Originally posted by Dodger11some0nE palyed tehe siciliAn aGainsT meeee once, t000, inna tournAmEnt aNd I w0n, so's I gust I reFutated that line t00000!
dURHHHHH, I won a tournament game against someone that played the Ruy Lopez, so I guess I refuted that line, alright.....hahahahahahahahaha
Originally posted by Dodger11Like I sadi: I exaggerated.
some0nE palyed tehe siciliAn aGainsT meeee once, t000, inna tournAmEnt aNd I w0n, so's I gust I reFutated that line t00000!
The point is that if I run into an opening that I have never played before and was confident enough to take it down with general principles leads me to conclude that it is nothing to be scared of (That coupled with the fact that I am a mediocre player) Honestly, you can't compare the Sicilian, which is sound, with the Latvian which is very suspicious...
Originally posted by Dodger11I studied it for awhile. Not to play for Black but because I play 1.e4 for White. I'd like to mention something about book recomendations...
The Latvian Gambit, 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5!?, it's an opening I've tried many times and I'm still as confused by it as ever. The games are always short, nasty, and brutal, with a crush or be crushed motif to them. Anybody out there good at handling the black side of the Lat?
Many of lines recommended by Grandmasters are lines that they refuse to play in OTB tournaments. Isn't that odd?
In regards to the Latvian Gambit, in one line in one book it shows that White can win the exchange. But in a different book by a different author, in the same line, he says that Black has compensation for the exchange and even stands better!
So here's my thinking about studying book lines. You should understand WHY a particular move is played - not that a particular move is played... know the difference? If you understand WHY a move is played you don't have to memorize thousands of variations. All you have to do is look at any given position and play sound principles.
arrakis
Originally posted by arrakis1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nc3
I studied it for awhile. Not to play for Black but because I play 1.e4 for White. I'd like to mention something about book recomendations...
Many of lines recommended by Grandmasters are lines that they refuse to play in OTB tournaments. Isn't that odd?
In regards to the Latvian Gambit, in one line in one book it shows that White can win the exchange ...[text shortened]... ations. All you have to do is look at any given position and play sound principles.
arrakis
and now what? White continues working on his development and his position without trying to 'refute' the opening and instead of trying to play fashionable variations White does something that he/she understands...
GM V. Jansa suggested a great system against the Pirc. Only that I didn't understand it and by emulating (copying) his lines I didn't get much because I didn't really feel at home with his system....
Here comes the Latvian and I can, study all theory from the Latvian or, come up with a reasonable approach so as to get a fair position in the middlegame with all pieces developed, king castled and rooks connected. I opted for the latter!
Nothing wrong with just developing with white in the Latvian. According to book 3.Nc3 is called Mlotkowski's Variation from the analysis of this line by Mlotkowski in British Chess Magazine in 1916. Black has two main replies 3...fxe4 and Nf6. Most gambit players WANT to put their opponents in a position where A. normal developing moves lose and B. normal developing moves are nonexistent ie situation becomes heavily tactical. Before I ventured a gambit line over the board I would play a lot of blitz with it to get comfortable with resulting positions. The psychological aspect of gambits is to make your opponent feel uncomfortable and defensive. Take a look at Alexander Morozovich's game against Ivan Sokolov a few days ago at Corus. M. played the Albin counter gambit against the Queen's Gambit and trashed Sokolov, so even grandmasters can fear gambiteers. Gambits are more effective when time is a consideration. Blitz is a heaven for gambit afficianados. OTB is good and Correspondence, including RHP would be the least effective. But, as i said befoore, The Lativian has been played quite a bit in correspondence indicating its longevity. The first thing a really good gambit player does is analyze all the declining lines, realizing that the instinct of his opponent is to back off and eliminate all the sharp positions. Someone once said, "The best way to refute a gambit is to accept it."
Originally posted by buddy2I agree with you: OTB this is not the right opening
Nothing wrong with just developing with white in the Latvian. According to book 3.Nc3 is called Mlotkowski's Variation from the analysis of this line by Mlotkowski in British Chess Magazine in 1916. Black has two main replies 3...fxe4 and Nf6. Most gambit players WANT to put their opponents in a position where A. normal developing moves lose and B. nor ...[text shortened]... ll the sharp positions. Someone once said, "The best way to refute a gambit is to accept it."
The Latvian is a good opening. I have won hundreds of games against stronger rated players than me on yahoo games / chess. Its a very complicated opening. It is really for people playing the black pieces only. Even in slow play I have beaten very strong players with this opening. I have found the strongest line after the initial few moves is Be2 for white.
Long live the L:atvian.
Originally posted by The whiteKnight" I have found the strongest line after the initial few moves is Be2 for white. "
The Latvian is a good opening. I have won hundreds of games against stronger rated players than me on yahoo games / chess. Its a very complicated opening. It is really for people playing the black pieces only. Even in slow play I have beaten very strong players with this opening. I have found the strongest line after the initial few moves is Be2 for white.
Long live the L:atvian.
Is that Bronstein's system?
i read the tony kosten book also on the latvian
I love gambits in general and play them a lot but i have foiund that a lot of the time people who play normal sound ideas get ahead in the latvian.
people who never seen it seem to be able to cope with it
for the black side
a person needs to know a lot of ideas just to stay level.
final verdict: can be fun but probaly one of the hardest gambits to get a sizable advantage in
Originally posted by AlopintoI agree with you. A person is always better off playing moves that they understand than playing memorized moves... Because at some point your opponent will vary from the memorized line. Then you have to understand why all the moves were played and how to proceed.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nc3
and now what? White continues working on his development and his position without trying to 'refute' the opening and instead of trying to play fashionable variations White does something that he/she understands...
GM V. Jansa suggested a great system against the Pirc. Only that I didn't understand it and by emulating (copy ...[text shortened]... middlegame with all pieces developed, king castled and rooks connected. I opted for the latter!