Latvian Gambit help

I'm trying to pick an opening with black to avoid the Ruy Lopez and one of the possibilities I'm looking at is the Latvian Gambit. I guess this question is mainly to those who use it on a regular basis and/or are familiar with it. What are the plusses/minuses of it? Are there any specific traps/lines on either side to be aware of?

I know nothing of it but if you are lucky, greenpawn will give us some tips.

Originally posted by MrHand


I know nothing of it but if you are lucky, greenpawn will give us some tips.

Greenpawn has never used the black pieces in his life and the only opening he knows is the London system. He has never even heard of the King's Gambit or Ruy Lopez. If you don't believe me then go ask him yourself.

Originally posted by stockton1984
I'm trying to pick an opening with black to avoid the Ruy Lopez and one of the possibilities I'm looking at is the Latvian Gambit. I guess this question is mainly to those who use it on a regular basis and/or are familiar with it. What are the plusses/minuses of it? Are there any specific traps/lines on either side to be aware of?

Most players who answer 1.e4 with 1...e5 HOPE to play the Ruy Lopez, not avoid it. I've never played the Latvian Gambit myself and never will for serious play. If you're looking for some sharp fun go for the latvian, I'm sure there are tons of traps for both sides. But trickery aside, try Petroff's Defence (2...Nf6) for a more solid game. And no it is not drawish at our level.

Otherwise picking something other than 1...e5 if you really want to avoid the Ruy.

Originally posted by stockton1984
I'm trying to pick an opening with black to avoid the Ruy Lopez and one of the possibilities I'm looking at is the Latvian Gambit. I guess this question is mainly to those who use it on a regular basis and/or are familiar with it. What are the plusses/minuses of it? Are there any specific traps/lines on either side to be aware of?

Actually there is some literature on that. Plus there have been two thematic tournaments, where you can go through the games and will find the main strengths and weaknesses.

Discussion has been raging if the opening was sound or not. I think agreement is that it is well suited for a surprise OTB but not easy to win if the opponent has enough time to do some resxearch like in correspondance chess.

Originally posted by Ponderable
Actually there is some literature on that. Plus there have been two thematic tournaments, where you can go through the games and will find the main strengths and weaknesses.

Discussion has been raging if the opening was sound or not. I think agreement is that it is well suited for a surprise OTB but not easy to win if the opponent has enough time to do some resxearch like in correspondance chess.

Some people don't like being surprised. 😠

Originally posted by stockton1984
I'm trying to pick an opening with black to avoid the Ruy Lopez and one of the possibilities I'm looking at is the Latvian Gambit. I guess this question is mainly to those who use it on a regular basis and/or are familiar with it. What are the plusses/minuses of it? Are there any specific traps/lines on either side to be aware of?

There was a long thread on the Latvian some time ago. Basically the Latvian is (probably) tactically sound but positionally suspect. 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 or 4.d4 both give white a clear positional edge.

Originally posted by Northern Lad
There was a long thread on the Latvian some time ago. Basically the Latvian is (probably) tactically sound but positionally suspect. 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 or 4.d4 both give white a clear positional edge.

Should add that according to practice White is not so easy to exploit this edge - Black has excellent practical chances even in CC games.

Ah the Latvian, or the Greco Counter gambit as I used to know it.

I once earned a living playing this opening.

My first six games on here I played the Latvian from set up postions
and won the lot. I've also played it a few times in normal C.C. on here and won them all.

It's a pity this site does not record blitz games as I play it all the
time and have won approx. 90 out of 100 games with it.

You just have to be prepared to play some odd looking off the
beaten track type moves knowing that you have been here before and
White is sailing in unchartered waters.

I'd disagree with Northern Lad about it being positionally suspect.
The idea of trading an f-pawn for an e-pawn has a positional basis
and if White does nothing against the Latvian then Black will obtain
a central plus and a comfortable game.

Also Northern Lad's variation is good only if Black allows it. There are
plenty of good tactical ways for Black to continue instead of following
that variation.

Having said all that it's not the opening that has won me the games.
I'm a good tactician. The Latvian floods the board with tricks and traps
and I have been fortunate enough to trap the unwary and also spot
their lemons.
The Latvian gets me into an unbalanced middle game which is I
ask for.

Nutshell:
Great opening v under 1600's both in C.C. and OTB.
Still good OTB v under 2100.
In postal play v a good player then the tricks and traps get spotted.
So it ends up the best chess player wins.
Which is the case with every opening.

Originally posted by greenpawn34


Also Northern Lad's variation is good only if Black allows it. There are
plenty of good tactical ways for Black to continue instead of following
that variation.

Name one!

(You may be right about it being OK OTB against sub 2100 opposition. Higher than that it gets found out as positionally dubious.)

Black has no need to play 3...Qf6.
3...Qe7 3,,,Nc6 3...d6 3...Nf6
(some opening books fail to mention these at all).

Two of these are dodgy at C.C. but OTB (where it's at) very upsetting
for White who sat down to play a Lopez.

3...Qf6 is given as the preferred line in most books so most wary
Latvian gambiteers avoid it as it's usually the only line that
White knows OTB.

Funnily enough I recall a Keene book that stops after 4.Nc4 saying
'and White has a positional advantage....'

OK but in play I've found White does not know what to do with it
and soon get involved in hand to hand tactics.

4.d4 has always been easy to play against OTB. The usual line given
in most books is 30 years old.

Agree over 2100 it has a bad rep but in most of these games if
you look at who was White and who was Black in most cases White
would have won no matter what was played and Black played a Latvian
as an attempt to upset their strong opponent.

A few GM's have it in their arsenal as a rabbit crusher some strong
players use it very frequently. Hector springs to mind.

A source sent me a recent game with new idea in 3.exf5 e4 4.Ne5 Nf6
5.Be2 variation. This looks good for White. Not a bust but Black
has no way, that I can see (yet) to upset the position and White has
an easy game, by that I mean no fear of losing with the draw in hand.

I fear theorectically the Latvian is just hanging on by it's finger nails.
3.d4 and 3.exf5.

Today the Latvian, tomorrow the King's Gambit...who knows?

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Black has no need to play 3...Qf6.
3...Qe7 3,,,Nc6 3...d6 3...Nf6
(some opening books fail to mention these at all).

Two of these are dodgy at C.C. but OTB (where it's at) very upsetting
for White who sat down to play a Lopez.

3...Qf6 is given as the preferred line in most books so most wary
Latvian gambiteers avoid it as it's usually the on ...[text shortened]... nails.
3.d4 and 3.exf5.

Today the Latvian, tomorrow the King's Gambit...who knows?

I'm sorry, I really can't let this stand. Black has every need to play 3...Qf6 since all the alternatives virtually lose by force!

i) 3...Qe7 4.Qh5+ (4.d4 is also good) 4…g6 5.Nxg6 Qxe4+ 6.Be2 Nf6 7.Qh3 with a big advantage since 7…hxg6 (7…Rg8 8.Nc3 Qc6 9.Nxf8) 8.Qxh8 Qxg2 9.Rf1 Ng4 10.Bxg4 Qxg4 11.d3 is winning.
ii) 3...Nc6 4.Nxc6 dxc6 is unlikely to get black sufficient compensation, but Nunn's move 4.d4! puts this move to bed pretty effectively.
iii) 3...d6 4.Qh5+ g6 5.Nxg6 Nf6 6.Qh4 effectively winning, since black is left with a choice of being a pawn down in a bad position or an exchange down with no compensation.
iv) 3...Nf6 4.Bc4 Qe7 (4...fxe4 5.Bf7+ Ke7 6.Bb3 d5 7.d4 is fairly horrible for black) 5.d4 d6 6.Bf7+! Kd8 7.Bb3 dxe5 8.dxe5+ Nfd7 9.e6 regaining the piece with a massive advantage.

At least 3...Qf6 holds black's position together tactically. The problem as I mentioned is that white can obtain by force a distinct positional edge. If you think "4.d4 has always been easy to play against OTB", then I have to wonder who you've been playing against. 4.Nc4 is arguably more ambitious for white, especially if he knows what he's doing. At the risk of appearing immodest, the following game of mine against Korch Game 4103738 shows what can go wrong for black in this line. Korch reckons he could have played better and criticises in particular 12...g6. In my opinion, white was distinctly better already, and my play could also possibly be improved on.

Originally posted by Northern Lad
I'm sorry, I really can't let this stand. Black has every need to play 3...Qf6 since all the alternatives virtually lose by force!

i) 3...Qe7 4.Qh5+ (4.d4 is also good) 4…g6 5.Nxg6 Qxe4+ 6.Be2 Nf6 7.Qh3 with a big advantage since 7…hxg6 (7…Rg8 8.Nc3 Qc6 9.Nxf8) 8.Qxh8 Qxg2 9.Rf1 Ng4 10.Bxg4 Qxg4 11.d3 is winning.
ii) 3...Nc6 4.Nxc6 dxc6 is unlikely on, white was distinctly better already, and my play could also possibly be improved on.

Btw. Talking about our game - now I would prefer 5...Qf7 instead of 5...d6 as I`ve found some holes in Silmans "refutation". And I dont think that without 12...g6 my position would be so bad.

Originally posted by Northern Lad
I'm sorry, I really can't let this stand.

OK. You are right from your side, I am right from mine.

Though I admit the 3...Qe7 line is very dodgy and I agree
unplayable v an over 2000 player. But for years it was the mainline
and will still catch the unwary.
(I think you missed even stronger move for White. But I know
this opening very well, you perhaps see it OTB maybe twice a year if that)

I shall point that out that:

"3...Nc6 4.Nxc6 dxc6 is unlikely to get black sufficient compensation,"
Believe me OTB it does.

And Nunn's move 4.d4! does not deserve the !

One of the reasons why the Latvian scores so well under 2000 is
because the player is thrown on his own as early as move 2.

Opening 'skimp books' those totally uselss books that give you
one or two lines in all openings always give 3..Qf6 and nothing
else.

If Black is a half decent tactcian (and a bit of a gambler)
then the Latvian will serve him well under 2000 OTB.
( I netted two 2200 players OTB with it in serious games).
I stopped playing it OTB about 15 years ago when I discovered the
Modern and the Pirc is more fun, (and I bumped into 3.d4).

The original poster wanted to avoid the Lopez and will be meeting
fellow under 1600's. I'd say go for it. Have some fun.
it's why we play chess...Remember?

Originally posted by Korch
Btw. Talking about our game - now I would prefer 5...Qf7 instead of 5...d6 as I`ve found some holes in Silmans "refutation". And I dont think that without 12...g6 my position would be so bad.

Well, I think white has a definite advantage after 12.f4, but obviously everyone can make their own minds up. I would certainly never claim that 3.Nxe5 is a 'refutation' of the Latvian, merely a strong, fairly risk-free, positional approach, which makes life difficult for black. If there is a refutation of the Latvian, it'll be one of the sharper lines such as 3.Bc4 or 3.exf5, though they tend to lead to pretty wild and obscure positions in which gambiteers will feel at home.