THE LATVIAN GAMBIT WON’T DIE!

 Bernhard Sporrer writes:

After reading your article about the Latvian Gambit, I felt well prepared for a game in our local club tournament against an opponent who has played the Latvian for more than 20 years. But see what happened:

B Sporrer - Klaus Kredler
Töging, 2004
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 10.Na4 Bd6 11.c4 d4 12.Nc2 c5 13.b4 Ne7

Till now I followed your recommendations. But you only gave the weak 13... b6. My opponent played 13...Ne7 a tempo. I thought a long time about my next moves and the game continued.

14.Nxc5 Bxc5 15.bxc5 Nbc6 16.Bb2 O-O 17.Nxd4 Nxd4 18.Bxd4 Bf5 19.Bxf5 Nxf5 20.Be3 Qxc4 21.Qb3 Nxe3 22.fxe3 Rxf1+ 23.Rxf1 Qxb3 24.axb3 Rc8 25.Rf5 Rc6

In the post mortem, Klaus told me that this move was still part of his preparation and improves on a correspondence game that I found in chesslive.de the next day.

26.b4 b6 27.Kf2 bxc5 28.bxc5 a5 29.Kf3 a4 30.Rf4 Rxc5 31.Rxa4

This position looks rather drawn to me. I tried to win it but failed and the game was drawn on move 46. I did a lot of computer analysis but couldn't find a way to a clear advantage. There always seems a way for black to reach a rook endgame with a pawn down but excellent drawing chances. It would be very nice if you could give me a hint about where I left the path of virtue.

Silman replies:

My inability to kill this blasted opening isn’t surprising, since it seems that there are tens of thousands of Latvian Gambit fanatics who keep their computers working 24 hours a day on proving a draw in some groveling fashion. Before our first Latvian posting I didn’t care for this gambit one way or the other. Now I hate it with a passion and, when I hit my 80th birthday, fully intend to devote my remaining years in finding one final, catastrophic refutation to this blight on humanity (hopefully someone will beat me to the punch).

There are many fascinating tries for White in the critical line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3 Qf7 6.Ne3 c6. However, we’ll keep our attention focused on the position that arises after 7.d3 exd3 8.Bxd3 d5 9.O-O Bc5 10.Na4 Bd6 11.c4 d4 12.Nc2 c5 13.b4 Ne7

This is obviously better than 13…b6? and has been the focus of a lot of attention among correspondence players. Also horrible is: 13…cxb4 14.Nxd4 Nc6 15.Re1+ Nge7 16.Nxc6 bxc6 17.c5 Bc7 18.Bg5 Bd8 19.Qe2 Rb8 20.Bc4 Qf8 21.Rad1 Rb7 22.Ba6, 1–0, Gaard - Sakellarakis, Theme ICCF email, 1999.

14.Nxc5 Bxc5 15.bxc5 Nbc6 16.Bb2 0–0 17.Nxd4 Nxd4 18.Bxd4 Bf5 19.Bxf5 Nxf5 20.Be3 Qxc4

Black is a pawn down but hopes to swap off the two queenside pawns and then draw the resulting three vs. two (all pawns on the kingside) Rook endgame.

21.Qb3 Nxe3!?

This was thought to be inferior to 21…Qxb3, but now it might turn out that the reverse is the case! It seems that White retains some winning chances against 21…Qxb3: 22.axb3 Rfe8 (trying to enter our main line with 22…Nxe3 isn’t as good due to 23.fxe3 Rxf1+ 24.Kxf1) 23.Rfe1 Re4 24.Bd2 (not as testing is 24.h3 Rb4 25.g4 Nxe3 26.Rxe3 h6 27.Kf1 a5 28.Rd1 Rc8 29.Rc3 Rc6 30.Rdd3 Kf7 31.Ke2 Ke6 32.Ke3 g5 33.Kd2 Rf4 34.f3 Ke5 35.Re3+ Kd5 36.Re8 Rcf6 37.Rd8+ Kc6 38.Rdd3 a4 39.bxa4 Rxa4 40.Rc2 Rb4 41.Ke3, 1/2-1/2, Elburg - Ruggeri, corr. 1999) 24...Rxe1+ 25.Rxe1 Rd8 26.Bc3 Rd3 27.Rc1 Ne7 28.b4 Nd5 29.Be1 Rb3 30.Rc4 Kf7 31.Rd4 Rb1 32.Kf1 Ke6 33.Ke2 Ke5 34.Rc4 Nf4+ 35.Kf3 Ne6 36.Bd2 Rb3+ 37.Kg4 Rb2 38.Bc3+ Kd5 39.Bxb2 Kxc4 40.Kf5 Nd4+ 41.Ke4 Ne6 42.Ke5 Nc7 43.c6 bxc6 44.Kd6 Ne8+ 45.Kxc6 45...Kxb4 46.Kd7 (46.f3!?) 46...Nf6+ 47.Ke6 Kb3 48.Ba1 Ng4 49.f3 Ne3 50.Bxg7, 1–0, Tiemann - Ruggeri, Latvian theme e-mail 2001.

22.fxe3 Rxf1+ 23.Rxf1 Qxb3 24.axb3 Rc8 25.Rf5 Rc6

The new move, but 25…Rd8 also turned out well in Owens - Ruggeri, e-mail 1998: 26.Rf4 (26.b4 Rd2) 26...Rc8 27.b4 a5 28.bxa5 Rxc5 29.Rb4 Rxa5 30.Rxb7 Ra2 31.Kf1 h6 32.e4 Kf8 33.Rb3 Kf7 34.Re3 Kf6 35.Re2 Ra6 36.Kf2 Ke5 37.Kg3 Ra4 38.Kg4 Rxe4+ 39.Rxe4+ Kxe4, 1/2-1/2.

26.b4 b6 27.Kf2 bxc5 28.bxc5 a5 29.Kf3 a4 30.Rf4 Rxc5 31.Rxa4 and the resulting endgame is dead drawn, B. Sporrer - Klaus Kredler, Töging, 2004.

To sum up: Mr. Sporrer, you didn’t do anything wrong. The guy just knew more theory than you (or I) did, and thus earned a half point. As much as I hate to admit it, at the moment the burden of proof (in the search for a White advantage) is on the first player.

A NOT SO NEW GAMBIT

Charlie Gold writes:

I have not been able to discover if the move 3…Nd4 (after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4) has been played by someone of note. I have played – over the board – more than a dozen games in tournaments/matches.

[Mr. Gold then gave several games that he won after 4.Nxe5 Qg5].

AN OLD BUT INFERIOR LINE

Silman replies:

Your letter brought a smile to my face because I remember losing a game as White (when I was 14 years old) to this very old trap! Let’s take a look at the line:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4?! and now White has done well with 4.0-0 and 4.c3 and 4.Nc3 and 4.Nxd4! (all natural and good moves, though I think 4.Nxd4 is simply good for White). In the case of the latter, many on the Black side have fallen for 4…exd4 5.c3 Bc5? 6.Bxf7+!.

The problem with 3…Nd4 is that it enters a variation of the Bird Ruy Lopez with an extra move for White (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nd4 4.Bc4 and now, in the Ruy, it’s Black’s move instead of White’s!).

Of course, many people (including the 14-year old Silman!) “fall” for 4.Nxe5 when 4…Qg5 tends to leave them stunned. One fun way for White to die fast is 5.Nxf7? (another way for White to go wrong is 5.Ng4? d5) 5…Qxg2 6.Rf1 Qxe4+ 7.Be2 Nf3 mate!

MANY VICTIMS HAVE HIT THIS REEF

By the way, this exact mate is a VERY common “guest” at junior tournaments the world over.

Some might think that it’s worth playing “hope chess” with 3…Nd4 since 4.Nxe5 is such a common reply. Unfortunately, even then White can ensure that he has all the fun with 5.Bxf7+! Ke7 6.0-0 Qxe5 7.Bxg8 Rxg8 8.c3 Ne6 9.d4 Qf6 10.f4

WHO IS HAVING FUN NOW?

With two pawns and an attack for the sacrificed piece, White’s compensation isn’t in doubt.

To sum up: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4?! is a dubious move that is largely based on very poor play by White. The first player can choose to “fall” for the “trap” by 4.Nxe5!? Qg5 5.Bxf7+ Ke7 6.0-0 Qxe5 7.Bxg8 Rxg8 8.c3 Ne6 9.d4 Qf6 10.f4 with an attack, or he can play the strong 4.Nxd4 exd4 5.c3 with an immediate opening advantage.