Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Betins biography

              KARLIS BETINS (1867-1943)

From “Sachs Latvija lidz 1940. Gadam”, “Chess in Latvia to 1940".

     Translation by K Grivainis

Karlis was born 27 Oct 1867 on the family farm named “Betini” in the Berzmuiza Municipality. He was raised within a chessplaying circle, his both brothers being top players at the time.
   The youngest Roberts Betins (1875-) won the Baltic Chess Champions Title in the first Baltic Chess Congress tournament in 1899, but he did not participate in tournaments later. He also composed some interesting Endings with a special “catch”.
  The eldest, Janis (born 1856), became known within the European circles as one of the best composers of chess endings. The art was not too widespread in those days, and the only well known names were Kling and Horvitz. Around 1890 Janis started to break new ground in paying greater attention to the principles of economy, but in particular he took his problems to a greater depth. His problems, although quantitatively he did not produce too many, were acclaimed for their captivating development and depth, and were partly responsible for the subsequent growth of this branch of chess.
  Many Rigans followed Janis enterprising talents. Dr. Phil. J. Zevers became a well known Endings composer and he published his work in a book. These Endings were lighter in style, but appealing. Then came the unforgettable H. Matisons, whose creative Endings earned top prizes in many European tourneys (most of them being included in the book mentioned in the title). In addition, the brothers Platovs and brothers Kubelis were acclaimed for their composing art. It is certain that the Rigans of those days were in forefront in developing the art of endgame compositions and from there it spread to the rest of the chess world.
  Karlis Betins was introduced to chess at about 13, and he also started composing. Soon he was mastering the art and in about 1890 a “mate in 3" ending of his won a prize in a “Munch. N.Nachr.” tournament. A delegation from the “First Riga Chess Club” (1. Rigas Sacha Biedriba) invited him to join. Here he was in touch with many of the best players of the time, and this gave Betins an excellent overall chess education. In the Club’s 10 year jubilee tournament 1900/1 he was ready and he came first. Second place went to P Bols, third/fourth P Kerkoviuss and St. Mikutovics, fifth T Germanis, and then V. Zamuels and E. Vagenheims. Karlis also kept progressing in his compositions, winning prizes regularly in the European tournaments.
  Around this time he discovered his best field: correspondence chess. He lost some games to start with (vs. Romaskevics, Chardins, Sifers), but later he never lost another game!! In matches he beat players like Chigorin, Shifers, Nimcovics, Iljin-Zenevski, etc. In team matches Betins became the leader of the teams.
   In the 2nd Baltic Championship in Tartu 1901 he won. He had become a top openings analyst and his published analysis were particularly utilised by H. Matisons, (e.g. vs L Steiner in the Olympiad in Hague; and A Aljekhin in the Olympiad in Prague). And soon he started devoting all his available time to the one opening: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5. As a result, FIDE renamed this opening to become “The Latvian Gambit”.

Monday, April 15, 2013

The Spanish Court and First Steps on Latvian Gambit



THE SPANISH COURT and FIRST STEPS ON LG
by Alejandro Melchor

It is generally accepted that the Moorish introduced chess in Europe when they conquered the Iberian Peninsula between the years 900 and 1000, although in the Arabic method of play.

The next reference arise from the rules collected by the King Alfonse X of Castille in 1283 (where it is already shown some new modality on the moves on the Queen and the Bishop which it would carry to the origin medieval chess). Familiarity with chess was already becoming a mark of culture; during Middle Age it was a favorite game at royal courts, and younger members of the nobility were often sent to court to complete their education. Chess was an item of the educational equipment; the pieces - horses, infantrymen, chariots, Kings, Queens - had logical places in the field of battle, so that knowledge of the rudiments of the game was thus acquired and transmitted as part of the general quest for learning on the part of the nobility.

In Italy, where “scachi” was a more democratic activity, the medieval universities provided Europe’s chief reservoir of popular learning, and while chess was certainly not on the curriculum of the college, it inevitably became part of the curriculum vitae of the visiting student. Italy was well situated to serve as nucleus from which chess love could spread homeland of such medieval learning and the center of Europe’s official religion. Italian players showed more willingness to experiment than their Spanish colleagues (presumably because they were less under Moslem cultural influence) and thus we find they were the first to adopt new rules that we accepted for the modern game (that is, the game in which Bishops and Queens have their extended moves, the double initial move of the pawns, the consistent castling practice, and the rule that the stalemate was a draw).

It is true that the first text detailing the modern game was written in Spain by Lucena in 1497, but Lucena himself asserts that his material came from Italy, thus modern chess was played there before 1500, but in Spain during the earliest decades of the sixteenth century.

In the book of Lucena, entitled “Repeticion de amores e arte de ajedrez con CL juegos de partido” there is still moves of pieces in the old manner (exactly 76), but in the other ones and especially in the openings, the pieces has moves according to the new rules (74) and their veritable importance, besides he is the first modern theorist of chess, is the quantity of remarkable ideas that he suggests.
According to the great chess historian H. Murray, Lucena is also the author of the famous Gottingen Manuscript, a 33 page essay in Latin written around 1500.

So, the 16th century is very important for chess of the Iberian Peninsula.... and for our Gambit. In 1512 the “Quest Libra e da impale gaucherie a Scachi et de le partita” was published, written by a Portugese apothecary called Damiano. The book was an overwhelming success — translated to 8 languages -- and it went through 7 editions before 1561. The rules of play are exactly like Lucena’s, as soon as some advices and problems — thus there are readers who believe that he plagiarized the Spanish author, but only changed the numeration and the order — , but our interest is that he considered there were only two reasonable openings, 1e4 and 1d4. According J M Lobato (in”El Gambito de Greco”, 1914) citing H. Staunton, our Gambit looks like arise from Damiano and T. Kosten is of the same opinion (“The Latvian Gambit”, 1995, page 5). I myself cannot verify it, as he described an opening in which a pawn was sacrificed for the sake of better position, but in 1561, Ruy Lopez wrote another book in which he described this pawn sacrifice as “el gambito” (it seems it was the move 2 ... f6), but he himself refuted it drastically in his analysis. The word “gambito” created by the Spanish master means “trap”, it derives from the Italian “gambetto”, the name seems appropriate for any type of opening in which the opponent is offered a pawn as bait, and by the early 16th century it was used to describe pawn sacrifice openings. Ruy Lopez, who justly criticized much of Damiano’s mediocre openings analysis, was a priest born approx.1540 in Zafra, Extremadura and was considered the leading player of that century. His chess ability gave him International fame and he was one of the favorites in the court of Philip II. In 1560 he went to Rome on ecclesiastical business and while there defeated all best local players, including Leonardo da Cutri. He also practiced with success playing blindfold chess. After returning home he published his famous “Libro de la invención liberal y arte del juego del ajedrez” (Alcala de Henares, 1561), translated some years later to both Italian and German, which served as a guide for future chess books. In 1575 return to visit Gregory XIII and he obtained new victories over his opponents, but two years later, in a series of matches arranged by Philip II, he lost to Polerio firstly, and to Paolo Boi a few months later.

It was the Golden period of Spanish chess, according a list of the Italian Pietro Carrera in his ”Il guioco degli Schachi” (1617) where names such as Alfonso Ceron, Santa Maria, Pedro Pedrosa, Tomas Esquivel, Escovara and others deserved attention.

In 1575 Spanish King organized a match in Madrid and it is relatively well documented (there is even a picture titled “Il Puttino alla corte del re di Spagna” by L.Mussini). This demonstrates the interest of Spanish court for chess. In accordance with time chronicles, the King had inherited inclination for chess of his father, Emperor Charles V. The best players from Spain and Italy participated, represented by Ruy Lopez and Ceron; and Leonardo y Cesare Polerio, respectively (some sources tell the other player was Paolo Boi). Of course, it is very well known that Leonardo defeated Lopez, but is noteworthy for us that in one of these games a form of pseudo Latvian Gambit was employed after 1e4 e5 2Nf3 d6 3d4 f5 etc.

The victory of Leonardo start the decadence of Spanish chess that is emphasized with the arrive of Giachimo Greco, but it seems the Spanish court continued now with Philip IV doing patronage, and good evidence of this is he himself was the last years of his life in Madridian court.

Friday, April 12, 2013

Bibliography






Bibliography : List of all known books on Latvian gambit. It serves no specific purpose, but as curiosity I think it’s worth on known it... in case somebody decides to start analyzing it carefully.

Here's the list, with the year of publication and the number of pages of each title (...) :




  • "El Contragambito del Greco" J. M. Lobato Puebla, Mexico 1914 (80)
                                                             
  • "Lettisk Gambit" B. Andersen & H. Nielsen Viborg 1973 (48)
  • "Le gambit letton" P.Meinsohn France 1974 (12)
  • "Latvian Gambit" K. Smith USA 1977 (93)
  • "El Gambito Leton" R. Crusi More Barcelona 1978 (80)
                                                               
  • "Latvian Gambit" T. Kapitaniak Nottingham 1980 (35)
  • "Lettisches Gambit" H. Tiemann & H. Vetter Dusseldorf 1980 (104)
                                                          
  • "The Latvian Gambit" K. Grivainis USA 1985 (198)
  • "Lettisches Gambit" L. Orban Hamburg 1987 (90)
  • "Lettisches Gambit", 2nd edition H. Tiemann & H. Vetter Dusseldorf 1989 (102)
  • "The Latvian Gambit Made Easy" K. Grivainis & J. Elburg USA 1991 (38)
                                                             
  • "Lettisches Gambit", part 1 (lines with 3Nxe5) L. Diepstraten Venlo 1993 (324)
                                                         
  • "Latvian gambit, collection games" Echecs Itn. Luxembourg 1994 (27)
  • "The Latvian Gambit" T. Kosten England 1995 (144)
  • "The Latvian Gambit" A. Lein & S. Pickard USA 1995 (155)
  • "Lettisches Gambit", part 2 (lines with 3Bc4) L. Diepstraten Venlo 1996 (246)
                                                           
  • "Lettisches Gambit", part 3 (other 3rd moves and history) L. Diepstraten Venlo 1997 (387)
                                                       
  • "New Developments in the LG" K. Grivainis & J. Elburg USA 1998 (80)
  • "The Latvian gambit lives!" T. Kosten England 2001 (224)
  •  "Latvian Gambit: The Strautins Gambit" D.R. Lonsdale  2006 (24pp).

  •  "Latvian Gambit: The Zemitis variation" D.R. Lonsdale  2006 (24pp).
  •  "Latvian Gambit: 6...Nf6 in Svedenborg's Variation" D.R. Lonsdale 2006 (27pp).

    Of course there are many other sources of information, mainly games and tournaments, some of them can be found on the Web as well as journal articles and book chapters.



    Perhaps the best collection on the CD is "Latvian gambit into the Next Millenium" compiled by John Elburg and Giorgio Ruggeri, although for us, devotees, has become somewhat outdated after staging in 2004. It contains, however, in addition of 8500 games, a tree and opening key, pictures and videos that make it very attractive (see the link)

    Wednesday, April 10, 2013

    Zonal tournament at Colombo



    This is a game from zonal tournament held in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Prasanna Kurukulasuriya (pictured) met a solid player in the third round. A Amarasinghe played very well and showed a great desire to win, unfortunately the twentieth move allows White to win a pawn and the initiative. Prasanna has to avoid the traps laid by his opponent.


    Kurukulasuriya P (SRI) 2071
    Amarasinghe A A C B (SRI) 1868
    Colombo SRI, (Zt) 04/02/2013

    1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5. Nc4 fxe4 6. Ne3 [6. Nc3 seems the best move here.] 6... c6!


    7. d5!? [Attack at expense of development] 7... Qg6 8. Nc3 Nf6 9. Bc4 Be7 [However a logical move condemned by Houdini 1.5] 10. O-O [10. dxc6 bxc6 11. Nb5!?! (Houdini 1.5 - wow!- ) 11... cxb5 12. Bd5! Nxd5 13. Qxd5 Kd7!! 14. Qxa8 Nc6 15. O-O Rf8! ~ menace Ba6] 10... Nbd7 11. f4 exf3!?


    12. Bd3 [12. Qxf3 Ne5 ~] 12... Qf7 13. Qxf3 Ne5 14. Qe2 Nxd3 15. Qxd3 O-O 16. Nf5! Bxf5 17. Rxf5 Rae8 [17... Rfe8 18. Bg5!] 18. Bd2 Bd8 19. Raf1 Bb6+ [19... Qd7= is safer.] 20. Kh1


    20... Qg6? [Fatal... Better is 20... Qd7] 21. dxc6 bxc6 22. Qxd6 Rd8 23. Qe6+ Kh8 24. Bg5! [24. Qxc6?? Rxd2 and Rxc2] 24... Rde8 25. Qc4! [25. Qxc6?? Qxf5 -+]


    25... h6? [25... Qxf5 26. Rxf5 Re1+ 27. Qf1 (27. Rf1 Ne4! 28. Rxe1 Nf2+ 29. Kg1 Nh3+=) 27... Rxf1+ 28. Rxf1 Bd4 29. Na4±] 26. Bxf6 gxf6 [The black pawn structure is very bad.] 27. g3 Re3 28. Qf4 [28. Qxc6 +-] 28... Kg7 29. Na4 Re7 30. Nxb6 axb6 31. Qf3 Re6 32. Kg2 Rfe8 33. Rf2 R8e7 34. Rf4 h5


    35. h4 [35. Rh4 Kh6 36. g4 Re5 37. Qxc6 ±] 35... c5 36. b3 Kf7 37. Kh3 Kg7 38. Kg2 Kf7 39. c3 Kg7 40. b4 cxb4 41. cxb4 Ra7 42. b5 Rae7 43. Kh3 Kf7 44. Rf5 ± [A very interesting and beautiful game... ] [1:0]

    ANALYSIS 3.Bc4; 4..Qg5 ( LAT06-11 )




    For many years 3.Bc4, a move which Keres burned a lot of midnight oil over, was considered White's best, but today “it seems” don’t offers White no advantage. Its very messy (and unnecessary !) and honestly I think Keres busted with this.
    The move develops a piece, prepares to castle, and threatens an immediate assault on f7. It is even listed as the Main Line against the Latvian Gambit in Nunn's Chess Openings. It leads to some of the most complex situations to be found in the Latvian.

    Yes indeed, there are many reasonable replies (f.i. 3..Nc6 or even transposing to Philidor counter gambit with 3..d6 - remember 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 f5 -), but the more usual answers are 3..fxe4 4.Nxe5 Qg5 and 4...d5 (Svedenborg variation):


    4...Qg5 ("Poisoned pawn" line) was the first idea against 3.Bc4; it produces some of the most hair-raising variations known in chess. After Main Line 5.d4 Qxg2 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Bf7+ Kd8 8.Bxg6! Qxh1+ (not taking the Rook has its drawbacks) 9.Ke2 and then it has been demonstrated only few time ago UNIQUE correct move is


     9... Qxc1 10.Nf7+ Ke8 11.Nxh8+ hxg6 12.Qxg6+ Kd8 


    13.Nf7+! (the point of the interpolation of this move before 14.Nc3 is to deny Black the opportunity to rapidly relocate his Queen by 13..Qf4; thus, if 13.Qxg8 Qf4 14.Nd2 d6 15.Rg1 - or 15.Ng6 Qg4+ 16.Kf1 Nd7 17.Qf7 Qh3+ 18.Kg1 Qh6 19.Nxe4 c6 unclear - 15...Qf5 - also 15..Nc6!? - 16.Rg5 Qf6 17.Nxe4 Qf4 very unclear in F.Tejero (2165)-A.Melchor (2133), Spain Catalonia team ch. (9), 2006 but Black won in a few moves by a great mistake of first player ) 13..Ke7 14.Nc3! Qxc2+ 15.Ke1 d6 ((15..c6? 16.Nd6 etc. threatening mate in two is loser) 16.Nd5+ Kd7 17.Qxg8 ( slight White advantage, NCO )


    17.. e3! (striving to get the Queen back into play. As well as this 17...Qxb2? 18.Rd1 e3?! was known, but after f.i. 19.fxe3 Qa3 Kosten recommendation follow 20.Qg4+ Ke8 21.Qh5!) 18.fxe3 ( If 18.Nxe3 Qxb2 19.Rd1 Nc6! or 18.Ne5+!? dxe5 19.Qf7+ Kd6 20.Nxe3 Qe4 21.Qxf8+ Kd7 as Elburg-Voliani, corr. e-mail friendship game, 2001 still looks unclear to Kosten, although White can force a draw if he desires) 18..Be7 19.Ng5 (19.Qg4+ Ke8 20.Qxc8+ Kxf7 is more confuse O'Connor-Domingo, cr. e-mail LADAC thema prel., 2006) 19...Na6 20.Qxe6+ Kc6 and:


    • A) 21.Qg6 Qc4 22.Nxe7+ Kb6 23.Nf3 Bh3 24.Nd2 Qe6 25.Qxe6 Bxe6 26.Ng6 Bf7 (26...Nb4!?) 27.Nf4 Rh8 (27...Nb4) 28.h3 Nb4 draw in 53, Rouzaud-Rosenstielke, cr. e-mail 5th. LG World Ch. sf. B, 2004/05

    • B) 21.Nxe7+ Kb6 22.Qb3+ Qxb3 23.axb3 Nb4 24.Kd2 Bd7 25.Rf1 Rh8 26.Rf2 c5 27.dxc5+ dxc5 28.e4 Rh5 and draw again in 36 moves, Koudelka-Rosenstielke, cr. e-mail 5th. LG World Ch. sf. B, 2004/05, but we think White can improve a bit the game if he tries 22.Nxc8+ Rxc8 23.Qxc8 Qxh2 - necessary if Black Queen can threaten annoying lateral checks - 24.Qe6 Qg1+ 25.Ke2 Qxa1 26.Qb3+ or 24.Rd1 Qg1+ 25.Kd2 Qf2+ 26.Kc3 Qxe3+ 27.Rd3 Qxg5 28.a3 as Morcillo-Melchor, cr. e-mail Spain Cup prev., 2012/13 although anyway game ended draw three moves later.

    For decades the capture 9..Qxc1 was considered dubious, in these games, extensively analyzed, White didn't demonstrate an absolute forced win, and in fact, both games was draw, BUT White can improve definitively upper hand: HOW ? ….

    Thursday, June 28, 2012

    7th World Champ. Latvian Gambit - Update May,3/2015


    2012/2018 cycle

    The tournament will be played in three stages: Preliminary, Semifinal and Final. The tournament will be played normally by e-mail and ICCF rules will apply (60 days for 10 moves, the time may NOT be exceeded).

    It is planned to start the preliminary stage on end of April 2012.

    The first two players of each Preliminary group will qualify for the Semifinal Round. Each competitor will play 2 games with the same opponent (one with White and one with Black), each section of the preliminary stage will involve 4 players. Each entry (containing name, email, country, elo rating), should be sent by email to Alejandro Melchor (amelchormunoz@gmail.com ), not later than middle of April 2012.


    Preliminaries


    +---------------------------------+---------------------+-----+
    | 7WCHLG prelims (A)              |  1    2    3    4   | Tot |
    -------------------------------------------------------------- 
     1.Prado, Juan H             ARG  | ****  ½ 0       1   |     |  
     2.Oren, Itamar              ISR  | 1 ½  **** 1 1   1 1 | 5,5 |     
     3.Kaytazki, Liubomir        BUL  |       0 0 ****    0 |     |     
     4.Foster, Duncan            USA  |   0   0 0 1    **** |     |     
    ----------------------------------+---------------------+-----+
      
    +---------------------------------+---------------------+-----+
    | 7WCHLG prelims (B)              |  1    2    3    4   | Tot |  
    --------------------------------------------------------------
     1.Anderson, John            ENG  | **** 1 0  1 0   w w |  2  |          2.Borrmann, Fritz           GER  | 1 0 ****  ½ 0   w w | 1,5 |  
     3.Plant, Kevin D            ENG  | 1 0  1 ½  ****  w w | 2,5 |  
     4.Todd, Daniel              USA  | w w  w w  w w  **** |with |     
    ----------------------------------+---------------------+-----+

    +---------------------------------+---------------------+-----+
    | 7WCHLG prelims (C)              |  1    2    3    4   | Tot |
    ----------------------------------+---------------------+-----+  
     1.Ardila, Fernando          COL  | **** 1 ½        1   |     |  
     2.Bouget, Alexandre         FRA  |  ½ 0  ****          |     | 
     3.Zageris, Artur            USA  |         ****        |     | 
     4.Stewart, Michael R        USA  |  0             **** |     |     
    ----------------------------------+---------------------+-----+

    +---------------------------------+---------------------+-----+
    | 7WCHLG prelims (D)              |  1    2    3    4   | Tot |  
    ----------------------------------+---------------------+-----+
     1.Paiva Moreira, Américo    POR  | **** x x   1 1  1 1 |  4  |     
     2.Ferrero, Steve            USA  | x x  ****  x x  x x |  0  |Deceased
     3.Frágola, Horacio          ARG  | 0 0  x x  ****  0 0 |  0  |     
     4.King, Daniel              USA  | 0 0  x x   1 1 **** |  |     
    ----------------------------------+---------------------+-----+

    +---------------------------------+---------------------+-----+
    | 7WCHLG prelims (E)              |  1    2    3    4   | Tot |
    ----------------------------------+---------------------+-----+  
     1.Carlsen, Torben Erik      BRA  | **** 1 0   1 1  ½ ½ |  4  |     
     2.Vicary, Lance             CAN  | 1 0  ****  1 ½  1 ½ |  4  |      
     3.Evans, Stan W             USA  | 0 0  ½ 0  ****  1 0 | 1,5 |      
     4.Werner, Eduard            GER  | ½ ½  ½ 0   1 0 **** | 2,5 |     
    ----------------------------------+---------------------+-----+

    +---------------------------------+---------------------+-----+
    | 7WCHLG prelims (F)              |  1    2    3    4   | Tot | 
    ----------------------------------+---------------------+-----+
     1.Godart, François          BEL  | ****  1 1  ½ ½      |     |          2.Zielinski, Sergey         GER  | 0 0   **** 0 0 1 ½  | 1,5 |     
     3.Pech, Jaroslav            CZE  | ½ ½   1 1 **** w w  |  3  |      
     4.Sivak, Vladislav          UKR  |       0 ½  w w **** | 0,5 |     
    ----------------------------------+---------------------+-----+

    +---------------------------------+---------------------+-----+
    | 7WCHLG prelims (G)              |  1    2    3    4   | Tot |  
    ----------------------------------+---------------------+-----+
     1.Domingo, Jordi            ESP  | **** ½ ½  w w  w w  |  1  |     
     2.Fournier, Fréderic        FRA  | ½ ½  **** w w  w w  |  1  |        3.Zilbermintz, Lev          USA  | w w  w w  **** w w  |with |     
     4.Di Tora, Alessandro       ITA  | w w  w w  w w  **** |with |     
    ----------------------------------+---------------------+-----+

    +------------------------------------------------------+-----+
    | 7WCHLG prelims (H)              |  1    2    3    4  | Tot |
    ----------------------------------+--------------------+-----+
     1.Koetsier, David A         NED  | **** 1 ½  ½ ½ w w  | 2,5 |     
     2.Cañizares, Pedro          ESP  | ½ 0  **** 1 1 w w  | 2,5 |      
     3.Klemens, Leszek           POL  | ½ ½  0 0 **** w w  |  1  |        4.Christiansen, Adam        USA  | w w  w w  w w **** |with |     
    ----------------------------------+--------------------+-----+

    Sunday, April 1, 2012

    Spike 1.4




    What's news Spike ?



    COMP Stockfish 2.2.2 64-bit 4CPU (3253)
    COMP Spike 1.4 Leiden 4CPU (3127)
    CCRL (40’/40), 23/01/2012

    1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nxe5 Qf6 4. Nc4 fxe4 5. Nc3 Qe6 6. Ne3 Nf6 [6... c6] 7. Bc4 Qe5 8. d4!? exd3 9. O-O! Be7?! [9... Kd8!?] 10. f4 Qh5 [10... Qc5!?] 11. Qxh5 Nxh5 12. Ned5 Kd8 13. Nxe7 Kxe7


    14. g4N [14. Re1 Kd8 15. cxd3 Bormann - Gonsalves, corr, 1986 (15. Bxd3±); 14. Nd5 Kd8 15. f5! h6 (15... dxc2 16. Bg5 +-) 16. Bxd3±] 14... Nf6 15. g5 Nh5?! 16. Bxd3 Kd8 17. Be2 g6 18. Bxh5 gxh5 19. f5 +- d6 20. Ne4 Kd7 21. g6 hxg6 22. fxg6 Kc6 23. Nf6 [controls g8-square] 23... Be6 24. Re1 Bc4 25. b3 Rf8


    26. Bg5 [26. Bb2!] 26... Bg8 27. g7 Rf7 28. Re8 Rxg7 29. Rxg8 Rxg8 30. Nxg8 Nd7 31. Ne7 Kb5 32. c4 Ka6 33. Nd5 [33. Rf1] 33... Rc8 34. Rf1 c6 35. Nf6 Nxf6 36. Rxf6 Re8 37. Kf2 Ka5 38. Bd2 Kb6 39. Rxd6 Rf8 40. Ke2 Rh8 41. Be3 Kc7 42. Rf6 h4 43. Bxa7 Kc8 44. Rf7 Rh5 45. Bb6 Rh8 46. Rc7 Kb8 47. Kf3 Rg8 48. Rh7 Kc8 49. Rxh4 Kd7 50. Rh7 Kd6 51. Rxb7 Ke5 52. a4 Rf8 53. Ke3 Rf1 [1:0]

    Friday, March 30, 2012

    Thomas Dionisi


     


    This is a very interesting game played by a young French player named Thomas Dionisi (pictured) against a Polish international master Warakomski. White here has perhaps not made the best choice of the seventh and eighth moves, allowing White to fully exploit the central position.










    Warakomski Tomasz (POL) 2492
    Dionisi Thomas (FRA) 2250
    Warszawa POL, 17/12/2011 (8)
    Europa Ch (active)

    1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5. Nc4 fxe4 6. Nc3 Qg6


    7. Ne3 [7. f3! is a stronger move here] 7... c6 [7... Nf6] 8. d5 [8. f3!] 8... Nf6 9. Bc4! Be7
    10. Ne2N [In 1955, Fischer had played against Pupols 10.a4 to counter the threat b5. White can try 10. dxc6] 10... b5 11. Bb3 c5 12. c4 O-O 13. Nf4 Qg5 14. Ne6 Bxe6 15. dxe6 Nc6! 16. cxb5 Nd4 17. O-O [17. a4 Nxb3 18. Qxb3 d5 with compensations] 17... Qg6 [17... Nxb3 18. Qxb3 d5 19. Bd2 Qe5 idea Bd6 ~; 17... Qe5 18. Bd2 (18. a4 d5! 19. f4 exf3 20. gxf3 Bd6 -/+) 18... Nxb3 19. Qxb3 d5 20. Rae1 Bd6 21. g3 Qxe6 ~] 18. Nd5 Rae8 19. Nf4 Qf5 20. Be3


    20... Ng4 [20... d5! 21. Bxd4 cxd4 (21... Qxf4? 22. Bxf6 Qxf6 23. Qxd5 +-) 22. g3 d3 23. Qd2 Bd6 24. Rac1 Bxf4 25. Qxf4 Qh3 (menace Ng4) 26. Bd1 Qxe6 ~] 21. h3 Ne5 22. Qh5 Qxh5? [22... Nxb5 23. Qxf5 Rxf5 ~] 23. Nxh5 Rb8? [23... Nxb5 24. Ng3 c4 25. Ba4 Rb8 26. Nxe4 Nc7] 24. Bxd4 cxd4 25. Ng3 [25. a4! a6 26. Bd5 axb5 27. a5 ±] 25... e3 26. fxe3 dxe3± etc. [1:0]

    Saturday, March 24, 2012

    Index

    1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5

    This is a complete index of Latvian Gambit's variations


    LAT01 (Various)

    LAT01-01 3.(…)
    LAT01-02 3.g4?
    LAT01-03 3.b4?! Sénéchaud’s variation
    LAT01-04 3.Qe2
    LAT01-05 3.c4

    LAT02

    LAT02-01 3.d3 (…)
    LAT02-02 3.d3 Nf6
    LAT02-03 3.d3 fxe4
    LAT02-04 3.d3 d6
    LAT02-04 3.d3 Nc6

    LAT03 (Mlotkowski’s variation)

    LAT03-01 3.Nc3 (…)
    LAT03-02 3.Nc3 d6
    LAT03-03 3.Nc3 Nc6
    LAT03-04 3.Nc3 Nf6
    LAT03-05 3.Nc3 fxe4 4.(…)
    LAT03-06 3.Nc3 fxe4 4.Nxe4
    LAT03-07 3.Nc3 fxe4 4.Nxe5 (…)
    LAT03-08 3.Nc3 fxe4 4.Nxe5 Nf6
    LAT03-09 3.Nc3 fxe4 4.Nxe5 Qf6

    LAT04

    LAT04-01 3.d4 (…)
    LAT04-02 3.d4 fxe4 4.(…)
    LAT04-03 3.d4 fxe4 4.Nxe5 Nf6 5.(…)
    LAT04-04 3.d4 fxe4 4.Nxe5 Nf6 5. Nc3
    LAT04-05 3.d4 fxe4 4.Nxe5 Nf6 5. Bc4
    LAT04-06 3.d4 fxe4 4.Nxe5 Nf6 5. Be2
    LAT04-07 3.d4 fxe4 4.Nxe5 Nf6 5. Bg5

    LAT05

    LAT05-01 3.exf5 (…)
    LAT05-02 3.exf5 Bc5
    LAT05-03 3.exf5 Nc6
    LAT05-04 3.exf5 d6
    LAT05-05 3.exf5 e4 4. (…)
    LAT05-06 3.exf5 e4 4. Ng1
    LAT05-07 3.exf5 e4 4. Qe2
    LAT05-08 3.exf5 e4 4. Nd4
    LAT05-09 3.exf5 e4 4. Ne5 (…)
    LAT05-10 3.exf5 e4 4. Ne5 Nf6 5.Be2 (…)
    LAT05-11 3.exf5 e4 4. Ne5 Nf6 5.Be2 d5
    LAT05-12 3.exf5 e4 4. Ne5 Nf6 5.Be2 Be7
    LAT05-13 3.exf5 e4 4. Ne5 Nf6 5.Be2 d6

    LAT06

    LAT06-01 3.Bc4 (…)
    LAT06-02 3.Bc4 Nf6
    LAT06-03 3.Bc4 Nc6 4. (…)
    LAT06-04 3.Bc4 Nc6 4. d3
    LAT06-05 3.Bc4 Nc6 4. d4
    LAT06-06 3.Bc4 b5 4. (…)
    LAT06-07 3.Bc4 b5 4. Bxg8
    LAT06-08 3.Bc4 b5 4. Bg3
    LAT06-09 3.Bc4 fxe4 4. Nxe5 (...)
    LAT06-10 3.Bc4 fxe4 4. Nxe5 Qg5 5.d4 Qxg2 6.Qh5 g6 7.Bf7 Kd8 8.Bxg6 Qxh1 9. Ke2 (...)
    LAT06-11 3.Bc4 fxe4 4. Nxe5 Qg5 5.d4 Qxg2 6.Qh5 g6 7.Bf7 Kd8 8.Bxg6 Qxh1 9. Ke2 Qxc1
    LAT06-12 3.Bc4 fxe4 4. Nxe5 Qg5 5.d4 Qxg2 6.Qh5 g6 7.Bf7 Kd8 8.Bxg6 Qxh1 9. Ke2 c6 10.Nc3 (...)
    LAT06-13 3.Bc4 fxe4 4. Nxe5 Qg5 5.d4 Qxg2 6.Qh5 g6 7.Bf7 Kd8 8.Bxg6 Qxh1 9. Ke2 c6 10.Nc3 Kc7
    LAT06-14 3.Bc4 fxe4 4. Nxe5 Qg5 5.d4 Qxg2 6.Qh5 g6 7.Bf7 Kd8 8.Bxg6 Qxh1 9. Ke2 c6 10.Nc3 e3
    LAT06-15 3.Bc4 fxe4 4. Nxe5 Qg5 5.d4 Qxg2 6.Qh5 g6 7.Bf7 Kd8 8.Bxg6 Qxh1 9. Ke2 c6 10.Nc3 Nf6

    LAT07

    LAT07-01 3.Nxe5 (…)
    LAT07-02 3.Nxe5 Qe7
    LAT07-03 3.Nxe5 Nf6
    LAT07-04 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.(…)
    LAT07-05 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.d4
    LAT07-06 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Qh5 g6 5.Nxg6 Nf6 6. (…)
    LAT07-07 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Qh5 g6 5.Nxg6 Nf6 6. Qh4
    LAT07-08 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Qh5 g6 5.Nxg6 Nf6 6. Qh3
    LAT07-09 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Nxc6 dxc6 5. (…)
    LAT07-10 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Nxc6 dxc6 5. exf5
    LAT07-11 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Nxc6 dxc6 5. e5
    LAT07-12 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Nxc6 dxc6 5. Bc4
    LAT07-13 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Nxc6 dxc6 5. d4
    LAT07-14 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Nxc6 dxc6 5. Nc3 (…)
    LAT07-15 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Nxc6 dxc6 5. Nc3 Nf6
    LAT07-16 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Nxc6 dxc6 5. Nc3 Bc5
    LAT07-17 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. (…)
    LAT07-18 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. Nc4 fxe4 5. Nc3 (…)
    LAT07-19 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. Nc4 fxe4 5. Nc3 c6
    LAT07-20 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. Nc4 fxe4 5. Nc3 Qe6 6. (…)
    LAT07-21 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. Nc4 fxe4 5. Nc3 Qe6 6. d3
    LAT07-22 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. Nc4 fxe4 5. Nc3 Qe6 6. Ne3
    LAT07-23 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. Nc4 fxe4 5. Nc3 Qg6
    LAT07-24 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. Nc4 fxe4 5. Nc3 Qf7 6. (…)
    LAT07-25 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. Nc4 fxe4 5. Nc3 Qf7 6. d4
    LAT07-26 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. Nc4 fxe4 5. Nc3 Qf7 6. Ne3 (…)
    LAT07-27 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. Nc4 fxe4 5. Nc3 Qf7 6. Ne3 Nf6
    LAT07-28 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. Nc4 fxe4 5. Nc3 Qf7 6. Ne3 c6
    LAT07-29 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. Nc4 fxe4 5. Nc3 Qf7 6. Ne3 c6 7. (…)
    LAT07-30 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. Nc4 fxe4 5. Nc3 Qf7 6. Ne3 c6 7. Nxe4 d5 8.Ng3
    LAT07-31 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. Nc4 fxe4 5. Nc3 Qf7 6. Ne3 c6 7. Nxe4 d5 8.Ng5
    LAT07-32 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. Nc4 fxe4 5. Nc3 Qf7 6. Ne3 c6 7. d3 exd3 8.Bxd3 d5 9.O-O (…)
    LAT07-33 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. Nc4 fxe4 5. Nc3 Qf7 6. Ne3 c6 7. d3 exd3 8.Bxd3 d5 9.O-O Bd6
    LAT07-34 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. Nc4 fxe4 5. Nc3 Qf7 6. Ne3 c6 7. d3 exd3 8.Bxd3 d5 9.O-O Bc5
    LAT07-35 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 (…)
    LAT07-36 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6. (…)
    LAT07-37 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6. Ne3 (…)
    LAT07-38 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6. Ne3 c6
    LAT07-39 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6. Ne3 Nc6
    LAT07-40 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6. Be2 (…)
    LAT07-41 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6. Be2 d5
    LAT07-42 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6. Be2 Nc6
    LAT07-43 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6. Be2 Qd8
    LAT07-44 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6. Nc3 (…)
    LAT07-45 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6. Nc3 Qf7
    LAT07-46 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6. Nc3 Bf5
    LAT07-47 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6. Nc3 Qg6 7.(…)
    LAT07-48 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6. Nc3 Qg6 7.Be3
    LAT07-49 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6. Nc3 Qg6 7.Nd5
    LAT07-50 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6. Nc3 Qg6 7.Qe2
    LAT07-51 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6. Nc3 Qg6 7.Bf4
    LAT07-52 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6. Nc3 Qg6 7.Ne3
    LAT07-53 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6. Nc3 Qg6 7.f3 (…)
    LAT07-54 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6. Nc3 Qg6 7.f3 Be7
    LAT07-55 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6. Nc3 Qg6 7.f3 Nf6
    LAT07-56 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6. Nc3 Qg6 7.f3 exf3 8.Qxf3 (…)
    LAT07-57 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6. Nc3 Qg6 7.f3 exf3 8.Qxf3 Nf6
    LAT07-58 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6. Nc3 Qg6 7.f3 exf3 8.Qxf3 Nc6
    LAT07-59 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6. Nc3 Qg6 7.f3 exf3 8.Qxf3 Nc6 9.(…)
    LAT07-60 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6. Nc3 Qg6 7.f3 exf3 8.Qxf3 Nc6 9.Nb5
    LAT07-61 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6. Nc3 Qg6 7.f3 exf3 8.Qxf3 Nc6 9.d5
    LAT07-62 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6. Nc3 Qg6 7.f3 exf3 8.Qxf3 Nc6 9.Bd3