Originally posted by tomtom232 just because he is a fide master means nothing except that he is good at chess. He is just a person like you or me.
actually from what i can discern with sqelchbelch it more a form of idolatry, hero worship, call it what you will, it may of course be worthy of some comments on the spirituality forum!
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromfics I don't really have anything constructive to add to the thread.
I was/am enjoying the debate (with actual variations).
Thanks a lot guys (Korch/Northern Lad).
I can see all the effort and truly appreciate it.
Most people have to pay money and buy the book to get what you guys are giving here.
I wasted a lot of time reading the first few posts to this forum, and then I skipped to the end. I felt that I had to respond to what was being said.
When players claim that the Latvian is refuted, etc. it is simply not true. So long as the Black player has ingenuity and is a risk-taker, there is no limit to what is possible. Recently I have been analysing and creating my own new theory--what every gambiteer should do! And here is a nice win in the Latvian...
Originally posted by tomtom232 [b]For your information I have had a number of chess articles published in a variety of chess magazines including New in Chess.
Hi Tom Tom,
I quite often get New in Chess. Which articles are yours?
Latvian Gambit is a nightmare that God can't figure out. After a few years of intense study, you'll win against the unprepared with no problem but can still be caught with your pants down and lose in 15 moves against a n00B who got lucky.
Originally posted by tomtom232 I haven't written any articles. I was quoting NL.
Oh ok.
I think I misunderstood your post. That stuff in bold saying that you've had articles published in new in chess comes under your bit not the bit where you quote NL - but I see what you mean now.
I think I misunderstood your post. That stuff in bold saying that you've had articles published in new in chess comes under your bit not the bit where you quote NL - but I see what you mean now.
Yes, I was trying to emphasise my point. Frankly, I was being childish.
Originally posted by greenpawn34 You just really want to read the posts of Korch and Northern Lad
in this thread.
(no disrespect to other posters intended).
Two good OTB players with some very good analysis and thoughts
on this opening
I despair everytime I see The Latvian mentioned.
It's meant to be a surprise weapon. Posters alert the Whites that this
opening has teeth ...[text shortened]... e opening books suggest.
And now you have 'bumped' this one back into the spotlight.....😳
That's the thing, though... A little knowledge is dangerous! Most of the times when White plays a 'book' line you can take them off that at a point when they aren't expecting. You hit them with a surprise. There's still many lines that are goodfor black that aren't here. 3. ...Kt-QB3, for instance, is actually sound and a lot of fun for Black!
Originally posted by Northern Lad Yes, but white still has a considerable advantage after 10.Nc3. I think after 6.Be2, 6...Qd8 is black's only playable line. After 7.d5 Nf6 8.Nc3 Be7 9.Bh5+ g6 10.Be2 I think white has a definite and significant edge (even if black's position is not completely unplayable), whereas you think it's only a slight edge for white. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one and leave it for others to decide.
Yeah, but who actually plays the Bronstein Variation anymore?
If, say, the Nimzowitsch Variation is in fact a refutation, then it matters not, since it's not a move that anyone plays anymore! Furthermore, I'm not convinced at all that 3. ...Kt-QB3 (Nc6)!? is refuted. If White checks with the queen, he better be ready for a dogfight, and if he plays 4. P-Q4 (d4), Watson's 'Refutation', then 4. ...Q-B3 (Qf6)!! gives Black plenty of play. 4. KtxKt (Nxc6) is exactly what Black wants.
The real move that Black must know is ...B-K3 (Be6)!! followed by queenside castling in the Leonhardt Variation.
Latvian Gambit help
08 Nov '08 02:52
Back to Top