Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Interesting novelty
The game in PGN format:
[Event "Echecsemail.com (Defi)"]
[Site "Corr"]
[Date "2013.07.02"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Molle Stephane (FRA)"]
[Black "Fournier Frederic (FRA)"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C40"]
[WhiteElo "2210"]
[BlackElo "2539"]
[Annotator "Fournier Frederic (FRA)"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Nf6 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Nc3
O-O 8.Be2 d5 9.Ne3 {%08DA} c5 {!N} ( 9...c6 {=} ) ( 9...Be6 {!?} )
10.O-O Nc6 11.Bxf6 Bxf6 12.Nexd5 Bxd4 $15 13.Bc4 Kh8 14.Nxe4
{?} ( 14.Qh5 Ne5 {!} $17 ) b5 $19 0-1
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Brian Wall on Chess!
It's true, I did not ask permission to Brian Wall to publish his part, but I publish on this blog because it is very interesting ... I think! Comments are from Brian.
The game in PGN format:
[Event "Corner Bakery blitz"]
[Site "Denver USA"]
[Date "2013.09.21"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Bekkedahl Zachary (USA)"]
[Black "Wall Brian (USA)"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C40"]
[WhiteElo "2124"]
[BlackElo "2262"]
[Annotator "Wall Brian (USA)"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Bc4
{This is what Zach played against Hartsook in a slow game. GM John Nunn in
SECRETS OF PRACTICAL PLAY and IM Pfren on the lively Latvian Chess.com thread
insist 3 Nc3 wins with no muss or fuss. Pfren even called the Latvian Gambit
"stupid". Pfren was interested in refuting the Gambit with a minimum of time
and energy. I get this tude a lot with Jack Young's Fishing Pole. They can't
enjoy the ideas, just get me out of here as soon as possible. IM Jeremy Silman
calls idiots who won't listen to how unsound their gambits are "rapists",
meaning they write meaner and meaner comments the more you refute their analysis.}
fxe4 4.Nxe5 d5 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Nxg6 hxg6 {Jack Woehr mentioned 6 ... Nf6 but David and I don't like this line}
7.Qxg6+ {7 Qxh8 looks dubious for Black but hordes of Latvian afficiandos, Hartsook
included, are willing to play this. I tried it out with Rybka 3 and the results
were interesting. It was very easy for White to get in trouble or lose any advantage. Very scary for White even if it wins.}
Ke7 {This was the subject of 1878 George Brunton Fraser analysis. David played 7
... Kd7, lost 4 pawns for a Bishop and the ensuing endgame. A nice performance
by Zach. I believe Clyde Nakamura prefers 7 ... Kd7 or cites analysis of those
who do. I don't know which move is better but I was trying to improve on the Bekkedahl-Hartsook game.}
8.d4 {On 8 d3 Bh6 is OK but 8 d4 Bh6 is not OK due to Qe5+ later %08DA}
e3 {!!N Stefan Buecker mentioned this improvement over George Brunton Fraser's analysis in Chesse Cafe, Latvian Gambit article.}
9.Bxe3 Qd6 10.Bg5+ Kd7 11.Qxd6+ {The idea of 8 ... e3!! is revealed after 11 Qf5+ Qe6+ and White has to trade Queens}
Kxd6 12.Bd3 Bh6 13.Bxh6 Nxh6 14.O-O Nc6 15.c3 Bf5 16.Bxf5 Nxf5
17.Nd2 {I eventually lost on time in a dead drawn ending of my King and Knight versus a King and a few doomed pawns by Zach}
1-0
Monday, July 1, 2013
Jesus Daniel SEGURA (2)
The second game of Jesus Daniel Segura in this open.
Rosado Perez Maria Jose (COL) 1865
Segura T Jesus Daniel (COL) 1704
Ortega COL, Open, 10/06/2013 (8)
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. exf5 e4 [3... d6 4. d4 Bxf5 transposes in Philidor counter gambit.] 4. Nd4 Qf6!? 5. Nb3 [5. Nb5 Na6 6. N1c3 Qxf5 7. d3 ±] 5... Qxf5 6. Nc3 Nf6
7. d3N [7. Be2] 7... Bb4! 8. Bd2 O-O 9. Be2 d5 10. O-O Qg6 [10... Bd6!?] 11. dxe4 dxe4 12. Bc4+ Kh8
13. Nxe4? [13. g3? Bh3 14. Re1 Nc6 15. Bf1 (15. Bf4 Ng4 -+; 15. Nd5 Bxd2 16. Qxd2 Ne5 17. Be2 Nxd5 18. Qxd5 Qf5 -+) 15... Bxf1 16. Kxf1 Bxc3 17. Bxc3 Ng4 -+ with attack; 13. Bf4! Bg4 (13... Bh3 14. Bg3) 14. Qe1 Nbd7 =+] 13... Nxe4 14. Bxb4 Bh3 15. g3 Bxf1 16. Bxf1 Re8 -/+ 17. Bd3 Na6 [17... Nc6] 18. Ba5 Qf6 19. Bxe4 Rxe4 20. Bc3 Qe7 21. Qd5 c6 22. Qd3 Rd8 23. Qf3 Rf8 [23... Nc7 followed by Nd5 -/+] 24. Qd3 Rd8 25. Nd4?!
25... Re2?? [25... Nc5 -+] 26. Nxc6?? [26. Qxe2 +-] 26... Rxd3 27. Nxe7 Rxc3! 28. bxc3 Rxe7 [0:1]
The game (PGN format):
[Event "3rd Ortega Rating"]
[Site "Ortega COL"]
[Date "2013.06.10"]
[Round "8.26"]
[White "Rosado Perez Maria Jose (COL)"]
[Black "Segura T Jesus Daniel (COL)"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C40"]
[WhiteElo "1865"]
[BlackElo "1704"]
[Annotator "Fournier Frederic (FRA)"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.exf5 e4 ( 3...d6 4.d4 Bxf5 {transposes in Philidor counter gambit.}
) 4.Nd4 Qf6 {!?} 5.Nb3 ( 5.Nb5 Na6 6.N1c3 Qxf5 7.d3 $16 ) Qxf5
6.Nc3 Nf6 {%08DA} 7.d3 {N} ( 7.Be2 ) Bb4 {!} 8.Bd2 O-O 9.Be2
d5 10.O-O Qg6 ( 10...Bd6 {!?} ) 11.dxe4 dxe4 12.Bc4+ Kh8 {%08DA}
13.Nxe4 {?} ( 13.g3 {?} Bh3 14.Re1 Nc6 15.Bf1 ( 15.Bf4 Ng4 $19 )
( 15.Nd5 Bxd2 16.Qxd2 Ne5 17.Be2 Nxd5 18.Qxd5 Qf5 $19 ) Bxf1
16.Kxf1 Bxc3 17.Bxc3 Ng4 $19 {with attack} ) ( 13.Bf4 {!} Bg4
( 13...Bh3 14.Bg3 ) 14.Qe1 Nbd7 $15 ) Nxe4 14.Bxb4 Bh3 15.g3
Bxf1 16.Bxf1 Re8 $17 17.Bd3 Na6 ( 17...Nc6 ) 18.Ba5 Qf6 19.Bxe4
Rxe4 20.Bc3 Qe7 21.Qd5 c6 22.Qd3 Rd8 23.Qf3
Rf8 ( 23...Nc7 ) 24.Qd3 Rd8 25.Nd4 {?! %08DA} Re2 {??}
( 25...Nc5 $19 {'with the idea' Nd5 $17}) 26.Nxc6 {??} ( 26.Qxe2 $18 ) Rxd3 27.Nxe7 Rxc3
{!} 28.bxc3 Rxe7 {published at http://latvian-gambit.blogspot.fr/ [LAT05-08]} 0-1
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Jesus Daniel SEGURA (1)
This is the first game played by a Latvian Gambit fan, Jesus Daniel Segura T. from Colombia. During this month, he attended an open in Ortega. The opening was successful for him and his game is very interesting. The second one will be published in another post. Good job Jesus Daniel!
Hernandez Osorio Edwin (COL) 1988
Segura T Jesus Daniel (COL) 1704
Ortega COL, 3rd Ortega Rating, 09/06/2013(6)
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. d4 fxe4! [3... d6 Philidor Countergambit!] 4. Nxe5 Nf6 5. Be2 d5?! [Perhaps 5... d6 is better. Now White Knight has a good position at e5-square.] 6. O-O Be7 7. c4 [7. f3!?] 7... c6
8. Bg5!?N [8. cxd5 cxd5 9. Bb5+ (9. Bh5+ Kf8 -better 9... g6- 10. Nc3± R.Reza - E.Grobe, corr, 1974) 9... Bd7 10. Qb3 Nc6 ~ V.Chemin - A.Vieira Neto, Curitiba, 2002; 8. Qb3! Qb6?! (8... O-O 9. Qg3 Kh8 ~) 9. Qg3 (9. Qxb6 axb6 10. Nc3 += R.Punt - H.De Jong, corr, 1983) 9... O-O 10. Bh6 Ne8 11. Nc3! Qxb2? 12. Rab1 Qa3 13. cxd5± with attack] 8... O-O 9. Nc3 Be6 10. f3!? Nbd7 11. fxe4 dxe4
12. Qc2 [12. d5!? cxd5 13. Nxd7 Qxd7 14. cxd5 ~] 12... Nxe5 13. dxe5 Qd4+ 14. Kh1 Qxe5 15. Bf4 Qc5 16. Nxe4 Nxe4 17. Qxe4 Bf5 18. Qf3 Bg6 19. Rad1 Rad8 20. Rxd8 Bxd8 [20... Rxd8 21. a3 followed by b4 (21. b3 Bf6 and Qa3 =+)] 21. Be3 Rxf3 22. Bxc5 Rxf1+ 23. Bxf1
23... Be4?! [A very surprising move. Better 23... b6=] [½:½]
ANALYSIS LAT07-33
After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3 Qf7 6.Ne3 c6 7.d3 exd3 8.Bxd3 d5 9.O-O Bd6 (as we know, this is a critical position. Black has tried most of reasonable moves, but apart of 9..Bc5?!, only text move come close to be satisfactory). 10.Re1 Ne7 11.Nexd5 (initially first player tried 11.Nc4 which guaranteed some initiative, although Black may be able to pick his way through the minefield and draw, thus White attention has turned to this way of assaulting Black’s solid centre) 11..cxd5 12.Nb5
White has translated his lead in development into an attack. Most opponents will not last long in such a position, but even if they know the best moves they will still stand worse. This is a highly tactical position and it is easy for Black to make fatal missteps 12..0-0 (moves as 12..Kd7??; 12..Qf6?; 12..Bxh2+? or 12..Bf4?! are not sufficient either) 13.Nxd6 Qxf2+ 14.Kh1 Bg4 15.Qd2 Qf6 (The exchange of Queens isn't good: 15…Qxd2 16.Bxd2 threatens Rxe7 and Nxb7, but the big point is White's lead in development and Black's weaknesses such as e6; also 15..Qh4 is answered by Strautins move 16.b4!, White prepares to bring his Bishop to the a1-a8 diagonal, whilst at the same time b4-b5 can be a useful resource – see analysis in previous article, by transposition -; and finally Destrebecq recommendation 15..Nbc6 is replied by 16.Qxf2 Rxf2 17.h3 Bh5 18.Nxb7 – analysis. Test move 15..Qf6 was first played in a game Downey-Melchor, cr. 2nd.. LG WCh., 1997) 16.Qg5 (another possibility is 16.Nxb7 Bf5 17.Qg5 Bxd3 18.Qxf6 Rxf6 19.cxd3 Ng6 20.Bg5 Rb6 21.Nd8 Nd7 22.Re8+Ngf8 23.Rf1 Nf6! =) 16..Nbc6 (and not 16..Qxg5?! as it was played in noted game) 17.Nxb7 (or 17.Qxf6 Rxf6 18.Nxb7 Ng6 – better than 18..Rb8 19.Nc5 Ng6 20.c3- 19.Bg5 Rf7 20.Nc5 Nb4 21.a3 Nxd3 22.cxd3 h6) 17..Qxg5 (now is more correct) 18.Bxg5 Ng6 19.Nd6 (it could be tested 19.Bxg6 hxg6 20.h3 according Stefan Bucker: e.g. 20...Bf5 21.Nd6 Rab8 22.c4 dxc4 23.Nxc4 or perhaps 20...Nb4 21.Re7 Nc6 22.Rc7 Rac8 23.Rxc8 Bxc8 24.Nd6 Bd7 25.Kg1 Rb8 26.b3 Rb6 27.c4, the doubled g-pawn is a handicap, any combined R+B attack on g7 would be almost fatal and pawn a2 is difficult to attack, a7-a5-a4 hardly possible. In spite of the opposite bishops White has substantial chances) 19..Nb4 20.h3 Nxd3 21.cxd3 Bf5 22.Rad1 (22.Nxf5 Rxf5 23.Be3 maybe is slight advantage as White looking for an endgame where often Rook+Bishop is better than Rook+Knight. Also is possible to test 22.Rac1) 22..Rab8 23.b3 (or 23.Rf1 Bd7 24.Rxf8+ Nxf8 25.Rd2) 23..Bd7 24.Be3 a6?! (24..Rf6 25.Bc5 a6) 25.Rf1 (25.Bd4!) 25..Ne7 (probably is better 25..Rxf1+ 26.Rxf1 Bb5) 26.Bc5 Nf5 27.Rfe1 Rf6 28.Nxf5 Rxf5 29.g4 (29.Re7!? Rf7 30.Rde1) 29..Rf8 30.Kg2 Rc8 31.b4 Re8 and soon – move 42- game finished in draw Melchor-Trofimov, cr. e-mail, 6th. LG WCh. final, 2010/11
This game has been of a great importance if it was not the Black has to worry about a knight sacrifice on d5 one move before!!: 10.Nexd5! cxd5 11.Nb5 and now 11..Qd7?; 11..Bf4?; 11..Bf8? or relatively best 11..Bc7 of a recent game is illustrative: 12.Re1+ Kd8 (I add 12..Kf8? 13.b3 with attack) 13. Bg5+ Nf6 14.Be4! (I. Terenin, 2011; 14.Bc4 looks promising, but disables c2-c4 option, so after 14..Be6 15.Bxd5 Bxd5 16.c4 Kc8 - or 16..Nbd7!? - 17.Bxf6 Bf3! etc. Melchor-Sakai, cr. e-mail, 5th. LG World Ch., sf. A, 2004/05, 1/2-1/2, 36 or 15.Rxe6!? Qxe6 16.Bxd5 Qe5 17.Bxb7+ Nbd7 etc. with a very complicated game for both players - you can continue analyzing this great line! -) 14..Re8 (14..Be6 15.c4 crushes Black center) 15.Bxd5 Rxe1+ 16.Qxe1 Bxh2+ 17.Kf1 Qe8 18.Qxe8+ Kxe8 19.Bxf6 gxf6 20.g3. Igor Terenin ask if Black can hold this position. First impression is that he can't due to much less active pieces and weakness of his kingside pawns.
White has translated his lead in development into an attack. Most opponents will not last long in such a position, but even if they know the best moves they will still stand worse. This is a highly tactical position and it is easy for Black to make fatal missteps 12..0-0 (moves as 12..Kd7??; 12..Qf6?; 12..Bxh2+? or 12..Bf4?! are not sufficient either) 13.Nxd6 Qxf2+ 14.Kh1 Bg4 15.Qd2 Qf6 (The exchange of Queens isn't good: 15…Qxd2 16.Bxd2 threatens Rxe7 and Nxb7, but the big point is White's lead in development and Black's weaknesses such as e6; also 15..Qh4 is answered by Strautins move 16.b4!, White prepares to bring his Bishop to the a1-a8 diagonal, whilst at the same time b4-b5 can be a useful resource – see analysis in previous article, by transposition -; and finally Destrebecq recommendation 15..Nbc6 is replied by 16.Qxf2 Rxf2 17.h3 Bh5 18.Nxb7 – analysis. Test move 15..Qf6 was first played in a game Downey-Melchor, cr. 2nd.. LG WCh., 1997) 16.Qg5 (another possibility is 16.Nxb7 Bf5 17.Qg5 Bxd3 18.Qxf6 Rxf6 19.cxd3 Ng6 20.Bg5 Rb6 21.Nd8 Nd7 22.Re8+Ngf8 23.Rf1 Nf6! =) 16..Nbc6 (and not 16..Qxg5?! as it was played in noted game) 17.Nxb7 (or 17.Qxf6 Rxf6 18.Nxb7 Ng6 – better than 18..Rb8 19.Nc5 Ng6 20.c3- 19.Bg5 Rf7 20.Nc5 Nb4 21.a3 Nxd3 22.cxd3 h6) 17..Qxg5 (now is more correct) 18.Bxg5 Ng6 19.Nd6 (it could be tested 19.Bxg6 hxg6 20.h3 according Stefan Bucker: e.g. 20...Bf5 21.Nd6 Rab8 22.c4 dxc4 23.Nxc4 or perhaps 20...Nb4 21.Re7 Nc6 22.Rc7 Rac8 23.Rxc8 Bxc8 24.Nd6 Bd7 25.Kg1 Rb8 26.b3 Rb6 27.c4, the doubled g-pawn is a handicap, any combined R+B attack on g7 would be almost fatal and pawn a2 is difficult to attack, a7-a5-a4 hardly possible. In spite of the opposite bishops White has substantial chances) 19..Nb4 20.h3 Nxd3 21.cxd3 Bf5 22.Rad1 (22.Nxf5 Rxf5 23.Be3 maybe is slight advantage as White looking for an endgame where often Rook+Bishop is better than Rook+Knight. Also is possible to test 22.Rac1) 22..Rab8 23.b3 (or 23.Rf1 Bd7 24.Rxf8+ Nxf8 25.Rd2) 23..Bd7 24.Be3 a6?! (24..Rf6 25.Bc5 a6) 25.Rf1 (25.Bd4!) 25..Ne7 (probably is better 25..Rxf1+ 26.Rxf1 Bb5) 26.Bc5 Nf5 27.Rfe1 Rf6 28.Nxf5 Rxf5 29.g4 (29.Re7!? Rf7 30.Rde1) 29..Rf8 30.Kg2 Rc8 31.b4 Re8 and soon – move 42- game finished in draw Melchor-Trofimov, cr. e-mail, 6th. LG WCh. final, 2010/11
This game has been of a great importance if it was not the Black has to worry about a knight sacrifice on d5 one move before!!: 10.Nexd5! cxd5 11.Nb5 and now 11..Qd7?; 11..Bf4?; 11..Bf8? or relatively best 11..Bc7 of a recent game is illustrative: 12.Re1+ Kd8 (I add 12..Kf8? 13.b3 with attack) 13. Bg5+ Nf6 14.Be4! (I. Terenin, 2011; 14.Bc4 looks promising, but disables c2-c4 option, so after 14..Be6 15.Bxd5 Bxd5 16.c4 Kc8 - or 16..Nbd7!? - 17.Bxf6 Bf3! etc. Melchor-Sakai, cr. e-mail, 5th. LG World Ch., sf. A, 2004/05, 1/2-1/2, 36 or 15.Rxe6!? Qxe6 16.Bxd5 Qe5 17.Bxb7+ Nbd7 etc. with a very complicated game for both players - you can continue analyzing this great line! -) 14..Re8 (14..Be6 15.c4 crushes Black center) 15.Bxd5 Rxe1+ 16.Qxe1 Bxh2+ 17.Kf1 Qe8 18.Qxe8+ Kxe8 19.Bxf6 gxf6 20.g3. Igor Terenin ask if Black can hold this position. First impression is that he can't due to much less active pieces and weakness of his kingside pawns.
Well, according my own experience it’s reasonably easy to increase the advantage: So, 20..Bxg3 21.fxg3 Kd8 22.Rd1 Nd7 23.Kf2 (23.Kg2) 23..a5 24.c4 h6 25.Rd4 f5 26.Nd6 Kc7 27.Be6 Nb6 28.Bxc8 Nxc8 29.Nxf5 Ra6 30.Kf3 and White won a difficult ending in Melchor-Borrmann, cr. e-mail, LADAC thema Final, 2010/11
Thursday, June 20, 2013
ANALYSIS LAT07-34
After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3
f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3 Qf7 6.Ne3 c6 7.d3 exd3
8.Bxd3 d5 9.O-O Bc5?! (it was always been the first line
that was tested) 10.b4! (Stuart James, November 2005), we know is being a true massacre in
last games. The key line, at the end of the article, is quoted in red
This is the known new idea to fight against
9..Bc5 instead of "old" 10.Na4 rehabilitated after 10..Bd6 11.c4 Ne7
12.cxd5 cxd5 13.Nc3 0-0! (or 12.Nc3 0-0!
13.cxd5 cxd5).
Now Black can take the pawn or decline it.
The point is that if 10…Bxb4 11.Ncxd5 cxd5 12.Nxd5 seems to give
White very dangerous, perhaps winning compensation as has been shown in
many games so far. Thus, let's me
considerer 10…Bd6 as the “best”
defence for Black ("The life or death of this line" according
Jeremy Silman point of view).
** 10…Bd6 and now:
A.1) 11.b5 Nf6! (11…Ne7 12.bxc6 bxc6 13.Nexd5! seems strong: 13…cxd5 -
if 13...Nxd5 Silman give 14.Re1+ Kf8 15.Bc4 and now 15..Be6 16.Rxe6! and
Nxd5 with a powerful attack A.M. - 14.Nb5 and now old Fritz8
gave 14...Be5!? 15.f4! Bxa1 16.Nd6+ Kf8 17.Nxf7 Kxf7 with complicated
position so Black isn’t doing badly as far as material goes; Silman
analyzes 18.Ba3 not a bad move, but I prefer 18.c4! and Black has
still a playable position though a tough's one. American player also note
14..Qf6 15.Bb2 Qxb2 16.Nd6+ Kd7 17.Nxc8 but I don't see any thing !, after
17..Rxc8 yes indeed Black position is ugly but still playable, he has
an extra piece only for one pawn !? Probably are betters 17.Rb1 Qf6 18.Ne4 or
17.Nf7!? Rf8 18.Qg4+ Ke8 19.Nd6+ Kd8 20.Nxc8 Nxc8 21.Rab1 - A.M.-) 12.bxc6 (12.Nf5 Bxf5 13.Bxf5 0-0 - A.M.-) 12...bxc6 13.Nexd5?! (I prefer any
other move though Black will play soon the castle and get the equality -
A.M.-) 13...cxd5! (13…Nxd5 14.Re1+
gives White more than enough for the sacrificed piece, Silman) and White have
not anything.
A.2) 11.Nexd5 cxd5 and now the order
of the moves is very important, so we have the following possibilities:
A.2.a) 12.Nb5 Bc7 (12...Bxb4?! of
Rosenstielke-Koudelka, cr. e-mail 5th. LG World Ch. final, 2005/06 one of the
first games with this variation, is very risky. Now 13.c3 a6
- 13...Bf8 14.Re1+ Kd8 15.Bc4! Nf6 16.Bg5 - 14.Qa4 axb5 15.Qxa8 Bd6
16.Re1+ Kf8 17.Ba3; but I suggest as very interesting 12...Qd7!? - A.M.-) 13.Re1+
Kf8 14.Nxc7 Qxc7
15.c4 Nd7 unclear.
A.2.b) 12.Re1+ (best) 12...Ne7 and we are transposing to the next
chapter under B.3; if
instead Black retreat his King, he will have admit a powerful attack:
*
12...Kd8 13.Bc4 (or 13.Be4) 13...Nf6 14.Bxd5 Qh5 15.Bf4 Qxd1 16.Raxd1 Bxb4
17.Bxb7+ Nbd7 18.Bxa8 Bxc3 19.Re3 as Melchor-Paiva Moreira, cr. e-mail LADAC
thema sf. 1, 2008
*
12...Kf8 13.Bc4 Nc6 (13...Nf6 14.Nxd5 Bxh2+ 15.Kxh2 Ng4+ 16.Qxg4! Bxg4 17.b5
Be6 18.Ba3+ Ke8 19.Rxe6+ Kd8 20.Be7+ - also 20.Rae1- 20...Kc8 21.Re4 with
attack, Hiarcs10) 14.Nxd5 until here Rosenstielke-Rouzaud, cr. e-mail 5th. LG
World Ch. final, 2005/06 another of the first games with 10.b4, and now besides
of game's move 14...Nf6? 15.Nxf6+ Qxf6 16.Bb2 +-, is a bit better 14..Be6 15.b5
or 14...Rb8 15.Bb2 b5 16.Bb3 but with a clear advantage and dangerous
initiative for White in both lines.
B.1) 11.Re1! is by far the most critical response:
CRITICAL
POSITION
11…Ne7 12.Nexd5 cxd5 13.Nb5 0-0 14.Nxd6 Qxf2+ 15.Kh1 Bg4
16.Qd2
and now so both 16…Qxd2 17.Bxd2 and 16…Qh4 17.Bb2 are terrible, Black must to
choose 16…Qf6 and
paradoxically we have transposed to a very known line from another
move order (9...Bd6 10.Re1 Ne7 11.Nexd5! cxd5 12.Nb5 0-0 13.Nxd6 Qxf2+ 14.Kh1
Bg4 15.Qd2 Qh4 with the Strautins' idea of 16.b4! preparing to bring his bishop
to the a1-h8 diagonal, whilst at the same time b4-b5 can be a useful resource) 17.Qg5! where Black’s
getting stomped. Some examples:
B.1.a) 17…Qxa1? 18.Qxg4
is simply winning for White, 18...Nbc6 (18..Qf6 19.Bg5 Qxd6 20.Bxe7 Re8
21.Bxh7+ Kxh7 22.Qh5+ Qh6 23.Qxe8 +- analysis by Viljams Strelis and also
played in Sireta-Zaniratti, cr. e-mail 5th. LG World Ch. gr. F, 2002
B.1.b) 17..Qxg5 18.Bxg5
Nec6 19.b5 Nb4 20.Be7 Rf2 21.Bh4! Fritz8 (or 21.Rf1 of Strautins, V)
B.1.c) 17..Nbc6 -
relatively best - 18.Qxg4 Qxd6 and now:
*
19.Re6 Qxb4 20.Qxb4 (20.Qh3 Ng6 21.Bg5 Qc3 with a small plus for Black (Borrmann-Gnirk, cr. ICCF thematic, 2000/01) 20...Nxb4 21.Rxe7 Nxd3 22.Ba3 Nf2+
23.Kg1 Ng4 24.Rxb7 Rf7 is equal according Hiarcs10
* 19.Bd2
Bf7 (19...Ng6? 20.Re6 is worse) 20.Re6 Qc7 Melchor-Gnirk, cr. ICCF thematic,
2001/02 and now instead of game's move 21.b5?! Ne5 etc. I myself suggest
21.Rae1 Raf8 22.Bc3 with advantage.
*
19.Bb2 (the natural move and by far the most played at present) 19...Rf7 20.a3
(or 20.Qh3!? h6 21.a3) 20...Ng6 (if 20..Raf8 21.b5 Nb8 - 21...Nd8 22.a4 with
idea Ba3- 22.Be5 Qd7 23.Qxd7 Nxd7 24.Bd6 Re8 25.Re6) 21.Re6 (also 21.Bf5!? Qf4
22.Be6 Qxg4 23.Bxg4 with advantage, played by John Elburg in two of his
games) 21...Qf4 22.Qh5 with advantage was played three times with
wins for White in all cases
Since all this is obviously unplayable for
us, Latvian fanatics!, few years ago I myself had placed my hopes on Black’s
last possibility: 11…Ne7
12.Nexd5 cxd5 13.Nb5 Bxb4 (instead of 13…0-0).
BLACK’S “LAST”
HOPE
White now has three ways to play the
position:
C.1.a) our hands slipped
with 14.Nc7+ Kd8 15.Nxa8
Bxe1 16.Qxe1 Nbc6
when Black’s King will always be a source of discomfort, but White’s Knight is
trapped and in many lines won’t get out alive. White’s chances are probably
better, but it’s by no means clear how big that advantage will turn out to be. 17.Bg5 (17.Rb1 b6 18.a4
Bb7 19.Nxb6 axb6 20.Rxb6 Nc8 21.Rb1 and now, instead of 21...Nd6 which after
22.f3 leaves White with some compensation for the sacrificed piece according
Jeremy Silman, I suggest 21..h6 avoiding Bg5+, or even 21..Re8 or 21..Ba8!? and
Black is resolving their problems !). In this point, Silman only analyzes
17...Be6 proposing 18.Rb1!?, 18.Qe3!?, and 18.Bh4!?, but I would suggest 17...Bd7!? as more accurate and even totally best
!. We see:
* 18.Rb1 h6
(18..Kc8?! is dangerous 19.Qe3 Nf5 20.Qf4 Be6 21.Qa6 menacing Ba6!) 19.Bxe7+
Qxe7 20.Qxe7+ Kxe7 21.Nc7 Kd6 22.Rxb7 Ne5 23.Bb5 Rc8 24.Bxd7 Kxd7 25.Na6+ Kd6
26.f4 Ng6
*
18.f3 h6 19.Bh4 g5 20.Bg3 Nf5 21.Nc7 Nxg3 22.Qxg3 Qf6 23.Re1 Nb4 24.Ne6+ Bxe6
25.Qd6+ Kc8 26.Qxb4 Rd8
Of
course it will have many other lines all need to be analyzed though I don’t
have the time to do the position justice – perhaps a reader will find
something? ...).
C.1.b) 14.Bd2 (!) (If 14.Nc7+ doesn’t lead to a serious advantage, then this simple and safe move should be enough.) 14…0-0 15.Bxb4 Nbc6 (15…Qxf2+?? 16.Kh1 leaves Black’s pieces hanging to threats like Bxe7 and/or Nc7. Silman) 16.Bxe7 Nxe7 17.Nc7 Rb8 18.Qe2 Nc6 (18...Ng6 is weaker 19.Nxd5 Bf5 20.Bc4 Kh8 21.Bb3 Rbe8 24.Qf3 Ne5 25.Qf4 Ng6 26.Qc7! –A.M.-) 19.Nxd5 Bf5 20.Bc4 Kh8 21.Ne3 and a forced series of moves has left White with a solid extra pawn, analysis by Silman again. After 21...Be6 22.Rad1 etc. this series of moves was tested in Melchor-Elburg, cr. e-mail, 2008, where White has a small advantage.
But in this point, for instance after 21..Be6
22.Rad1 Rbe8 Hiarcs11 only give a slight advantage!; in fact, it must be better for White, but Black has chances to
exchange the queenside pawns and draw the resulting 3 vs. 2 on the kingside
situation as is usual in other lines as 10.Na4 Bd6 11.c4 Ne7 12.cxd5 cxd5
13.Nc3 0-0 or 3.Nxe5 Nf6 4.exf5. Another chance is in 20th. move if
White try 20.Bxf5 Qxf5 21.Rad1 (Elburg-Melchor, cr. e-mail, 2008) and now not
logical 21..Rbe8 so 22.Qxe8! ( I. Terenin ), if not 21...Qg6 or 21...Rbd8; perhaps even 19...Bd7!? preparing Rbe8
and personally
I like for White this position than Silman’s previous one, but Black is solid
and he has solved the worst of it.
C.1.c) 14.Rb1! played first time in Schmid-Domingo, FICGS e-mail,
2009 and quoted at http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1194567910/30 by Igor Terenin seems ruinous for Black so Rook on e1 is safe ( if not
Nd6+). For instance, a game Melchor-Paiva Moreira, cr. e-mail, LADAC thematic
Final, 2010 continued: 14..0-0 15.Rxb4 Qxf2+ 16.Kh1 Nbc6 17.Be3 Qf6 18.Rf4 +- (decisive
advantage) 18..Qxf4 (18..Bf5 19.Bxf5 Nxf5 20.Bc5) 19.Bxf4 Rxf4 20.Nc7
Bg4 21.Bxh7+! Kh8 (21..Kxh7 22.Qd3+ Bf5 23.Qg3) 22.Qc1 Raf8 23.Bd3 etc.
(1-0, 39 moves)
The Latvian gambit by Karlis Betins
KEMERI TOURNAMENT,
1937
Translation from
Latvian to English by
Kon Grivainis/Val
Zemitis
The Latvian Gambit is
an opening, where black after 1 e4
e5 2 Nf3 responds with 2...f5. This name to
the opening was granted by FIDE
because of the widespread research
that was done in Latvia. Although in
some variations positional type of
play takes place, the Gambit has the chief
characteristic that usually after a few
moves a complicated, combinatory game
starts. Often black manages to overcome
his difficulties with various tactical
swindles. Strategic considerations often
disappear and tactics dominate. Often white
is about to win, when black finds
saving resources. The main disadvantage of
the Gambit however are, first, that in
many variations white has a considerably
superior development, and second, that
black cannot avoid variations that lead
to a forced draw. But, as a draw by black is
theoretically acceptable, the
Gambit has its value.
What are the Gambit’s prospects? Will its only value be as an academic discussion by theoreticians, or will it be usable not only in correspondence play but also in over‑the‑board play? The answer will be forthcoming once the theory is better understood. Until that happens players may feel unwilling to commit themselves to unknown, risky variations and select instead the well known, safe openings, of which there is no shortage. So below I will introduce the reader with those finds that have come forth in the forty years since I commenced my research. That research I started because around year 1900 chess theoreticians, in particular the well known GM Dr S Tarrasch, were doubtful as to the manner in which the defense is to be organized in the Spanish game and its four knights variations, because the previous years results clearly showed that white were better of, and black’s choice of this opening was quite risky. That made me get started in searching for alternate defenses to the Spanish 2 ... Nc6. I did not like the Russian defense 2 ... Nf6 either, so my thoughts turned to 2...f5, which the available theory had rejected as insufficient and not worthwhile discussing. ‑ Here I should add, that the doubts about the solidness of the Spanish game proved baseless and it is as sound as ever.
The first research into 2 ...f5 was unpromising and only shear persistence revealed that many of the prevalent objections were quite baseless. I also became aware that I had undertaken a big task indeed and to fathom all the complications required endless hours. When asked why I persisted, I can only make the comparison between going for a walk on a well paved road, as against choosing a mountain path instead: many of us choose the latter. There is also the satisfaction of mastering a particularly difficult subject.
In practical play the gambit has shown good results to date, particularly in correspondence chess. This was particularly so in the correspondence match between the Swedish Chess Federation and the Seniors klub of Riga. The present chairman of the Latvian Chess Association prof. Dr Arv. Kalnins made the initial contact in 1934, on which the Swedish Chess Federation agreed to play 4 games (later a fifth one was added) with the white pieces, using different variations. Separate Stockholms klubs were chosen with well known Swedish masters in the forefront. The Seniors klub selected a committee to conduct the play. Under my leadership the klubs best players of prof. Dr. A. Kalnins, architect P Dreimanis, A Kannenbergs and composer Emils Melngailis went into battle. After 2 years play the result was surprising: Riga won three games, while the other two games were drawn! Of course, that does not mean that in the “Latvian Gambit” we have found the only answer to the moves 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3. On the contrary, I accept that that the solid 2 ... Nc6 is certainly not a worse answer. Of course, this cannot be finally answered by superficial comments or casual analysis in various publications, as is unfortunately happening.
The following theoretical variations should by no means be considered as final, but rather as a try to establish the gambit as a serious and sound opening, presenting the main variations and tested lines on which the idea of the gambit rests in an organized manner.
What did they think about LG
WHAT DID THEY
THINK ABOUT THE LATVIAN GAMBIT
by Frantz Destrebecq
Its always an advantage to exchange the
pawn of your King’s Bishop against the King’s pawn of your opponent; because by
this way your King’s and your Queen’s pawn can occupy the center of the board.
Moreover, in castling on the Kingside, your rook can come into the action from
the beginning of the game. — Philidor, 1749.
According to K Betins, who I am inclined to
believe, this move is perfectly playable. Actually, I don’t know any refutation
of it. — Aaron Nimzowich.
This counter-attack is more violent than
any other; therefore she is more easily refutable. — Reuben Fine
Practice showed that, despite of the first
impression, the Latvian Gambit is not easy to refute, and in some cases Black
even get good attacking chances. — Paul Keres
The Black counter-attack on the White
center is premature and generally leaves White with a considerable advance of
development. — Fred Reinfeld
Although the actual judgment of theory
favors White, it is not easy for them to refute the opening of Black. — Alexei
Suetin
...
one of the most infamous openings of Chess. — Tim Harding
In the Latvian Gambit Black’s King lands on
d8 60% of all games, on d7 25 %, and in the remaining 15% Black only loses in
the endgame. — Kenneth Kirby
The best thing about the Latvian Gambit is
that it is not as bad as its refutation. There are a couple of lines that give
White a small advantage, but no more, — Jonny Hector
....if the LG is playable in correspondence
chess, where the antagonists have access to theoretical works and further,
where both White and Black are themselves experts on the opening, then how much
more effective it will be over-the-board with the clock ticking away? The
Latvian Gambit is the practical opening par excellence.” — Tony Kosten
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
The LG personalities
THE LATVIAN GAMBIT
PERSONALITIES
by Franz Destrebecq (
with Alejandro’s Melchor notes added )
Andersen, Borge 1934-
Champion of Denmark 1950/
67/68/73, International Master since 1964. He is the co-author, with H Nielsen,
of the excellent booklet “Lettisk Gambit”, 1973.
Apsenieks, Fricis (also known as Apscheneek) 1894-1941.
Champion of
Latvia 1927/34. He participated with Latvia in seven Chess Olympiads being second
best result in the Olympiad of Paris 1924. He played some LG, but with not very
good results.
Atars, Pablo (Pavils), 1904-1976.
Venezuelan
player of Latvian origin. An international Greco-Roman wrestler in his young
days. Organizer of the famous “Betins Memorial” Latvian Gambit correspondence
tournaments from 1967. He tried many new ideas in the Latvian Gambit.
Betins, Karlis (also known as Behting), 1867-1943.
“Father of
Latvian Chess”, he devoted almost his whole life in studying 2..f5, and found
innumerable ideas about this opening. It is largely thanks to his efforts that
the opening starting with 1e4 e5 2Nf3 f5
was renamed from “Greco Counter Gambit” to the “Latvian Gambit” by FIDE in
1937.
He started publishing his analysis in 1909 in a St-Petersburg
newspaper and published many articles subsequently. He was the leader of the Latvian
players during the well known postal match between the clubs of Riga and Stockholm
(1934-36). He also composed some studies. He died March 28. 1943.
Bilguer, Paul Rudolf (also Von Bilguer, Bilger), 1813-1840.
An influential
German player at the beginning of the 19th Century. Member of the “Berlin School ”
(with Von der Lasa, Mayet, Hanstein, Bledow, etc), who systematically tested
the LG 2..f5 during the summer of 1839.
Bilguer and Von der Lasa are authors of the
famous “Handbuch des Schachspiels”, the first encyclopedia of chess openings.
Bilguer started to write it, and after his untimely death his work was
completed by Von der Lasa. The first edition was published in 1843, then
followed 7 other issues: the sixth was (1880) supervised by Schwede, the 7th
(1891) by Schallop, and the eighth in 1916 by Schlechter. Finally two more
revisions were published: by Mieses in 1921, and by Kmoch in 1929.
Blackburne, Joseph Henry 1841-1924
Champion of
Great Britain 1868, one of the strongest British players between 1870 and 1914.
He won many tournaments and defeated Zukertort in a match in 1887. He
introduced many new ideas in the openings and was a specialist of the Scottish
game. In the LG he introduced the gambit (3Bc4 fxe4 4Nxe5) Nf6?!, later advocared by the
Argentinian player V Ortiz.
Budovskis, Inesis 1948-
IM CC Latvian player – although he don’t play
from eight years ago -, he introduced the important line (3Nxe5 Qf6 4Nc4 fxe4
5Nc3 Qf7 6Ne3 c6) 7d3! in 1970. He has played in many LG correspondence
tournaments over the years and his results indicate that he is one of the very
strongest LG practitioners; f.i. he won the Final of the first “Betins Mem.”
Cozio, Carlo Francesco 1715-1780
Italian Count,
player of the 18th century. He wrote a two volume book about chess:
“Il Giuoco degli Scacchi”; which was printed in 1766, but there was already a
manuscript in 1740, thus before Philidor and others. In his book Cozio quoted
the line 3Nxe5 Qf6 4Nc4 fxe4 5Nc3 Qe6. Cozio’s book was one of the most
important sources for the “Handbuch” by Bilguer.
Crusi More, Ramón 1926-2013
Dadian of Mingrelia (Prince of Mingrelia), Andre 1850-1910
(Mingrelia is a province of Georgia , “Dadian” means “Prince”). He
often played the 3...f5 gambit. He published many short, brilliant ...and
spurious games against well-known (and impecunious !) players of his time. He
was the organizer of the 1903 tournament in Monte Carlo , - where drawn games were
penalized!
Damiano, Pedro 1485?-1565?
Portuguese apothecary,
in 1512 he published in Rome the first book about chess in the Italian
language. He analyzed the line 1e4 e5 2Nf3 f6? 3Nxe5", and introduced the
classical defense with 2 ... Nc6. He was also the first to quote the gambit 2...f5.
Diemer, Emil Joseph 1908-1990
German master
and famous tactician. He improved and popularized the Blackmar gambit 1d4 d5
2e4 (known as the “Blackmar-Diemer gambit now, but with the move order of 2Nc3
Nf6 3e4!? dxe4 4f3!), playing innumerable games over the board and by
correspondence. He was also a chess writer and chronicler. His book “Vom ersten
Zug an auf Matt!” (published in
1957) was a great success. He was interested in the Latvian Gambit and
introduced several new ideas, especially the important line 9.. c6!
(around 1953) in the Keres variation (3Bc4 fxe4 4Nxe5 Qg5 5d4! etc.).
Diepstraten, Leo C M 1925-
President of the
Dutch Correspondence Chess Association and Director of the “Max Euwe Chess Center ”
in Amsterdam .
He did an enormous amount of Latvian Gambit orientated historical research, and
collected all the games that he could find about the Latvian Gambit (he found
many old games in the Royal Library of Den Haag). He published the result of
this work in 3 volumes (and 4883 games) under the title ”Lettisch Gambiet”; the first volume (3Nxe5)
in 1993, the second with 3Bc4 in 1996, and third one in 1997 (various White
third moves, and History).
Downey, Michael.1958-
USA medical podiatrist, he won the first LG World Ch. He first played in a Latvian Gambit thematic in 1978 after he had read in an article that a young player could learn tactics better by playing a gambit opening.
Dreibergs, Leonids 1908-1969
Champion of Riga
1939, champion of Michigan 1954 and 1955 and member of the USA Olympic
Correspondence Chess Team. He was considered by many to be the successor of
Betins’ Latvian Gambit analysis team of Riga, playing the Latvian Gambit frequently
and he was the inventor of the interesting line 10 .. e3!? in the Keres
variation.
Elburg, John 1952-
Dutch player,
dedicated to the Latvian Gambit. He organized many LG postal tournaments since
1989, culminating this with the “Latvian Gambit World Championship”
tournaments, the first of which started in 1994, the second in 1997. From 1990
he published a little bulletin “The Latvian Newsletter” for the “fans” of the
Gambit. He is the co-author (with K Grivainis) of 2 booklets “The Latvian
Gambit Made Easy” (1991) and “New Developments in the LG” in 1998.
Fraser, George Brunton 1831-1905
Scottish player
and chronicler from Dundee . Co-inventor (with
Henrik Muller and S A Sorensen) of the variation (3Nxe5) Nc6 in 1873; he was
also the first (1875) to quote the very important line (3Bc4 fxe4 4Nxe5 d5
5Qh5+ g6 6Nxg6) hxg6! although this idea
became popular only a century later.
Greco, Gioachino 1600-1634
Grivainis, Konstantins (Kon) V 1926-
American of
Latvian origin, he lived in several countries (Sweden, South Africa, England.
Canada,USA, Saudi Arabia, Spain), WCCF Grandmaster, he won the first WCCF World
Championship Tournament started in 1992. He also played for the South African
team in the Olympiad of Munich in 1958 (scoring 9 points of 15), where his
Latvian Gambit produced a winning position against the American GM Evans in 14
moves, although later on he lost the
game. He has published a book about the LG (USA 1985), two booklets (1991 and
1998) and some articles.
Gunderam, Gerhardt 1904-2002
Imaginative
player and analyst from East-Germany. He produced many analysis about the LG,
in both his booklet “Neue Eroffnungswege” (first edition in 1961, second,
revised in 1972) and as a prolific analyst, writer and co-editor of the
American magazine “Latvian Gambit-Chess World” (in both English and Latvian).
He introduced the new defense (3Nxe5 Qf6 4Nc4 fxe4 5Nc3) Qf7!. He also analyzed
deeply the Blackmar-Diemer gambit, the four pawns attack in the Kings-Indian,
and some other eccentric openings
Hector, Jonny 1964-
Swedish
Grandmaster, well known for his imaginative play. He was probably the only
professional player to play the LG regular and successfully over the board.
Hempel, Jutta 1960-
Famous German
infant prodigy. Born in Flensburg Sept. 27, 1960 she learned chess at the age
of 3 years, then she played succesfully simultaneous games at the age of 6 and appeared
several times on television during the years 1966/8. She liked the LG very much
and played in the Betins Memorial tournaments.
Kalnins, Arvids 1894-1981
Latvian player;
professor and academist. He worked with Betins and introduced the move 5Be2 in
the line 3d4.
Keres, Paul 1916-1975
Famous Estonian
Grandmaster. Born in Narva the 7th of January 1916. He won
innumerable tournaments. He was the first ex-aequo (with R Fine) in the famous AVRO tournament
in 1938, but could not meet with the World Champion (Alekhine) because of the
second World War. Then he was 3 times Champion of the USSR
(1947/50/51), and 6 times Candidate to the World Title. He was interested by
the Latvian Gambit in his youth and produced deep analysis of the line 3Bc4
fxe4 4Nxe5 Qg5 5d4! In his book “Malekool”, 1936. He was also the inventor of
an important line in the Sicilian. He published several opening books and
composed problems. He died 5th
June 1975.
Kosten, Tony 1958-
Well known
British Grandmaster. He published several excellent opening books, including
one about the Philidor defence (one chapter is consecrated to the Philidor
Countergambit 1e4 e5 2Nf3 d5 3Bc4 f5), and another two editions about the LG
(Batsford Ltd.). T. Kosten was the first Grandmaster who analysed seriously the
Latvian Gambit since P.Keres; his book is the best published until now. T. Kosten lives in Chamalieres , France .
Kozlov, Vassily F 1936-1997
He was one of
the most active LG players. He was USSR Candidate Master and really his chess
level was very strong and excellent analyst too. He tested many new ideas. In
his professional life he was chemical engineer, living in Saint Petersburg and
beside chess he was an excellent violoncellist in an amateur orchestra. He
participated in many initial Betins Memorials and he dead while he was playing
in II LG World Ch.
Krantz, Kjell 1942-
Lasa, Tassilo von Heydebrand und der 1818-1899
Prussian Baron
and diplomat. He was one of the strongest players of the world in the middle of
the 19th Century.He won matches against Loventhal 1846, Jaenisch and
even Staunton
in 1853.He was also a pionier of the openings theory, and was the main author
of the famous “Handbuch des Schachspiels”,
1843. Besides, he was an excellent historian of chess and wrote “Zur Geschichte
und Literatur des Schachspiels” in 1897.
Lein, Anatoly 1931-
American player
of Russian origin, Grandmaster since 1968. Champion of Moscow 1971; won several great tournaments.
He was co-author (with S. Pickard) of a
book about the LG (USA
1995).
Leonardo da Cutrie, Giovanni 1542-1587
Called “il
Puttino” because of his little height. He was a student in Roma and was
passionated about chess. In 1574 he was defeated by the famous Ruy Lopez
(1530-1580) who visited Roma. The he worked chess during almoust 2 years and
fighted against Paolo Boi (1528-1598). Then he went to Madrid and beat Lopez in a famous tournament
in 1575. After that he was regarded as the strongest player of his time.
According to Polerio, he often played the move 2 ... f5, and introduced the
line (3Nxe5) Qe7. He was poisoned by a rival in Italy .
Leonhardt, Paul Saladin 1877-1934
German master,
first in Hilversum 1903, Hamburg
1905, Copenhagen
1907, and 3rd in Karlsbad 1907. Won a match against Nimcovic in
1911. Excellent theorist. In 1927 he wrote an article where he recommended the
tactical line 3Nxe5 Qf6 4Nc4 (however this line was already quoted by Cozio in
1766 and by Em. Lasker in 1904).
Liepnieks, Aleksandrs 1908-1973
American player
of Latvian origin. He started the magazine “Latvian Gambit-Chess World”. An
excellent chess organizer, he was also a Vice-President of the US Chess
Federation.
Lobato, J. Manuel
Mexican player,
author of the booklet “El contragambito de Greco” (Puebla 1914).
Mackenzie, Gearges Henry 1837-1891
Brilliant
American player. He drew with Burn in 1886, 1st in Frankfurt 1887, 2nd
in Bradford 1888. Champion of the USA
from 1881 to 1885.
Matisons (also Mattison), Hermanis 1894-1932
Latvian player.
1st board of the Latvian team in Paris Olympiad 1924 and best
individual result on first board. Champion of Latvia 1924. Tied for 1st
in Bartfeld 1926, 3rd in Den Haag 1928. He is best remembered for
his endgame studies.
Matsukevich, Anatoly 1938-
Russian Master.
He published several opening books about the Evans, Marshall and Budapest
Gambits. Also “Seltene Gambits” in 1989, this book including some good analysis
about the LG.
Mestel, Jonathan 1957-
Grandmaster
since 1982, Champion of Great
Britain 1976, 1983 and 1988. He won several
brilliant games with the Philidor
Countergambit 2.. d6 3Bc4 f5. and caused a revival of this forgotten gambit.
Mlotkowski, Stanislas 1881-1943
Mlotkowski, Stanislas 1881-1943
Moller, Henrik 1814-1880
Danish player
and clergyman. He popularized the romantic line (3Nxe5) Nc6! (Not to be confused with J. Moller, inventor
in 1898 of a famous line in the Italian game).
Morgado, Juan Sebastian 1947-
Argentinian, ICCF Grandmaster. He took second place
in the ICCF World Championship tournament in 1984 and was editor of several
chess magazines of South-America. He played the LG many times, and
(re)introduced the line 3Bc4 Nf6!? 4Nxe5 Qe7 (already quoted by Polerio) into the practice. Together with Grobe and
Budoksis, he was certainly one
of the first major players who understood the various variations well enough to
hardly ever lose a game as the black player.
Petrovs (also Petrov),
Born in Riga in a Russian family
the 27th September 1908. Four times Champion of Latvia, 1931/5/7/9.
Grandmaster of the Latvian Federation, 1st in Helsinki
and tied 1st in Kemeri 1937, 1st in Rosario , Argentina
in 1939. Represented Latvia
in 7 Olympiads. 73% on first board in Buenos-Aires Olympiad. 10th
(of 20) in the Soviet Championship in 1940. Denounced for having criticized the situation in
annexed Latvia ,
he was condemned to 10 years of work-camp ...and died on the way on 24th
August 1943.
Philidor, (also Francois-Andre Danican) 1726-1795
Born in Dreux. A
chess genius and the strongest player of his century. He revolutionized chess concepts
by showing the importance of pawns, and published his famous book “L’analyse du
jeu des echecs” in 1849, a
second completed issue appeared in 1777.
The name of Philidor is linked to the solid defence 1e4 e5 2Nf3 d6 (one line in
this is the Philidor Countergambit 3Bc4 f5). At the beginning of the
French Revolution he emigrated to London , where he died. He
was also a famous musician who wrote many operas.
Polerio, Guilio Cesare 1548-1612
Pupil of
Leonardo. Theorist, he analysed some lines, like the King’s Gambit and the
Fegatello attack (two Knights defence). He also analyzed some endgames. In the
Latvian Gambit (not yet called that!) he analyzed several important lines, like
3exf5 d6; 3Nxe5 Qe7; 3Nxe5 Qf6 4d4 d6
5Nc4 fxe4 6Nc3; 3Bc4 Nf6 4Nxe5 Qe7; and even 3Bc4 fxe4 4Nxe5 d5 5Qh5+ g6 6Nxg6
Nf6.
Pupols, Viktors 1934-
American National
Master (OTB) of Latvian/Estonian origin, very strong player. Famous for his
Latvian Gambit victory against R. Fischer in 1955. He introduced several new
ideas in the LG, including 11Qg5! in the Keres-variation; and the sharp
piece sacrifice (3d4 fxe4 4Nxe5 Nf6 5Bg5 d6) 6Nc3!? A booklet was
consecrated to him: “Victors Pupols, American master”, by Larry Parr (USA
1983)
Purins, Ojars Leonhards 1925-2009
American, of Latvian
origin. He has participated in many LG tournaments, and after the death of
Pablo Atars he continued the running of the “Betins Memorial” tournaments, and
organised the “Atars Memorial” tournaments. Several of his LG games were
published in the “Informator”.He has ICCF GM title.
Schlechter, Karl 1874-1918
Sorensen,Soren Anton 1840-1896
Danish player,
co-inventor of the line 3Nxe5 Nc6!?. He published some articles about this
line.
Strautins, Vilnis 1939-
Latvian, ICCF IM.
A musician of the highest caliber, first violin in the Riga philharmonic
Orchestra, Professor of the Riga Musical academy. Inventor of the wild line
(3Bc4) b5?! He has played in many
LG correspondence tournaments winning even the second LG World Ch.
Svedenborg, Paul 1947-
Champion of Norway
1966 and 1967. He (re)introduced the critical line (3Bc4 fxe4 4Nxe5 d5 5Qh5+ g6
6Nxg6) hxg6 and won a famous game Blomberg-Svedenborg in 1970. After 7Qxh8
he discoverd the new move 7...Kd7!
(instead of Fraser’s 7...Ke7), and published some analysis about this variation
in the magazine “Postsjakk” in 1971.
Tiemann, Hagen 1934-
German player,
ICCF IM. He played several times for the East-German team in the ICCF Olympics.
and also many times LG and publishing a quite detailed booklet (with H. Vetter
as co-author): “Lettisches Gambit” in 1989 and second edition few years later.
Vitomskis, Janis 1936-2009
Latvian player
and journalist. Commercial director “Sahs Baltija” and Editor of “Latvian
Correspondence Chess and Latvian Gambit”. He edited articles about the LG and
has played it frequently.
West, James R 1951-
US master and
chess journalist of New Jersey .
He published an excellent booklet: “The Philidor Countergambit” in 1994,
including his own (and succesfull!) experiments with this gambit. Later he
published a complete book: “The Dynamic Philidor Countergambit” (Chess Digest,
1996), with more analysis and games. He has a curious web woith many notes of
the PCG at http://jimwestonchess.blogspot.com.es/
Zemgalis Elmars 1923-2014
A US master. He
was a top youth player in Latvia and in 1949 he tied for first with Bogolubov
in an International Tournament in Oldenburg, Germany. He never pursued chess
seriously since, but he was the co-editor with Gunderam of Liepnieks’ “Sacha
Pasaule-Chess World” Latvian Gambit section. In 2003 he was awarded as Honorary
GM title by FIDE. John Donaldson wrote a book in 2001 on his chess career: “Elmars Zemgalis: Grandmaster without the title”. A long article of his life can be reached at http://www.ajedrezdeataque.com/04%20Articulos/45%20Zemgalis/Elmars.htm
(in Spanish) and his obituary at http://de.chessbase.com/post/elmars-zemgalis-9-9-1923-8-12-2014 (in German) and http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/seattletimes/obituary.aspx?pid=173726015 in a USA journal of Seattle.
Zemitis, Voldemars (Val) 1925-2012
US master of Latvian origin, few
individuals had had a longer involvement with USA Californian chess than Val. Zemitis achieved his
best result at the 1954 California Open in Santa Barbara where he drew with both
Kashdan and Steiner while tying for second. He spoke four languages fluently
and collaborated as Latvian chess historian writing a two volume Encyclopedia
of Latvian chess players. During the last decade of his life Val was the
publisher and contributor to the journal “Latvian correspondence and Latvian
gambit magazine”. He introduced the curious line 3d4 fxe4 4Nfd2!? in our
LG.
For this index we have selected the names
of the players who had some influence on the development of the LG, by writing a
book or booklet, or as inventors of a variation, or as organizers of
tournaments, etc. Especially we selected many players of the past. But of
course many other contemporary players worked on the LG, or played it
systematically (especially in corr. games); we can mention Harijs Gabrans,
Eriks Krustkalns, Jurijs Arhipkins, Viljams Strelis (all latvians), Nikolaj
Kampars, (USA), Ernst Grobe (Germany), Wolfgang Stamer, Kurt Stummer (+), Fritz
Borrmann (all germans), Alejandro Melchor (Spain), Thomas Svendsen (+,Switzerland),
Graham Clarke (England), Sture Nyman (Sweden) etc.
This list is not exhaustive and certainly we
forgot many names!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)