Originally posted by Dutch DefenseOk, from today. You challenged me to a game. I moved, you moved, you deleted it. One minute later you challenge me again. Four minutes later you delete the game. What exactly is your damage??
As soon as I finish a game, I will challenge you to play me against the Latvian Gambit.
4 edits
Originally posted by giantrobotI think you deleted the games because I didn't. 😕 I'll challenge you now to a game. 😀
Ok, from today. You challenged me to a game. I moved, you moved, you deleted it. One minute later you challenge me again. Four minutes later you delete the game. What exactly is your damage??
Originally posted by KorchI stand by what I said before. The Latvian Gambit is probably not unsound in the sense there is any direct tactical refutation, but it is positionally suspect after 3.Nxe5. Tony Kosten was widely mocked in the GM fraternity (notably by John Nunn) for writing two books on the opening, generally recommending it as viable for black, without ever being prepared to play it himself. I am unaware of any strong GM who has played it in a serious OTB game in recent times. Someone mentioned Spassky. I seem to remember a game in which Spassky destroyed Mikenas in very quick time, but Spassky was playing white!
After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3 black are nort obliged to play 5...Qg6 (which i really dislike for black), but for example 5....Qf7 or even 5...d6.
But I have seen many games in which after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Nc3 Qg6 black have got good position after opening even against stronger players.
1 edit
Originally posted by Northern LadI agree that Latvian gambit isnt too solid opening from positional point of view, but this opening is strongly underrated. The fact of not using it by GMs isnt serious argument - in the beginning of 20th century almost no one of top players used such kind of openings like Nimzo-Indian. Kings-Indian and even Sicilian had reputation of unsolid opening 🙂
I stand by what I said before. The Latvian Gambit is probably not unsound in the sense there is any direct tactical refutation, but it is positionally suspect after 3.Nxe5. Tony Kosten was widely mocked in the GM fraternity (notably by John Nunn) for writing two books on the opening, generally recommending it as viable for black, without ever being prep ...[text shortened]... ber a game in which Spassky destroyed Mikenas in very quick time, but Spassky was playing white!
Here is game of Spassky in Latvian gambit
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1128428
Game in which was overplayed young Fisher
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044024
GM Jonny Hector is using this opening sometimes ( unfortunately in chessgames there are only one his game in this opening)
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1430444
In this game untitled player (Grivainis became ICCF GM later) got winning position against GM Evans due to opening, but let him out and lost 🙁
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1367835
My last few games playing the Latvian Gambit have either been draws or losses. 🙁
Game 3288726
Game 3292663
Game 3285351
Game 3223515
Game 3259295
Originally posted by Dutch DefenseBrrrr..... you are playing simply horrible.
My last few games playing the Latvian Gambit have either been draws or losses. 🙁
Game 3288726
Game 3292663
Game 3285351
Game 3223515
Game 3259295
1) After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 black must reply 3....Qf6 not 3....Qe7
2) After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Bc4 the best is 3....d5, because playing 3...Qg5 is too risky. but you must know theory very vell, othervise better dont play this opening at all.
3) After 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. exf5 e4 4. Qe2 Qe7 5. Nd4
Nc6 6. Nxc6 dxc6 7. g4 the best is 7...h5.
1 edit
Originally posted by KorchI have a book on almost all of the variations of the Latvian Gambit called "The Latvian Gambit Lives!". I know the 3...Qe7 variation very well. During [gid]Game 3223515 [/gid], instead of 15...c6, I should have done 15...d6. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Bc4 is called the Poisoned g2 Pawn Variation. Pretty much the whole game until my 15...c6 blunder move was that variation.
Brrrr..... you are playing simply horrible.
1) After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 black must reply 3....Qf6 not 3....Qe7
2) After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Bc4 the best is 3....d5, because playing 3...Qg5 is too risky. but you must know theory very vell, othervise better dont play this opening at all.
3) After 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. exf5 e4 4. Qe2 Qe7 5. Nd4
Nc6 6. Nxc6 dxc6 7. g4 the best is 7...h5.
Originally posted by Dutch DefenseI know theory of Latvian Gambit very vell and I know these lines you are playing and I can say that they are too risky even for Latvian gambit.
I have a book on almost all of the variations of the Latvian Gambit called "The Latvian Gambit Lives!". I know the 3...Qe7 variation very well. During [gid]Game 3223515 [/gid], instead of 15...c6, I should have done 15...d6. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Bc4 is called the Poisoned g2 Pawn Variation. Pretty much the whole game until my 15...c6 blunder move was that variation.
Originally posted by Dutch DefenseYes, that game with me:
I have a book on almost all of the variations of the Latvian Gambit called "The Latvian Gambit Lives!". I know the 3...Qe7 variation very well. During [gid]Game 3223515 [/gid], instead of 15...c6, I should have done 15...d6. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Bc4 is called the Poisoned g2 Pawn Variation. Pretty much the whole game until my 15...c6 blunder move was that variation.
Game 3223515
c6 lost immediatley. However, even after 15 ...d6 things are not rosy. Since you have the book read the first paragraph of Ch7 (p117) a couple of times. There's a reason the pawn is 'poisoned'
Better is either:
3. Bc4 b5 4. Bb3 fxe4 or 3. Bc4 fxe4 4. Nxe5 d5
Game 3316819 is in progress so, NO COMMMENTS PLEASE! 😀
Game 3320443 is also in progress so, NO COMMENTS PLEASE! 😀