I wont give up

We all know that the Bogoljubow defense is a difficult animal, not only for the attacker but also for the defender. In previous posts, I already discussed both the Studier Attack and the Long Bogo. Both have their  advantages, both have their problems :
- it seems the Studier attack is incorrect against precise defense. But it complicates the game, and that is what the attacker is hoping for, no ?
- the Long Bogo is more precise, but it just doesnt feel right to me. The attacker, hoping for wild Diemer-ish attacks, plays it quietly ? It is like Robert de Niro playing in a spaghetti western - who would believe that ?

In any case, the line 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 g6 6.Bc4 Bg7 7.00 00 8.Qe1 Nc6 9.Qh4 Bg4 10.Ne2 Bf5 (diagram) has proven to be a challenge for white.

I considered 11.Bb3 before, only to find that black is better after the simple 11...Na5.

But now is seems to me that 11.Bh6 (diagram) is much better than 11.Bb3. Let's have a look at the lines :

a/ 11...e6 12.Bg5
...a1/ 12...Bxc2 13.Rac1 Bf5 (=+)
...a2/ 12...a6 13.c3 (=)
...a3/ 12...h6 13.Bxh6 Ne4 14.Qf4 (=)
...a4/ 12..Qe7 13.Ng3 (=)
...a5/ 12..Nb4 13.c3 (=)

...a6/ 12..Re8 13.g4 h6 14.gxf5 hxg5 15.Nxg5 gxf5 16.Rxf5(=)

b/ 11...Bxh6 12.Qxh6
...b1/ 12...Ng4 13.Qd2
......b1a/ 13...a6 14.h3 Nf6 15.Qh6 (=)
......b1b/ 13...Qd6 14.h3 Nf6 15.Qh6 (=)
......b1c/ 13...Be4 14.Qg5 (=)
...b2/ 12...Bxc2 13.Ng5 (++)
...b3/ 12...Na5 13.Bd3
......b3a/ 13...Ng4 14.Qd2 (=)
......b3b/ 13...Bxd3 14.Ng5 Bf5 15.g4 (=)

...b4/ 12...e6 13.Ng5 (=)

c/ 11...Na5 12.Bb5

...c1/ 12...c6 13.Bd3 (+=)

...c2/ 12...a6 13.Bd3 (=+)

...c3/ 12...Qd5 13.c4 (=+)

d/ 11...Qd6 12.Bxg7 Kxg7 13.Ng3

...d1/ 13...e6 14.c3 (=+)

...d2/ 13...Be6 14.b3 (=)

e/ 11...Nd5 12.Ng5 (++)

f/ 11...Ne4 12.Bxg7 Kxg7 13.Bd3 (+=)

Of course, with accurate play, black is slightly better after 11.Bh6, but white holds his chances for a fierce attack. And that's what counts for a gambiteer !

This cant be true !

I have picked up the Latvian gambit once again lately and started studying the critical lines. Now there are enough critical lines to study in the Latvian, believe me, but the poisoned pawn variation is surely one of them.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Bc4 fxe4 4.Nxe5 Qg5 5.d4 Qxg2 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Bf7+ ( a critical move in white's attack ! ) Kd8 8.Bxg6 Qxh1+ 9.Ke2 (diagram).

Most authors indicate that black is completely lost in this line, but is seems to me that black is alive and kicking !

9...Qxc1 !!! condemned by many. Obviously, white can force a draw now with 10.Nf7+ Ke8 , but can white win ???

Let look first at 10.Nc3 ( diagram)

Black has the edge after 10...Qxc2+ 11.Kf1 c6 (making the escape hole )

The other winning candidate is 10.Nd2 (diagram), but also here, I see that 10...Qxb2 brings white nothing more than a draw.

I have checked the far majority of the lines that previously were supposed to win for white, but it just seems black can escape with a draw !!

On the downside, it seems that a line that was believed to win for black is actually winning for white :1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Bc4 fxe4 4.Nxe5 d5 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Nxg6 hxg6 7.Qxh8 Kf7 8.Bb3 Bg7 9.Qh7 (diagram)

My textbook indicates 9...Qg5 as winning for black, but my silicon assistant immediately sees the refutation 10.h4!!, stopping black's attack even before it started. But then again, I never liked that line anyway.

Does this restore the Latvian to full equality ?? Unfortunately not, as there are still other refutations to refute ! It just shows that there is so much to discover in gambit play.

Enough proof ?

After some stupid article on chess.com on the correctness of the Blackmar Diemer gambit ( cfr to my earlier blog "Another nonbeliever" ), I looked up the position that the author referred to. I was surprised that I already covered that one in May 2011. Here's the article : "Really that bad".

Today I will be going in detail in one of the resulting positions : 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 e6 6-Bg5 Be7 7.Bd3 Nbd7 8.00 c5 ( the so-called refutation ) 9.Kh1 ( the refutation of the refutation ! ) cxd4 10.Nxd4 00 11.Qe1 (diagram).

a/ 11...Nd5 A simple way to exchange pieces, no ? 12.Nxe6!! fxe6 13.Qxe6+ Kh8 14.Qe4 (+)

b/ 11...Nc5 12.Rd1 (diagram)

...b1/ 12...Nxd3 13.Rxd3 Bd7 14.Nf3 Qe8 15.Ne5 (+=)
...b2/ 12...h6 13.Bh4 (=)
...b3/ 12...a6 13.Nf3 (=)
...b4/ 12...Bd7 13.Nb3 (=)
...b5/ 12...Kh8 13.Nb5 (+=)
...b6/ 12...Qc7 13.Qh4 (+)
...b7/ 12...Qb6 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.Rxf6 gxf6 15.Qh4 (+)
...b7/ 12...Qa5 13.Nd5 (++)

c/ 11...Qc7 12.Qh4 (+=)

d/ 11...Qb6 12.Qh4 (diagram

...d1/ 12...h5 13.Nb3 (=)

...d2/ 12...Re8 13.Bxf6 Nxf6 14.Rxf6 (=)

...d3/ 12...h6 13.Bxh6 gxh6 14.Qxh6 Qxd4 15.Rd4 (++)

...d4/ 12...g6 13.Rad1 (+)

e/ 11...Qa5 12.Ndb5 (diagram)

...e1/ 12...Qb4 13.a3 (=)

...e2/ 12...h6 13.Nd5 (+=)

...e3/ 12...Re8 13.Qg3 (+=)

...e4/ 12...a6 13.Nd5 (+=)

f/ 11...h6 12.Bh4 

Will be covered in a later blog.

g/ 11...b6 12.Nc6 Qe8 13.Nxe7 Qxe7 14.Ne4 (++)

h/ 11...a6 12.Qh4

...h1/ 12...h6 13.Bxh6 Ne5 14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.Rxf6 (+=)

...h2/ 12...Re8 13.Nxe6 fxe6 14.Ne4 (+=)

Doesn't look too bad, no ?