Honchkrowabcd wrote:
No anyone with more than 13 braincells knows how to counter it
😭😭😫 mb i wont learn this gambit
LEARN THE LATVIAN GAMBIT, TRUST ME ITS WORTH IT
Sort:
Jul 6, 2024
0
#23
Honchkrowabcd wrote:
No anyone with more than 13 braincells knows how to counter it
Comments like this ruin forums. I just defeated a 2185 and CM with the Latvian both of whom could run rings round you.
Against someone who is unfamiliar and not expecting it, it is a dangerous gambit if well prepared and far from easy to refute over the board.
Santoy wrote:
Honchkrowabcd wrote:
No anyone with more than 13 braincells knows how to counter it
Comments like this ruin forums. I just defeated a 2185 and CM with the Latvian both of whom could run rings round you.
Against someone who is unfamiliar and not expecting it, it is a dangerous gambit if well prepared and far from easy to refute over the board.
Sure, that's the inherent risk of a gambit. You sacrifice the ~35/35/30 average split a sound opening has for a ~40/10/50 split. You do win more games, but you also just straight-up lose a lot more games. Gambits don't work against the same person twice and they can be refuted over the board (if not easily), so it still isn't worth having as a main weapon.
I agree they can be useful... just not for beginners–kinda hard to learn how to play middlegames when one side is always winning on move 10–and not as main weapons.
Jul 7, 2024
0
#25
Certainly I wouldn't include the Latvian, or any other so-called 'refuted' gambit, in a main repertoire but they are a great surprise weapon when you are in the mood or facing a weaker opponent. They would be useless against a high IM, GM, Engine... but I am not playing them, I am playing another hobbyist.
The related Jaenisch/Schliemann gambits are probably sounder and still seen in top level chess occasionally.
Most important of all, they are FUN to play.
Santoy wrote:
Certainly I wouldn't include the Latvian, or any other so-called 'refuted' gambit, in a main repertoire but they are a great surprise weapon when you are in the mood or facing a weaker opponent. They would be useless against a high IM, GM, Engine... but I am not playing them, I am playing another hobbyist.
The related Jaenisch/Schliemann gambits are probably sounder and still seen in top level chess occasionally.
Most important of all, they are FUN to play.
I agree with all of this.
The Schliemann is a lot of fun, especially since every assumes 4. d3 just kills the system on the spot but there is counterplay with lines like these:
Jul 13, 2024
0
#28
I've never seen the Schlieman before. That looks very fun! 
For me, aside from fun, I like playing gambits because it cuts down on opening memorization that I bother with. There are a million possible paths the game could take, I don't like the opponent to choose. With gambits, I try to steer the game down paths that I have studied, and that maybe they have not. I like confrontational lines that attempt to take over the direction of the game on move 1 or 2. Latvian certainly fits this criteria. For that reason alone it seems like a fine option.
It's funny to read some the anti-gambit comments that inevitably appear. Some people are really opposed to the existence of gambits.
Jul 13, 2024
0
#29
A good test to see if you should consider playing gambits is the Danish gambit:
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3
If black accepts you offer another pawn:
3. --- dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2
Interestingly, the more pawns that black accepts, the greater the win rate for white and the more the engine likes it. If you can find greedy players that take all three pawns, they are as good as lost as long as you continue in true gambit style. If you lose from this position, gambits are probably not for you.
Many similar examples such as Evans where too greedy players get severely punished.
Santoy wrote:
HaHa, just totally destroyed a Candidate Master with the Latvian even though neither of us had a clue what we were doing according to the analysis.
I absolutely agree it is worth a try. I am going to keep going with it at every opportunity until I lose. I would never have dreamt of playing it without this thread.
Also in the latvian you and your opponent has no idea what the hell you're doing so ye.
Glad to see you enjoy the latvian
Mar 18, 2025
0
#32
monke_ah_dude wrote:
DoYouLikeCurry wrote:
reevjar2 wrote:
I just found the best chess gambit for black and possibly one of the best, comparable to the caro - kann. The Latvian gambit starts with e5 2.Nf3 f5
Here's a example of how the game CAN look like (accepted gambit)
As you can see, black is controlling the center like crazy in a comfortable position.
If you're elo 1800+ then don't play but play if any below that. Study it, but just know the main part of this is to be super aggressive.
Any thoughts?
Not meaning to be super rude here, my friend, but two questions:
1) considering your rating is quite beginner, why should people trust your opening advice?
2) why does a 600 know relatively obscure gambits? Perhaps openings are not the part of the game that needs your immediate attention?
About the second point, well i studied the queen's gambit and caro - kann a lot and it paid off. I don't think you should not learn theory just because you're a beginner, like me. It adds more variety to the game and just play e5 is boring. I was gonna quit chess cuz it got boring. But then i found an opening video about the caro and i came back. I do want to increase my rating, but i also want fun. and also for the first point you said, i think you should give it a try in a casual game against a friend or some1 u know. Who knows? maybe it could become your fav opening
you've struggled to improve for multiple years. I think openings should be the least of your worries
No anyone with more than 13 braincells knows how to counter it