02 Nov 07
Originally posted by KorchUnfortunately his words do very much correspond to the facts. A database search shows white scores over 65% against the Latvian (Greco Counter). This score is even higher for the critical variation 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4. Although I normally play the King's Gambit (or sometimes the Vienna) as white, I am prepared to play the white side of the Latvian against allcomers. And I expect to score at least 90%.
Its just your words which does not match with facts.
02 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Northern LadAbout which database you are talking about? Actually in most databases there are very few CC games from many games played in this opening.
Unfortunately his words do very much correspond to the facts. A database search shows white scores over 65% against the Latvian (Greco Counter). This score is even higher for the critical variation 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4. Although I normally play the King's Gambit (or sometimes the Vienna) as white, I am prepared to play the white side of the Latvian against allcomers. And I expect to score at least 90%.
And my results with the Latvian gambit are much higher than 50%, also in line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4.
02 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KorchAs I have said to you before Korch, don't you think you might have even better results by better opening.
About which database you are talking about? Actually in most databases there are very few CC games from many games played in this opening.
And my results with the Latvian gambit are much higher than 50%, also in line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4.
I am not saying the Latvian is awful but surely with best play White get at least a comfortable edge.
If you like playing chess with this handicap then so be it.
It is a fact that if you want improve then learn a good opening well. (i.e. you are playing the best moves).
However if you get good results with it so be it.
02 Nov 07
I looked at the opening with a 2200 player at a chess club once. The thing is if I could rember it could smash the opening with ease. Since my meory is crap I need to ask him again. There is a way to get a massive advantage. Black wins his pawn back, but with a horrible position. I dont come across it very often, but I wouldnt be scared to face it in a blitzs game. Mainly due to the fact I got balls of steel.
I am the sort of person who acepts gambits, and often pay the price for it, but I find I learn more about the game that way.
02 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by najdorfslayerI don`t care which moves are objective the best. I care to get position I like to play and in which I can get good results. I agree that Latvian gambit is not so solid as Ruy Lopez, Sicilian etc. BUT - this opening is not so easy to refute as some dogmatic players are thinking, if you play against against players skilled in this opening.
As I have said to you before Korch, don't you think you might have even better results by better opening.
I am not saying the Latvian is awful but surely with best play White get at least a comfortable edge.
If you like playing chess with this handicap then so be it.
It is a fact that if you want improve then learn a good opening well. (i.e. you are playing the [b]best moves).[/b]
02 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KorchMy database consists of over 1,500,000 games of which there were over 1000 Latvian Gambit games, ranging from girls U9 tourneys to GM games (relatively few of the latter for obvious reasons). It has never been my contention that the Latvian Gambit is refuted in a tactical sense. It probably isn't. (The tactical lines 3.Bc4 and 3.exf5 are actually quite fun.) The simple fact of the matter is, notwithstanding a lot of wishful thinking by some people, that white perforce achieves a definite positional advantage with 3.Nxe5. The depressing reality from black's point of view is that white has a number of ways to achieve this.
About which database you are talking about? Actually in most databases there are very few CC games from many games played in this opening.
And my results with the Latvian gambit are much higher than 50%, also in line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4.
02 Nov 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Northern LadHow many from your 1000 Latvian Gambit games are played in CC?
My database consists of over 1,500,000 games of which there were over 1000 Latvian Gambit games, ranging from girls U9 tourneys to GM games (relatively few of the latter for obvious reasons). It has never been my contention that the Latvian Gambit is refuted in a tactical sense. It probably isn't. (The tactical lines 3.Bc4 and 3.exf5 are actually quite ...[text shortened]... ressing reality from black's point of view is that white has a number of ways to achieve this.
I`m not gonna deny that after 3.Nxe5 white may achieve some plus, but to call it "definite positional advantage" would be exaggeration.
And I totally disagree that "white has a number of ways to achieve this". There are 1 or 2 ways in which white can achieve larger advantage than they usually gets in more solid openings, but there are so many ways (also after 3.Nxe5) in which "definite positional advantage" for white is nothing more than optical illusion.
02 Nov 07
Originally posted by KorchMaybe you don't quite understand what 'definite' means here. It means 'certain' or 'beyond doubt'. It doesn't necessarily refer to the size of the advantage, which may be open to dispute. I personally think that at least three lines give white more than just a slight advantage, but I'm prepare to accept others may differ.
How many from your 1000 Latvian Gambit games are played in CC?
I`m not gonna deny that after 3.Nxe5 white may achieve some plus, but to call it "definite positional advantage" would be exaggeration.
And I totally disagree that "white has a number of ways to achieve this". There are 1 or 2 ways in which white can achieve larger advantage than they usuall ...[text shortened]... in which "definite positional advantage" for white is nothing more than optical illusion.
I also fail to see why the objective correctness of an opening is affected by whether it's OTB or cc. I would personally expect the Latvian to do better for black OTB where well-versed black players may be able to catch their opponents out, especially if they haven't had the chance to prepare, though I suppose it's possible that in cc some white players try for the 'holy grail' of a tactical refutation and come up short.
Maybe Korch is just too patriotic. For what it's worth I'm English but never play the English!
02 Nov 07
Originally posted by Northern LadOK. I agree and accept that our views about size of advantage differs.
Maybe you don't quite understand what 'definite' means here. It means 'certain' or 'beyond doubt'. It doesn't necessarily refer to the size of the advantage, which may be open to dispute. I personally think that at least three lines give white more than just a slight advantage, but I'm prepare to accept others may differ.
I also fail to see why the obj ...[text shortened]... just too patriotic. For what it's worth I'm English but never play the English!
About OTB and cc: Actually Latvian gambit have been played in cc many times - there are thematic cc Latvian gambit tournaments and some cc players are much better experts in this opening than most of OTB players which use it. Thats the reason why statistics of OTB games may not give you right prospect.
About patriotism - this opening may be called Greco counter gambit or Latvian - it does not matters. I just like this opening, because it`s irrational, and at first sight it seems to be easy refutable. But many of my opponents had to see that its not so easy as it seems.