Is the Latvian Gambit sound?

You're playing someone in a tournament. The game goes 1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5?! You stare perflexed at this phenomenal move. You cautiously analyze each option you have. Is this necessary? This is the question I have for you. Several people have suggested f5 as a dubious move. Being a Latvian gambit player myself, I tend to question this move. According to game explorer, 2... f5 wins more games than 2... Nc6 does for black. Only you can decide for yourself. To assist you are two games I found using the Latvian. I intend to settle this debate for once and for all. 

P.S. And whether or not I should use the Latvian Gambit.

Several people have said: "The Latvian Gambit, though a very aggressive Black defense against white is a great opening with good merits and supports good chances against white!  I can't wait to keep on playing it some more and winning with it against other strong players...!

Both on the Internet/over the board games alike!"

And:

 "Its too aggressive and isnt very good because because white gains a tempo and developmental edge and white USUALLY gets a space advantage however black can get solid if they play it properly."

Comments from RomancePlayer77 and Heater2000

The latvian used to bother me a lot, so I started to play it! After extensively analyzing it with some computer buddies and real buddies, white can get a very longterm and easy advantage if played the correct variation. 

I have studied the Latvian pretty intensely... and have come to the conclusion that it is "sound" but it just is not practical for OTB play. Objectively, In some lines black is very close to lost, and in others just positionally worse.  However, most of the lines are very sharp and tactical, and most people dont know much theory.  If you are playing against players below say 2200-2300, and you are familiar with many of the tactics, and are good at calculation.... then it can really throw your opponent off! 

Having said that... I have much much better results just playing the two knights, and the arkangelsk in the Ruy.

If your opponent is prepared for this opening, I believe the Latvian Gambit is going to lead to a lost position.

I think the user name of the previous post is a good assessment of black's position in the Latvian.

I occasionaly play the Latvian Gambit as Black.  You have to know it well to avoid the many traps.  Here is one of my games played here.

It all depends on your definition of "sound".

Does the latvian loses by force with perfect play? Probably not. The opening is sometimes tested in relatively high level correspondence games with computer help allowed and the usual outcome is that black with careful play draws a pawn down endgame (after considerable suffering). So in this sense it's probably "sound". 

That said it's true that with a very good preparation you can make black face tremendous problems. But i don't think studying it deeply is really a cost-effective decision, since the opening is uncommon and the theory rather crazy and hard to remember. Just play something sensible and enjoy a game of chess, instead of chasing the dangerous dream of a quick opening win.

We could tell you, but we'd have to kill you. I do think the Svedenborg variation is refutable.

For on the board play it really has merits.
For black the goal of the opening is to equalize or get an advantage.
When black plays the best opening moves for a long time then the only way white can prevent black from attaining his goal is by also playing the best opening moves.

And how many players do you know that know the latvian gambit 12 moves deep? Or even 4 moves? If they do not know it deep enough you can atleast equalize as black, and isn't that the point of an opening? And how many players just play d3 against f5? After d3 black has a comfortable game. Not to mention that many of the lines in which white retains an advantage it still requires extensive knowledge of the position to actually play it out.

An opening like the latvian gambit relies on you knowing more about the position then your opponent and thus giving you the edge, or atleast that's what you hope.

P.S. no ofcourse it's not sound. Not if your opponent knows 30 moves of Latvian Gambit.

In John Nunn's book Secrets of Practical Chess, he has a section attacking Tony Kosten's analysis in The Latvian Gambit (1995).  His main line runs 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3 Qf7 6.Ne3 c6 7.Nxe4 d5 8.Ng5 Qf6 9.Nf3 Be6 10.d4 Nd7 11.Bd3 0-0-0 12.0-0 g5 13.c4 "and Black is already in a very bad way."

Thank god that in actual practical chess people do not know that line :D.

The Latvian Gambit is ultra risky it's anything but safe the Latvian Gambit is the equiviliant of holding a big red stick of dynamite that may blow up in the white players face or the black players face. 

It's not for everyone if black likes to play very cautiously and safe doesn't like wild tactics chaos or gambling danger doesn't have the nerve to dance on the edge of a straight razor with a lit stick of dynamite the Latvian isn't for him or her.

Once again an attempt to refute black while ignoring black's optimal move. After 3.d3, white may only play to draw against accurate moves, which do not include 3. ...d6 - as dull and un-Latvian a response as you could conjure for black. The most basic theory is this: plan on the prepared Latvian player avoiding symmetry except where it is forced. Counterplay is the whole point of the opening. Black's plan usually involves a d5 pawn thrust once the issue of the e-pawns is resolved, or vacating the pawn by capture in Fraser-type schemes. White may insist on symmetry up to a point in this line where the knights are concerned, but once bishops come into play, symmetry breaks again. Novelties such as Qe2 have worked for white in this line, but there are correct answers here as well.

/agree Alec40 and I think that's precisely why the Svedenborg variation doesn't work. The Mayet Attack already had a defense that gave black first strike on key material, a slippery king, and imposes tough tactical choices on white. Embrace the dynamite.

"This bounty hunter is my type of scum: fearless and inventive" - Jabba the Hutt

No. 3. ...Nc6 is the only correct answer. That is the nature of this gambit. White asks the questions and Black provides the answer on the board. The penalty for an incorrect answer is usually a painful death :D

The Latvian Gambit rocks for Black.  It's my preferred opening with Black. I play the Fraser Defense. 

Here's an example of a game I played here on Chess.com. 

Welcome to the "there-is-only-one-way-to-play-chess" school. It's silly, really.

I asked my coach if I could play the Latvian Gambit until FIDE 2000. He said: of course you can! 

Maybe at your level, but seemingly not at club level or below. I've had a lot of success with the Fraser Defense.