I was looking up a few new openings the other day when I came across a strange-looking gambit: 

Here is an analysis of the various third moves taken from Wikipedia:

• 3.Nxe5 - the main line. Now after the usual 3...Qf6 (3...Nc6?!, the so-called "Corkscrew Counter Gambit", is also known, to which 4.d4! is a good response), White chooses between 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 and the immediate 4.Nc4, which has the advantage of allowing White to open the center with d3, for example 4...fxe4 5.Nc3 Qg6?! 6.d3 exd3? 7.Bxd3 Qxg2? and now White is winning after 8.Qh5+ Kd8 (or 8...g6 9.Qe5+ and 10.Be4) 9.Be4.
• 3.Bc4 This may lead to perhaps the most notorious and heavily analyzed line of the Latvian, which begins 3...fxe4 4.Nxe5 Qg5 (4...d5 5. Qh5+ g6 6.Nxg6 Nf6 7. Qh4 is slightly less insane) 5.d4 Qxg2 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Bf7+ Kd8 8.Bxg6! Qxh1+ 9.Ke2 Qxc1 (9...c6 is a major alternative) 10.Nf7+ Ke8 11.Nxh8+ hxg6 12.Qxg6+ Kd8 13.Nf7+ Ke7 14.Nc3!.
• 3.Nc3 American Grandmaster Joel Benjamin has claimed that this sensible developing move refutes the Latvian.

• 3.exf5
• 3.d4
  

I have tried this gambit out in two games so far, and besides the on-going one at the moment, I was thouroughly crushed. Do you think there is any sense to these moves? It looks somewhat dubious to me.

If you're going to play the Latvian play it Live or OTB.   Realize you are investing material for Force and will have to invest more as the game progresses.  If you hunker down when behind this opening is not for you.  Study tactics or you will go badly wrong.  It can be fun but also demanding.  There are easier gambits to play with.  Try

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3  Nc6 3. Bb4 f5  still messy and tactical but a little sounder.

I don't understand it. I get crushed both sides.

the latvian is played fairly often by corrospondence players. It's to scary to play over the board. there are just to many tactics and imbalances to figure out.

I've played it a couple of times and you are losing until you win.

It is like any gambit - if you don't understand the ideas behind the gamit, or what you are aiming for, your sacraficed material is wasted. In this gambit, because you open up lines to your king, if you dont know how to play it, you get slaughtered.

Have any of you played it? What kind of lines are the most important?

Oh yeah, I've played it. But somehow I don't think you can call what I played lines, per se.

Hahaha! Sure, they were probably pretty crazy games; considering the type of gambit involved.

FM Andrew Karklins has played this for years with success.

You should know the key understanding. Latvian gambit is like king's gambit from white, but you are one tempo behind. In known theoretical lines even king's gambit is better for black, if he plays the right way. Imagine how bad it would be if one more critical tempo added to this theory, so in general you already cant hold defence after latvian gambit (as black), so you should only think about attack, new sacrifices and threating white king with any cost. Only with mating threats you may take back material or get winning position, and only if white get some mistakes (that is almost unavoidable for white, if he is not a GM). So your keys is:

1) any defensive or positional moves for you are most time bad, unless they are simultaneously counter threats directly to white king;

2) you should very precisely recognize any mistake that white can make and how to use it immidiatly, because there can be no more mistakes, so if you miss that one... :) For that you may study all theoretical lines and tipical motives, not only latvians, but king's gambit original also.

Much better was post here your games and ask where is your mistakes, players will just explain to you every of them, after several lost analized games you will get the right way.

Also i agreed with  CarlMI - 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. *** f5 is more solid way, but maybe the solid is not what you want... :)

I disagree with the notion that because white has played the "extra" Nf3 against a King's Gambit that he therefore is better. Since generally black does not play Nf6 against the King's Gambit, this reasoning is too simple.

The argument would make more sense if black tried f5 against the bishop's opening.

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 f5

Of course it is, but knight at f3 is not an obscure, so it may be usefull one way or another and let white make faster castle, so generally black should know he cant play for equality in latvian. Probably it seems obvious to you, but many players lost games because lack of understanding such simple principles, so i think it is important to point that. Correct me please if i wrong.

The disadvantage of the extra move Nf3 is that exf5 is answered by e4.

The disadvantage of Bc4 is that exf5 is answered by d5. If black played 1.e4 e5 2.Bc5 f5, white should probably go for a reversed King's Gambit declined (which I'm sure is fine with white)

I think that the Latvian is better not to be compared with the King's Gambit - it is it's own opening. The common maneuver Nf3-Nxe5-Nc4 just doesn't occur in the KG. For this reason, it is best to not try to compare the opening with others - just look at this one, learn its intricacies, themes, and common positions.

Thanks.

 

Here is a game I won playing board 2 in a scholastic championship. It was the last round. The girl knew the opening but took about it the wrong way.

i have played this gambit for many years but not so often now in turn based chess as it is easily defeated when there is time to study.

last year for a latvian gambit tournament i placed a file with 105 of my latvian games in the download area. If anyone wishes to familiarise themselves with this gambit then feel free to download and study my games.

http://www.chess.com/download/view/latvianwins

I added a 13,000 pgn database for this opening in the download area.

http://www.chess.com/download/view/latvian-gambit-13k-games

Boog.