Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardWell, it's extremely tricky, but I play it from time to time because I believe that it is sound, and if I can just figure out all it's horrific permutations, I just may have a terrific chess weapon for those not familiar with it. Several GM's agree with me.
The only thing I know about the latvian gambit is that you should NEVER PLAY IT! because its extemely unsound.
Originally posted by Dodger11I refuted that opening over the board without studying theory in a tournament game... Nothing special to be honest with you... I just transposed the game into a very unsound variation of the Philidor and I took care of business... Nothing fancy...
Well, it's extremely tricky, but I play it from time to time because I believe that it is sound, and if I can just figure out all it's horrific permutations, I just may have a terrific chess weapon for those not familiar with it. Several GM's agree with me.
After the game I consulted my openings manual to see if what I did was right and lo and behold! It was my opponent who deviated at the 12th move...
Looks likea fun opening to play. I have the book The Latvian Gambit by Tony Kosten. He says it's quite playable and was surprised how much correspondence material there is. His take is that if people use it a lot in correspondence, where access to databases, books, etc. is allowed, then it must be a killer otb when the clock is ticking away. I've never used it myself because I don't play double e pawn openings as black. I have never faced it on rhp, only a few times in biitz. Game Colony database gives it a 50% loss, 30% win, but that's at master strength. After 3. nxe5 Kosten likes Nc6 instead of the more prosaic Qf6. It leads to messy positions where the tactical minded would be at home.
Originally posted by buddy2Thanks, buddy! Finally, someone who knows something! There are Latvian Gambit matches/tournaments/correspondance clubs/etc., and the opening defies being pigeon-holed, because it's so dynamic. It really pisses me off to have someone say that they got the Latvian all figured out because they won a rated game one time. Ugh...how can people be so narrow minded and stupid?
Looks likea fun opening to play. I have the book The Latvian Gambit by Tony Kosten. He says it's quite playable and was surprised how much correspondence material there is. His take is that if people use it a lot in correspondence, where access to databases, books, etc. is allowed, then it must be a killer otb when the clock is ticking away. I've never ...[text shortened]... f the more prosaic Qf6. It leads to messy positions where the tactical minded would be at home.
Originally posted by AlopintoYou don't refute an opening in a game.
I refuted that opening over the board without studying theory in a tournament game... Nothing special to be honest with you... I just transposed the game into a very unsound variation of the Philidor and I took care of business... Nothing fancy...
After the game I consulted my openings manual to see if what I did was right and lo and behold! It was my opponent who deviated at the 12th move...
You refute an opening with deep study showing that the initial moves are unsound in all variations against good play.
Originally posted by Dodger11my goodness, so rude!
Thanks, buddy! Finally, someone who knows something! There are Latvian Gambit matches/tournaments/correspondance clubs/etc., and the opening defies being pigeon-holed, because it's so dynamic. It really pisses me off to have someone say that they got the Latvian all figured out because they won a rated game one time. Ugh...how can people be so narrow minded and stupid?
Originally posted by AlopintodURHHHHH, I won a tournament game against someone that played the Ruy Lopez, so I guess I refuted that line, alright.....hahahahahahahahaha
I refuted that opening over the board without studying theory in a tournament game... Nothing special to be honest with you... I just transposed the game into a very unsound variation of the Philidor and I took care of business... Nothing fancy...
After the game I consulted my openings manual to see if what I did was right and lo and behold! It was my opponent who deviated at the 12th move...
Originally posted by Dodger11Dude,
Thanks, buddy! Finally, someone who knows something! There are Latvian Gambit matches/tournaments/correspondance clubs/etc., and the opening defies being pigeon-holed, because it's so dynamic. It really pisses me off to have someone say that they got the Latvian all figured out because they won a rated game one time. Ugh...how can people be so narrow minded and stupid?
On a rated game over the board it is not a solid opening to practice. If all you wanted to hear was "Latvian gambit is fantastic" and be narrow-minded is your prerrogative but if a hacker like me could cope with that opening making natural moves the very first time it appeared over the board and without previous study, should tell you something.
Go ahead, practice your Latvian and be happy but the consensus is that it is more of a curiosity of correspondence play than a serious opening...
Originally posted by XanthosNZMaybe I exaggerated with the word "refuted" but the Latvian is a lemmon! what can I say?
You don't refute an opening in a game.
You refute an opening with deep study showing that the initial moves are unsound in all variations against good play.