Dr. Marius Bartsch writes:
You have written a nice article about the
Latvian Gambit [LATVIAN
GAMBIT ARTICLE] on your site and you mentioned
Latvian aficionados. Well I am one of these.
I recently have won the 3rd World Championship
Latvian Gambit (played at SEMI) and in the
final I did NOT loose a single black Latvian
game. However this was in correspondence chess
and not OTB. I (and of course my opponents)
had studied books, databases and games in deep
extent before starting this championship. The
Latvian gambit is not yet dead.
In your article you discussed a very important
main line for the black player:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 (Leonhardt´s variation which is very
popular) 4…fxe4 5.Nc3 Qf7 (this old move is probably the best move!) 6.Ne3
c6 7.d3 (Budovski´s move, 7.Nxe4 also gives a complicated game, see Nunn's
NCO) 7…exd3 8.Bxd3 d5 9.O-O Bc5 (I prefer this move and not …Bd6 which leads
to a white win. 9…Be6 might also be possible) 10.Na4 Bd6 11.c4 Ne7 12.Nc3
O-O! (You should include this move. It is better than 12…Be6, which is mentioned
by Kosten) I can give you three CC games in which this variation was tested.
In none could white reach a winning position. The games were played at SEMI
and are based on deep analysis from both opponents. I want to point out this
fact especially for the game Bartsch-Gaard. I hope you like the games and
maybe send a comment.
Silman replies:
Dear Dr. Bartsch, First let me congratulate you on winning the
Latvian Gambit World Correspondence Championship.
It's obvious that you've looked at this opening
far more than I have, but I simply can't agree
with your assessment that the Latvian is playable.
Let's have a look at the variation in question: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4
5.Nc3 Qf7 
BLACK'S
BEST CHANCE? 6.Ne3 c6 7.d3 exd3 8.Bxd3 d5 9.0–0 
9…Bc5 10.Na4 Bd6 11.c4 Ne7 11…d4 12.Nc2 c5 13.b4! b6 14.Be4 Bb7
15.Bxb7 Qxb7 16.bxc5 bxc5 17.Nxc5! was winning
in Kozlov - Macgee, corr. 1989. 12.cxd5 cxd5 13.Nc3 0–0 This is the move Dr. Bartsch feels rehabilitates
the line. While there's little doubt that this
is best, I still feel Black is in for a very
bumpy ride. Not as good is 13…Nbc6 14.Nexd5 Nxd5 15.Bc4
Be6 16.Bxd5 0-0-0 17.Bxe6+ Qxe6 18.Qe2 Qg6
19.Be3 Rhf8 20.Nb5 Bb8 21.Rac1 Qe6 22.Rfe1
Rfe8 23.Kf1, 1/2-1/2, Offen – Kalhorn, corr.
1999. Don't be fooled by the result! White's
23rd move was a joke and Black was
always much, much worse (he's even worse in
the final position). 14.Nexd5 This is an interesting moment since White
can consider taking with the other Knight:
14.Ncxd5 Nxd5 and now 15.Bc4 (This would not
work after 14.Nexd5 Nxd5 15.Bc4 since 15…Bxh2+!
16.Kxh2 Qc7+ 17.Kg1 Qxc4 equalizes. Now we
can see the point of 14.Ncxd5 – the Knight
on e3 defends the Bishop on c4 and thus makes …Bxh2+
unplayable). After the further 15…Be6 16.Bxd5
Rd8 (from Rozzoni - Bartsch, 3rd WCH
2002) Dr. Bartsch makes an interesting statement: “White
has no real advantage anymore.” 
IS
BLACK OKAY?
When someone who has spent so much time on
this position (and has even successfully played
it!) insists that Black is fine, I'm left feeling
like a total moron since, in my mind, White's
winning chances (and make no mistake about
it, White is the ONLY one who has any chances
to win) are obvious. First, let's take a look at the Rozzoni -
Bartsch encounter (after 16…Rd8): 17.Bxe6 Qxe6
18.Qg4 Qxg4 19.Nxg4 h6 20.f4 Nc6 21.g3 h5 22.Nf2
Bc5 23.a3 Bd4 24.Ra2 a5 25.Bd2 a4 26.Bc3 Na5
27.Re1 Nb3 28.Kg2 Rac8 29.Ne4 Re8 30.Kf1 Rcd8
31.Bxd4 Nxd4 32.Nc3 Rxe1+ 33.Kxe1 Nf3+ 34.Ke2
Nxh2 35.Ra1 Re8+ 36.Kd3 Ng4 37.Rg1 Re3+ 38.Kc4
Rf3 39.Kd5 Kf7 40.Nxa4 Nf6+ and Black (who
had all the ideas in this game) eventually
earned the draw. What's troubling to me is
that I didn't like most of White's moves, yet
Black was still fighting for a draw, even though
it was clear that he was completely outplaying
his opponent. NOT a good sign for this variation's
integrity. While I don't feel that making a detailed
analysis after 19…h6 is important (It must
be much better for White, though Black has
some chances to exchange the queenside pawns
and draw the resulting 3 vs. 2 on the kingside
situation.), I'll give a random example to
show the kind of thing White can try: 20.b3
(20.Be3!?) 20… Nc6 (20…Bb4 21.Bf4 Rd4 22.g3
Nc6 23.Rad1) 21.Bb2 Nb4 (21…Rac8 22.Rad1 won't
please Black either) 22.Rfd1 Nxa2 23.Ne3 Nb4
2.Bxg7 is horrible for Black. What's even more depressing from Black's point
of view is that 14.Nexd5 is probably even stronger
than 14.Ncxd5. In other words, Black is always
suffering and always begging for a draw. 14…Nxd5 15.Nxd5 Nc6 16.Nc3 Be5 17.Be3 Be6 
WHITE HAS SEVERAL TASTY TRIES 18.Ne4 This is my favorite move. However, other ideas
also give White serious chances: 1) Bartsch - Laderchi, LG Final SEMI, 2002
went 18.Qa4 Rad8 19.Be4 a6 20.Rfe1 Rc8 21.Rac1
Kh8 22.h3 Bf4 23.Bxc6 (Black seems to be in
serious trouble after 23.Bf3) 23…Bxe3 24.fxe3
Qf2+ 25.Kh2 Rxc6 26.Rf1 Qxf1 27.Rxf1 Rxf1 and
the game was soon agreed drawn.
2) 18.f4 Bxc3 19.bxc3 Rad8 20.Qc2 Rxd3 21.Qxd3
Bc4 22.Qc2 Bxf1 23.Rxf1 Re8 24.Re1 b6 and Black
eventually drew in Gaard-Bartsch, 3rd WCH 2002.
However, to me it all looked like “suffering
as usual” for Black. 18…h6 19.Nc5 Rad8 19…Bd5 20.Bg6 Qxg6 21.Qxd5+ Kh7 22.Nd7 Rf5
23.Nxe5 Rxe5 24.Qb3 is simply awful. Perhaps
Black should try 19…Nb4, though 20.Nxe6 Qxe6
21.Bb5! also looks like hell on Earth for Black. 20.Nxe6 Qxe6 
STILL BAD FOR BLACK 21. Qe2 Bxh2+?! Tempting, but it doesn't turn out well. Black
should try 21…Nd4 22.Bxd4 Rxd4 23.Rad1 Re8
24.g3 when he would have reasonable chances
for a draw thanks to the Bishops of opposite
colors, but it's a long and miserable thing
to have to defend. 22.Kh1! And not 22.Kxh2 Qd6+ 23.Kg1 Qxd3. 22…Kh8 Other moves: 1) 22…Rxd3 23.Qxd3 Be5 24.Kg1 doesn't give
Black enough for the lost Exchange. 2) 22…Ne5 23.Bc2 Qg4 24.Qxg4 Nxg4 25.Bxa7
Be5 26.Bc5 Rf4 (26…Rfe8 27.Bb3+ Kh8 28.Bf7
Bxb2 29.Rab1 Re5 30.Rxb2 Rxc5 31.Rxb7 Rd1 32.Rxd1
Nxf2+ 33.Kh2 Nxd1 34.Bg6 and White wins thanks
to the extra pawn and Black's uncomfortable
King position.) 27.f3 Rc8 28.Bb3+ Kh8 29.g3
Rf5 30.Bg1 Rh5+ 31.Kg2 Nf6 32.Rac1 and White
wins. 23.Bc4 Qe5 24.g3 Bxg3 25.fxg3 Qxg3 26.Rxf8+
Rxf8 27.Bg1 Qh4+ 28.Bh2 Nd4 29.Qe1 and
Black is toast. To sum up: There are some theoretical opening
lines where Black accepts an apparently miserable
defensive task in the belief that it can be
drawn after a long and dour defense. Apparently,
this is the modern attitude taken in the Latvian
Gambit. However, I'm left wondering why people
choose to play the Latvian in the first place.
Isn't this kind of gambit all about having
fun and fighting for the initiative? If so,
why would anyone wish to play a gambit that
forces them to defend various pawn down endgames
where they can make a draw at best? It seems clear to me that the Latvian Gambit
is refuted as a practical tournament choice. |
