Tell me how you refute the Latvian Gambit

In Australia, there are several time zones, so just tell me what time it is in London so I can get an idea. From what I’m seeing, it doesn’t work for me because it’s 9 AM in London, and I’m not available at that time.

Find another day instead, and make sure it’s in the afternoon or evening in London—at least from 3 PM (London time) onwards.

Regarding the games, we could play three mini matches.

Whoever reaches 5 points wins the match for both 1+0 and 3+0.

For example, the 3+0 match could end with a score of 5-3, and the same for Bullet—the first to reach 5 points wins the match.

If there’s a tie, it stays that way—no tiebreaks, no complications.

I don’t really trust Rapid; it’s not that I’m afraid to play 10+0, but it just takes too long.

Besides, the point here is to prove what works in Blitz and Bullet.

If you want, the third mini match can be 5+0, with the first to reach 5 points winning.

i am black pieces in all the games and we play all the time latvian gambit

It’s going to be complicated, so I think it’s better if we just play the match as I originally suggested, alternating colors, with rating, etc.

Even if we only play the Latvian Gambit in 50% of the games, it’s more practical because the system doesn’t allow forcing the same color.

Well, I think it is possible to challenge by colors, but you have to add me as a "follower" or "friend." So it seems that you can challenge by colors.

9pm london time

saturday or sunday

(Do whatever you want with the games)

OK SUNDAY then

Yep

You had 13. dxc5 in this position but I don't see why I would oblige you like that. I don't see where your counterplay is coming from next. You are welcome to try to recover the pawn with a pawn-grabbing adventure on b2 if you really think that looks like a good time, or you're welcome to take on d4 and give me a very pleasant choice between recapturing with the queen or bishop. If you do nothing, I'll just play Qd2 next, maybe Kh1, maybe rooks to the middle, and open the position when I'm ready to open it. Also in the air is Na4 and just taking another pawn on c5 if that ever seems like the best plan.

It's not the end of the world, you can play Bf5 and after Qd2, capture on d4

Easy when you just have White repeatedly fail to play the engine move and Black always play it I guess.

Your move 13. Be3 seems to be the best according to the engine, but a human might hesitate to play it because it leaves the b2 pawn hanging.

I've always known from studying this variation that this pawn cannot be taken, and that Be3 is very playable.

But I’m not really sure what you expect White to do.

If White plays perfectly, they will obviously maintain their extra pawn.

The question is whether that will be enough to win in the endgame.

Maybe it will, but we are assuming that both sides play their best moves.

In that sense, I don’t think this line is the most critical for White.

In fact, I consider the other line with 7. Ne3 to be stronger.

You know what happens? In manuals against the Latvian Gambit, 7. f3 was always recommended because it was assumed that Black would play 7 . . . exf3 and try to trade queens with Qg4.

When I first started playing the Latvian Gambit, that exf3 line completely discouraged me from playing it because I saw no compensation for Black. Once the queens are traded, Black is left in a very passive position without any counterplay

it’s as if exf3 goes against the very spirit of the Latvian Gambit.

So there are only two alternatives: either Black plays 7... Be7 or 7... Nc6.

7..Nf6?! is refuted with perfect play

The forum user pfren always recommended the Nc6 line. I personally prefer Be7, although I recognize that in practice, Nc6 has given me better results because White tends to make more mistakes.

In practical play, I am more concerned about the 8. fxe4 line for Black than the 8. Nxe4 line you showed. In fact, if you search ChessBase, there's a game of mine with that line . I played it in an official event in my city, and in that game, my opponent played your 8. Nxe4 variation.

This is somewhat off topic: it's not an attempted refutation for White so much as asking what you @jcidus make of a line. It was given in MCO12; attributed to Gunderam with the final position assessed as unclear. I now suspect that an early d4 by White blows it out of the water, but just wondered whether a Seriously Good Player might see anything in it I've missed. It goes...

I have a sentimental fondness for it because when I was very young it led to my first ever successful competitive Queen sacrifice in the following howlingly inaccurate game...

Is it as bad as I now believe it to be...?

I didn’t know that line, it looks interesting, although now that I’ve looked at it a bit, it doesn’t convince me.

That Qe7 you mentioned in certain lines, Black has to memorize that move if they don’t want to be worse. It’s a critical move. I’ll give this example to illustrate:

To be honest, against 3. exf5 I’ve always played the main line with 3... e4. It always seemed the most natural to me, and knowing it was the right one, why complicate things? There was another very well-known line with 3... Bc5, which I think has been refuted (although it's a bit of a trap line), but I’ve never even considered playing any other moves in that line you're showing with exf5.

Your Queen sacrifice game was a very nice one your opponent's mistake seems to have been playing that Bb5, which lets you gain a tempo with c6. Yes, d4 does seem to be the refutation, but it would need more analysis maybe the line is playable even in the theoretically most precise line for White.

I also play d4 sometimes

I like playing systems like the Colle-Zukertort and the London.

In fact, when I started playing chess tournaments, my natural move was 1. d4 because the chess program I used to practice with, "FX Chess," liked to play that setup, and I used to imitate it.

@jcidus Thank you for this thread. You've inspired me to play the Latvian again as an occasional addition to my repertoire. Of course, I can't play it to anything even remotely approaching your level as a player but had forgotten just how "playable" the positions are at fast time limits.

My knowledge of it is about thirty years out of date give or take what's already in this thread, but that's to be expected. I don't seem able to find any books on it more "modern" than the ones I had "way back when" (Grivainis & Elburg, Lein & Pickard, and the two Kosten ones). Guess I might have to actually learn to do computer-based opening research with databases and engines "properly" at last.

Good choice. I'm not really a fan of books, especially when it comes to openings, because it's a very personal matter.

The books that have actually taught me something valuable were the ones on strategy and endgames, but I haven’t learned anything from opening books.

There are lines I don't like playing even though I consider them very good, but I prefer not to play them because I simply don't like the type of position they make me uncomfortable.

I feel much better in other kinds of structures, even if the analysis engine says 0.00.

Even the World Champion Magnus Carlsen has said on some occasions that he preferred equal positions in theory over playing well trodden lines that everyone knows, even if they give White a slight long term edge.

And Carlsen has an incredible memory and of course knows the theory of all the main lines, but he's always liked going for more secondary lines and he's succeeded with this approach.

Lichess has the best database in the world, with 6.478 billion games collected right on the site. There's no need to download anything.

There, you can analyze and break down the games yourself with the engine and see what the best move is in each position.

Also, if you can, take a look at the Panteldakis Countergambit against the King's Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 f5!?, it's very interesting and few people know it :

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/panteldakis-countergambit-against-the-kings-gambit

@jcidus I saw your thread on the Panteldakis and definitely do intend to take a look...but, I confess, from the White side. I am a long-term King's Gambit addict. When playing as Black against the KG I like to give my fellow loonies free rein and play the classical defences such as 3. Nf3, g5; which almost all us KG players look forward to playing against. Quixotic, perhaps, but fun for someone who's in love with the position-types more than in love with winning them all. Not to mention that I'm also a shade too old to cherish hopes of huge improvement and a mega-grade.

You know, during my early years I always played the King's Gambit, but over time I ended up abandoning it completely because I really didn’t like it for White. Black has too many ways to deal with it

Fischer’s Defense, the Modern, the Falkbeer, and within the Falkbeer there’s the c6 line, the Nimzowitsch variation, the classical defense with ...g5 that you mentioned, the ...Bc5 line...

Basically, as White I just couldn’t memorize so many lines, and in every game they’d play something different, so in the end I felt like I was just playing everything at random.

In fact, since I didn’t like the King's Gambit much, I stopped playing the main line with 3 Nf3 and switched to the line i think Fischer recommended with 3 Bc4.

But even then, I didn’t like being stuck with my king on f1

I’ve suffered in several classical games with the king left abandoned there.

It just felt impractical, and in the end I think it’s more sensible to go with the Nf3 line.

These days, the only way I end up playing something similar to the King's Gambit is in the Chigorin variation I use against the French.

I like reaching that position as White, where the king can find shelter on d1.

Paradoxically, that doesn’t happen to me with the Latvian Gambit, because it’s a more direct line and it’s very easy to memorize

the lines tend to follow the same patterns, unlike in the King's Gambit.

I also think that in the Latvian, I’ve noticed that the knight on f3 actually feels like a kind of weakness for White , a target , you can see in this line :

The knight would be better off on g1 just like in the King's Gambit, where Black’s knight is still on g8, which allows Black to play many different and interesting structures.

There’s even a line with ...Nf6 that’s also quite solid.

But in the end, openings are a matter of taste.

That’s why you have to play what makes you feel comfortable.

Personally, I don’t feel at ease in those King’s Gambit positions, so I don’t play it anymore.

Still, I’d rather play it than go for the Italian or the Spanish.

@jcidus I'll message you about the KG: no way am I taking the brave decision which you have taken and putting my repertoire out there in public to get knocked over. Plus, it would be off-topic here. But yes, I take your point about the Nf3 being a target: it can be rather fun seeing how long one's opponent will take after 3..., e4 (at my grade anyway - can't imagine you meet many players who are not fully Booked Up and who blithely play 3. exf5 all unawares).

Oddly, I used to play the Tchigorin against the French. Left it behind when it occurred to me that after 2..., b6 (or for that matter 2..., a6 looking for a St George formation) I was rueing the Qe2's position. But 2..., e5; 3. f4 is a joy. A full tempo up on the "Bilguer Mirage" variation of the KG which Basman valiantly tried out twice in the 1970s (losing both times).