11515 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?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
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!
In modern theory after 3.Nxe5 is 3...Qf6 or 3...Nc6 the critical move?
After 3...Nc6 4.d4 Black is in serious trouble. 3...Qf6 gives more practical chances.
This is Nunn's pre-engine era analysis.Good move, but not the best.
Actually white is winning with 4.Qh5+ g6 5.Nxg6 Nf6 6.Qh3 (a measure against the rather inferior 6...Rg8) hg6 7.Qxh8 Qe7 8.d3! fe4 9.Nc3! (not even mentioned in Kosten's book) 9...ed3+ 10.Be3 dc2 11.Bd3 and Black may resign. Houdini's evaluation is +2.04, which needs no further explanation.
I know that 4.Qh5+ is objectively better, but 4.d4 needs less knowledge (like 3.Nc3 to compare with 3.Nxe5) and also here Black has bad position.
The anonymous "pacifique" likes throwing rocks from his glass house without giving any proof. He is one of the rudest gutter-snipers on this site. Here is one online discussion of the Frazer line:
After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.d4 Qf6 your "discussion" ignores 5.Nxc6 (very natural and obvious move, mentioned also in previous posts of this thread, ignored by you) dxc6 6.Nc3 (or 6.e5) and Black has no compensation for extra pawn.
Well, Black has a bad position everywhere in this stupid opening. Objectively Black has to settle for the unsound 3...Qf6, or Buecker's 3...Nf6, when he is a pawn down, but can fight. After 3...Nc6 4.Qh5+, he can't fight: he is dead.
OK, working a bit on a few subtleties after 3.Nc3. My aim is to prove a large white advantage with VERY natural play, and no need to enter stupid tactics.
After 3...Nc6 4.Qh5+ practice shows that Black has practical chances, when opponent does not use engine to find the best moves. And I would not call this opening stupid. "Bluff" would be more appropriate as unprepared White player has many chances to not have any advantage or even get into trouble. I can say it from my own OTB experience.
I actually never thought about 3...Nf6 looks better than 3...Qf6.
Well, I figure since I'm just entereing class B USCF with a rating of 1624, that I can afford to play the Latvian a few times to try it on for size in some tournament, and local friendly games. I probably won't try it agianst a local gent that had a high rating of 2500 USCF, but thgere are plenty of players near my strength (or lack of same) that I can try it out on.
But I still am enjoying reading what stronger players say about this defense.
Buecker's idea was to play a pawn-down endgame similar to the one in the current Jaenisch gambit mainline. The idea is both brilliant and interesting,but there are subtle structual differences, which render the (not forced) ending after 3...Nf6 4.ef5 as definitely better for white Youc find plenty of details in the chesspub forum.
Speaking on 3.Nxe5 Nf6 - 4.Bc4 seems to be the best for white according to analysis posted in Chesspub some time ago.
I might try the Latvian gambit out sometime for fun , but it reminds me of a gambit defence .I sometimes play but is lacking against higher rated opponents. Thats the Colorado Counter e4-nc6, nf3-f5, aka the lean variation of the nimzovich defence . Fun exciting games but in tournment play a wouldn't suggest it. I'll have to try the Latvian out for fun, but somehow I doubt it would work any better.
I began playing the Latvian Gambit in one-minute chess because I play the French defense and would often mouseslip 1...e5 against e4, so I wound up crossing over to the dark side.
I'm convinced the Latvian leaves Black at worst at just about -0.60, teetering on the brink of refutation, but not. A much more interesting idea is the "reverse Ponziani" (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 c6!?), which spices up Black's position for what White thinks is an easy pawn.
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....
In 2004, when I got back into training after years, using my 1989 repertoire (pre-computer), as Black, I had a -0.75 position as black in a reversed modern/pirc (be6/Qd7 system same pawns) after 22 moves against Naka with the time at :37-45 favoring him. He won in 28-32 moves but I was like "If he can't beat ME in the opening Adams will eat him for lunch."
You can't trust that this is his current feeling about the opening, or that he might even be laying in wait. I fully intend to play it as more than just a recreational weapon when I become a GM (a few years). It is MORE than playable. Anyone who need six hours to solve forty moves of a solved puzzle may be too intellectually challenged to do it, but I would lay 10-1 odds that Fritz could beat any player in the world from the Black side of it.
Don't forget that a forced draw out of the opening as Black is tantamount to winning a match against a 1. e4 2. Nf3 player. This opening has major teeth, surprise or not.
If you're trusting a +2.04 evaluation in a tactical, sacrificial line, I invite you to try the main line of the four-pawns Alekhine against me. I've found forced wins for white in that line where the computer has me at -3.86!
by dashkee94 a few minutes ago
What's Your Chess Personality?
by Yang1000 3 minutes ago
log out button
by baddogno 4 minutes ago
connection problem | problema di connessione
by baddogno 8 minutes ago
Was Deep Blue cheating ("GM intervention") in 1997 against Kasparov?
by Aquarius550 9 minutes ago
Stockfish 6 CRUSHED (Not using the ARB system) in 5 moves!
by Pucci7 13 minutes ago
by Gunvald123 18 minutes ago
by Gunvald123 20 minutes ago
best chess win?
by Tharinda_Nimnajith 20 minutes ago
by Gunvald123 21 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!