13748 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
In modern theory after 3.Nxe5 is 3...Qf6 or 3...Nc6 the critical move?
After 3...Nc6 4.d4 Black is in serious trouble. 3...Qf6 gives more practical chances.
The anonymous "pacifique" likes throwing rocks from his glass house without giving any proof. He is one of the rudest gutter-snipers on this site. Here is one online discussion of the Frazer line:
@ thehedgehog2000: let alone 5.Bb5 (the Bulgarian variation of the Jaenisch, actually better for white), and lets play something really simple: 5.d4 e4 6.Ne5 Bb4 and now the most natural move is (of course) 7.g4 0-0 8.Bg2 (IMO the bishop belongs here, despite what the stupid engines say) followed by 0-0 and f2-f3, when Black is simply a pawn down for very little. This is a dream king's gambit reversed position for white, since Black has no threats, as well as no greater central control.
I think your 7.Bg5 has no real bite, the bishop should go later to f4 and e5 (if allowed).
I think perhaps after g4, 7...0-0 is not best, maybe the variation 7...Nd5 8.Nxc6 8...bx 9.a3 9...Nxc3 10.Qd2 10...Ba5 11.b4 11...Nd5 12.bxa5 12...0-0 13.Qe2 13...Qh4 14.c4 because 14.Qxe4 fails to Ba6 with a big advantage to black 14...Ne7 15.Qxe4?? 15...Nxf5 16.Qf4 16...Nd6 17.Qg3 17...Re8+ 18. Be3 Qf6 0-0-0 Ba6 c5 Bxf1 Rhxf1 Rab8 cxd Qe6 Bd2 Qa2 Bb4 Rxb4 with mate to follow. Obviously Qxe4 should not be played. It is just an example.
All I needed to know was which was more common.
The Wikipedia article also addresses the Nunn recommendation:
Also possible is the eccentric 3...Nc6?!, against which John Nunn recommends 4.d4. After 4.d4, Kosten analyzes 4...Qf6!? 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.exf5! Nxe5 7.Qe2.
This is Nunn's pre-engine era analysis.Good move, but not the best.
Actually white is winning with 4.Qh5+ g6 5.Nxg6 Nf6 6.Qh3 (a measure against the rather inferior 6...Rg8) hg6 7.Qxh8 Qe7 8.d3! fe4 9.Nc3! (not even mentioned in Kosten's book) 9...ed3+ 10.Be3 dc2 11.Bd3 and Black may resign. Houdini's evaluation is +2.04, which needs no further explanation.
I know that 4.Qh5+ is objectively better, but 4.d4 needs less knowledge (like 3.Nc3 to compare with 3.Nxe5) and also here Black has bad position.
After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.d4 Qf6 your "discussion" ignores 5.Nxc6 (very natural and obvious move, mentioned also in previous posts of this thread, ignored by you) dxc6 6.Nc3 (or 6.e5) and Black has no compensation for extra pawn.
Well, Black has a bad position everywhere in this stupid opening. Objectively Black has to settle for the unsound 3...Qf6, or Buecker's 3...Nf6, when he is a pawn down, but can fight. After 3...Nc6 4.Qh5+, he can't fight: he is dead.
OK, working a bit on a few subtleties after 3.Nc3. My aim is to prove a large white advantage with VERY natural play, and no need to enter stupid tactics.
After 3...Nc6 4.Qh5+ practice shows that Black has practical chances, when opponent does not use engine to find the best moves. And I would not call this opening stupid. "Bluff" would be more appropriate as unprepared White player has many chances to not have any advantage or even get into trouble. I can say it from my own OTB experience.
I actually never thought about 3...Nf6 looks better than 3...Qf6.
Well, I figure since I'm just entereing class B USCF with a rating of 1624, that I can afford to play the Latvian a few times to try it on for size in some tournament, and local friendly games. I probably won't try it agianst a local gent that had a high rating of 2500 USCF, but thgere are plenty of players near my strength (or lack of same) that I can try it out on.
But I still am enjoying reading what stronger players say about this defense.
Buecker's idea was to play a pawn-down endgame similar to the one in the current Jaenisch gambit mainline. The idea is both brilliant and interesting,but there are subtle structual differences, which render the (not forced) ending after 3...Nf6 4.ef5 as definitely better for white Youc find plenty of details in the chesspub forum.
Speaking on 3.Nxe5 Nf6 - 4.Bc4 seems to be the best for white according to analysis posted in Chesspub some time ago.
I might try the Latvian gambit out sometime for fun , but it reminds me of a gambit defence .I sometimes play but is lacking against higher rated opponents. Thats the Colorado Counter e4-nc6, nf3-f5, aka the lean variation of the nimzovich defence . Fun exciting games but in tournment play a wouldn't suggest it. I'll have to try the Latvian out for fun, but somehow I doubt it would work any better.
Dating in chess.com
by trysts a few minutes ago
Best TT comment ever...
by Master_Of_Attack 3 minutes ago
Good Game(s) for Super Beginners?
by Jpatrick 3 minutes ago
What rating would you expect to be after 1 year?
by bro840 4 minutes ago
My first Puzzle :o)
by BigDoggProblem 7 minutes ago
I make moves very fast
by BhomasTrown 8 minutes ago
Playing as Black from White's POV
by plutonia 9 minutes ago
Staunton Chess Set - Wellington
by InoYamanaka 9 minutes ago
A good combo, down a queen.
by Player8-CHAMPION 9 minutes ago
We need more amateurs to post their annotated games.
by jaybir 9 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com