Silman on the Latvian Gambit

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #86


    pfren wrote:

    Well, Black has a bad position everywhere in this stupid opening. Objectively Black has to settle for the unsound 3...Qf6, or Buecker's 3...Nf6, when he is a pawn down, but can fight. After 3...Nc6 4.Qh5+, he can't fight: he is dead.

    OK, working a bit on a few subtleties after 3.Nc3. My aim is to prove a large white advantage with VERY natural play, and no need to enter stupid tactics.

    I actually never thought about 3...Nf6 looks better than 3...Qf6.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #87


    Well, I figure since I'm just entereing class B USCF with a rating of 1624, that I can afford to play the Latvian a few times to try it on for size in some tournament, and local friendly games. I probably won't try it agianst a local gent that had a high rating of 2500 USCF, but thgere are plenty of players near my strength (or lack of same) that I can try it out on.

        But I still am enjoying reading what stronger players say about this defense.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #90


    pfren wrote:
    thehedgehog2000 wrote:

    I actually never thought about 3...Nf6 looks better than 3...Qf6.

    Buecker's idea was to play a pawn-down endgame similar to the one in the current Jaenisch gambit mainline. The idea is both brilliant and interesting,but there are subtle structual differences, which render the (not forced) ending after 3...Nf6 4.ef5 as definitely better for white Youc find plenty of details in the chesspub forum.

    thank you

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #91


    I might try the Latvian gambit out sometime for fun , but it reminds me of a gambit defence .I sometimes play but is lacking against higher rated opponents. Thats the Colorado Counter  e4-nc6, nf3-f5, aka the lean variation of the nimzovich defence . Fun exciting games but in tournment play a wouldn't suggest it. I'll have to try the Latvian out for fun, but somehow I doubt it would work any better.

Back to Top

Post your reply: