Good one.
But 7.Qxg6+ what a pain that is to dig out OTB - Twice I had to face
and twice I won but I think it done me brain damage.
I never recovered from those games. In one my King ended up on a3.
(not a typo it was a3 and not a6).
Ypur guy took the Rook but in one minute chess surely Qxg6+ must
offer better practical chances.
Originally posted by greenpawn34In his excellent book 200 Open games, David Bronstein goes into a deep discussion of how he came to discover the strong move 6.Be2 (which is odd, as it had already been analysed by Betins). In essence, his idea is to stop Black's queen from settling on the important square g6, from where she simultaneously surveys g2, protects the e4-pawn, and also allows the king's knight to develop naturally on f6. The other advantage of 6.Be2 is its flexibility: White can attack the Black e-pawn with Nc3, and, if necessary, with f3 and yet is ready, should Black play ...d5, to play Ne3 and c4.
Hi Korch,
I was being a wee bit sarcastic.
For every White posted win I could post 10 Black wins.
...
Black has tried many replies:
A 6...Nc6
B 6...Qd8
C 6...d5?!
D 6...Qf7?!
E 6...h5?
... without ever finding one that is completely satisfactory.
- Kosten
By the way, if you can post 10 Black wins for every White victory, you may be interested to note that on www.chesslive.de the results from 6.Be2 are:
P = 404
1-0 = 232
0-1 = 63
1/2 = 109
Originally posted by Squelchbelch[/i]I make that a 71% score for white in that line. The worrying thing for black is that white has several other good lines at his disposal, some of which may score even higher.
[i]In his excellent book 200 Open games, David Bronstein goes into a deep discussion of how he came to discover the strong move 6.Be2 (which is odd, as it had already been analysed by Betins). In essence, his idea is to stop Black's queen from settling on the important square g6, from where she simultaneously surveys g2, protects the e4-pawn, and also hat on www.chesslive.de the results from 6.Be2 are:
P = 404
1-0 = 232
0-1 = 63
1/2 = 109
Originally posted by SquelchbelchI have played over all these games.
By the way, if you can post 10 Black wins for every White victory, you may be interested to note that on www.chesslive.de the results from 6.Be2 are:
P = 404
1-0 = 232
0-1 = 63
1/2 = 109
Black was winning from the opening but blundered badly in
the ending - 232 times.
You cannot add stas like that to an opening when the losing
blunder was played in the ending.
To do it this correctly you have look to see who has plus
just in the opening phase of the game. You cannot blame
an 83 move loss on move 2.
So corrected statistic will now read.
P = 404
1-0 = 1 (Bronstein Game)
0-1 = 403
1/2 = 0
Originally posted by SquelchbelchActually Kosten did point out about possibility of 6...Ne7!?
In his excellent book 200 Open games, David Bronstein goes into a deep discussion of how he came to discover the strong move 6.Be2 (which is odd, as it had already been analysed by Betins). In essence, his idea is to stop Black's queen from settling on the important square g6, from where she simultaneously surveys g2, protects the e4-pawn, and also hat on www.chesslive.de the results from 6.Be2 are:
P = 404
1-0 = 232
0-1 = 63
1/2 = 109
Originally posted by Northern LadStrength of opponents also could be compared. I bet that many weak players are playing Latvian gambit against stronger ones only with intention to confuse opponent and without knowing this opening well enough to play it. Other possible scenary is that weaker player got decent position in opening but were overplayed later.
[/i]I make that a 71% score for white in that line. The worrying thing for black is that white has several other good lines at his disposal, some of which may score even higher.
Originally posted by KorchThere is another possibility, Korch, one that you have yet to mention; namely that is the 6.Be2 line does give White an early positional advantage in the opening phase.
Strength of opponents also could be compared. I bet that many weak players are playing Latvian gambit against stronger ones only with intention to confuse opponent and without knowing this opening well enough to play it. Other possible scenary is that weaker player got decent position in opening but were overplayed later.
Although I freely admit it's virtually meaningless, Fritz 11 rates 6.Be2 as joint 1st choice alongside
1. +- (1.25): 6.Nc3
and after about 10 minutes the top 2 moves after 6.Be2 is played are:
1. +/- (1.13): 6...d5
and
2. +/- (1.34): 6...Qf7
So the 400 games on chesslive.de & the Fritz analysis both tend towards the conclusion that White has an early advantage.
Those states mean nothing - that why I had my little joke
about playing through all the games.
I cannot put any creedance at all on what a box thinks of a position.
How can you give numbers to a chess position?
A position may suit some players and not suit others.
You cannot discuss a chess position with a computer.
Nor can you use one in a discussion. (that's cheating 😉)
No matter what is proved, said or played.
The box will assess the position the same as it did yesterday
and the day before that....It's a closed, sealed mind (thingy).
It's what and how a human thinks that interest me.
Not an electronic toy that cannot be bluffed, confused
or tricked because......well it's a toy.
The better chess player will win either side of any opening.
But will concede that Latvian in C.C. play (where stats were taken from)
then Latvian is indeed dodgy.
All White key lines are given as a plus in most books.
The why it's such a good opening. It has stood the test of time.
But I fear for it.
Originally posted by SquelchbelchI`m sorry to disappoint you but evaluation of Fritz in opening stage tend to be very inadequate. Especially it can be said about positions arising from unorthodox openings.
There is another possibility, Korch, one that you have yet to mention; namely that is the 6.Be2 line does give White an early positional advantage in the opening phase.
Although I freely admit it's virtually meaningless, Fritz 11 rates 6.Be2 as joint 1st choice alongside
1. +- (1.25): 6.Nc3
and after about 10 minutes the top 2 moves after 6.Be2 i ...[text shortened]... ive.de & the Fritz analysis both tend towards the conclusion that White has an early advantage.
Originally posted by SquelchbelchRatings of opponents?
I can't find 6...Ne7!? in my copy of The Latvian Gambit Lives!
It has only been played 9 times on chesslive.de
1-0 = 7
0-1 = 1
1/2 = 1
I` think I have taken part in many discussions about statistics and evaluation of opening/opening line. And my position has not changed - statistics can`t be used as refutation.
Originally posted by greenpawn34I like the Latvian - you know I'm playing it this season OTB - but that still doesn't cover up the fact that as you say, in CC against a half-decent player you come up against these really solid lines and it's like smashing into a brick wall.
Those states mean nothing - that why I had my little joke
about playing through all the games.
I cannot put any creedance at all on what a box thinks of a position.
How can you give numbers to a chess position?
A position may suit some players and not suit others.
You cannot discuss a chess position with a computer.
Nor can you use one in a d ooks.
The why it's such a good opening. It has stood the test of time.
But I fear for it.
My record here with it is
P = 13
1-0 = 4
0-1 = 7
1/2 = 2
but only because mostly the lower intermediates who I play don't know how to handle it and/or don't use a database so they either go for the main line or the rather timid 3.d3 or lines which are worse for White.
So you see, I'm far from being against the Latvian Gambit - I wish the results in these tough lines were better for Black - but you just have to face the reality that you can easily come unstuck playing it in CC because whilst there is no "refutation" there are at least 3 or 4 main lines which are easily found and are just very good for White.
And Korch, I know the Fritz evaluation is meaningless - I just looked at it more out of curiosity than anything else. 🙂
The Latvian has all but died out OTB at GM level and is indeed very rare at IM/FM level. The reason is simple: it's inadeqate at this level. It's true that after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 black may have drawing chances if he plays very accurately (all other black 3rd moves should lose), but what sort of recommendation is that? Defending a strategically inferior (if maybe tenable) position isn't really much fun for a gambiteer.
I did play the Latvian myself a few times OTB quite some years ago. It has some very interesting and attractive tactical lines. I put quite a lot of work into it but had to admit that in the above line white has a distinct positional advantage. As I've said before, wishful thinking only gets you so far in chess; there are some eternal truths out there too! If two strong players (say 2450+) played a Latvian theme match together, I'd expect white to win at least 75%.
Originally posted by Northern LadAlso after 3.Nxe5 Qf6 in practice Black are not cursed to passive defense - White has many "options" to get attacked, if they play too careless.
The Latvian has all but died out OTB at GM level and is indeed very rare at IM/FM level. The reason is simple: it's inadeqate at this level. It's true that after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 black may have drawing chances if he plays very accurately (all other black 3rd moves should lose), but what sort of recommendation is that? Defending a strat ...[text shortened]... rs (say 2450+) played a Latvian theme match together, I'd expect white to win at least 75%.
Originally posted by KorchIf 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.
Also after 3.Nxe5 Qf6 in practice Black are not cursed to passive defense - White has many "options" to get attacked, if they play too careless.