The question is rather what do you mean by "can"?
The latvian gambit is one of the few openings that actually have a name, that is completely theoretically refuted. So if loosing by force is considered playable, then playing it against the bishops opening is only an improvement in my eyes since it avoids the Nxe5 lines.
The question is rather what do you mean by "can"?
The latvian gambit is one of the few openings that actually have a name, that is completely theoretically refuted. So if loosing by force is considered playable, then playing it against the bishops opening is only an improvement in my eyes since it avoids the Nxe5 lines.
OK. I really have no real knowledge in either opening to be honest.
Is Bc4 already a theoretical response in the Latvian Gambit? If so, those lines would be relevant to the discussion.
after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Bc4?! really is just not on my radar since white simply has 3.Nxe5 with a +2 advantage and a theoretical win. However 3.Bc4?! looks fine for white after 3...fxe4 4.Nxe4 d5 5.Qh5+ and I dont see why either side would go for something like this.
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 f5 is the Bishops Opening: Calabrese Countergambit and according to Stockfish 14.1 is actually better for black than the Latvian Gambit. White is +0.8 in this line rather than +1.6 after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5. But it is still a bad opening unless white panics. Looking at the best line according to the engine you end up playing under pressure from Knight and Bishop in some pseudo Fried Liveresque attack.
Hello everyone i just had one of my recent games in which a knight had its eyes on a square but i had pinned the same knight to the opponents king. If thats the case, can my king walk into the square guarded by the knight cuz the knight cant actually move
No, the pinned piece can't move, but it still exerts control over the other square. Your king must not move into check ever and so this means the king may not move to those squares. Other pieces can go to those squares always, but the king is a special case as the game continuing is contingent on the king of the player who's turn it is not being in check at the end of that player's turn.
chessterd5,play the Latvian, your success will come from how proficient you are at 5-ply tactics. not whether or not someone says an opening is refuted. Under 2200 elo ,as a general rule, there are no openings that are refuted. Many erudite, 1.e4 afficionados( and their semi-closed brethren) will fold up like a cheap card-table when faced with openings like the Latvian Gambit. Your success with the Latvian will depend, almost exclusively, on your tactical skill and psychological comfort when faced with chaos. So play it and chase your placid ,bovine, opponents off the board.
Hello everyone,
I like to study different openings, even if I don't play them.
My question is can black play the Latvian Gambit against white playing the Bishop opening?
1.e4, e5 2.Bc4,f5 3...,...
No, not really. The queen is not obstructed by the knight on f3. Instead, you are a tempo down in a Kings Gambit, like as if you played 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 as White and it is somehow Black to move.
This is called Calabrese Counter-Gambit, and it is quite playable (while the Latvian is totally unsound).
You will find analysis for it in a book named "A Disreputable Opening Repertoire" by ICCF Senior Master Jonathan A. Tait, AKA @jatait47 here.
White's most dangerous line seems to be 3.d4 exd4 (pretty much forced) 4.Nh3! which sets Black a few difficult problems.
This is called Calabrese Counter-Gambit, and it is quite playable (while the Latvian is totally unsound).
You will find analysis for it in a book named "A Disreputable Opening Repertoire" by ICCF Senior Master Jonathan A. Tait, AKA @jatait47 here.
Just because a book was written does not make it good. Trying to play that would be like one of those women on "My 600 Pound Life" wearing a crop top simply because they made it in her size!
If I was guaranteed this position, I would be an e4 player. Give me White all day in this position. 3.d4! CLEAR ADVANTAGE WHITE!
Higher rated/titled players to sub-2000 elo players: don't put too much time into studying openings; all openings are legit below master level.
Higher rated/titled players to sub-2000 elo players when talking about an opening they don't like: Don't play opening X, it suxs, is refuted, blah blah blah....
Higher rated/titled players to sub-2000 elo players: don't put too much time into studying openings; all openings are legit below master level.
Higher rated/titled players to sub-2000 elo players when talking about an opening they don't like: Don't play opening X, it suxs, is refuted, blah blah blah....
The first group and the second group are different people.
(Additionally, the first group is right and the second is almost always wrong, but that's not my point here.)
magip, Agreed. The first group makes the important cavate about how to distribute time when studying. The second group is almost always wrong, and just talking smack, agreeing with the first group when it suits them, disagreeing with it when it doesn't.
chessterd5,play the Latvian, your success will come from how proficient you are at 5-ply tactics. not whether or not someone says an opening is refuted. Under 2200 elo ,as a general rule, there are no openings that are refuted. Many erudite, 1.e4 afficionados( and their semi-closed brethren) will fold up like a cheap card-table when faced with openings like the Latvian Gambit. Your success with the Latvian will depend, almost exclusively, on your tactical skill and psychological comfort when faced with chaos. So play it and chase your placid ,bovine, opponents off the board.
The problem is 1. you sacrifice a pawn 2. white gets all development and initiative 3. you are behind in development 4. you made your king weaker. I actually cannot see any pros with the Latvian gambit at all. If you want tactics without theory, there are so many other options that are not complete garbage.
Someone probably has already said this, but I don't think one "can" play the Latvian against the Bishop's Opening. It's a matter of definition. The Latvian is defined by the moves 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5. So it's not the Latvian if white plays 2. Bc4
Someone probably has already said this, but I don't think one "can" play the Latvian against the Bishop's Opening. It's a matter of definition. The Latvian is defined by the moves 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5. So it's not the Latvian if white plays 2. Bc4
True. But it could possibly transpose if white plays Nf3. But with the move Bc4 included.
There are only so many squares available for the minor pieces to be developed to initially.
IMHO, this is why we study openings not necessarily for just memorization of specific lines ( although useful. As example: I would hate to go into any lines not knowing what the theoretical moves are) but for understanding transposition and potential move order and identifying possible positions from other openings in a hybrid way. All of these affect the time, tactical potential based on position of pieces, and tempos in the game.
In this example, white could possibly play f4 as well. Now we have a cross between Kings Gambit, Bishop opening, and Latvian Gambit ideas.
This is why attempting to " understand " why the specific moves are played in a theoretical line, not just memorization is important. Complications can lead to confusion and misapplication of ideas. This is one of the philosophies of getting your opponent " out of book".
#18
You make a lot of relevant points about understanding and transpositions, and I don't disagree. But, not knowing the OP's understanding of such matters, I think it bears mentioning that 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 f5, absent a later transposition, is not the Latvian.
Educated chess players gotta understand such things to be able to speak the proper jargon
Hello everyone,
I like to study different openings, even if I don't play them.
My question is can black play the Latvian Gambit against white playing the Bishop opening?
1.e4, e5 2.Bc4,f5 3...,...