Latvian Gambit help

Originally posted by Northern Lad
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 sharp ...[text shortened]... they tend to lead to pretty wild and obscure positions in which gambiteers will feel at home.

Well I would not say that 3.Nxe5 is "risk-free", especially if White has ambitions to get real opening advantage.

3.d4 and the Latvian player has top defend like a dog.

The piece sac line 3...Nf6 4.Bg5 d6 5. Nc3 (Nd2!?)
It's not the type of position Black sat down to face.
All the fun belongs to White

Originally posted by greenpawn34
3.d4 and the Latvian player has top defend like a dog.

The piece sac line 3...Nf6 4.Bg5 d6 5. Nc3 (Nd2!?)
It's not the type of position Black sat down to face.
All the fun belongs to White

In my opinion White is not so easy to prove that they have sufficient compensation for piece.

Btw. there are other lines where White can sacrifice and Black should defend, but for me it never was reason not to play Latvian Gambit.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
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 tha ...[text shortened]... low under 1600's. I'd say go for it. Have some fun.
it's why we play chess...Remember?

Without wishing to sound arrogant, all the opening analysis I contribute to this forum is intended to represent objectively the very best play (to the best of my ability). Of course, the Latvian can be fun and maybe even playable at lower levels just like a lot of other objectively dubious openeings. It certainly is not my intention to dissuade people from enjoying their chess playing such openings. I just think they should be aware of the objective assessment of the lines.

Indeed, as a gambiteer myself, it would be nice if counter-gambits like the Latvian and Traxler were playable at higher levels. Unfortunately, all the wishful thinking in the world doesn't change the objective reality that they simply aren't. And without wishing to repeat myself, people should be aware that moves other than 3...Qf6 will almost certainly lose at higher levels and probably at most levels at CC.

I will repeat an offer I made in a previous thread. Although I mostly play the King's Gambit as white, I am always happy to play 2.Nf3 if my opponents indicate they wish to play the Latvian against me. The same offer applies to the Traxler. I would hope to score at least 90% against both.

Originally posted by Korch
Well I would not say that 3.Nxe5 is "risk-free", especially if White has ambitions to get real opening advantage.

I for one am happy with the 3. Nxe5 approach as black has most of the problems while white has few (exactly the opposite of what one hopes when playing a gambit).


Game 5408422 (poorly played by black but it's the only latvian I've faced recentely).

Originally posted by zebano
I for one am happy with the 3. Nxe5 approach as black has most of the problems while white has few (exactly the opposite of what one hopes when playing a gambit).


Game 5408422 (poorly played by black but it's the only latvian I've faced recentely).

5...Qf7? shows a complete lack of understanding.

As for the opening itself - well I think Kosten has it about right.

The Latvian does offer Black some good practical (ie OTB) chances against unprepared opponents of a similar standard to you.
However, in CC or with an opponent who knows something of the Latvian, there are several main lines which just give White an early edge which he can maintain with ease well into the middlegame.

Originally posted by zebano
I for one am happy with the 3. Nxe5 approach as black has most of the problems while white has few (exactly the opposite of what one hopes when playing a gambit).


Game 5408422 (poorly played by black but it's the only latvian I've faced recentely).

Practice (games of Latvian gambit experts) shows that things are not so simple....

Originally posted by Northern Lad
Without wishing to sound arrogant, all the opening analysis I contribute to this forum is intended to represent objectively the very best play (to the best of my ability). Of course, the Latvian can be fun and maybe even playable at lower levels just like a lot of other objectively dubious openeings. It certainly is not my intention to dissuade people f ...[text shortened]... t me. The same offer applies to the Traxler. I would hope to score at least 90% against both.

When we will meet on some tournament I expect Latvian gambit (as Black) and Ruy Lopez Schliemann (as White) as we`ve had sharp discussions in these openings.

Originally posted by Northern Lad
Without wishing to sound arrogant, all the opening analysis I contribute to this forum is intended to represent objectively the very best play (to the best of my ability). Of course, the Latvian can be fun and maybe even playable at lower levels just like a lot of other objectively dubious openeings. It certainly is not my intention to dissuade people f t me. The same offer applies to the Traxler. I would hope to score at least 90% against both.

I can`t to keep myself from mentioning that IMHO searching for "objectively the very best play" is anachronism which only limits your options.

Originally posted by Northern Lad
Without wishing to sound arrogant,

You are not coming across as arrogant at all.
You are expressing a worthwhile opinion.

It sounds like you appreciate the trouble White can get into if he
underates this opening. And this is where most of the Black wins
come from when, White seems to think "this is no good..."
and gets caught.

I like it when good players come on and give a few lines and say
the Latvian is no good. It makes it easier for me to beat the
players who follow this good advice but do not look at it for themselves.

My OTB record with it was tremendous my C.C. (the old way with
envelopes ans stamps) was shocking, which backs up something I
think Squlech said.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Be2!
is one of the most straightforward ways to wipe the smile off your face as Black.
ie

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
[b]1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Be2!
is one of the most straightforward ways to wipe the smile off your face as Black.

I agree. You have have just refuted the Latvian - well done.
6...Qd8 was forced. I'll never play it again.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
I agree. You have have just refuted the Latvian - well done.
6...Qd8 was forced. I'll never play it again.

6....Qd8 is not forced. Black has options like 6...d5 and 6...Ne7

Originally posted by Korch
6....Qd8 is not forced. Black has options like 6...d5 and 6...Ne7

Hi Korch,

I was being a wee bit sarcastic.
For every White posted win I could post 10 Black wins.

Let the Latvain fall back under the cloak of bad openings.
If not I'll never win another blitz game again.



Beautiful.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Korch,

I was being a wee bit sarcastic.
For every White posted win I could post 10 Black wins.

Let the Latvain fall back under the cloak of bad openings.
If not I'll never win another blitz game again.

[pgn]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. exf5 Nc6 4. Bb5 Bc5 5. Bxc6 dxc6 6. Nxe5 Bxf5 7. Qh5+ g6 8. Nxg6 hxg6 9. Qxh8 Qe7+ 10. Kd1 Bxf2 11. Qxg8+ Kd7 12. Qc4 Re8 13. d4 Bg4+ 14. Kd2 Qe1+ 15. Rxe1 Bxe1+ 16. Kd3 Be2#
[/pgn]

Beautiful.

Nice one. I can reply with one bullet miniature finished few minutes ago 🙂