Tell me how you refute the Latvian Gambit

Nobody really cares about a player's repertoire, unless you're going to face that person in a slow, official game and the guy goes out of his way to search your name online and figure out your openings.

Even then, it's an interesting challenge to face someone who knows what you play, and I don't think it's something to be afraid of.

Personally, I like to do what the YouTuber GothamChess (Levy Rozman) does

I always play without looking at who I'm facing "Zen mode" on Lichess.

Sometimes you beat the person you least expect to :

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/772vh-GJkhE

@Sussyguy4890 This is the forum thread on the Latvian I mentioned in response to your "Elephant or Latvian" post. Hope it's of some interest or usefulness.

Is that the same Basman that used to do the Chess openings newsletter and had all the odd defensive openings (Michael Basman)?

@playchessordie19 That is indeed the same Michael (Mike) J. Basman. Before he settled on the Grob, St. George, and Creepy-Crawly (aka the De Klerk) he played other unorthodox things. His best-known game with the Bilguer-mirage line was a loss against Bill Hartston way back in 1974.

i dont think you realize the fact that in your average open tournament in the U.S people WILL look you up and will have 30 minutes to an hour at least to prepare agaisnt what you play. This isnt even, final round shenanigans. This is round 1 behavior. If your round happens to be early in the morning and pairings are put early, they have the whole night to refute you. That in practice often means they can book up agaisnt you that much in almost half the rounds.
the problem with the latvian is, like many refuted openings, the critical lines are fairly narrow so remembering a refutation 20 minutes before a game isnt actually that difficult.
the most you can hope for then is to have such a wide repertoire that they dont bother to fully memorize the refutation deeply enough as you can play other stuff too. but we have a word for that... hope chess.

@chessterd5 I commend this thread to your attention (@jcidus I discover he's another of us folks who appreciate the Latvian).

Interesting synchronicity , I just yesterday I received this book from your country, a donated copy from the Bradford Chess Club.

I've always wanted to hold Tony Kosten's book in my hands.

There's a chapter I've been looking for that wasn't included in the PDF version, which is why I bought it, haha.

There’s no such thing as a 20-minute refutation that’s the problem with not having studied the Latvian Gambit in depth and speaking without real knowledge, just with prejudice.

Yes, there are critical lines for White, but they are not refutations.

Even in the Leonhardt Variation (4. Nc4), Black has several options.

I believe I’ve already shown a safe line where Black sacrifices the pawn for free and plays the rest of the game a pawn down, accepting the challenge.

But even within that variation, there are deviations completely unknown secondary lines, like a peculiar ...b5, just in case your opponent comes well prepared from home.

Funny, I was just looking at purchasing this book.

i dont need to study the latvian, i just need to look at the livebook and follow the critical line, any deviating will simply have an even worse eval than the main line which is already +2.
stop advocating for hope chess bruh. You are not doing anyone a favor. You are just not strong enough to realize how limiting that is as you climb the ladder.
after 7.ne3 you are recommending a defense where white scores an astonishing 87% win rate . Are you serious?
the latvian defense doesnt live. Its not even on life support. It is DEAD. There is plenty of romantic unexplored lines that dont require making a child offering of your eval to white to bother with this. Personally im a fan of 1.e4 e5 2.nf3 nc6 3.bc4 d6 4.c3 f5!?. I have a crush on the cozio and occasionally play the old steinitz. One can have a lot of fun with their repertoire without playing a prep time bomb.
actually, the old steinitz is a perfect example of what an acceptable pawn down ending in your prep would look like. The most critical line of the old steinitz with early g6 i know about 20 something moves deep and it leads to an endgame of two pawns on the kingside and bishop vs 3 on the queenside and knight but its totally drawn with accurate play and the engine gives it a 0.8. The pawn down lines in the latvian are not something like that at all.

My reading this is a waste of my time!

You have your own biases too, you're speaking from deep ignorance. This opening has given me the best results of my entire life—better than any opening with White. I stopped playing it in slow time controls not because it performed badly, but because I got bored of having to play 15–20 moves from memory just because my opponent came prepared from home. I don’t enjoy such automatic chess, so I switched and played the Modern (1.e4 g6) to actually play chess instead of memorizing.

Anyway, I quit classical chess at the time due to illness, and I’ve played very few official games. In blitz, I still play it successfully at my level. I even beat GM Svidler once during a live broadcast—I'll try to find it. I still have the game, and it was a legendary beatdown.

Drop your prejudices and study the opening seriously. Then practice it in blitz and bullet and tell me how it goes. Study it in depth—use this thread to explore the most interesting lines and ideas, or check Tony Kosten’s book, or dig into the Lichess database—everything’s there.

Become an expert with Black, and then share your experience. Because right now, you’re speaking from pure ignorance.

What does the OP believe the best move is in the below position?

I've always played the 3 .. Qf6 line, although I've studied the 3 . . . Nf6 one and it's also interesting.

If your opponent is well prepared against you , playing 3 . . .Nf6 might be a good idea.

But in practical chess against humans, I imagine the best move is 3 . . . Qf6.

@jcidus I'm glad a copy of this has come your way. I found it most informative, although it put a lid on my fond hopes that 1. e4, e5; 2. Nf3, f5; 3. Bc4, fe; 4. Nxe5, Qg5 might be playable. To be honest, as a much less gifted player than you clearly are, I found I also needed the books by Lein & Pickard and Grivainis & Elburg to make much sense of what was going on. The differences in perspective helped me no end.

@chessterd5 this Kosten book is probably the one densest in lines and theory. The other Kosten book isn't as good imho but the others I just mentioned are also fun.

More generally, c'mon people commenting. Play Nice. I know the Latvian is a Marmite opening but nonetheless.Disputes are to be solved over the board or in debate on Concrete Lines.

For the record, my own take is that whilst I've never encountered anything which has filled me with confidence as to its objective soundness, I do find the positions the Greco Counter-Gambit [Thought I'd throw that name in for giggles - I'm old] throws up inherently easy-to-play and of sufficient complexity to mean one can get an opponent out-of-book. Like playing the line I mentioned above if you know your opponent has spent months researching the Svedenborg and nothing else. Or fishing in troubled waters with 1. e4, e5; 2. Nf3, f5; 3. Nxe5, Nc6?! if you know that your opponent knows the Leonhardt backwards.

I am mindful that one thing Magnus Carlsen's approach to chess has shown us is that sometimes the "playability" of a position (how intuitively easy or hard it is to find the right moves) can in practice be at least as important as the objective evaluation of the position. [I am conflicted on saying this - in my heart of hearts I do think Botvinnik was right in describing chess as the art of making logic beautiful]

Admittedly all of this is easier to say at my woodpusher level than that of a titled player, but such is life.

NB: I'd not seen the post by jcidus #74 or the one by Compadre_J #73 when I posted my thoughts. A murrain upon Mobile Phone Update Lag!

I already told you that I’ve never studied or played the Qg5 line.I don’t know if it’s good, bad, or playable or not I just know they say it’s very theoretical, and that kind of puts me off.

The Svedenborg variation is simply quite good for Black. In fact, I play a line where White can force a theoretical draw if they want. I don’t like moving the king to d7 (even if it’s the most ambitious); I prefer playing Ke7, even though White has a theoretical drawing line there, because it’s safer for Black and avoids taking too much risk.

Here’s the position:

@jcidus My advice on the ..., Qg5 line is "don't [expletive deleted]-ing bother with it. It's a total Dead End imho".

I have been trying to find all my Latvian games, but I can’t seem to find them all.

I have only found 4 games so far.

Apparently, I am undefeated against the Latvian Gambit. I don’t think I truly am undefeated.

I think I just misplaced my other games.

However, I am interested to know what the OP believes is Black best moves against the line I play!

The 1st Key Turning Point is on move 3.

In the above position, I have seen 4 different moves played against me!

- 3…d6

- 3…exf4

- 3…Nf6

- 3…Qf6

The OP thinks the Qf6 is probably best so that’s fair enough!

Normally, when Qf6 is played attacking my Knight, I play d4 protecting my Knight.

Black side players often respond with d6.

I haven’t seen any other moves played in this position so I would guess Black is playing perfect as he can right?

At this point, What should Black play here in this position?

fxe4