Originally posted by KorchMr. 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.
Kosten's analysis are not perfect too.
After 3.Nxe5 I would play 3...Qf6
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:
[Event "Lenk op"]
[Site "Lenk op"]
[Date "1991.??.??"]
[EventDate "1991.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Joseph G Gallagher"]
[Black "Rashid Ziatdinov"]
[ECO "C34"]
[WhiteElo "2495"]
[BlackElo "2515"]
[PlyCount "123"]
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. d4 g5 5. h4 g4 6. Ng1 f3
7. Bg5 Be7 8. Qd2 h6 9. Bxe7 fxg2 10. Bxg2 Nxe7 11. Nc3 Ng6
12. Qf2 Nd7 13. h5 Ngf8 14. Nge2 Qf6 15. Qg3 Ne6 16. O-O-O
Qg5+ 17. Kb1 Nf6 18. e5 dxe5 19. dxe5 Nd7 20. Rd5 c6 21. Ne4
Qe7 22. Rd2 Ng5 23. Nd6+ Kf8 24. Nf5 Qe6 25. Rf1 Kg8 26. Rd6
Qxe5 27. Rxd7 Qxg3 28. Rd8+ Kh7 29. Rxh8+ Kxh8 30. Nfxg3 Be6
31. Kc1 Re8 32. Rf4 Bc8 33. Kd2 Re5 34. Nd4 Kh7 35. Bf1 c5
36. Bd3+ Kh8 37. Ndf5 Be6 38. Nxh6 Nf3+ 39. Kc3 b5 40. b3 c4
41. bxc4 bxc4 42. Bxc4 Re3+ 43. Kb2 Bxc4 44. Rxc4 Ne5 45. Rc8+
Kh7 46. Nhf5 Rf3 47. Rc7 a6 48. a3 Rf4 49. Re7 Nc4+ 50. Kc3
Nxa3 51. Rxf7+ Kh8 52. Re7 a5 53. Nh4 Nb5+ 54. Kd3 Kg8 55. h6
Rf7 56. Re4 Kh7 57. Nhf5 Ra7 58. Rxg4 a4 59. Ne4 Ra6 60. Rg7+
Kh8 61. Ng5 Nd6 62. Ne7 1-0
Originally posted by SquelchbelchInteresting 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.
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.
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.
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 pwnguinSince when did 1300s have the chess knowledge to refute openings?
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 Sam The ShamI just suffered my worst defeat since joining RHP.
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.
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 FireAfter 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.
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 FireJeez, 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.
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 onyx2006Yep...."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.
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 onyx2006Ah... the book, i remember now...
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.
The Latvian Gambit Lives! Tony Kosten,
it's a very good book, just too advanced for me at the moment.
err... not enuff drawrings...
J