in theory if White is content to draw. I have some ideas if I were to take up the Najdorf in earnest, but I consider them unreliable since they are hardly well-tested.

The Pirc is a nice practical choice for those who don't want the pace of many Sicilians, nor the theory, but here there are some solid lines such as the Classical that are tough to beat at least in theory, while the Austrian Attack surprisingly keeps Black's win % down a bit at the top levels in my databases (where White seems to score well in all lines of the Pirc where he plays 0-0-0). An article by Dan Scoones once recommended playing the Pirc as a good way to get a feel for a first-time opponent's style during the opening phase, without committing one's self too early to a course of action.

The Caro contrary to its reputation is actually an interesting animal that is becoming more popular at the top as far as I can tell. In the Classical, White's dullest attempt, 4...Bf5 can be played with a view to castling opposite sides with ...0-0, which can be Sicilian-like. In case of 4...Nd7 Black has some winning chances against White's dullest stuff. The Larsen-Bronstein (4...Nf6 5.Nxf6+ gxf6) has a poor reputation at the moment, but I've seen one or two interesting ideas for Black.

The Alekhine's has been suffering in theory for a long time now. Space given up for what seems to be less counterplay than other defences, if White really knows his stuff (which is admittedly a very important consideration below the highest levels). The last time I looked there was really only one idea that remotely interested me for Black in the critical main line of 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3.

**Craig Sadler** · Wednesday, 12th August, 2009, 08:59 AM

Re: Junkyard Openings 2.0: The Latvian Gambit

Originally posted by Kevin Pacey View Post

The Alekhine's has been suffering in theory for a long time now. Space given up for what seems to be less counterplay than other defences, if White really knows his stuff (which is admittedly a very important consideration below the highest levels). The last time I looked there was really only one idea that remotely interested me for Black in the critical main line of 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3.

which is the critical main line? 4. ...Bg4? from my less than lofty perch, i find white just grinds for an advantage. i've experimented with 4. ...dxe5 5.Nxe5 c6 and spent far too much time trying to make 4. ...dxe5 5.Nxe5 Nd7 6.Nxf7 work for Black :)

Junkyard Openings 2.0: The Latvian Gambit

Junkyard Openings 2.0: The Latvian Gambit

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment