Latvian Attack Declined, why f4 is a blunder?
Sort:
I don't have a deep understanding of the Latvian Attack (the theory itself is kind of counterintuitive) , but as the name suggests it's an aggressive opening which forces Black to play a REALLY tactical game especially if White accepts the sacrifice leaving themselves underdeveloped. But there are times when White doesn't accept the sacrifice. When that happens I really like playing f4 for a few reasons :
It puts pressure on e3 which doesn't allow Queen's bishop to develop. That forces White to develop only on the Queen side or to play pawn moves on the King side making attacks even more easier, not only that but as White tries to get push get rid of the Gambit pawn, Black can develop his pieces and get control of the center. But here's the thing, stockfish said that f4 is a blunder.. Of course I first developed my knight to support e3 and then I pushed the Gambit pawn. Can someone explain why is that a blunder? PS, sorry for double posting. It was an accident.
Differentiation2 wrote:
My opponent played d3. Then Nf3, and then my opponent developed the other knight after that, I played f4. Developing the bishop and pinning my Queen, would make me activate a really nice trap for the bishop, f4, that would force an exchange. Because of that he was forced to develop his knight. I'm really interested on hyperaggressive openings so, does Soltis Sicilian Dragon have a lot of theory? As far as I know Sicilian has a lot of theory and unfortunately I'm not really good at it..
First, what are you talking about by Latvian Declined? the Mayet Attack, Mlotkowski Variation, Mason Countergambit, or just d3?
I'll just do all of them 
When your opponent declines the Latvian Gambit, try to equalize, and be happy they didn't accept it:
You don't need to handicap yourself just to get a tactical game. The Smith-Morra gives enough compensation for equality, and it is tactical, plenty variations of the Spanish and Italian are tactical. You'll mostly be seeing the Spanish, Italian, and Scotch, and there are tactical replies to all of those which don't need you to hit your foot with a hammer. Against the Spanish, you have the Schliemann Defense, and the Cordel Gambit, which are both sound. Against the Italian you have the Two Knights Defense, and against the Scotch you have the Steinitz Variation. All of these are sound enough to, with perfect play, draw against white without nearly as much trouble as it takes even in the Fraser Latvian. And if you really want a hyperaggressive game, there are sound ones like the Soltis Sicilian Dragon, the PP Najdorf, the Polugaevsky Najdorf, the Rauser Dragon, the Amsterdam Dragon, etc.
Differentiation2 wrote:
Wow that's really sharp, thank you very much for your recommendation, I would love to play the Sicilian Soltis Dragon against you, because many players won't help me to use this opening (Sicilian openings unlike other openings need some cooperation from your opponent.) which is kind of its downside.
Resident_King wrote:
Differentiation2 wrote:
First, what are you talking about by Latvian Declined? the Mayet Attack, Mlotkowski Variation, Mason Countergambit, or just d3?
I'll just do all of them
When your opponent declines the Latvian Gambit, try to equalize, and be happy they didn't accept it:
You don't need to handicap yourself just to get a tactical game. The Smith-Morra gives enough compensation for equality, and it is tactical, plenty variations of the Spanish and Italian are tactical. You'll mostly be seeing the Spanish, Italian, and Scotch, and there are tactical replies to all of those which don't need you to hit your foot with a hammer. Against the Spanish, you have the Schliemann Defense, and the Cordel Gambit, which are both sound. Against the Italian you have the Two Knights Defense, and against the Scotch you have the Steinitz Variation. All of these are sound enough to, with perfect play, draw against white without nearly as much trouble as it takes even in the Fraser Latvian. And if you really want a hyperaggressive game, there are sound ones like the Soltis Sicilian Dragon, the PP Najdorf, the Polugaevsky Najdorf, the Rauser Dragon, the Amsterdam Dragon, etc.
My opponent played d3. Then Nf3, and then my opponent developed the other knight after that, I played f4. Developing the bishop and pinning my Queen, would make me activate a really nice trap for the bishop, f4, that would force an exchange. Because of that he was forced to develop his knight. I'm really interested on hyperaggressive openings so, does Soltis Sicilian Dragon have a lot of theory? As far as I know Sicilian has a lot of theory and unfortunately I'm not really good at it..
d3 is sort of a mistake. Soltis Dragon, well, it has theory, but unlike the Latvian it isn't a must know. If you have a good sense for the opening, you can survive. The Soltis Dragon is also one of THE BEST openings for teaching you chess with opposite side castling, pawn storms, etc. Really, I just play the opening, then make natural, Dragonish moves, and score well against experts. Be warned, the Soltis (and many other dragon variations) are extremely sharp, so you need to be very accurate.
https://www.chess.com/article/view/history-of-opening-theory-soltis-vriation-of-the-dragon
here is a link with one game with it. This isn't even one of the sharper games with it though, this is dull compared to other games.
https://www.chess.com/games/view/14066167 This is a nice game, black uses a pawn storm, and plays quite aggressively. Instead of being attacked, black is the one attacking.
JamesColeman wrote:
JamesColeman wrote: Do you mean 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.d3?! Nc6 4.Nc3 f4??. After the simple 5.d4 that's even worse for Black than a normal Latvian. Black is probably objectively lost already.
I see, I just saw that, you are right, 5.. Nxd4 6.Nxd4 exd4 7.Qxd4 and white has a winning advantage. Thanks a lot :)
Do you mean 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.d3?! Nc6 4.Nc3 f4??.
After the simple 5.d4 that's even worse for Black than a normal Latvian. Black is probably objectively lost already.
JamesColeman wrote:
JamesColeman wrote: Do you mean 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.d3?! Nc6 4.Nc3 f4??. After the simple 5.d4 that's even worse for Black than a normal Latvian. Black is probably objectively lost already.
I see, I just saw that, you are right, 5.. Nxd4 6.Nxd4 exd4 7.Qxd4 and white has a winning advantage. Thanks a lot :)
Do you mean 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.d3?! Nc6 4.Nc3 f4??.
After the simple 5.d4 that's even worse for Black than a normal Latvian. Black is probably objectively lost already.
