11689 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
I would reference Mr. Silman's article on the Latvian as lacking in intellectual rigor. Here is the article:
"The line you faced is known as the Latvian Gambit. There is a whole community of players who live for this opening, but the fact that no grandmasters use it speaks volumes for its true lack of soundness."
Oh, really, well how about many masters and IMs that have used it for surprise value especially in speed chess? Spassky had a significant win playing the Latvian when he was younger as did many other developing future GMS.
"As for the line Joseph faced (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Nc6), this actually has some fans since the rapid development Black often achieves gives rise to complications that are far from easy to solve. For example, in Joseph's game 4.Qh5+ g6 5.Nxg6 Nf6 6.Qh4 hxg6 7.Qxh8 Qe7 leads to a very difficult position where Black has definite compensation (Even if it's not quite enough, Black's practical chances are excellent.)."
Actually, 6...hXg6 is not the mainline here, but R-g8
"White's best (instead of Joseph's 8.Qh3) is 8.d3, which scores pretty heavily for White. Nonetheless, John Nunn's 4.d4! seems to put 3…Nc6 on ice (see the Watson analysis below)."
On 3...Nc6 4. d4 Qf6 is quite playable. I have won many games with this line.
The definitive book on the Latvian IMO is Tony Kosten's book devoted to most all lines. The fact that chess journalists of Mr. Silman's prolific nature do not have complete chess libraries is somewhat disquieting.
I don't think being a good practical/blitz weapon and possessing "a true lack of soundness" at the GM level are mutually exclusive ideas.
I agree with everything Silman says, and I also agree with most everything you say...except the stuff where you complain about Silman himself. Having personal success in a line (e.g., the Qf6 stuff) doesn't make it sound. It's makes it useful for you. Kudos!
This is like two people arguing about water, and having one yell, "It's wet!" while the second shouts, "No, idiot, it's clear!"
Probably Silman deals with many beginners who want to impugn openings that have been around for centuries. The "Greco-counter" gambit is a great classic and it bothers me when "authorities" like Silman disparage it.
Here is the Spassky win with the Latvian:
Here is Bobby Fischer's loss against the Latvian:
Here are a bunch of other wins with the Latvian Gambit:
I rest my case. And when I asked GM Nakamura about it ten or so years ago he dismissed it as garbage. Pride goes before....
Possibly the best programs in the world could come up with something definitive, but until they "prove" it is lost I will keep playing it.
Actually I find mr. Silman being too modest in that article (there are also a couple of revisions on it, as well as some analyses on chesspub by a strong correspondence master, who defended the gambit, but eventually gave up on it). The gambit is certainly worse than what Silman suggests: After either accepting with 3.Nxe5, or declining with 3.Nc3, black simply has a bad game.
Oh, FYI Silman does have Kosten's book ( actually he reviewed it quite some time ago- http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jw/jw_latvian_gambit_lives.html ), and Kosten, being a moderator at chesspub, never disputed the analyses of mr. Alejandro Melchor (to name the Latvian afficionado I mentioned before).
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but you should really pick a better opening to defend.
My opening standards go a bit further than whether it's refuted or not. In other words, if your defense of the opening is "you can almost refute it, but not quite" then that's what speaks volumes.
It'll take more than a few games (and a list comprised of many games before 1930) to convince me of your word over titled players "you rest your case" lol
My old chessbase database gives 3.Nf3xe5 as scoring 85% with 1000 games. It may not be fully refuted, but it doesn't do well in practice. It does even worse when I filter it for modern games with players rated 2300 or above.
I would have to be witness to that discussion over at chesspub. There are numerous players for and against. And the Greco-counter or Latvian is worthy of play as it was 150 years ago. And as I said before many of Mr. Silman's assertions were debatable, I did not see any elucidation of those points. I would not want to play it against someone thoroughly booked up on it or against an IM like you, but chess is not a mathematical theorem that needs to be proved unless there is a critical line requiring it. Professional arrogance is one of the great obstacles to educating the young. And as long as masters who are scholastic teachers dismiss significant openings with arrogant pronouncements, they are truly doing the young players a disservice. And this also applies to many other disciplines where professional arrogance and ignoring specific questions creates many unfortunate problems.
So which is worse? Professional arrogance or amateur arrogance?
What I am voicing is concern for the sake of honest and thorough journalism. We have a sort of strange double standard where very few books are online because of copyright restrictions, but many videos are readily available online. I went through Mr. Kosten's book on the Latvian pretty thoroughly and though it may not be rigorous on the IM level, it does answer the so-called "refutations". Years ago they said that 3Bc4 was a "refuation" and search and search as they might, they could not find it. So now they are saying it leads to "a bad game". There are dozens of openings they say are unsound or lead to "bad games". Why? Because they want you to play "standard" orthodox lines that are "proven". Life would be very dull if we all followed the "experts".
It deserves exploring. I too have been told by experts and up that it isn't playable at higher levels, but I looked it up in Modern Chess Openings and although white can hold a small edge in most lines, it is complicated, and black certainly isn't bad...
Actually, I am thinking of playing the Latvian myself. The fine gentleman that beat Yasser Seirawan was Victors Pupols, a player in the Seattle/Tacoma area of Washington State. Mr. Pupols, according to a book about him with a forward by Yasser, and as quoted in that forward, has the best record against Yasser with seven wins! One was the Latvian. My USCF rating is just 1624, and at class B levels I think the Latvian might be okay.
I haven't had the pleasure of playing Victors Pupols (and certainly it would be losing to him), but have watched a few of his games at the National Open some years ago. He is known as a real fighter.
3...Nc6 4.d4 Qf6 5.Nxc6 dxc6 6.Nc3 (or 6.e5) leaves Black with pawn down without any compensation. As former Latvian gambit player I can say that Latvian gambit is not bad weapon in blitz and bullet, but I would not recommend it for longer time controls.
The Latvian Gambit was my main tournament opening against 1.e4 a longtime ago. My friend Reynolds (master) is really arrogant about his viewson this opening. There is the Svendenborg line which is dead drawn. If White tries to win then he will lose. See Chessville article on this line.There are several lines covered at this web site. Also IM Stefan Bueckerof Germany wrote about a line that went 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Nf6 atthe Chess Cafe website called Over the Horizons. I believe that this isfertile ground for analysis of the Latvian Gambit.
Bobby Fischer never defeated Viktors Pupols Latvian Gambit andalso GM Johnny Hector had also played the Latvian Gambit. Weshould exsamine the Latvian Gambit games from both players tocome up with better lines for the Latvian Gambit. Now the question becomes how can an opening be busted whenone line is dead drawn? It should be busted in all lines.
The line that Reynolds plays is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. Nc4the Leonhardt Variation which is very dangerous for Black becauseBlack is behind in development. Black has to play Bb4 to pin theN at c3 and not take the pawn when White plays d3 because thiswill give White very active pieces. Reynolds students have notbeaten my Latvian Gambit from the White side in blitz gamesthe past couple of years playing this line.Best RegardsDarthMusashi
If Black plays the Svendenborg line White cannot force Black to playother lines.Best RegardsDarthMusahi
Actually Fisher has faced Latvian gambit only once, when he was young and before his first serious achievements.
Also the fact that Reynolds students were unable to beat you in blitz games ir very poor argument in favor of opening soundness. You may reach better or winning positions in blitz and then your opponent (better blitzer than you) may outplay you or you may loseon time.
Leonhardt (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. Nc4) is not only way to play for advantage in Latvian. White has several other good alternatives like 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Be2 (6.Ne3 is good too) or 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Nc3 Qg6 7.f3.
And speaking on Leonhardt - do you mean 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. Nc4 5.Nc3 Qg6 line as the best for Black?
DarthMusashi, what is it you mean by 'the svendenborg line'? The actual variation seems to change with time (after previous lines are refuted, perhaps?)
do you mean this: 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Bc4 fxe4 4. Nxe5 d5 5. Qh5+ g6 6. Nxg6 Nf6
Or perhaps this: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Nf6 4.Bc4 fxe4 5.Nf7 Qe7 6.Nxh8 d5
Or something else entirely?
Oh, I also noticed that here: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/worlds-worst-openings?page=4
You posted this:
"The most dangerous line for Black is the line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5
Qf6 4.Nc4. I lost 2 tournament games to this line. Black has to becareful because he is behind in development."
^that doesn't sound like 'dead drawn' to me.
The best way to accept the gambit is 3.Nxe5 Qf6 (Buecker himself eventually gave up to his 3...Nf6 idea) 4.Nc4 fe4 5.Nc3 when Black has serious problems after both 5...Qf7 and 5...Qg6.
The other way (simpler) is declining with 3.Nc3! when Black has nothing better than entering a poor Philidor variation after 3...d6 4.d4, although 4.ef5 Bxf5 5.d4 may be even stronger: Black has fallen behind in development, and has voluntarily created some serious weaknesses. Only a fool would enjoy playing this mess as Black.
After 3.Nc3 the game may transpose into Leonhardt after 3...fxe4 (this seems to be less evil) 4.Nxe5 Qf6 (4... Nf6 5.Ng4!) 5.Nc4.
But White can play also 5.d4 exd3 (5...d6? 6.Nd5!) 6.Nxd3 with obvious advantage due to lead in development.
(4... Nf6 5.Ng4!)
Ng8 is kind of funny :).Nxe4 is quite bad then ^^.
Luck in Chess
by Elubas a few minutes ago
by CAL06Chess 3 minutes ago
Ideas of the Opening
by Fiveofswords 3 minutes ago
100 bullet games wins
by Strife33 4 minutes ago
My new checkmate that I invinted
by RonaldJosephCote 5 minutes ago
Funny bullet/ blitz losses
by Chesscoaching 14 minutes ago
4/1/2015 - Bringing The Enemy In
by CoffehCat 20 minutes ago
The Science of bigpoison
by Bronco70 21 minutes ago
by fltsrymy 22 minutes ago
by Chesscoaching 23 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!