Latvian gambit?

The only gambit that is 100% theoretically sound is the queens gambit? But perhaps it's not a real gambit since white isn't giving up any material - black either lets white regain the pawn or get into a losing position by holding on to it.

I am aware that at some point i will have to abandon latvian gambit. But until then i am improving a lot, like jamesstack wrote. Besides practicing playing slightly inferior positions i learned to appreciate dynamic advantages like initiative & piece activity, instead of being strictly materialistic.

The two knights defense is sound.

Maybe the Russians went to Latvia during the Soviet era and taught the kids this so Russian guys  would have less competition? Sounds like something they would do.  No doubt works best when Vodka  is involved.

I couldn't help myself but share this game:

Good game, you develop pieces and setup a position while your opponent are cycling around with his queen. 

Sharp opening , Try to play few games with both colors , You will start having a feel for the position 

"The Opening was first mentioned by Damiano in 1512 and was also know as the Greco Counter-Gambit due to the wonderful games played by Greco in the early 1600s.  It was adopted by Latvian players, notably Behting and Ninzovich in the 1920s and 30s, and from there gets its modern name.  The crazy tactical style of the opening is in line with the style of Latvian players such as Shirov and Tal.  It is played a lot in correspondence chess because of the fantastic complications that can arise.  MCO 15.  

Recent analysis has considerably strengthened this audacious counter gambit, starting with 2...P-KB4 and the attack witch Black obtains at the cost of a pawn is by no means despicable.  There appears to be no limit to Black's resources of complicating the position and it is therefore difficult to find a continuation for white at once simple and advantageous, though an innovation devised by Schlerchter and shown in col. 2, seems at present to yield the first player that conclusive superiority which should be his due.  MOC (1913) 

This Counter Gambit dates from the early part of the seventeenth century.  It has be favored by players remarkable for dash and brilliancy.  It is founded on the maxim that the strongest defense is a counter attack.  It is theoretically unsound, being a vacation of the King's Gambit played by the second plater with a move behind.  Nevertheless some of its variations give rise to interesting and intricate maneuvering.  It appears to have held its ground, along with 2...Kt QB3 as a fair reply to 2 Kt-KB3 until a comparatively recent period. Chess Openings Ancient and Modern (1893)

Both Philidor and Greco believed that 2 Nf3 was not as good as 2 Bc4, because of 2...f5, or 3...f5 (The Philidor Counter Gambit). Philidor's 2...d6 was designed to stop 3 Nxe5 which was one of the popular responses to 2...f5 during the mid 1700s. 

I play 2....f5 in response to 2 Nf3 I enjoy tactical games and believe it is helping me develop my tactical skill, which is key for developing players who want to improve.  

Most books on 1.e4 give how to handle this with white.

U just gave bad games for white : seems good for black if we just have a look on these games, but i could give games where black player seems ridiculous.

Latvian defence is one of the worst defence against 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3.

I really enjoy the Latvian gambit, but people are right to say it loses by force. But practically speaking how many people are you gonna meet who know the 10+ precise moves that lead to a clearly winning game? Yes a fair few people know 3. Nxe5 is the best move and with some solid positional moves White keeps a nice advantage, but you see 3. fxe5 (white is slightly better), 3. Bc4 (extremely sharp and unclear), and even 3.d6 (instantly equal) very often too.

This claim is the foundation of Hope Chess.

And in any case, White need not know to know anything in particular, and play 3.Nc3 with a large advantage.

I'm not encouraging playing the Latvian Gambit as part a serious long term repertoire, but do you not think there is any value in improving players picking up gambit openings that for practical purposes will throw them into a lot of equally uncomfortable/complex positions for both sides? 

They can pick whatever they please, but tactical solutions resulting from uncommon positions are not very useful, and the same applies for solving random puzzles, which are great of course, but not the real thing as you already know there is a tactic shot there.

Tactics are best studied based on themes, and (even better) pawn structures. Most crap gambits are based on speculative tactics, which are not based to some positional characteristioc of the game, but rather to the speculator's expectation that the opponent will blunder into them. So sure, the Latvian may be good for blitz, where the opponent may blunder, but that is that: 3.Nxe5 is close to being a definitive refutation, and 3.Nc3 is a simple, large advantage without the need of memorizing stuff for something that you will rarely meet OTB.

Learning to play at a disadvantage isn't bad, but you may lack experience with playing for a win. It's often hard to judge when and how to convert one type of advantage into another without the position slipping into a draw. You need experience in this area too.

And there are no openings that lead to "strictly materialistic" positions.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. I also chose to stick with a tricky opening as black when I was new:  1.e4 d5 2.exd Nf6 --  so I guess my only justified complaint is that you happened to choose a strong candidate for the worst opening with a name.

Here is my most recent latvian. White had an advantage during the first 6 moves but my experience of playing these positions quickly triumphed. It took me seconds to find most of the attacking moves since they felt so natural.

What do you mean?

Ah, it brings to mind another thing about risky openings... usually, your position is either completely winning or completely losing by move 15.

There are worse openings, like 1.a4 followed by 2.b4 3.c4 etc across the board is obviously worse.

But there aren't many openings worse than the Latvian gambit that have actually been named.

For example the fool's mate can be 1.f3 e5 2.g4 Qh4# but it's not really an opening, more of a helpmate.

And I just mean the objective evaluation. I don't mean you can't win games with it or something.

I'm not trying to shame you into not playing it... but for example I was often going for the icelandic gambit. I can still play 2...Nf6 for fun in blitz, even against a well prepared opponent. It just means I have to suffer a bit more than normal. Maybe the position is around +1.00 (I'm black).

But someone well prepared against the Latvian just wins. There's no game. They just win.

The Latvian Gambit is a pretty good, sharp opening try up until about 1500. If someone knows that you play it regularly, you can get caught in a tough spot; so, just use it as a surprise weapon. If you're passionate about it, I say go for it, but there's also e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 f5, which is more advisable.

Do you play it regularly, and does it still work if white goes for italian instead of spanish?

if you want to blow past weak players, something sound but deadly like the vienna gambit is a better bet.

Latvian has long been known to be busted and now in the age of powerful engines with access to the cloud, you are a 10 minute houdini break from being torn open at the board. All they have to do is check your games in database and realize you play it to get busted. You are better off mastering the Grob!