Like Houdini in the Latvian Gambit

I've been trying to play the Latvian Gambit lately. 

I just had a blitz game where I lost both of my rooks and somehow pulled out a win. 

I lost so much material in this game I'm sure I did a lot of things wrong. Still, checkmate was inevitable when my opponent resigned. 

Is this a fluke or is this the sort of thing that can happen when you play aggressive in the Latvian Gambit? 

I'm interested in your thoughts on this game and on the Latvian Gambit in general. 

The Latvian Gambit is suffering theoretically, and only has a few lines where black is barely surviving.

Pardon my follow up question, but your grammar is a little confusing to me. 

What do you mean exactly when you say it "is suffering theoretically?" 

That almost makes it sound like it's suffering theoretically at the moment, but in the future it could have a turnaround. 

I've had a little success with it so far in the games I've played but perhaps that's just because my opponents have never seen it before. And maybe I've had a little luck as well. 

I've mostly used it in blitz games to familiarize myself with it. 

Well, right now black is doing poorly in all lines, but Latvian Gambit supporters always seem to find a way to keep the opening alive.  Maybe a novelty might make one of the variations playable again.

1.P-K4 P-K4 2.Kt-KB3 P-KB4 3.KtxP Q-KB3 4.Kt-QB4!

Well, those were my first three moves as black and I won and had fun. 

I'm not completely following what you're saying as the fourth move. 

If black has difficulties in all lines, why does the Latvian Gambit have supporters? 

What do you think?

The Latvian Gambit appeals to a certain group of gambit fanatics who like the messy positions in the Latvian Gambit.  Objectively, the gambit is not sound, but this is difficult to prove over the board without preparation.  The practical chances are pretty good for black to do well.

Yeah, I become Tarrasch when the Latvian Gambit is brought up.  To appeal to both parties, I will put up the Latvian Gambit thread on chesspub that should cover most areas.

http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1262014233

GambitKing I do respect your heart for the gambit. 

When I have the Latvian Gambit played against me, I can smell blood in the water.

I love playing against the latvian and such. I like playing super tactical games but it always seems to be "at the expense" of who goes into it (if its ultra agressive)

mco seems to be convinced that some lines that Ive tried are actually almost fine for black

Gambitking: reading this thread for the first time, I knew you'd make an appearance sometime.  Nice game.

Recently, I played white against the gambit and was able to come out with a good game.  If anyone would be willing to take a look at it, I'd be interested in hearing any thoughts on how play could be improved for either side.  (I don't study openings nearly as intently as some people).

I'll post next time I'm on.

The bottom line is the Latvian Gambit is fun. 

I love what GambitKing wrote - "And even if I lose this type of game, I'm still happy!!" 

Amen to that. 

And, if you smell blood in the water, you should double-check to make sure it's not your own. 

And reading this thread I also learn that the King's Gambit is dangerous for white. Well, so be it. Since I've won (and lost) with the King's Gambit, I've got to believe that it's just as dangerous for black. 

It's a dangerous game - if you play, you just might lose. But I think it's better not to be bored to death in the process. 

Arstan: on your game itself, I think it's really an example of your opponent playing too casually and allowing you to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.  Of course, full credit for finding the moves, but black played that game very loosely.

I guess you mean white played that game very loosely since I was black and I won. 

But perhaps I played very loosely as well since I used the Latvian Gambit. 

But the key has to be using the proper opening if it fits your style or mood at the time. 

Because while I lost two rooks, he never really used his rooks. One stayed in the corner the whole game and the other castled and that was it. 

Meanwhile, I lost those pieces, but managed to maintain an attack centered on his king all game until the inevitable checkmate at the end. 

Additionally, GambitKnight, in the game you posted, black goes Nf6 on move 3. However, it's my understanding that the main line in the Latvian Gambit is Nc6. 

By playing Nf6, black doesn't put any pressure on your knight that's on the e-file and allows you more rapid development, which was obiously a mistake. 

Arstan: yes, I made a mistake: I meant to say white played too loosely.

Regardless, that checkmate was not inevitable.  As you said, your opponent never really used all his pieces.  On top of that, I would add that it seemed like he wasn't even paying any attention to what you were doing (something we're all guilty of from time to time).  I'm saying that with more careful, and purposeful defence, the material should have told in the end.

Agreed about your thoughts on ...Nf6, it does give white a free hand in development.  Nevertheless, I'm of a similar opinion to Fiveofswords: there's no need to really force the issue.  Just focus on solid development and avoid too many complications; this kind of play should leave white with a solid game (and your complications-minded opponent on uncomfortable footing).  That mindset was what I was trying to show with that game, even if black's third move wasn't exactly optimal.

I would be happy to play a Latvian Gambit game if you wish Arstan, but I would be white.

not bad though you lost significant material though if your opponent used the bishop at f7 instead of the knight it surely would have spelled disaster for you in the end game that was genius exploiting his mistake before things could go south for you. good job!