Latvian gambit

Not trying to be rude but you have 200 elo. I don't think you are experienced enough at chess to be teaching people.

Since grade is a thing but on the other hand I know of people graded 400 on here whose "real world ELO" is much, much higher (they don't play competitively here but use chess.com as; for example; a site on which to offer training), here's a pop quiz which should settle the question of expertise. This line against 3. exf5 won't be found in the standard modern [ish] reference sources on the Latvian such as "Grivainis and Elburg" (either of the two books by them) or "Lein and Pickard" or "Kosten" (either of the two books by him). I picked the idea up from one of those "covers all openings" manuals (of the BCO type) which were so popular last century. Anyone who knows their onions about the Latvian should be able to tell us how this approach differs from other approaches against 3. exf5 and what the key themes of resulting play are likely to be. Anyone who can tell us which manual the line originally featured in is either coincidentally lucky and happens to know the manual (and is likely over 50 and likely grew up calling this the Greco Counter-Gambit) or is extremely well-read on the Latvian indeed.

I'm not giving any more of the line here because I occasionally still play it. And I don't fancy giving away all my opening prep.

Interesting - I have never played 3.exf5

I always take with Knight.

Although I can't claim to be a Latvian expert, my counsel @Compadre_J is to stick with 3 Nxe5. Nice smooth development coming and more space for White. What's not to like? It's because of 3. Nxe5 I personally would rather be pecked on the head by eagles than play a Latvian against anyone graded 2000+ or at a time limit any longer than 10 minutes per player per game. In the 3. exf4 main lines, tactical skulduggery lurks behind every bush. Especially in the sharp 3..., e5; 4. Ne5 lines. Even thirty years ago I lacked both the time and the energy to do the necessary learning not to be caught napping in such lines.

3.Nxe5, 3.Nc3, 3.exf5 are all great, and lead to a huge white advantage.

3.exf5 Qe7? isn't the way chess is played. White can directly take advantage of the silly Queen placement with 4.d4.

I would agree that 3. exf5, Qe7 is ugly as anything, and it's not something I'd recommend in any seriousness. White certainly smashed through after 4. d4 in Destrebecq - Antero but 4...,d6 is a somewhat tougher nut to crack than the 4...,ed which was played in that game and which strikes me as thoroughly ill-advised. Tbh my point in posting here was simply to give the thread creator an opportunity to demonstrate that they might know more about the Latvian than their on-site grade would suggest. Or not as the case may be.

remembering how to bust the latvian is actually not that hard, you just have to remember one or two "unnatural moves". really, the only weird thing is the nc4-ne3 manuever but its straightforward to understand, nc4 allows white to retreat without leaving d4 unguarded, and ne3 protects white from any funny queen business on your castled king.

and white is gonna bust black open, n alternative line is be7 instead of d5, but the idea remains, the same, f3, exf3, bd3! qh5 rxf3 and black is in trouble, for example, the natural 0-0, qe2 d5?? loses to rxf6!.

dont forget to play a timely bc4 to stop black from castling

I play the latvian gambit on chess.com against everybody and have more than 2100elo :tongue

Schauen Sie sich dieses #Schachspiel an: Northpawn123 gegen Spielmann64 - https://www.chess.com/daily/game/718017055

I play the Rousseau gambit it's like the Latvian but much better 😂

Schauen Sie sich dieses #Schachspiel an: Mesrobovich93 gegen Spielmann64 - https://www.chess.com/live/game/123711083733

These are just 2 examples from about 100 games in the latvian gambit.