Originally posted by pwnguin Well, I have Kosten's "The Latvian Gambit Lives", and in almost every line with best play by both sides black comes out badly.
For example Korch, after 2...f4 3 Nxe5 what do you play? Qf6?
Originally posted by Korch Kosten's analysis are not perfect too.
After 3.Nxe5 I would play 3...Qf6
Mr. Korch is on the money, the Latvian is a hideously complicated mess that only a top player can wade through, and even then it's never been refuted. Bobby Fischer has been one of it's many victims in tournament play.
If a modestly talented player wants to research it and get it's basic tricks down pat, he can deliver a shock and awe opening to anyone that's unprepared and walk over them.
I believe only God understands the Latvian, everybody else is kidding themselves.
That's what makes me laugh about these gambit refutations, like the 3...d6 Fischer "bust" of the King's gambit.
Nothing of the sort - just look at any database to see plenty of GM's beating higher rated opposition who used the Fischer Defence ie:
Originally posted by Squelchbelch That's what makes me laugh about these gambit refutations, like the 3...d6 Fischer "bust" of the King's gambit.
Nothing of the sort - just look at any database to see plenty of GM's beating higher rated opposition who used the Fischer Defence.
Interesting story about Fischer's article claiming a "bust" to the King's gambit. he wrote it after being trashed by it in a tournament. After that, it became unpopular, even though he wrote badly about it in a game he lost.
Game 3740539 heres an interesting, very shot mind you, game from the Alekhine. Whites only real mistake was taking on f7, but even after taking on g7 I felt very confident.
The French Defense is the opening I adopted against e4 when I got tired of playing Sicilians. It is a solid defense, still offering black good winning chances.
Originally posted by pwnguin Well, I have Kosten's "The Latvian Gambit Lives", and in almost every line with best play by both sides black comes out badly.
For example Korch, after 2...f4 3 Nxe5 what do you play? Qf6?
A rare but not necessarily an ugly beast is the Marshall Variation in the French Defense: 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 c5. It's a good defense if you're going all-out for a win, and it doesn't require a zillion variations to memorize in order to play it.
Black almost always get an isolate d-pawn, but he gets active piece play as compensation. Sometimes black even sacrifices a pawn in order to speed up his development. In his Chess Life column almost a year ago, Andrew Soltis suggested that it was fully playable at the amatuer level.
Originally posted by pwnguin Well, I have Kosten's "The Latvian Gambit Lives", and in almost every line with best play by both sides black comes out badly.
For example Korch, after 2...f4 3 Nxe5 what do you play? Qf6?
Since when did 1300s have the chess knowledge to refute openings?
Originally posted by Sam The Sham Mr. Korch is on the money, the Latvian is a hideously complicated mess that only a top player can wade through, and even then it's never been refuted. Bobby Fischer has been one of it's many victims in tournament play.
If a modestly talented player wants to research it and get it's basic tricks down pat, he can deliver a shock and awe opening to any them.
I believe only God understands the Latvian, everybody else is kidding themselves.
I just suffered my worst defeat since joining RHP.
In Game 3765993 not only was I never in the game but I am not even sure I knew what game I was in.
I never intend playing this opening as black again.
Originally posted by Dragon Fire I just suffered my worst defeat since joining RHP.
In Game 3765993 not only was I never in the game but I am not even sure I knew what game I was in.
I never intend playing this opening as black again.
After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Bc4 fxe4 4.Nxe4 I advice to play 4...d5 - 4...Qg5?! is too risky even for Latvian gambit and there are enormous maze of lines to learn.
Originally posted by Dragon Fire I just suffered my worst defeat since joining RHP.
In Game 3765993 not only was I never in the game but I am not even sure I knew what game I was in.
I never intend playing this opening as black again.
Jeez, hard luck mate! The latvian is a complete minefield, I only have one game where I used it, and I resigned in the opening stages. I have a book on it at home, (can't remember the name) and it sounds very playable, but it's too complex for me.
Originally posted by onyx2006 Jeez, hard luck mate! The latvian is a complete minefield, I only have one game where I used it, and I resigned in the opening stages. I have a book on it at home, (can't remember the name) and it sounds very playable, but it's too complex for me.
Yep...."minefield" is an apt description, there are so many ways for both sides to either exploit things and get a crushing advantage, or go totally wrong and bust, the Latvian is a nightmare that takes years to comprehend. People who claim they got it down are either geniuses or fooling themselves.
Originally posted by onyx2006 Jeez, hard luck mate! The latvian is a complete minefield, I only have one game where I used it, and I resigned in the opening stages. I have a book on it at home, (can't remember the name) and it sounds very playable, but it's too complex for me.
Ah... the book, i remember now...
The Latvian Gambit Lives! Tony Kosten,
it's a very good book, just too advanced for me at the moment.
15 Jul '07 08:11
Playing for a win versus e4
Back to Top