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.
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...,...