Article: 1098 of rec.games.chess.analysis
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.analysis
Path: info!dregis
From: dregis@exeter.ac.uk (David Regis=)
Subject: Re: Latvian Gambit Known??
Message-ID: <DG9yt8.CLK@exeter.ac.uk>
Organization: University of Exeter, UK.
References: <44sq8l$f9t@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 08:12:43 GMT

In article <44sq8l$f9t@newsbf02.news.aol.com> mmiller675@aol.com (MMiller675) writes:
>I would like help to attain a little knowledge about this strange gambit. 
>If anyone knows about a book, or a refutation, please E-Mail me.  Thanx.
>

I won't e-mail because other folk may be interested.

1. The fun line is 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Bc4 fxe4 4. Nxe5 Qg5...

2. Most White players know about this line but avoid it in favour of
something less committal. 

3. One less committal line goes 3. Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5. Nc4 fxe4 when
White probably has a small advantage after 6. Nc3 (book), 6. Ne3
(Nimzo) or (best?) 6. Be2, preventing ...Qg6 (Bronstein).  White has a
number of small pluses (immobile target at e4, White can open up with
f3 at an awkward moment, I don't know where the Bc8 is going...) and
Black's prospects look pretty dismal to me. I had a quick look at a
copy of Tony Kosten's book on this line once and it seems he thinks so
too! 

D



From info!dregis Wed Oct 11 10:12:10 BST 1995