The opening is named Schliemann defense. I think it is much more sound than the direct latvian gambit. I haven't played i myself but i seems that black fights for the initiative.
Delayed Latvian-Gambit
Sort:
Is 3... f5 against the Italian Game (3.Bc4) also called Schliemann defense, i thought thats against the Ruy Lopez/Spanish?
well I guess one attempt to directly refute blacks play may be.
4.d4 fxe4, 5.Ne5 d5, 6.Nxc6 bxc6, 7.Qh5+ Ke7, 8.Bb3 though I believe Black should be able to hold here.
White has 2 approaches :
Trying to refute it, opening the position with d4, like this old game :
It is very difficult for black to find any improvment in this game.
And the second approach is the safe 4.d3, asking black where he could castle now...
Black should then transpose into a reversed refused king's gambit, not a great deal for him...
Black should improve here, but really, it is an insane way to develop, just weakening and depriving your right to castle...
White can play Ng5 at some moment too...
Perhaps ironically ...f5 is only really "playable" (ok, we can debate what that means, but let's say at the GM level) for Black in the open games (1.e4 e5) against the Ruy Lopez, either immediately (3...f5, when there are many GM examples), or in the Modern Steinitz Siesta variation, 3...a6 4.Ba4 d6 5.c3 f5, with lots of examples by GM Yandemirov, and some also by GM Timman
spanish_caravan wrote:
Perhaps ironically ...f5 is only really "playable" (ok, we can debate what that means, but let's say at the GM level) for Black in the open games (1.e4 e5) against the Ruy Lopez, either immediately (3...f5, when there are many GM examples), or in the Modern Steinitz Siesta variation, 3...a6 4.Ba4 d6 5.c3 f5, with lots of examples by GM Yandemirov, and some also by GM Timman
In the Classical Ruy, too: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.c3 f5- AKA the Cordel gambit.
GordonInca wrote:
1.e4 e5, 2.Nf3 Nc6, 3.Bc4 f5?! - The Rousseau Gambit.
1.e4 e5, 2.Nf3 Nc6, 3.Bb5 f5 - Schliemann/Jaenisch Defence.
Who votes for calling the Schliemann/Jaenisch Gambit the Wascally Wabbit Defense? If Jaenisch originated the variation (in 1847) - and Jaenisch is a Germanized version of the Finnish word, jänis, which means "hare" - while the line Schliemann actually played in the 1860s was a gambit variation of the Cordel Defence (3...Bc5 4. c3 f5) - so we can leave Schliemann out of this - this line certainly seems wascally.
Opinions?
You know, I could also see the Carlos Conejo Gambit, or the Spanish-Finnish-Russian CounterAttack as alternatives...
Incidentally, Jaenisch's Chess Preceptor of 1843 has so little on Ruy Lopez Variations save the popular Cordel Defense lines (there is no mention of the Wascally Wabbit Defense whatsoever...)
Hello everyone, lately I came up with the idea to challenge the Italian game with some sort of 'Delayed Latvian-Gambit'. The opening moves are as followed.
1.e4 e5, 2.Nf3 Nc6, 3.Bc4 f5?! now the question is if this move is asking for trouble, or is it a valid option to avoid the long positional struggles that may arise in the Modern Italian games?