Latvian gambit? - Chess Forums - Page 2

Lc0_1 · 2020-03-03T16:52:35-08:00

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?

kindaspongey

Mar 31, 2020

0

#21

"... When you first begin serious competition, play sharp openings so that you can strengthen your tactics. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627052239/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman16.pdf

I don't know if he would approve of the Latvian.

SoupTime4

Mar 31, 2020

0

#22

kaukasar wrote:

SoupTime4 wrote:

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.

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.

Here comes the best part :-)

We can simply agree to disagree. Whatever makes it fun for you.

Asparagusic_acids

Mar 31, 2020

0

#23

kaukasar wrote:

SoupTime4 wrote:

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.

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.

Playing solid chess got me from barely 1400 to almost 1900 in a year.

Verbeena

Apr 11, 2020

0

#24

Here is another latvian gambit that got me to my peak rating and a new record for strongest player beaten! Playing solid chess has been my goal since i started playing chess. That doesn't mean that i have to stick to the openings that are played by top level players to score a win.

soulxeroxer

Apr 11, 2020

0

#25

kaukasar wrote:

Here is another latvian gambit that got me to my peak rating and a new record for strongest player beaten! Playing solid chess has been my goal since i started playing chess. That doesn't mean that i have to stick to the openings that are played by top level players to score a win.

Nice game Kaukasar, I am sure you'll get even bigger wins soon

kindaspongey

Apr 11, 2020

0

#26

“... the Latvian Gambit ... is rubbish. ...” - IM Sam Collins (2005)

Lc0_1

Apr 11, 2020

0

#27

lol

Verbeena

Apr 12, 2020

0

#28

soulxeroxer wrote:

Nice game Kaukasar, I am sure you'll get even bigger wins soon

Thanks! The win came sooner than i thought. Another Latvian Gambit, another higher rated player that cracks underneath it. I almost start to believe that the Latvian Gambit exercises some sort of psychic powers on my opponents, considering how badly they keep blundering.

kindaspongey: Can you ever write something using your own words? For quite a while i thought you were a spambot that just keeps posting links & quotes.

Lc0_1

Apr 12, 2020

0

#29

Lol! Rfd1??? is what you should've written... more than a blunder... a queen blunder!!

bigrob01

Apr 12, 2020

0

#30

It's bad in the sense that with appropriate play it's just a straight up losing position. However, if your opponent doesn't know much about how to play against the gambit you can get nice positions pretty easily. I use it in blitz occasionally.

IM pfren

Apr 12, 2020

0

#31

If white does not bother learning long forced lines, then 3.Nc3 is good enough for a large advantage.

Muisuitglijder

Apr 12, 2020

0

#32

kaukasar schreef:

kindaspongey: Can you ever write something using your own words? For quite a while i thought you were a spambot that just keeps posting links & quotes.

He might be suffering from an obsessive compulsive copy & paste syndrome. Have you ever considered that?

Verbeena

Apr 13, 2020

0

#33

Another win in the Latvian Gambit. I guess it will be my last game i post here since i have already proven that it works, at least around my rating level. I am half way to 1500 now, wohoo!

bilalakhtar110

Apr 13, 2020

0

#34

Latvian gambit is by far a powerful move , April 1990 there was a match that used this.

SoupTime4

Apr 13, 2020

0

#35

Spelenderwijs wrote:

kaukasar schreef:

kindaspongey: Can you ever write something using your own words? For quite a while i thought you were a spambot that just keeps posting links & quotes.

He might be suffering from an obsessive compulsive copy & paste syndrome. Have you ever considered that?

He has been muted.

ChessieSystem101

Apr 13, 2020

0

#36

SoupTime4 wrote:

Spelenderwijs wrote:

kaukasar schreef:

kindaspongey: Can you ever write something using your own words? For quite a while i thought you were a spambot that just keeps posting links & quotes.

He might be suffering from an obsessive compulsive copy & paste syndrome. Have you ever considered that?

He has been muted.

Really? Why?

jamesstack

Apr 13, 2020

0

#37

SoupTime4 wrote:

"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.

I think if you dont know what to do with active pieces...It might be a good idea to review the games of Paul Morphy, Morphy often gave knight odds to his opponents....meaning he was down a whole piece from move one. Morphy won his Knight odds match against James Thompson by the score of 5-3. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1016090

Verbeena

Apr 14, 2020

0

#38

jamesstack wrote:

I think if you don't know what to do with active pieces...It might be a good idea to review the games of Paul Morphy, Morphy often gave knight odds to his opponents....meaning he was down a whole piece from move one. Morphy won his Knight odds match against James Thompson by the score of 5-3. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1016090

I agree, you don't really need any exact plans to follow deep into a variation until you reach a level when people are memorizing long lines of moves against most openings & variations (which is FAR BEYOND my level). Understanding the ideas of the opening is all you need. Then you will feel comfortable in the positions you get, which is important to play well. And some imagination/creativity of course.

ponz111

Apr 14, 2020

0

#39

Just about all gambits with Black are bad in theory. When you learn how to refute such gambits--your playing strength will increase greatly.

In the meantime--playing such gambits can be fun.

jamesstack

Apr 14, 2020

0

#40

It also can be good training. Even if you dont play gambits its possible to find yourself in complicated tactical battles where objectively you are a little worse. If you play openings like Latavian maybe you will be more comfortable battling from a worse position and be able to find all kinds of tactical resources in many diferent kinds of positions.