®| ® |
|
|
|---|
Back to September 2001 Reviews
Last update: Friday June 3, 2005 9:44
by Tony Kosten
Batsford
224 pages, £15.99
Review by James Vigus
In the 19th century a certain Deschapelles
recommended the Latvian Gambit (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5) as Black's best reply to 2
Nf3. Few have since shared his high opinion of it and as Kosten's title suggests,
many doubt the opening's soundness - but it seems that it's not quite time to
switch off the life-support machine.
The introduction relates that, having planned to spend only a week or two revising his book The Latvian Gambit, Kosten actually took four months over it: "This revision has become a labour of love for me. I have been through all 9000 or so Latvian Gambits ever published…and have deeply analysed all the critical lines." Anyone who has read Batsford's inane blurb on the back cover might feel sceptical about this, but be reassured: Kosten's analysis really is deep, and the book is excellent, a must-buy for Latvian fans. Qualitatively the main difference from the first edition is that most of the game references are now from correspondence play. According to Kosten the use of high-powered computers has revolutionised this form of the game - so in this book there are some stunning games from some obscure players.
A quick overview: Black is at least clinging on in every line. He can be practically forced into a slightly worse middlegame (with or without queens) after 3 Nxe5 Qf6 4 d4 d6 5 Nc4 fxe4 6 Nc3 Qg6 7 f3 exf3 8 Qxf3 Nf6 (perhaps best) 9 Bd3 Qg4, though he retains equalising chances (chapter 1). Bronstein's 6 Be2 in this line (chapter 4), retaining options of c2-c4 intending pressure on the e4 pawn, is pleasant for White without being scary. Chapter 5, devoted to John Nunn's favoured line, 3 Nxe5 Qf6 4 Nc4 fxe4 5 Nc3, is more worrying for Black. Black's best emerges as 5…Qf7 6 Ne3 c6! (Kosten's punctuation) - call me prejudiced, but can this really be any good? Still, the Kosten-Nunn debate on this variation is sure to rumble on for a while. 3 Bc4 fxe4 4 Nxe5, on the other hand, is usually fun for Black, provided he chooses 4…d5 (chapter 8) rather than the materialistic 4…Qg5 (chapter 7). Black is also doing fine with 3 exf5 e4 4 Ne5 Nf6 5 Be2 Be7!? 6 Bh5+ Kf8 with, as ever, unbalanced play. 3 d4 (chapter 11) and 3 Nc3 (chapter 12) are respectable but not critical, while inferior third moves are covered in chapter 13.
I have summarised all this partly because I myself found it awkward to navigate the book. Although the chapters are structured logically, it is hard to pick out Kosten's conclusions without ploughing through large chunks of analysis. And even following the analysis is an effort - it is densely presented, inadequately spaced, and full of confusing brackets, so that as soon as you look from book to board you have lost your place. Pleasing though it is to see so much good analysis packed into a volume of modest size, it is a great shame that the editor could not have made it easier on the eye. One piece of carelessness stands out. Page 55 lists five possible Black responses, A to E, against 3 Nxe5 Qf6 4 d4 d6 5 Nc4 fxe4 6 Be2. Suddenly, however, on page 67 there pops up an option "F": "Apart from the five moves mentioned, Black might also be able to essay 6…Ne7!?" (a move which the index at the back also omits). Incidentally, 6…Ne7 looks dubious to me. Following 7 d5 Bf5 8 Nc3 Na6 9 Be3 Kosten suggests 9…Qf7, but then 10 a3 Nc5 (what else?) 11 0-0 intending f3 is a simple way for White to gain a clear edge: Black remains under-developed.
But I have complained too much already. Though you'll have to work very hard to appreciate it, this is an outstanding book on a fascinating subject, full of compelling original analysis.