Tell me how you refute the Latvian Gambit

if you follow stockfish 17 recommendation as white 30 moves deep into the latvian do you think black is ok? or is this a "no human will ever play that well" argument?

What matters in chess is winning, and I have a 69% win rate with the Latvian.

No other opening gives me such good profitability, neither with White nor with Black.

Humans play this opening badly at all levels, and I have verified this over the years.

If White plays almost perfectly and Black does too, then White will keep the extra pawn, at best with queens off the board. In this case, Black can only play for a draw.

The Latvian is a wonderful opening because Black seizes the initiative from the very first moves, even if the engine says + 1 That doesn’t matter in practical chess between humans.

I don’t care what Stockfish says

choose very boring lines and might end up drawing the game with perfect play.

sure if you stay in the same pool of players forever. the minute you creep up, your win rate with that nonsense will plummet.

this idea that you are only a pawn down, so you both sides will play perfect and it will remain a pawn up only is asinine. Thats not how real chess works. How many times have you been only a pawn down and the engine gives an eval of 1.8 or even 2+? material advantages early in a middle game rarely stay static the whole game, they only increase gradually for the winning side unless it is a specific position where it has been worked out to a draw. The latvian IS NOT one of those.
You dont care what stockfish says because your opponents are too weak to have the care or memory to just learn the refutation an hour ahead of time. This is 2025 my man, even at the expert level, people research their opponents repertoire with engines and databases thoroughly to squeeze any advantage they can get. The minute your white opponent knows you a latvian player, they WILL prep a nasty line agaisnt you. Latvian like many bad offbeat lines has narrow corridors with almost no deviations so preparing deeply is actually easy. Any deviation makes your position go from lost to hopeless.

basically, here you have a black defense whose playability is entirely dependent on whether white did his homework. Stop playing hope chess.

modern engines have changed chess entirely. computers have shown some lines once thought to be rubbish are perfectly fine and some old main lines arent as hot as before. What you cant do is hope your opponent will walk in blindly to a cheap trick you will be flagged for knowing. There is really no room for the latvian in modern chess unless this is your idea of gambling.
at depth 65, stockfish 17 gives white a +2.09 advantage in the latvian, this is an evaluation to run for the hills for. 98 times out of 100 if an eval is over 1.5 in an opening, it is dead lost.

I'm not going to argue, you have too many prejudices. You can find me on Lichess with the same nickname.

I have beaten elite players with the Latvian in Blitz games. They have no clue how to play against it because they don’t expect it.

You say that if you prepare thoroughly, you’ll beat me? Hahaha. A IM already prepared against me in a classical game, and he lost. He played the Leonhardt variation, that Nc4 move.

Give me your refutation line, and I'll tell you my recommendation with Black. This thread is for discussing and debating chess lines, not for throwing shade and talking without knowing.

From my view...

It's to prove that someone can play the Latvian Gambit and do well with it. I didn't need convincing.. 

People here think because they can look up engine evaluations and see a +/- that equates to how they will play OTB 10 mins before the game. (and that goes for any time control)

Forgotten is the guy playing the so called "dubious" opening, probably is specializing in it. (as demonstrated here in this thread) Knows the resulting positions like the back of his/her hand, Knows what lines to transpose away from... And..... IMO he has the practical advantage if playing someone who is NOT as familiar with the opening as he is. 

I'm a lowly 1400 player here, 1800s on Lichess. People play equalizing lines against me (My repertoire is not that complex ... and unless they know the opening, flounder after that point because they don't have a plan, or not book up on the position and make small errors that add up after a certain point (and to avoid that... have to expend a ton of time on the clock

In their book, The Woodpecker Method, Axel Smith and Hans Tikkanen give these percentages of decisive games decided by tactical mistakes:

GMs 42%
2200-2400 44%
2000-2200 63%
1800-2000 72%

imagine being this cocky without having a 2 in front of your rating...
its people this foolhardy that give the easiest points in tournaments.
just look at the database! i have the 15 highest rated games with the latvian in front of me. and its a giant white tide. mostly wins, a few draws, and virtually all the draws where from before the year 2000 so no cloud engines to assist. the ONE win with black was from a game where black outrated white by 200 points and played an old main line that is now not considered as good which is 7.bf4. it was from 1992. This stuff has no chance today.

Well, it’s clear that the haters and trolls have already jumped in to ruin the thread.

For those just joining, so far we’ve analyzed some of the most well-known "refutation" lines:

The main line with 7. f3

( i reccomend 7 .. Be7 and 7 .. Nc6, but never the classic 7 exf3 because black trade the queens very soon )

The main line with 7. Ne3

( I reccomend a new idea with h5)

The Leonhardt Variation with 4. Nc4

(I reccomend Qf7 and d5 in the next move sacrificing the pawn)

And very briefly, without going too deep, the Mlotkowski Variation with 3. Nc3.

Yeah....the only person the OP is fooling is himself.

I blame it on the decline in education...if a student is asking about the latvian...and these students have memorized 30 lines by black and win 74%...and throw around one chess term "seize the initiative at move 2"...which he hasnt taken my class on the kings gambit. And we see these kings people who dont care about black.

Give black an extra move they are still doomed. How delusional do you have to be to not see white here has the initiative.

Yes the person who made this post seems to just be building a ego off of other peoples ways of refuting the Gambitand trying to correct them. I thought in the post he needed help so I offered him some ways to refute it but instead he ended up trying to recommend me what to do. No one at my elo even tries to use the Latvian Gambit. This post is too confusing for my chess brain to figure out.

You are just full of prejudices and speaking from the deepest ignorance.

I've already told you that I have a 69% win rate in Blitz and Bullet with the Latvian Gambit at high levels in lichess (2500 Blitz) (2800 Bullet).

I've beaten elite players in Blitz, like Svidler, using the Latvian Gambit.

I know the Latvian works at all levels. You can keep slandering and lying, but the truth will remain the truth.

That's why I challenge both of you

since you claim to know so much

to a chess match at 1+0 and 3+0.

In this match, you will be required to play 1. e4 and 2. Nf3 so we can see how you handle the Latvian Gambit.

I'll be waiting. In the meantime, stop insulting and talking nonsense because you're speaking from prejudice and ignorance classic Dunning-Kruger effect.

I've been studying and playing the Latvian Gambit successfully at all levels for 15 years. You’re not going to come into my thread and give me lessons.

So, as I said, let's play a match and see.

The match would consist of:

1 hour of non-stop 1+0 games.
1 hour and 30 minutes of non-stop 3+0 games.

You always must play 1 e4 2. Nf3

Sure mate. friday afternoon?

I wouldn't really care much about the line in the 3.Nxe5 variation, but you quoted a game in which Black resigned 5 moves later than the last move you give.

In the 3.Nc3 fxe4 4.Nxe5 Qf6 5.d4 exd3 6.Nxd3 c6 line that you give, white could (and should) opt for long castling. Either 7.Qe2+ or 7.Bf4 are better than your line, and I cannot see any way for Black to avoid a terrible position.

Yes, in that game you mentioned, Black made two terrible mistakes in a row, which is why they had to resign.

This is the danger of the Latvian Gambit

if Black makes a mistake, they can quickly end up in a losing position.

Yes, 7. Qe2+ seems like the best option, but the variation I mentioned is played more often.

In any case, Black can survive in that endgame by playing 7... Qe6. It's not the end of the world, but it does seem to be the most critical variation.

Tell me the exact time because we might be in different countries.

Also, how many games do you want to play at each time control, 1+0 and 3+0?

Or how many games do you think are enough to reach a conclusion?

@jcidus You are undertaking a noble endeavour here and I thank you for it. As far as I can tell, the Latvian (I'm old enough to still think of it as the Greco Counter-Gambit) is one of the most divisive of openings; maybe alongside the Grob. People love it or hate it. An attempt to bring analytical rigour and decently human civility into this field says you're one heck of a good chap.

If I find myself able to pitch in, I will. I used to play the Latvian regularly but now only use it as a surprise weapon when I'm feeling gnarly. I am not ill-disposed towards it, but gave it up when it became clear to me that I'd never find a workable line for Black in this:

Yes, I know Black can play the Svedenborg ..., d5 instead, but those lines have somehow never gelled with me.

Plus, I balk at learning all the tactically-defensive sharp stuff after

but that's to do with me being old and lazy, and is not a theoretical point.

Good luck to you in this endeavour. May those who post here engage in goodwill; seeking to "follow the argument, wherever it leads" (as the late Anthony Flew so sagely put it).

What worries you about the Svedenborg variation? When White captures on g6 or h8?

In an official classical game, I was only faced with that Bc4 line once, and my opponent got so scared that he decided to return material, eventually losing in the endgame. I'm going to show the variation my opponent played and how he went wrong under pressure.

In these variations, Black can choose between capturing the knight on g6 or, if you don’t like it and find it too complicated, you can play Nf6 instead. I show you :

It is probably the second line which bothers me more. Tactical complications and the initiative I can cope with. But although Karpov is undoubtedly my favourite and most-admired World Champion, I know in my heart of hearts I can't emulate him and do the long-term positional "press" thing decently and reliably. You are right, of course. Objectively those lines are fine. It's a "Know yourself" (as per Marcus Aurelius) thing.

Aussie time 7:00pm on a Friday afternoon.

Best of 5 for each time mode?

(e.g 5 bullet games, 5 blitz games, 5 rapid games?)