Dumb question

For the same reasons white plays 2. f4 in the King's Gambit.

Black wants to deflect the e-pawn from the center and build a BBC (big black center) with d5. Also, after a recapture on f5 (for instance) the semi-open f-file might come into play for attacking possibilities.

I don't know.

That is part of asking the question. What does white do here? He has a lot of options.

A) do we defend the e4 pawn with Nc3 or d3?

B) do we play Nf3?

C) do we exchange the bishop for the knight on g8?

D) do we play Qh5+?

E) do we play f4? And make the position more complex knowing that the e4 pawn is hanging.

F) do we play d4?

G) do we play a "waiting " move like a3, c3 or h3? Which may have no bearing on the current position but encourages black to make a move that better "defines" the course of events.

We are just examining the potential aspects of a given position.

Once upon a time, A Chess Master issued a chess prophecy which said in order to Defeat a Gambit, One must be willing to Accept it!

I don’t know this position!

I have never seen it before in my life!

I have never played the Bishop Opening!

BUT I know the refutation/counter to this line will involve White playing exf5!

I don’t know when White should play exf5.

Should White take Right away? Or Should White make preparation moves before taking?

I don’t know - BUT I do know White will strike down that f5 pawn!

The Chess Prophecy set forth from Ancient Times will be fulfilled!

The way to proceed shall reveal itself!

The path forth will be Crystal Clear!

To solve this position, you only need to listen and let the chess board speak to you!

3.d4 is the bust

Or did you mean the best?

That does seem to lead into the line that IM pfrem suggested. ( sorry if I spelt your name wrong. )

I don't know any theory and I am not a strong player, but voluntarily opening the diagonal the bishop is sitting on looks risky.

I agree. Very flowery and romantic reply. I like it! It looks like white playing exf5 is right and reasonable either now or later. And black should be happy with that. If not, why play f5 to begin with?

Hi, I just released a book for this kind of ideas of learning a bit and more of every opening. Take a look at it. It's both in english and spanish version. Unfortunately the amzn have not yet enabled the look inside, but I added a large book description until then.

On Chess Openings - An Introduction

Yes. I agree, it does look risky. But I do think that it would fit in to the mind set of someone willing to play the Latvian Gambit. Risk should already be an acceptable aspect and being comfortable with it to play in that style.

No disparagement intended, but I think you're being a little dogmatic (ie always accept the gambit is best). Like here exf5 seems to play into black's hands as black responds Nf6 and then d5 (with gain of tempo on the bishop) looks unstoppable.

remember, a gambit is a sacrifice, that's all it is. and a sac can be correct or incorrect, and, sometimes, it is better to not accept a correct sacrifice.

So, I think GM Larry Evans was wrong

Or, just to be exhaustive of the possibilities, even an incorrect sacrifice might be better avoided sometimes. it's all circumstantial.

i think you missed the part about the author being an ICCF master, those players know openings at a far higher level than even your average master as they use it vs engines. 
playable and clear advantage to white are not mutually exclusive.
at the end of the day, openings gravitate towards a draw or towards a win as the depth increases more and more. The rest is the practical difficulties you willing to endure. Do you have the refutation in hand?
i recently was checking lacdawala's play 1.d6 agaisnt everything book, and one of the critical lines in his recommended wade defense had two main variations, both evals ranging from 1.3-1.6 depending on the depth and yet when you go over even grandmaster games, in practically all the games, the advantage quickly dropped to very reasonable levels . I normally stay FAR away from anything with an eval that high, even the exceptions i make for certain 1+ variations are relatively few but the IM had a point, if the practical results show even GM's dont discover the play that keeps the advantage and even the engine cant quite find an outright bust at depth 50 , is it as bad as it claims? 
maybe you just cant hack it playing that way?

i did some superficial analysis on the critical line with the engine until like move 20, and honestly... this looks holdable. Not only must white play some almost impossible to find moves, to keep that 1.4 edge , the resulting endgame was a pawn down but in an opposite bishop with all major pieces too ending, and black even had a potential dangerous d-passer. practically no one will be that booked up agaisnt you in your chess career agaisnt it, unless its the only thing showing up in your database profile vs the bishops opening and a high stakes must win game in a master tournament is the situation in hand.

I wouldn’t describe myself as a dogmatic Chess Player or Chess Thinker!

A lot of things I have done in my Chess Career have been against the grain of what other people have thought and said.

Sometimes, It has worked.

Sometimes, it hasn’t worked

———————————

However, I have also seen Chess Truths.

If a person gives you free Chess Material, you have to see if it is in your best interest to take it.

Everyone starts the game off with even amount of pawns and pieces.

If your opponent messes up and gives you free stuff, it brings you closer to victory because at that point you end up with an extra unit in the fight.

Of course, The opposite could also be true. Your opponent’s might be giving you a Trojan Horse or creating an Elaborate Ruse to make you think you’re winning only to beat you with an eloquently calculated plan!

——————————

Whether or not the f5 pawn move is a Free Pawn or Poison Pawn, I don’t know!

BUT if you’re planning to talk about the Pros and Cons of this position.

Surely, Starting with exf5 seems prudent!

We just take it!

Boom - What is Black master plan?

What horrors has White unleashed by doing this move?

White has won 1 pawn!

Can white keep it?

Exactly.

I'm just a 1600 level player. But my answers to these questions would be:

A) what is Black's master plan? The same as it would be in a regular Latvian Gambit but always accepting and acknowledging that there's a white bishop on c4, early in the game that would not necessarily be there but could always be there later in the game. Simply, the way that I view it is that white has chosen to commit what is probably a middle game type move earlier than usual. I think my response would be Nf6. It stops the Advance of the white f pawn, it covers the h5 square so no queen check, and in regards to the c4 bishop the amount of "scope " it has, has no bearing if there's not a target. White could play Bf7+ but is the sacrifice to pull the king out viable if there's no follow up?

B) what horrors? None but the normal ones white accepts by taking the pawn in the Latvian Gambit.

C) can white keep it? I don't know. I don't think anyone "knows ". Time and both players responses will determine that. But another idea of a Gambit is does the player that is offering the material NEED to "get it back "? How many times have we seen computers give away material because they can't stop the positional threat elsewhere on the board?

re #35

Well, sure you want to look at it. You probably want to look at it first, in fact, as it's generally a time saver to look at forcing moves first. But material isn't the only consideration in chess. If white wins a pawn, in some position, but then allows black to dominate in the center, or get ahead in development, or get a safer king -- ie get some kind of compensation -- that compensation could be worth the pawn, or more. It's a mistake to think material is inherently more important than other imbalances. Activity, targets, space, king safety, development, central control... any of those could easily be worth a pawn.

@chessterd5 also made some good points re your post.

3.d4 does look like the most consistent counter, and Black's position isn't very pleasant after 4.Nh3. The advantage for Black is that these positions are rather unexplored, and white's advantage cannot be maintained by playing "natural moves"- concrete aggressive play is needed.

As Tait mockingly mentions in his book, the only good thing about 3.exf5 is that it was played by Morphy against his dad when he was 11 years old.

Other than that, it is a harmless move.