It is one of the oldest chess openings, having been analysed in the 16th century by Giulio Cesare Polerio and then the 17th century by Gioachino Greco, after whom it is sometimes named. The opening has the appearance of a King's Gambit with colours reversed . It is an aggressive but objectively dubious opening for Black which often leads to wild and tricky positions.[1][2] FIDE Master Dennis Monokroussos even goes so far as to describe it as "possibly the worst opening in chess".[3] While Paul van der Sterren observes:
What is required to play the Latvian Gambit with any degree of success is a sharp eye for tactics and a mental attitude of total contempt for whatever theory has to say about it.
The opening was originally known as the Greco Countergambit, and some modern writers still refer to it as such.[5] That name recognised the Italian player Gioachino Greco (1600–1634), who contributed to the early theory of the opening. In 19th century German chess literature, the opening was often referred to as "Gambit in der Rückhand" ("backhand gambit"), i.e. gambit played by Black. (The terms "Vorhand" and "Rückhand" were used before the standard that White moves first was adopted in the mid-19th century).
The name Latvian Gambit is a tribute to several Latvian players who analysed it, Kārlis Bētiņš being the most prominent among them. The Austrian master Albert Becker once published an article that Bētiņš judged to be dismissive about the Latvian Gambit.[citation needed] In response, Bētiņš published and analysed one of his own games in order to defend the gambit: Ilyin-Zhenevsky vs K Bētiņš, 1921.[citation needed]
According to most, the opening's only advantage is its ostensible novelty value, since, irrespective of what level you play at, the chances of your opponent even knowing this opening, let alone knowing the best lines for White, are low. However, it has been used by Boris Spassky[6] and Mikhail Chigorin,[7] amongst many others; albeit, usually in casual play. Most notably, even Bobby Fischer[8] and José Raúl Capablanca[9] have lost to it. Sweden's Jonny Hector is one of the few grandmasters to play it in serious competition; he has argued that it is not as bad as its reputation and that even with best play White's advantage is not large.[10]
3.Nxe5 (Main line)
White's 3.Nxe5 is considered the main line against the Latvian. After the usual 3...Qf6, the traditional main line has been 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4, however recently the immediate 4.Nc4 (the Leonhardt Variation) has become popular.
3...Qf6 4.Nc4
4.Nc4 has the advantage of allowing White to open the centre with d3, for example 4...fxe4 5.Nc3 Qg6?! 6.d3 exd3? 7.Bxd3 Qxg2? and now White is winning after 8.Qh5+ Kd8 (or 8...g6 9.Qe5+ and 10.Be4) 9.Be4. If 6... Bb4, however, White must be careful following the same line, e.g. 7.Bd2 exd3 8.Bxd3 Qxg2 9.Qh5+ Kd8 10.Be4 Nf6! because now if White plays Bg5, which would be necessary to win the queen in the earlier line, then ...Bxc3+ wins for Black. The main line continues 5...Qf7 6.Ne3! Black usually responds with 6...c6!?, when White can either accept the pawnsacrifice with 7.Nxe4 d5 8.Ng5 Qf6 9.Nf3, or decline it with the more popular 7.d3 exd3 8.Bxd3 d5 9.0-0.[11] The latter variation has been deeply analysed; the British grandmasterAnthony Kosten analyses one line to move 32.[12] One line discussed by IM Jeremy Silman is 9...Bc5 10.Na4 Bd6 11.c4 d4 12.Nc2 c5 13.b4 Ne7 14.Nxc5 Bxc5 15.bxc5 Nbc6 16.Bb2 0–0 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 and now 25...Rd8 or 25...Rc6 gives Black an excellent chance to draw the pawn-down endgame.[13] Silman later argued that 10.b4!! and now 10...Bxb4 11.Ncxd5 cxd5 12.Nxd5 or 10...Bd6 11.Re1! Ne7 12.Nexd5 cxd5 13.Nb5 is close to winning for White, and that the "old, discredited" 9...Bd6 (rather than 9...Bc5) might be Black's best try, though still insufficient for equality .[14]
3...Qf6 4.d4
A possible continuation after 4.d4 is 4...d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Nc3 Qg6 7.f3 exf3 8.Qxf3 Nf6 9.Bd3 Qg4 10.Qe3+ Qe6 11.0-0 Qxe3+ 12.Bxe3 Be7 13.Rae1 0-0. White is better here, but Black has chances due to White's misplaced king and weak light squares.
3...Nc6
Also possible is the eccentric 3...Nc6?!, against which John Nunn recommends 4.d4, preferring principled opening play to the unclear tactics resulting from 4.Qh5+. After 4.d4, if 4...Qh4? (Kosten's original recommendation) 5.Nf3! Qxe4+ 6.Be2 leaves Black with a lost position.[15] After 4.d4, Kosten analyses 4...Qf6!? 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.exf5! Nxe5 7.Qe2.[16]
Instead of 4.d4, Kosten says that White can accept the proffered rook with 4.Qh5+ g6 5.Nxg6 Nf6 6.Qh3 hxg6 7.Qxh8 Qe7 (7...fxe4? 8.d4! is strong) 8.d3! (Stefan Bücker gives an alternative 8.Nc3! Nb4 9.d3 as also winning for White)[17] 8...fxe4 9.Be3 d5 10.Bc5! Qxc5 11.Qxf6 Bf5 12.dxe4 Nd4 13.exf5! Nxc2+ 14.Kd1 Nxa1 15.Bd3 Qd6 16.Re1+ Kd7 17.Qf7+ Be7 18.Re6 winning.[18]
3.Bc4
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
Position after 14.Nc3
White's 3.Bc4 may lead to perhaps the most notorious and heavily analysed line of the Latvian, which begins 3...fxe4 4.Nxe5 Qg5 5.d4 Qxg2 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Bf7+ Kd8 8.Bxg6! Qxh1+ 9.Ke2 Qxc1 (9...c6 is a major alternative) 10.Nf7+ Ke8 11.Nxh8+ hxg6 12.Qxg6+ Kd8 13.Nf7+ Ke7 14.Nc3! (diagram).[19]
Instead of 4...Qg5, however, "nowadays players often give preference to 4...d5", the Svedenborg[20] or Polerio[21] Variation. According to Latvian Gambit experts Kon Grivainis and John Elburg, Black wins more often than White in this line.[22] After 4...d5 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Nxg6, Black chooses between 6...Nf6 and 6...hxg6. 6...Nf6 usually leads, after 7.Qe5+ Be7 8.Bb5+! (a small zwischenzug to deprive Black's knight of the c6-square) 8...c6 9.Nxe7 Qxe7 10.Qxe7+ Kxe7 11.Be2 (or 11.Bf1), to an endgame where Black is a pawn down but has positional compensation.[23] Sharper is 6...hxg6, when 7.Qxh8 Kf7 9.Qd4 Be6 gives White a large material advantage, but his "position is constantly on the edge of a precipice", and the line has accordingly fallen out of favour.[24] More often, White plays 7.Qxg6+ Kd7 8.Bxd5 Nf6, leading to sharp and unclear play.[25]
Black's best response is 3...fxe4. Some sample continuations are
4.Nxe5 Qg5 5.Nxf7 Qxg2 6.Rf1 d5 7.Nxh8 (a common mistake is 7.Bxd5? Nc6! 8.Nxh8 Bg4 9.f3 Be7 10.Qe2 Bh4+ 11.Kd1 Qxe2+ 12.Kxe2 Nd4+) 7...Nf6
Assessment: Black is usually down material, but has excellent compensation. Most of White's pieces are still on the back rank. IM Mio argues Black is better.[26]
Other responses for White
Several other responses for White have been analysed.[27]
3.Nc3
White's 3.Nc3 was originally analysed by the American masterStasch Mlotkowski (1881–1943) in the 1916 British Chess Magazine.[28] Kosten gives as Black's two main responses 3...Nf6 4.Bc4 (4.exf5 is also possible) fxe4 5.Nxe5 d5 6.Nxd5! Nxd5 7.Qh5+ g6 8.Nxg6! hxg6! 9.Qxg6+ Kd7 10.Bxd5 Qe7 11.Qxe4 Rh4 12.Qxe7+ Bxe7, reaching an endgame where White has four pawns for a minor piece , and 4...fxe4 5.Nxe5 Qf6, when White can choose from 6.Nc4! (transposing to the main line 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 6.Nc3), 6.d4, and 6.f4!?[29] Black can also play 3...d6, when 4.d4 transposes to the Philidor Countergambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5!?), which was favoured by Paul Morphy in the mid-19th century and is still seen occasionally today.[28][30]
Today, however, Black's response is considered to be 3...fxe4.
Assessment: One of the best lines for Black. Black has better bishops and a strong centre.
3.exf5
White's 3.exf5 followed by 3...e4 4.Ne5 Nf6 5.Be2 is recommended by John L. Watson and Eric Schiller.[31] 4.Qe2, 4.Nd4, and even 4.Ng1!? are also possible.[32]
Assessment: While Black is not lost here, this variation is hard to play for Black. It often involves Ke7, allowing Nf7 and saccing the kingside rook.
3.d4
White's 3.d4 followed by 3...fxe4 4.Nxe5 Nf6 5.Bg5 d6 leads, as usual, to sharp play. White often offers a piece sacrifice with either 6.Nc3!? or 6.Nd2!?, but Black seems to have adequate resources against both.[33]
Black's best response is considered to be 3...fxe4.
Assessment: Black has a better pawn structure, and better bishops. Few openings give you such a good position after just 10 moves.
3.d3
This passive move does not promise White any advantage. After 3...Nc6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.exf5 d5, Black is okay. Alternatively, 3...d6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.g3 Be7 6.Bg2 is also considered a prudent defense by Black.[34] Black's best response is 3...Nc6.
Assessment: Normal position that is comparable to several other openings. White has a weak pawn structure but the bishop pair. However, this is a tough advantage to prove, since White's light-squared bishop is restricted.
The Philidor Defence is a chess opening characterised by the moves:
The Vienna Game is an opening in chess that begins with the moves:
The Nimzowitsch Defence is a somewhat uncommon chess opening characterised by the moves:
Petrov's Defence or the Petrov Defence is a chess opening characterised by the following moves:
The Frankenstein–Dracula Variation is a chess opening for Black, usually considered a variation of the Vienna Game, beginning with the moves:
The Dunst Opening is a chess opening in which White opens with the move:
The Ponziani Opening is a chess opening that begins with the moves:
The Elephant Gambit is a rarely played chess opening beginning with the moves:
The Halloween Gambit is an aggressive chess opening gambit in which White sacrifices a knight early on for a single pawn. The opening is an offshoot of the normally staid Four Knights Game and is defined by the moves:
The Blackburne Shilling Gambit or the Schilling-Kostić gambit is the name facetiously given to a dubious chess opening, derived from an offshoot of the Italian Game, that begins:
The Rousseau Gambit is a chess opening that begins with the moves:
The Balogh Defense is an unusual chess opening beginning with the moves:
The World Chess Championship 1886 was the first official World Chess Championship match contested by Wilhelm Steinitz and Johannes Zukertort. The match took place in the United States from 11 January to 29 March, the first five games being played in New York City, the next four being played in St. Louis and the final eleven in New Orleans. The winner was the first player to achieve ten wins. Wilhelm Steinitz won the match 10–5, winning his tenth game in the twentieth game of the match. There were five draws.
The World Chess Championship 1889 was the second official World Chess Championship, and was between Wilhelm Steinitz and Mikhail Chigorin. It took place in Havana, Cuba. Steinitz defended his world title, and was the first of the two players to reach 10½. He won the match 10½-6½.
The third World Chess Championship was held in New York City from 9 December 1890 to 22 January 1891. Holder Wilhelm Steinitz narrowly defeated his Hungarian challenger, Isidor Gunsberg.
A World Chess Championship was played between challenger Max Euwe and title-holder Alexander Alekhine in various cities and towns in the Netherlands from 3 October to 16 December 1935. Euwe was the winner by overcoming a three-point deficit as late as the ninth game.
The 1978 World Chess Championship was played between Anatoly Karpov and Viktor Korchnoi in Baguio, Philippines, from July 18 to October 18, 1978. Karpov won, thereby retaining the title.
The 1992 Fischer–Spassky match between former world chess champions Bobby Fischer and Boris Spassky was billed as a World Chess Championship, though it was an unofficial rematch of their 1972 World Championship match. Fischer won 10–5, with 15 draws.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
