Chess Club of the Golden Crescent Welcomes You!

Thanks for stopping by the official website of the Chess Club of the Golden Crescent! Feel free to send us an e-mail if you have any questions or comments: goldencrescentchess@live.com We also invite you to leave comments on our postings or at our official club forum (click here to access the forum). And of course, feel free to come by Jason's Deli on Monday nights to get a game or two in with us!
Showing posts with label Latvian Gambit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Latvian Gambit. Show all posts

09 December, 2009

An Addition to "In Defense of Latvians and Their Gambits", Part One

When I got a look at the game Henkleman - J. DeVries, I was more than a little bit taken with it - I wanted to see if my analytical powers were up to the task of improving either side's play. Of course, I thought John played a wonderful game, but could he have played even better? Did white miss a game-saving defense?

What I'm doing, then, is offering a two-part analysis. This first entry is my original analysis of the game Henkleman - J. DeVries. The second analysis will be done by Fritz 7 and posted here a week from today. This week will allow you ample time to review the game and my notes first before reviewing Fritz's work. I will be utterly deflated if it turns out I missed something major, but to be honest I'm expecting it.

On to the game!

  • 1. e4 e5
  • 2. Nf3 f5
  • 3. Nxe5 Qf6
  • 4. d4 d6
  • 5. Nc4 fxe4
  • 6. Nc3 Qg6
  • 7. f3 Nf6
  • 8. Qe2 Be7
  • 9. fxe4 Bg4! - This is one annoying bishop!
  • 10. Qe3 0-0
  • 11. Be2 Nc6

I haven't had much to say about the opening - that's because I know the Latvian Gambit about as well as I know folk singer Joan Armatrading. (I'm always perfectly willing to discuss my ignorance on any topic) But I can look around the board and discuss the relevant features of the position.

Black is castled and all of his pieces are developed to good squares, especially the g4-bishop. It is this bishop which needs to be chased away ASAP - the white king can't escape the center with that bishop barreling down the d1-h5 diagonal, obviously. But white is a pawn up for all of his trouble, so wouldn't it be great to just play 12 Be2 Bxe2 and get rid of that scary bishop? Yes it would - except white is going to be a pawn down in the middlegame instead of a pawn up ([A] 13 Qxe2 Nxd4 14 Qd3 Qxg2! [B] 13 Nxe2 Qxg2). And that's fine if that's the best we can do - but I can't see why white can't simply play 12 h3 here (12...Qh5 13 Be2 Bxe2 14 Nxe2) and white will be able to castle and go into that middlegame with his extra pawn.

White instead preferred to play for the attack.

  • 12 Nd5? Nxd5
  • 13. exd5 Bf6

In my opinion, more to the point is 13...Bh4+ 14 g3 Rae8 15 Ne5 Nxe5 and white can rescue the queen but he's in a pit no matter what he does.

  • 14. Qg3 Nxd4
  • 15. Bd3 Rad8+

I like the look of 15...Nxc2+ but it loses thanks to the now hanging g4-bishop after 16 Bxc2 Qxc2 17 Qxg4.

  • 16. Ne3 Nf5! - Piling on!
  • 17. Bxf5 Qxf5
  • 18. c3

The counterattacking try 18 Rf1 comes up short: 18..Bh4 19 Rxf5 Bxg3+ 20. hxg3 Rxf5.

  • 18...Bg5

This move, I think, showed DeVries' alertness and good judgment in this game more than any other move. I could easily see myself, and many other players in my class, slapping down the tempting 18...Be5. After all, look at the possibilities! The reflexive defense 19 Nxf5 gets mated: 19...Bxg3++ 20 Kf1 Rxf5+ 21 Kg1 Bf2+ 22 Kf1 Bd4+. Well, let's guard that dangerous f2 square, then: 19 Qh4 Bxh2! (mate on f1 or f2 is the punishment for grabbing the h2-bishop) 20 Bc1 (vacating d2 for the white king) 20...Rxe3+ (20...g5 also appears to win - for fun, play around with it) 21 Bxe3 Qe4 (The h2 bishop is still untouchable because of ...Qxe4+ and ...Qe2#; therefore, white can defend the beleaguered bishop with) 22 Qg5 Bg3+ 23 Kd2 Qxg2+ 24 Kd3 Qe2+ 25 Ke4 (25 Kd4 Be5+ 26 Ke4 Bf3#) 25...Bf3+ 26 Kd4 Be5+ and white must swap queen for bishop.

Pretty stuff, but not exhaustive - white could have willingly given up queen for bishop before he was forced to and made black's task a little messier. No, there is a reason black rejected 18...Be5 and that's the absurdly simple 19 Qxg4. So why bother with all those lines? For one, I think they're kind of fun; but two, and what is far more important, they illustrate how important it is to remain alert to every possibility. John DeVries undoubtedly saw that 18...Be5 was a strong-looking move, but many won games are blown at the exact moment the player in question chose not to sit on his hands? Yes, 18...Be5 is refuted simply, but not many of us would have exercised the patience and judgment to resist playing it. Stronger players could have resisted, but when we all learn when and when not to pull the trigger, we will get a little bit closer to their level. John DeVries certainly did so in this game.

  • 19. h3 Bxe3

I'm nitpicking here, but 19...Qd3 removes all doubt - either 20 hxg4 or 20 Qxg4 are answered by 20...Bxe3 and there's just no way to deal with all the threats without losing scads of material.

  • 20. Bxe3

John thought that perhaps 20 hxg4 might have saved the position, but black's position is too strong for that: 20...Bf2+! 21 Kd1 Qxd5. The black queen scampers away while the white queen remains in peril.

  • 20...Bh5
  • 21 Kd2 Qxd5
  • 22 Kc1

22 Bd4 threatens mate in one - remarkable in that white has been going backwards for almost the entire game - but the defense is simple: 22...Re2+ 23 Kd3 Qf5+ 24 Kc4 b5+ 25 Kb3 Qc2+ 26 Kb5 c5+.

  • 22...Qd3
  • 23 Re1 Bg6, 0-1

And there it is. We'll see one week from today just how good my analysis was. That aside, I enjoyed playing through this game. It was a lot of fun.

05 November, 2009

In Defense of Latvians and Their Gambits: Dad's Big Night

My father likes to send me his chess games (especially when he wins), and so I thought I would post his most recent victory - a quirky defense of the Latvian Gambit!


John DeVries: I played a casual chess game last night (Halloween night!) with Ken Henkelman, an 1800 USCF rated chess player who does not play any more in rated chess tournaments. I play Ken every week at Waco Chess Club meetings - he beats me at least 3/4 of the time! However, sometimes the stars align just right, and I beat Ken! Last night was just such a time.


The following game is worthy of review. It is a "Latvian Gambit" ( I played Black). "Latvian Gambit" was actually invented 400+ years ago by a great Italian player, Greco. It was called the "Greco Roman Gambit" until the 20th Century. The great 19th Century English Grandmaster, Joseph Blackburne, played the ""Greco Roman/Latvian Gambit", but stopped using it after he was crushed in an important international grandmasters' tournament. The "Greco Roman Gambit" reputation collapsed. No masters played it. Then, in the years before World War II, a group of masters from Latvia (Russia) (Mikail Tal came from Latvia but was not part of this group) began experimenting with it and challenged several chess clubs to Latvian Gambit correspondence games (these chess clubs were filled with master players) and never lost. Okay, a few of the games were draws. Since that time, it has been called the "Latvian Gambit".


Today's grandmasters totally disregard the Latvian Gambit, and the Latvian Gambit is humorously derided by my friends in the Waco Chess Club. I keep playing it, because I don't feel comfortable playing


-2- ....Nc6 when White opens with e4.


Grandmaster Anatoly Lein wrote a book on the Latvian Gambit - a chess master friend in San Antonio gave me the book, and I lost the book ! So most/all of my knowledge regarding the Latvian Gambit comes from my over-the-board experience.


The Latvian Gambit goes as follows. It is a gambit for the player with the Black pieces. -1- e4 e5 -2- Nf3 f5?!


In last night's game, Ken made a couple small, but important errors. Still, I slaughtered him. I'm going to keep the following game in my "DeVries Great Chess Games Database" (the database has a very small number of games!). The game (please see below) is worthy of review. If I ever get to play you with the Black pieces, and you play


-1- e4 and -2- Nf3, I will play the Latvian Gambit. Enjoy!!!


Ken Henkelman vs John DeVries 10-31-2009 (Casual Game)

  • 1.  e4       e5
  • 2.  Nf3     f5
  • 3.  Nxe5  Qf6
  • 4.  d4      d6
  • 5.  Nc4    fxe4
This is all standard - now the battle begins

  • 6.  Nc3   Qg6
  • 7.  f3       Nf6
  • 8.  Qe2   Be7
  • 9.  fxe4   Bg4
One of the key moves in the game for Black --- I don't mind going one pawn down here.

  • 10. Qe3  0-0
White never gets to castle in this game.

  • 11. Bd2  Nc6
  • 12. Nd5  Nxd5
  • 13. exd5 Bf6
Black 13th move is nice!
  • 14. Qg3  Nxd4
  • 15. Bd3  Rae8+
  • 16. Ne3  Nf5
The White Knight at e3 is pinned.
  • 17. Bxf5 Qxf5
  • 18. c3     Bg5
  • 19. h3     Bxe3
  • 20. Bxe3 Bh5  - 20. hxg4 might have saved White
Black's Bishop on h5 will prove decisive.
  • 21. Kd2 Qxd5+
  • 22. Kc1 Qd3
Now it is over for White.

  • 23. Re1 Bg6, 0-1
**EDIT by CCGC Blogger** Please click the link below if you'd care to play through this game.


Ken Henkleman-John DeVries