Joined : 01 Oct '04 Moves : 1983 |  27 Jan '05 22:24 :: 0 recommendations The Latvian Gambit, 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5!?, it's an opening I've tried many times and I'm still as confused by it as ever. The games are always short, nasty, and brutal, with a crush or be crushed motif to them. Anybody out there good at handling the black side of the Lat?
|
| | |
|
Joined : 13 Oct '04 Moves : 7573 | 27 Jan '05 23:29 :: 0 recommendations The only thing I know about the latvian gambit is that you should NEVER PLAY IT! because its extemely unsound.
|
| | |
|
Joined : 01 Oct '04 Moves : 1983 | 28 Jan '05 00:03 :: 0 recommendations Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
The only thing I know about the latvian gambit is that you should NEVER PLAY IT! because its extemely unsound. Well, it's extremely tricky, but I play it from time to time because I believe that it is sound, and if I can just figure out all it's horrific permutations, I just may have a terrific chess weapon for those not familiar with it. Several GM's agree with me. |
| | |
|
Joined : 12 Jul '04 Moves : 2304 | 28 Jan '05 00:32 :: 0 recommendations Originally posted by Dodger11
Well, it's extremely tricky, but I play it from time to time because I believe that it is sound, and if I can just figure out all it's horrific permutations, I just may have a terrific chess weapon for those not familiar with it. Several GM's agree with me. I refuted that opening over the board without studying theory in a tournament game... Nothing special to be honest with you... I just transposed the game into a very unsound variation of the Philidor and I took care of business... Nothing fancy...
After the game I consulted my openings manual to see if what I did was right and lo and behold! It was my opponent who deviated at the 12th move... |
| | |
|
Location : Hainesport, NJ, USA Joined : 22 Jun '04 Moves : 17527 | 28 Jan '05 00:56 :: 0 recommendations Looks likea fun opening to play. I have the book The Latvian Gambit by Tony Kosten. He says it's quite playable and was surprised how much correspondence material there is. His take is that if people use it a lot in correspondence, where access to databases, books, etc. is allowed, then it must be a killer otb when the clock is ticking away. I've never used it myself because I don't play double e pawn openings as black. I have never faced it on rhp, only a few times in biitz. Game Colony database gives it a 50% loss, 30% win, but that's at master strength. After 3. nxe5 Kosten likes Nc6 instead of the more prosaic Qf6. It leads to messy positions where the tactical minded would be at home.
|
| | |
|
Joined : 01 Oct '04 Moves : 1983 | 28 Jan '05 01:03 :: 0 recommendations Originally posted by buddy2
Looks likea fun opening to play. I have the book The Latvian Gambit by Tony Kosten. He says it's quite playable and was surprised how much correspondence material there is. His take is that if people use it a lot in correspondence, where access to databases, books, etc. is allowed, then it must be a killer otb when the clock is ticking away. I've never ...[text shortened]... f the more prosaic Qf6. It leads to messy positions where the tactical minded would be at home. Thanks, buddy! Finally, someone who knows something! There are Latvian Gambit matches/tournaments/correspondance clubs/etc., and the opening defies being pigeon-holed, because it's so dynamic. It really pisses me off to have someone say that they got the Latvian all figured out because they won a rated game one time. Ugh...how can people be so narrow minded and stupid? |
| | |
|
Cancerous Bus Crash Location : p^2.sin(phi) Joined : 06 Sep '04 Moves : 25076 | 28 Jan '05 02:13 :: 0 recommendations Originally posted by Alopinto
I refuted that opening over the board without studying theory in a tournament game... Nothing special to be honest with you... I just transposed the game into a very unsound variation of the Philidor and I took care of business... Nothing fancy...
After the game I consulted my openings manual to see if what I did was right and lo and behold! It was my opponent who deviated at the 12th move... You don't refute an opening in a game.
You refute an opening with deep study showing that the initial moves are unsound in all variations against good play. |
| | |
|
Joined : 12 Sep '04 Moves : 2663 | 28 Jan '05 02:36 :: 0 recommendations Originally posted by Dodger11
Thanks, buddy! Finally, someone who knows something! There are Latvian Gambit matches/tournaments/correspondance clubs/etc., and the opening defies being pigeon-holed, because it's so dynamic. It really pisses me off to have someone say that they got the Latvian all figured out because they won a rated game one time. Ugh...how can people be so narrow minded and stupid? my goodness, so rude! |
| | |
|
Joined : 01 Oct '04 Moves : 1983 | 28 Jan '05 22:36 :: 0 recommendations Originally posted by Alopinto
I refuted that opening over the board without studying theory in a tournament game... Nothing special to be honest with you... I just transposed the game into a very unsound variation of the Philidor and I took care of business... Nothing fancy...
After the game I consulted my openings manual to see if what I did was right and lo and behold! It was my opponent who deviated at the 12th move... dURHHHHH, I won a tournament game against someone that played the Ruy Lopez, so I guess I refuted that line, alright.....hahahahahahahahaha |
| | |
|
Joined : 12 Jul '04 Moves : 2304 | 28 Jan '05 23:03 :: 0 recommendations Originally posted by Dodger11
Thanks, buddy! Finally, someone who knows something! There are Latvian Gambit matches/tournaments/correspondance clubs/etc., and the opening defies being pigeon-holed, because it's so dynamic. It really pisses me off to have someone say that they got the Latvian all figured out because they won a rated game one time. Ugh...how can people be so narrow minded and stupid? Dude,
On a rated game over the board it is not a solid opening to practice. If all you wanted to hear was "Latvian gambit is fantastic" and be narrow-minded is your prerrogative but if a hacker like me could cope with that opening making natural moves the very first time it appeared over the board and without previous study, should tell you something.
Go ahead, practice your Latvian and be happy but the consensus is that it is more of a curiosity of correspondence play than a serious opening... |
| | |
|
Joined : 12 Jul '04 Moves : 2304 | 28 Jan '05 23:03 :: 0 recommendations Originally posted by XanthosNZ
You don't refute an opening in a game.
You refute an opening with deep study showing that the initial moves are unsound in all variations against good play. Maybe I exaggerated with the word "refuted" but the Latvian is a lemmon! what can I say? |
| | |
|
Joined : 12 Jul '04 Moves : 2304 | 28 Jan '05 23:04 :: 0 recommendations Originally posted by Dodger11
dURHHHHH, I won a tournament game against someone that played the Ruy Lopez, so I guess I refuted that line, alright.....hahahahahahahahaha 
Listen, I exaggerated with the word "refuted" I am sorry...  |
| | |
|
Joined : 12 Jul '04 Moves : 2304 | 28 Jan '05 23:05 :: 0 recommendations Originally posted by impedingaction
my goodness, so rude! Yeah, can you believe that dude? |
| | |
|
Joined : 01 Oct '04 Moves : 1983 | 28 Jan '05 23:06 :: 0 recommendations Originally posted by Dodger11
dURHHHHH, I won a tournament game against someone that played the Ruy Lopez, so I guess I refuted that line, alright.....hahahahahahahahaha some0nE palyed tehe siciliAn aGainsT meeee once, t000, inna tournAmEnt aNd I w0n, so's I gust I reFutated that line t00000! |
| | |
|
Joined : 12 Jul '04 Moves : 2304 | 29 Jan '05 17:24 :: 0 recommendations Originally posted by Dodger11
some0nE palyed tehe siciliAn aGainsT meeee once, t000, inna tournAmEnt aNd I w0n, so's I gust I reFutated that line t00000! Like I sadi: I exaggerated.
The point is that if I run into an opening that I have never played before and was confident enough to take it down with general principles leads me to conclude that it is nothing to be scared of (That coupled with the fact that I am a mediocre player) Honestly, you can't compare the Sicilian, which is sound, with the Latvian which is very suspicious... |
| | |
|
