Originally posted by Northern LadIf white plays carelessly in almost any line, he can get in trouble.
If white plays carelessly in almost any line, he can get in trouble. All I'm saying is that with the ruthlessly precise play you expect from very strong players, black will be condemned to defending an inferior position and will probably not be able to allow himself the luxury of too many attacking moves.
But some openings give more chances to play carelessly.
ruthlessly precise play you expect from very strong players
Statement that strong players play ruthless precise I would call myth. Also strong players are only humans. Many chess professionals (IMs and GMs) in opening prefers to be "ruthless safe" instead of "ruthless precise".
Originally posted by KorchThere's not much between you 2 guys OTB ratings or ratings on here.
[b]If white plays carelessly in almost any line, he can get in trouble.
But some openings give more chances to play carelessly.
ruthlessly precise play you expect from very strong players
Statement that strong players play ruthless precise I would call myth. Also strong players are only humans. Many chess professionals (IMs and GMs) in opening prefers to be "ruthless safe" instead of "ruthless precise".[/b]
Why not put your neck on the line, Korch, and see how you do against NL in the 6.Be2 line of the Latvian?
😛
Originally posted by SquelchbelchI think we will need to work things out in the most principal line - 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4
There's not much between you 2 guys OTB ratings or ratings on here.
Why not put your neck on the line, Korch, and see how you do against NL in the 6.Be2 line of the Latvian?
😛
Originally posted by SquelchbelchI'm more than happy to play against Korch's Latvian next time we play in the natural course of things. Looking at our record I only seem to have ever beaten him once, and that was against his Latvian, actually a fairly simple win (see earlier in this thread). It can only be Korch's incredible stubbornness that makes him continue to play what almost all strong players recognise is an inferior opening. If I play him again in the Latvian, I will almost certainly beat him again, but so what? I may actually not play the line you mention, strong though it undoubtedly is, since 4.Nc4 (which I played in the above-mentioned game) is arguably stronger still. Amazingly in a previous thread I think Korch opined that the Latvian is as good as the Schliemann. Tell that to Radjabov!
There's not much between you 2 guys OTB ratings or ratings on here.
Why not put your neck on the line, Korch, and see how you do against NL in the 6.Be2 line of the Latvian?
😛
Originally posted by Northern LadI really awaiting for our next Latvian game to see base of your bravado as your bragging with that one game (as if opening catastrophes would not be impossible in so called "normal openings" ) is becoming annoying.
I'm more than happy to play against Korch's Latvian next time we play in the natural course of things. Looking at our record I only seem to have ever beaten him once, and that was against his Latvian, actually a fairly simple win (see earlier in this thread). It can only be Korch's incredible stubbornness that makes him continue to play what almost all ...[text shortened]... ad I think Korch opined that the Latvian is as good as the Schliemann. Tell that to Radjabov!
100 years ago hypermodern openings were considered bad by "all strong players". So argument "all strong players recognise is an inferior opening" is for sheeps not for thinking humans.
P.S. And I really prefer to be called "incredible stubborn" instead of being dogmatic repeator of outside opinions, based on prejudice.
The Latvian is definetly an OTB opening.
Sadly I've relegated it from my OTB rep to allegro games only.
I have many happy memories with it bringing down some
good over 2000 players.
Plus two simul draws v GM's Jaocb Aagaard and Leonard Shamkovitch
Though these don't really count, I only mentioned them so I could
relate this little true story.
I played Adjoran in a simul in the 70's and he played 1.d4 to avoid
my Latvian.
(it was at Teeside, I think Adjoran had just won or tied for the
World under 18's)
Well, that's not really true...
He played 1.e4 on the boards on either side of me.
I got 1.d4 and was hammered.
After the display I said to him.
"You played 1.d4 against me to avoid my Latvian Gambit?"
He replied.
"Did I?...Who are you?"😳
Originally posted by stockton1984Our debate vs. Northern Lad was restarted, as we had many "lively debates" in previous Latvian gambit threads.
Wow, I'm happy to have started such a lively debate! So what I've gleaned from this post is that the Latvian definitely can't be proven to be totally sound, but against those may be unfamiliar with it , it has many possible traps/pitfalls?
Anyway - even Northern Lad did admit that this opening is playable in your level and (after your preparation) will be good weapon against many players unfamiliar with this opening.
Originally posted by KorchYour analogy of the lack of understanding of Hypermodern chess ideas 100 years ago with the overwhelming consensus among strong players today that the Latvian Gambit is inadequate is absurd. We understand so much more about chess now than we did then. And this is not to mention the assistance of increasingly powerful chess engines. Believe me, if the Latvian were playable at high levels, it would be, at least occasionally. I've just done a database search of all games commencing 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 5.Nxe5 played in the last eight years in which at least one of the players was 2350+. The result is out of 44 games an amazing +41 =1 -2 for white! If that doesn't mean anything, I don't know what does.
I really awaiting for our next Latvian game to see base of your bravado as your bragging with that one game (as if opening catastrophes would not be impossible in so called "normal openings" ) is becoming annoying.
100 years ago hypermodern openings were considered bad by "all strong players". So argument "all strong players recognise is an inferior opening le stubborn" instead of being dogmatic repeator of outside opinions, based on prejudice.
I wasn't bragging at all. I actually pointed out that apparently I've only ever beaten you once on RHP, and that was the Latvian game. In my opinion you lost because you made it easy for me by choosing an inferior opening it's easy to play against.
Rather than just call me names ("dogmatic", "prejudice" etc), could you not share with us some analysis which might pour some doubt on the overwhelming consensus, backed by both theory and practice, that the Latvian is a distinctly inferior opening? Everything I say I am prepared to back up with concrete analysis.
Originally posted by Northern LadWe understand so much more about chess now than we did then.
Your analogy of the lack of understanding of Hypermodern chess ideas 100 years ago with the overwhelming consensus among strong players today that the Latvian Gambit is inadequate is absurd. We understand so much more about chess now than we did then. And this is not to mention the assistance of increasingly powerful chess engines. Believe me, if the La ly inferior opening? Everything I say I am prepared to back up with concrete analysis.
Also before hypermodernism some top players started to talk about "chess death" claiming that everything is inventioned already 😀 Some people really dont learn from history.
Believe me, if the Latvian were playable at high levels, it would be, at least occasionally.
I dont believe on word - especially I dont trust chess fashion which tend to change quite fast.
I've just done a database search of all games commencing 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 5.Nxe5 played in the last eight years in which at least one of the players was 2350+. The result is out of 44 games an amazing +41 =1 -2 for white! If that doesn't mean anything, I don't know what does.
These useless numbers are not able to refute opening. Refutation is possible only with particular unavoidable lines.
Btw. I bet that most of these games were played by these 2350+ player as White and much lower rated player as Black, which means that result is affected by comparative strength of opponents.
And actually - many Latvian gambit games have been played in CC by strong CC players (which are not obliged to have high OTB rating). There have been many thematic CC tournaments devoted to this opening. Obviously you did not include these CC games in your statistics.
Rather than just call me names ("dogmatic", "prejudice" etc), could you not share with us some analysis which might pour some doubt on the overwhelming consensus, backed by both theory and practice, that the Latvian is a distinctly inferior opening? Everything I say I am prepared to back up with concrete analysis.
Logical absurd. If someone claims that opening is bad then he needs to back this claim with particular lines. Claims like "backed by both theory and practice, that the Latvian is a distinctly inferior opening" has zero value.
That's a good reply Northern Lad but do you not think it is a
good opening at the lower levels for a player with a keen tactical eye.
(which was what original poster asked).
See if you and Korch can at least agree on that.
I think it is.
What does Database search show when the higher graded player was White.
(White would have won no matter what was played is what I'm thinking).
Maybe do a search between players graded 1200-1800.
I suspect the score will be about level then.
Edit:
Looks like Korch and I posted at same time and NL is getting
hit in stereo. I assure you that is not the case.
We agree about White being the better player in the stats though.
Surely in an opening that has a *ahem* slightly dodgy reputation, the onus is on the supporters of the opening in question to provide solid alternatives or novelties in main lines.
I have a passion for a few openings, and if someone says that such-and-such opening is bad because of such-and-such a defence, then I look at the line and try to provide proof of where theory has moved on and overwhelming practical (database) experience can be overturned when the correct response is made.
I gave a line earlier which is one of many promising ways for White to counter the Latvian gambit and, with players of similar ratings, virtually guarantee White decent results.
I would like to see a killer line with +70% for Black in one of the big 3 or 4 main lines of the Latvian, such as the 6.Be2 line for White.
Unfortunately it doesn't exist. You'd be lucky to find many lines where Black scores much over +25%.
The fact that many Latvian gambit games are played when Black is considerably lower rated than White is hardly a recommendation! What it means is that Black doesn't want to play the main lines of the Ruy or Italian game and wants to effectively swindle the game from the opening and still gets busted more often than not anyhow.
Originally posted by KorchYour ability to ignore reasoned argument and clear fact make you a most frustrating person to debate with. Instead of spouting out such drivel, can you please, as I requested in my earlier post, give us the benefit of some concrete analysis to back your contention that after 3.Nxe5, despite the overwhelming evidence of theory and practice, black can reach an ok position? Please, just a few moves?
[b]We understand so much more about chess now than we did then.
Also before hypermodernism some top players started to talk about "chess death" claiming that everything is inventioned already 😀 Some people really dont learn from history.
Believe me, if the Latvian were playable at high levels, it would be, at least occasionally.
I dont be ...[text shortened]... eory and practice, that the Latvian is a distinctly inferior opening" has zero value.[/b]
The overwhelming 94.4% score for white that I referred to in my previous post cannot be simply explained away by white always being the stronger player, because, for one thing, he wasn't. So, for example, we have:
Ratciu (2226) - Vasta (2375) 2000
Vlasov (2206) - Elfert (2412) 2000
Krjukova (unr.) - Yerofeev (2369) 2002
Garzon (unr.) - Herrera (2360) 2004
Kazakov (2154) - Vlassow (2379) 2008
All 1-0! Overall I agree the white players are stronger but only to the extent one would expect a score of around 65%. Yet here we have a score of almost 95%! Even a pretty grotesque opening like 1.e4 g5 scores better than this.
But once again please, can we just have some moves? That's all I'm asking.