Originally posted by KorchAs I said earlier, I used to play the Lat, think there's a lot of potential if you want to really dig into it and study. The problem is it's a scary opening that has frightening complications. Every time I've played the Latvian the game is over quick, it's crush or be crushed.
This opening can be surprice and also this opening is playable more than once. I dodnt say that this opening is so sound, but its definetly better than its reputation.
"Both Capablanca and Fischer have been on the losing end of the Latvian, so it's hardly unsound." Yea, right. Capablanca v. Corzo. Capa was 13. Fischer in the U.S. Junior. He was 12. How can you spin that into the Latvian being sound? My Fritz has the Latvian 13 games. 8 losses, one draw, and 4 wins. Statistically nc3 is much better, but of course it isn't as exciting. The Capa game above was a casual game. Corzo played Capa quite a few times in tournaments but didn't trust the Latvian there. By the way, Corzo was a very good player in his own right. He won the Cuban Championship in 1901. His brother Enrique came in second. Is this the first time two brothers have come out on top in a national chapionship? Juan came to Cuba from Spain when he was a teen, became president of the Havana Chess Club. Died in 1940 I believe.
Originally posted by buddy2buddy2 and korch, like your comments! But the gambit, sound or not (I don't know anything to have an opinion!) sounds like a hustler's type of game, and I'm staying out of the thematic tournament. Good luck battling it out guys! 🙂
Oh, incidentally, in chesslecture.com IM David Vigorita has a lecture partly on the Latvian. He calls it (the lecture) significantly "Taking Out the Trash."
your opinions as good as anybody else's Killersfan. A gambit by it's very nature is unsound. Against perfect play it'll lose. It's better over the board. In correspondence, i don't think it'll work well, where you have time to check databases. If i played a Ruy Lopez against Topalov, it would look unsound. A lot depends on your opponent. I play the Cochrane Gambit against the Petrov on ICC blitz and get quite a few wins even though i'm giving up a piece(!) in theopening.
Originally posted by buddy2Do you know that Latvian Gambit have been played in correspondence chess a lot? In Correspondence chess there were many thematic Latvian Gambit tournaments. And this opening is still unrefuted!
your opinions as good as anybody else's Killersfan. A gambit by it's very nature is unsound. Against perfect play it'll lose. It's better over the board. In correspondence, i don't think it'll work well, where you have time to check databases. If i played a Ruy Lopez against Topalov, it would look unsound. A lot depends on your opponent. I play the Coc ...[text shortened]... on ICC blitz and get quite a few wins even though i'm giving up a piece(!) in theopening.
Originally posted by buddy2still liking your comments, buddy2! 🙂
your opinions as good as anybody else's Killersfan. A gambit by it's very nature is unsound. Against perfect play it'll lose. It's better over the board. In correspondence, i don't think it'll work well, where you have time to check databases. If i played a Ruy Lopez against Topalov, it would look unsound. A lot depends on your opponent. I play the Coc ...[text shortened]... on ICC blitz and get quite a few wins even though i'm giving up a piece(!) in theopening.
anyway, I'd agree with Korch, teh Latvian gambit many be playable, but I don't know even what the ideas are behind the gambit and I don't have a database (or opening book! - the one I have is the mammoth book of chess by burgess) or computer programme etc. I remembered my lines from a long time ago preparing for competitive chess, so its probably a decade and a bit old now!
Just to change the subject, they should have a thematic tournament on the Traxler counter gambit (I think that's what its called, but names change frequently, so correct me if I am wrong) 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5. I think this is a proper gambit suited for CC thematic tournaments. Not too many draws here I reckon!
I can't think of any opening that's been refuted, gambit or otherwise, although some aren't very popular for the moment. I'd like to see the stats on the Latvian Gambit in correspondence. On the shredder database, which i think includes correspondence, the Lat gets a 32.9% success rate. nxe5 after f5 gets a 67.7% success rate. The Lat is still getting wins here and there, and, again, it'll never be refuted. There are 30 wins given to 2...f6 in the chessbase database, but i don't have the guts to play that.
the killersfan, you don't have an opening book? If you get a new one you might get yourself up to 2000 on RHP? Anyway, i think its called the Traxler Counter Attack. Which was, according to Estrin's Two Knight's Defence book, named after the Czech master P. Traxler who introduced it in 1890. It's also called the Wilkes-Barre Variation of Two Knights from the WilkesBarre chess club which did work on it in Wilkesbarre, Pennsylvania, not far from me. If anybody has better facts on it, please feel free to jump right in.
So I looked at Chessmaster and it has the Latvian Gambit going for 20 moves. Now, when Chessmaster gives me these moves, are these the best possible moves or something? Is this how far analysts have developed the theory? I don't understand what exactly Chessmaster is showing me when openings go for so long.
If someone could explain the concept behind what I am seeing it would be cool.
[Event ""]
[Site ""]
[Date "2007.1.3"]
[Round ""]
[White "XXXX"]
[Black "Dies Irae"]
[TimeControl "-"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "oft "]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.exf5 e4 4.Ne5 Nf6 5.Be2 d6 6.Bh5+ Ke7 7.Nf7 Qe8 8.Nc3 g6 9.fxg6 hxg6 10.Bxg6 Rg8 11.Bh5 Rxg2 12.Nxd6 Qxh5
13.Qxh5 Nxh5 14.Nxc8+ Kd7 15.Nxa7 Rxa7 16.Nxe4 Nc6 17.Ng3 Nd4 18.Kf1 Nf4 19.d3 Nde6 20.Be3 Bc5 21.Ne4 *
Originally posted by Dies Irae3.Nxe5 is better
So I looked at Chessmaster and it has the Latvian Gambit going for 20 moves. Now, when Chessmaster gives me these moves, are these the best possible moves or something? Is this how far analysts have developed the theory? I don't understand what exactly Chessmaster is showing me when openings go for so long.
If someone could explain the concept behi 15.Nxa7 Rxa7 16.Nxe4 Nc6 17.Ng3 Nd4 18.Kf1 Nf4 19.d3 Nde6 20.Be3 Bc5 21.Ne4 *
5....d6 is one of the oldest line against 3.exf5. Other replays 5...Be7, 5...d5 and 5...Bc5.
Instead 8.Nc3 white plays 8.Nxh8 more often and after 8...Qxh5 9.Qxh5 Nxh5 10.g4 Nf6 with interesting play.
After 8.Nc3 black could play also 8...Nxh5 and after 9.Nxd5+ Kxf7 10.Qxh5+ g6 11.fxg6 Kg7 12.Nc7 Qe5 position is unclear.
According to Rybka, white should take exchange in 9th or 10th move.
After 11.Rxg6 black have better position and instead of 16...Nc6 they must play 16...Rg6 getting rook out of trap.
Instead of 21.Ne4, 21.d4 would give adtvantage for white.
In final position after 21.Bd4 22.c3 Bb6 position is equal.
Originally posted by KorchIts like the Grob for white.
This opening can be surprice and also this opening is playable more than once. I dodnt say that this opening is so sound, but its definetly better than its reputation.
Played once in a while OTB when not expected can throw a stronger opponent and result in an unexpected win.
OTB I would save it as a surprise against a player rated 100+ points above you.
(Of course, having never played it I can't really comment so am probably talking absolute nonsense)
Originally posted by Dragon FireI have played this opening three times (in different OTB tournaments) against one opponent (a little bit stronger than me) who wanted to refute this opening. I` got 2,5 points from 3 🙂
Its like the Grob for white.
Played once in a while OTB when not expected can throw a stronger opponent and result in an unexpected win.
OTB I would save it as a surprise against a player rated 100+ points above you.
[b](Of course, having never played it I can't really comment so am probably talking absolute nonsense)[/b]