Is the Latvian Gambit sound?
Sort:
rigamagician
Nov 17, 2011
0
#61
I know. I just thought it would have been easier for you. 
By the way, how did you arrive at the numbers you mentioned earlier (25 % and 40 %)?
Nov 17, 2011
0
#64
Morgado managed a draw with Black out of the two correspondence games. Sokolov scored a win with Black, and Hector and Rausis a draw each. 1/2 out of two is 25%, and 2 out of 6 is - woops - 33%. Sorry. I miscalculated.
That makes more sense.
And these numbers doesn't tell anything about the soundness of the Latvian Gambit, since it's not statistically significant. Try flipping a coin 8 times. You might get 8 heads. Does that mean, you'll always get that when flipping a coin. No, of course not.
@ rigmagician: The variation that has put the mainline Latvian out of business is not 4.d4 (this pawn is needed to hit the e4-pawn with d3) but rather 4.Nc4 fe4 5.Nc3. This is heavily analysed, and Black has a miserable position after both 5...Qg6 6.d3 Bb4 7.Bd2! as well as 5...Qf7 (exclam mark in most sources) 6.Ne3! when the only way to avoid slaughter is offering a free pawn by 6...d5.
@ cigoL: The fact that such an innocuous move as 3.Be2 s probably giving White a slight edge is speaking volumes about the value of the Latvian Gambit. Of course fun is big part of amateur chess, but one can have fun playing sane moves, not crap. More than that, if you want to improve your chess, playing unsound stuff like the Latvian is clearly not the right way- no matter how many point you pick by exploiting your opponents' blunders.
I said that I have never played the Latvian as Black, but I've played many times in the past the Jaenisch Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5). This is a respectable opening, which has brought some success to Black (including Anand's scalp in a recent game against the Jaenisch guru, Radjabov, when Vishy overpressed in a rather equal endgame). I've stopped playing it because 1. Weaker players could use a few cautious variations in which Black's winning chances are minimal to nonexistent, and 2. stronger players were using rather innocuous lines, in which I could not succesfully cope (most of the times) with the permanent positional weaknesses created by my third move. Anyway, the Jaenisch is fun and highly tactical- a good weapon for amateurs (although there is a fairly respectable amount of theory about it). The Latvian is just an unsound opening, where the best you can hope is White blundering something. If hes doesn't, and even if he does not know the "official refutation", the best you can hope is defending a sterile position, most of the times being a pawn down.
Nov 17, 2011
0
#67
I don't know about "statistically significant," but the fact that GMs haven't played the Latvian Gambit against other GMs at all for the last 11 years seems to suggest that they don't have much faith in Black's chances.
pfren, on paper it maybe tell something about the Latvian Gambit that 3. Be2 might give White an edge. But in real play, it doesn't matter what this move could do, if no one plays it! Don't you see that?
Did you see my game in post #29? You could say my opponent blundered (with 14. d3), as 14. d4 would have been much better. However, I analysed this game with my coach, and even after 14. d4 (and without blunders), Black could win this game. So, saying that Black can only win with the Latvian Gambit, if White blunders, I do not agree with.
riga..., yes, I agree, it's seems they don't have much faith in the Latvian Gambit. But that's all we can say. We cannot say that the Latvian Gambit is losing at GM level, since we simply do not have enough data (number of games) to support such a claim.
Nov 17, 2011
0
#70
cigoL wrote:
riga..., yes, I agree, it's seems they don't have much faith in the Latvian Gambit. But that's all we can say. We cannot say that the Latvian Gambit is losing at GM level, since we simply do not have enough data (number of games) to support such a claim.
We can say in that in most of the games where GMs have tried it against other GMs, they have ended up losing (sometimes in just 12 or 14 moves).
(I might also mention that 2 GMs playing a game of chess is a bit different from flipping a coin. The strength of the moves they choose probably has an impact on the result of the game).
Yes, we can say that. But it tells absolutely nothing about worth of the opening. This is not my opinion, but has to do with statistics, and what is called the Law of Large Numbers.
Maybe the next 8 Latvian Gambit games between GM's will end with 8 Black wins. If so, the total score (in 16 games) will be approx. 30-70, rather than approx. 70-30 (in the 8 games you have posted).
cigoL wrote:
pfren, on paper it maybe tell something about the Latvian Gambit that 3. Be2 might give White an edge. But in real play, it doesn't matter what this move could do, if no one plays it! Don't you see that?
Did you see my game in post #29? You could say my opponent blundered (with 14. d3), as 14. d4 would have been much better. However, I analysed this game with my coach, and even after 14. d4 (and without blunders), Black could win this game. So, saying that Black can only win with the Latvian Gambit, if White blunders, I do not agree with.
No, I didn't. But now I have a few remarks.
1. Since at some point you'd probably want to take the horse on h8, why not 8.Qg3 (covering the g7-square) instead of 8.Qb3?
2.What would you do if your opponent gobbled the b7-pawn at move 9?
3. Of course 9.Qxb7 is contradicting the basic rules of chess (although in this particular position it's not bad at all). Logic says that White is material up with no weaknesses, and he just has to develop his pieces. I'd rather play 9.d4! Nxd4 10.Qa4+ Nc6 11.Bb5 (or even the flashier 11.Ba6), when Black is about to resign.
10.f3? is a positional blunder of the first degree (still better for white, though), but in the next moves white aimlessly neglects developing his pieces, while threatening nothing.
4. Did your coach commented about the move 14.Bxb7+? It looks approximately equal. But 14.d4 is probably strongest- white may still be somewhat better, although Black has his chances.
Nov 17, 2011
0
#73
Another thing we can probably say is that players on chess.com who like the Latvian Gambit defend it in the forums with great passion! 
I noticed the internet-based challenge to the authoritatively speaking International Master was rebuffed with what seems now to be a little white lie.
From the Internet Chess Club:
rating [need] win loss draw total best Bullet 2313 [8] 27 22 1 50 2313 (18-Sep-2001) Blitz 2482 [8] 202 150 23 375 2714 (16-Nov-2000) Standard 1800 [6] 0 3 0 3 5-minute 2257 [8] 180 135 19 334 2375 (26-Feb-2005) 1-minute 1943 [8] 1 1 0 2 15-minute 2098 [4] 19 5 0 24 2134 (25-Dec-2010) Name : Frendzas Panayotis Groups : IMs
Once we crossed the line from theory to fantasy, I began to imagine our friend Mr. Frendzas playing the white pieces with Louis Eichborn on the black. All draws are wins for Mr. Eichborn.
@ wikipedian: All these games are played by a friend of mine, which has borrowed my account at ICC to avoid theoretical preparation. Since that guy is a grandmaster (currently rather inactive) I wouldn't like to reveal his name, unless you insist.
I have not played any games under any time control on ICC since 1999, and I do not know who mr.Eichborn is.
And, as you can see from various databases, I mostly play 1.d4 or 1.Nf3 at move one, while my GM friend plays always 1.e4, and all the time the same openings as Black (Classical Dragon, King's Indian). Myself never played the KID as Black, in any event, and no Classical Dragons since 1986 (I just hate playing long, forced theoretical lines).
pfren:
I (as Black, has no intention of taking the Knight on h8, as you saw in the game). I guess White played 8. Qb3 to start an attack on the side Black is likely to castle to.
I would most likely play 9...Na5.
Well, after 9. d4, maybe Black plays 9...exd3. Then what?
rigamagician wrote:
Another thing we can probably say is that players on chess.com who like the Latvian Gambit defend it in the forums with great passion!
I'm more concerned about defending sound reasoning, and scientic rigor!
cigoL wrote:
Well, after 9. d4, maybe Black plays 9...exd3. Then what?
Simply 9.Bxd3 followed by 0-0. White is an exchange (still it's a rook)+pawn up, has got rid of the annoying e4-pawn, and he can develop his queenside with ease. Does he need more than that?
After 9.Qxb7 Na5 10.Bb5+ Ke7 (the other two moves available look even worse) 11.Qa6 I can't get why you have bothered sacrificing so much wood for nothing in particular.