1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5
Risky opening, but better than its reputation and may lead to wild complications. If black knows theory, they may have good results (for example when I used to play Latvian Gambit in OTB, my results was good) in it especially if white thinks that they can easily win 🙂 Today have been created thematic Latviang Gambit tournament.
Whats your opinion about this opening?
I used to play the Latvian a lot. If black is familiar with all it's wild traps and pitfalls, it is a powerful weapon to an opponent not familiar with it, and very few players are. If you study the Lat and know it inside and out, (this will take years), you will be virtually unbeatable with it.
Your affinity for this opening wouldn't be because you are from Latvia would it? 🙂 In my "very limited" opinion, since I have only ever seen this opening played and never played it myself, is that it is full of sharp tactical lines. I think that a Black player that knows the theory would fare quite well against White. Presuming that White isn't a Latvian player him/herself.
Originally posted by MathurineI know that it was called the Greco Counter Gambit, till the 20th century, when Latvian chessplayers developed this opening in modern level. In 1938 FIDE officially titled this opening as Latvian Gambit.
It was originally called the Greco Counter Gambit.
Doesn’t 3. Nc3 refute it, though; I thought that’s why one rarely sees it at the top level these days.
I` have studied and played this opening few years and I`m sure that 3.Nc3 isnt refutation.
Originally posted by AlphaAlekhineMaybe if I wasn`t from Latvia. I wouldn`t played that opening. Who knows. But the main reason why I` played Latvian Gambit in OTB is many sharp lines in this opening and that white need to know the theory well for getting advantage.
Your affinity for this opening wouldn't be because you are from Latvia would it? 🙂 In my "very limited" opinion, since I have only ever seen this opening played and never played it myself, is that it is full of sharp tactical lines. I think that a Black player that knows the theory would fare quite well against White. Presuming that White isn't a Latvian player him/herself.
"Around the year 1900 a group of Latvian players led by K. Betinš from Riga began an independent research into the gambit and brought it up to modern standards. Over the intervening years many illustrious names have been associated with this opening - Nimzovitsch, Keres, Bronstein, and Spassky to name a few. World Champions Capablanca and Fischer have been on its receiving end."
The Lat has never been refuted and has been considered good enough by some world class players.
Originally posted by omulcusobolaniI agree with Silman, mostly, except for the opening paragraph:
http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_opng_anlys/040410_latvian_gambit.html
" The line you faced is known as the Latvian Gambit. There is a whole community of players who live for this opening, but the fact that no grandmasters use it speaks volumes for its true lack of soundness"
As has been pointed out, the Latvian has seen use by the likes of Spassky, Bronstein, Nimzovich, Keres etc. Both Capablanca and Fischer have been on the losing end of the Latvian, so it's hardly unsound.
Correspondence players use it because of the fantastic complications that arise, but it has never been busted. It's just a nightmare to figure out over the board, which is why it;s so great for a player that makes a thorough study of it. It only takes a lifelong commitment to understand completely.
Originally posted by GreatSantiniI must say that Grandmasters you named played it once or few times (except Keres, who played in in correspondence chess in young years). Also Capa and Fisher have played against it only once so, surprise of opening worked.
I agree with Silman, mostly, except for the opening paragraph:
" The line you faced is known as the Latvian Gambit. There is a whole community of players who live for this opening, but the fact that no grandmasters use it speaks volumes for its true lack of soundness"
As has been pointed out, the Latvian has seen use by the likes of Spassky, Brons ...[text shortened]... makes a thorough study of it. It only takes a lifelong commitment to understand completely.
About Silmens analyses. Most of them are true but not all and I` can say that after 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3 black can get normal position (I won`t tell how. because I`m gonna save it for thematic tournament 😛)
Originally posted by KorchGood call on Keres using the Latvian more than others, Mr. Korch. Here's a link that shows some quick wins with the Latvian Gambit, three of them by Keres. (plus some other big names)
I must say that Grandmasters you named played it once or few times (except Keres, who played in in correspondence chess in young years). Also Capa and Fisher have played against it only once so, surprise of opening worked.
About Silmens analyses. Most of them are true but not all and I` can say that after 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3 black can get normal position (I won`t tell how. because I`m gonna save it for thematic tournament 😛)