Latvian gambit?

Is it wrong to say it's a bad opening? It says in the "Opening explorer" that white has 60%-70% winning chances with accurate play. So why do people play it?

If black knows his/her stuff and white doesn’t know anything about it, white can get in trouble, making it a weapon of surprise like for example Traxler counter attack and other sharp, rare and probably unhealthy openings that are not often played.

I went over this with one of my chess coaches, he said that he had seen this once before (long ago), it was so rare he didn't know it by name. he said it was pretty terrible; "the only people who play it want to prove they can play this and still win." Lol.

3. Nc3 was something I didn't consider (I'm dumb) but Fritz said it was best. Also, Nxe5 is good. If your opponent plays this, they either are bored, or know it well. exf5 is a blunder (according to my coach)

There is no real harm in using it from time to time as a surprise opening, but you do need to know the theory behind it. However does it really make sense learning an opening just to pull out a surprise win every once in a while from someone clueless about it. It's not a terrible opening, it's kind of like the fried liver, it's sound until you reach a certain level of play and then it becomes useless.

And yes there is always the one person who plays it ALL the time trying to prove it works, for some reason...

I am a big fan of kings gambit and recently i've tried the latvian gambit. So far my results with it has been quite good, since i am prepared for it while my opponent is not. And the game often gets tactical quickly, which suits me fine since i am worse at slow, positional chess. At my level, the games are usually decided by tactics, specially in fast time controls.

I strike this a lot in bullet.

Nxe5...no probs.  It doesn't even have surprise value.

Very Well Said.  

P.S. Another Such Opening - probably even less sound, would be the Englund Gambit. 

Fischer lost the white side when he was younger. Good surprise weapon, but not so much if your opponent knows it's coming...

Bc4 seems a good response, because black cant castle and if 4. ...fxe4 there is 5.Nxe5 threathning fork on f7 which is not so easy to defend

5.Nxe5,Qg5

-- then after 6.Nf7,Qxg2 7.Rf1,d5!

SoupTime4 & rafaelpontual:

The short version: If you are well prepared and like crazy tactical positions then latvian gambit might work for you. At high level though white is expected to win most of the time.

"Black is down in material but the white knight is trapped and black hopes that he can do something with his active pieces. "

I point this out to simply ask this.  You gave up material to "hopefully do something with your active pieces"  What exactly is your game plan from here on out?  All this sound like you're playing hope chess.  Youre hoping all this somehow works out, without having any kind of game plan.  I am looking at this from the perspective of trying to improve.  If chess is just something fun to play for you?  Hey run with it!  It does look like a fun way to play.

That's an excellent question! I struggle to find an answer to it in most of my games. The more i improve at chess the further into the game i have to ask myself that question. In that particular position i would aim to get my remaining pieces into the game and maybe castle long, but it depends on what my opponent does. Against perfect play, white will always win but at my level, anything can happen and the games are mostly decided by tactics and blunders. This is why i can have quite good success with gambits, although some of them are considered inferior at the highest level. Did i mention that i love crazy, tactical positions and having tons of fun playing gambit openings?

I think pretty much every beginner, and low rated player thinks themselves tactical and aggressive.  I get it, I dont get it.  I get it that its a fun way to play.  I dont get it when those same players are dropping material thinking they are being tactical.  But as i said, if its fun for you, and improvement is not a high priority for you, their is nothing wrong with it.

"... many of the lines one sees played at club level are gambits, which lead to the kind of exciting open play that many players find attractive. ... Openings such as the Blackmar-Diemar Gambit, Albin Counter-Gambit, Latvian Gambit, etc., are all played regularly at club and league level, ... there is much to be said for playing such systems at lower levels of play, particularly if you enjoy playing sharp attacking lines. Many players find it uncomfortable to defend against an opponent who is prepared to sacrifice material in return for speculative attacking chances. In such positions, the cost of a single error is much higher than in quieter openings. If you make a mistake in a typical Reti Opening middlegame, you may end up getting a small positional disadvantage, but if you make a similar mistake in the sort of wild tactical positions which often arise from gambits, you are quite likely to find yourself being mated, or losing a substantial amount of material. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2003)

Here is a latvian gambit that i played recently. Both players made quite a few blunders but my opponent made the last one!

Is it appropriate to adopt this attitude when one encounters a beginner?

Actually during my first 2 years i was afraid of tactics and choose only solid, positional openings like the london system. I didn't really knew that there were other kinds of advantages besides material. Giving up a pawn for initiative was unimaginable. I started to experiment with gambit openings because i stopped developing as a chess player by just trying to play safe & solid. And i got bored. I completely disagree regarding that this kind of openings are anti-improvement. I have improved greatly by experimenting with them.