- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
30 Oct 08
2 edits
Originally posted by greenpawn34I did a search for Latvian gambit games played by club strength players (rated between 1200 and 2000) in the last 8 years. The results were pretty much as greenpawn predicted:
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 e you that is not the case.
We agree about White being the better player in the stats though.
There were 221 games in my database.
White won in 97 games = 54 %
46 Draws
Black won in 78 games = 46 %
Average White Elo = 1648
Average Black Elo = 1693
A White score of 54% is the standard sort of percentage that White gets in most openings.
So for players rated below 2000, it seems that the Latvian is as good as any other opening.
30 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Northern LadYour inability to make reasonable logic arguments are obvious. As we can see you nit picked only the less important part of my text.
Your 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 rea tter than this.
But once again please, can we just have some moves? That's all I'm asking.
Where is your "overhelming evidence"? I`m still awaiting.
You ignored my point about CC games.
And one of the possible reasons of bad OTB results could be that most experts of Latvian gambit are CC players and OTB players is using this opening rarely only to surprise opponent which means that they lack knowledge and practice to play it. So your statistics anyway can`t be considered as "overhelming evidence".
And according to your "statistics logic" we are going to obviously absurd conclusion that even 1.e4 g5 is better than Latvian gambit 😀
Its you who need to make some moves to refute this opening.
30 Oct 08
2 edits
Talking about statistics - I have only 3 loses in RHP with this opening- to Northern Lad, SeinfeldFan91 and Jimster (banned cheat) and wins even against strong opponents (cludi, English Tal, maris61) and also draws against strong opposition (David Tebb, SlyArmenian).
To say nothing about almost 100% results against weaker (below 2100) opposition.
30 Oct 08
Originally posted by greenpawn34hi, i would love to go greenpawn, but unless the organizers agree to my seating, lighting and chess piece preferences, not to mention adding at least two zeros to the beginners prize fund, i dunno if i can show. however, the temptation of sampling ones book is perhaps a little more appealing!
Hi Robbie - Going to the Glasgow congress?
My book will be on sale at the bookstall.
30 Oct 08
Originally posted by KorchImpressive figures Korch.
Talking about statistics - I have only 3 loses in RHP with this opening- to Northern Lad, SeinfeldFan91 and Jimster (banned cheat) and wins even against strong opponents (cludi, English Tal, maris61) and also draws against strong opposition (David Tebb, SlyArmenian).
To say nothing about almost 100% results against weaker (below 2100) opposition.
It's an opening that suits your style and I've always said that this
is important.
Would you say it was the Latvian that won these games or was it
because you reached an unblanced middle-game and were the
better player to deal with it.
I think if you want to really see how an opening scores then you
you should have a cut off and look at games under 25 moves.
Then you can state "Yes the opening did it."
Games longer than that then it is usually the player who has
played the better middle or endgame.
If someone say's "I lost a Caro Khan in 83 moves."
Then one cannot really blame 1..c6 for losing 82 later.
What do you and NL (or anybody else) think.
Is this a better way to judge an opening - under 25 moves?
30 Oct 08
Originally posted by KorchAre you stupid or just not prepared to read what I say or what? I've presented the overwhelming evidence in my previous post. 94.8% must mean something. The fact that almost all strong players and almost all established theory (these days often supported by strong engines) consider the Latvian to be an essentially inferior opening must also mean something. The fact that virtually no strong players (and no GMs at all) regularly play the opening must also mean something. It's just common sense not dogmatism.
Your inability to make reasonable logic arguments are obvious. As we can see you nit picked only the less important part of my text.
Where is your "overhelming evidence"? I`m still awaiting.
You ignored my point about CC games.
And one of the possible reasons of bad OTB results could be that most experts of Latvian gambit are CC players and OTB playe ...[text shortened]... er than Latvian gambit 😀
Its you who need to make some moves to refute this opening.
Any reasonable person (which clearly excludes yourself) would accept that the ball is in your court to show how and why established theory and practice are so wrong in their assessment of the Latvian. But, as always, not a single move is suggested by yourself, just a lot of unsubstantiated twaddle at my expense.
In this forum I've always been prepared to back my opinions with concrete analysis, unlike yourself. Even though, as I said before, the ball is most definitely in your court, I will, when I get a little time to myself, publish a synopsis of the theory that demonstrates the Latvian Gambit to be an objectively inferior opening.
Two further points:
I've made it clear from the start that the Latvian is quite playable at lower levels (say below 2000). Therefore Dave's ststistics do not surprise me. In fact, the Latvian is probably quite a dangerous weapon at lower levels. There is probably no tactical refutation (or if there is, it's not easy to find). The best way to play against it is a controlled positional approach, but this is obviously more suited to stronger players.
All my claims and statistics are based on 3.Nxe5, which is overwhelmingly the choice of stronger players. Other moves may be a lot more fun, but black usually has his fair share of the fun going, so they are best avoided if all you want to do is win as white. This will also affect the statistics.
30 Oct 08
4 edits
Originally posted by Northern LadAre you stupid or just not prepared to read what I say or what? I've presented the overwhelming evidence in my previous post. 94.8% must mean something. The fact that almost all strong players and almost all established theory (these days often supported by strong engines) consider the Latvian to be an essentially inferior opening must also mean something. The fact that virtually no strong players (and no GMs at all) regularly play the opening must also mean something. It's just common sense not dogmatism.
Are you stupid or just not prepared to read what I say or what? I've presented the overwhelming evidence in my previous post. 94.8% must mean something. The fact that almost all strong players and almost all established theory (these days often supported by strong engines) consider the Latvian to be an essentially inferior opening must also mean somethi best avoided if all you want to do is win as white. This will also affect the statistics.
In my previous posts I already stated that "overhelming evidence", like statistics and fashion have zero value to refute any opening.
Any reasonable person (which clearly excludes yourself) would accept that the ball is in your court to show how and why established theory and practice are so wrong in their assessment of the Latvian. But, as always, not a single move is suggested by yourself, just a lot of unsubstantiated twaddle at my expense.
Taking into account that there are no "overhelming evidence" presented - why should be ball in my court?
In this forum I've always been prepared to back my opinions with concrete analysis, unlike yourself. Even though, as I said before, the ball is most definitely in your court, I will, when I get a little time to myself, publish a synopsis of the theory that demonstrates the Latvian Gambit to be an objectively inferior opening.
I`m awaiting for your analysis as in all your previous "Latvian gambit" posts (and there were many) there were no given analysis which would refute it.