The 'bad' opening that makes theorists cry

lol

"Probably the Dunning-Kruger effect."

It's not the Dunning-Kruger effect at all, it's the effect of a person carving out a way (mostly imagined) to claim superiority over vast swathes of the population and to harp on about them online. A very common malady. The prognosis is bleak - wasted time for yourself and everyone who pays attention.

Nobody thinks like you say they do. It has been explained to you that g5 at GM level is indeed a troll opening and a person has a right to be annoyed because the black player is self-handicapping which is ground for nullifying the game. Nobody also says "the Halloween Gambit or Latvian Gambit has been refuted, therefore you shouldn't play it against me even though I don't know the refutation". Nobody says or thinks these things. You are making these things up just to claim superiority.

Sorry, but don’t talk about what you don’t know, because I’ve been told that more than once in tournaments I’ve played in.

I’m not making anything up, I won’t accept that accusation, and whenever you want, I’ll crush you with those so-called “ungentlemanly” openings.

Because if they’re so bad, why do I get such good results with them? Better results than with theoretically stronger openings according to the engine, but ones my opponents are usually familiar with.

I quit over-the-board chess during the COVID pandemic. I had reached 2150 FIDE before that.

I’ve been playing tournaments for 15 years, and I’ve had unpleasant experiences with intolerant people who couldn’t stand me playing those lines, even though they are the ones I feel comfortable with on the board.

At GM level, g5 can be played perfectly finE

if you’ve studied the database beforehand, something none of your opponents will have done because they assume it’s an “absurd opening.” That alone gives you an edge over them.

I stopped playing the Latvian Gambit in long games because taking such big risks in classical chess isn’t as effective, so I switched to interesting openings like the Modern Defense (g6) or the Caro-Kann.

And as you said, in a long game, giving your opponent a + handicap from the opening isn’t very smart.

That’s why you won’t see any GM playing it in a serious classical game, except maybe Basman or a few others who might use it occasionally as a surprise weapon.

But in blitz, any opening is playable.

And yes, some people are so intolerant that they resign on move 1 if you play g5 or a5, because they feel offended.

This used to happen to me in rapid tournaments (15+0 or 25+0), where some of my opponents got upset because I played those openings

even when they ended up losing the game. They would say things like, “You got lucky, but what you played isn’t playable.”

These kinds of comments come from people who have never studied the line in depth.

They just repeat what they’ve heard from a GM like John Nunn or Bobby Fischer, who called these openings garbage.

And because of their Dunning-Kruger effect, they just parrot what their idols say, since most people don’t think for themselves and need to copy ideas from those who actually know.

Magnus Carlsen played it once, in a meaningless blitz game, against a much weaker opponent. That is a very far cry from being "perfectly fine". As you yourself said, in blitz, any opening is playable. That alone doesn't make bad openings good or vice versa.

Giving advice to other players is a double edged sword. Good advice can help, but bad advice can harm them. Your entire existence on chess.com so far has been to advertise bad openings. You certainly could do better than that.

I only encourage critical thinking and self-taught study.

I’ve never had a coach or teacher, so I had to study on my own, and that helped me see things differently from most players who have been influenced or manipulated by their chess teachers.

Get yourself a large database with millions of games played online (there’s a really good one on Lichess) and you’ll see how some of these so-called bad lines have great results at high levels (2200-2500 and above).

If they have such good results among humans, study and understand why that is.

Everything has an underlying reason. Why is one line more practical than another, even if it’s worse?

This is very interesting, and it makes you realize that sometimes it's better not to always play the best move according to the engine, but to play the move that can annoy the opponent, who isn’t a machine.

I encourage playing these lines, especially in blitz.

In classical time controls, things change quite a bit, and I’ve already explained why.

I’ve played them for a long time in classical games, but over time, I realized it’s not worth risking so much in the opening in a slow game, where a lot of precision is required.

If you play these openings, you have to memorize everything, because even a small inaccuracy can leave you completely lost.

That’s why, in slow games, it’s more profitable and effective to play normal openings, because in those time controls, the attacking player is heavily penalized.

I myself also specialized in the Caro-Kann and the Modern Defense, even the London System or the Colle System.

In blitz, I get incredibly bored playing normal openings, but in slow games, it doesn’t bother me because in slow games, you have to adopt a calmer approach.

You can’t go into the game, play a King’s Gambit, and expect to win in 20 moves.

I used to do that at the beginning, and although sometimes it worked, over time, you realize it’s not the right approach to playing a serious game.

Obviously, I agree that you need to learn normal openings, because you’re not going to throw away 2 hours of a game playing a mediocre opening that’s already down according to the engine.

That handicap in a slow game is hard to overcome, even if you have the psychological advantage, but if your opponent stays calm and plays steadily, they’ll teach you a lesson, even if they don’t know the theory well.

I’ll make an analogy with football: It’s like when a player takes a Panenka penalty.

If they score, everyone applauds and says they’re brave, but if they miss, all their teammates will criticize them and call them an idiot for doing something as absurd as a Panenka.

Or like in tennis, with the underhand serve, where many fans and players get offended when someone does it.

Tbh it makes sense. No gambit can work against the Fish but they can be effective against humans. Take the Blackburne-Kloosterboer Gambit. Its considered garbage by the fish and therefore 'refuted' but if your opponent doesnt know what tf your idea is, they can be lost very quickly. Obviously, this doesn't work in longer time controls but in bullet it can work

In Blitz you can get away with everything. In classical chess you can surprise opponent once. But once you include an opening to your repertoire, people will start preparing against it. So I am not sure it's worth investing your time in dubious openings like the Latvian or the Stafford Gambit that give you bad positions if your opponents know what they are doing.

That happened to me at one point, and it's another reason, not the main why I stopped playing the Latvian Gambit in classical games, because my opponents started studying it and came very well prepared.

Playing it to surprise every now and then is fine, like the Alekhine Defense.

I have never seen the appeal of the Latvian Gambit.

It always felt lackluster.

I don’t understand why you want to play it.

You haven’t studied its potential. Give me any line, and I’ll show you how Black maintains a dynamic position, even if the engine says +1 or +1 . 5.

The secret of the Latvian Gambit is that Black maintains the initiative. This means that Black is the one dictating the game, not White, even if the engine shows an advantage for White.

Playing f5 while the knight is on f3 is already a small victory for Black.

Playing unconventional, dubious lines can certainly be fun - and can quickly pull your opponent into murky waters, where they might not know what to do.

But it also lead to some painful losses. There's always a trade off, somewhere.

As the saying goes, "live by the sword, die by the sword" ...

Those are called prejudices, my friend. Here on my account in lichess, I prove that openings

like latvian gambit, 1 d4 e5 (englund gambit) , 1 . Nf3 g5 (herstrom gambit) , goldman variation in caro kann, center game , sicilian with 3 Qxd4 and 4 Qd3 etc give me very good win percentages at high levels.

Moreover, I have found that when I play more standard openings, my results are worse.

In fact, I would have to adopt a more solid approach (instead of playing , playing with the Colle System, which has also given me good results).

There's nothing controversial here.

About points (B) and (D) which relate to theoretical evaluation, the question for every player is whether it is "worth it" to study TWO openings rather than ONE. And if so, what would the second opening look like? If as stated the second opening requires a lot of memorization, then the material needs to be reviewed regularly, which means it's somewhat blunted as a surprise weapon.

About points (A) and (C) which relate to psychology, most debaters focus on the psychology of the "receiver" (the player facing the unusual opening). But no less important is the psychology of the "server" (the player offering the unusual opening). The server should know their own psychology very well. If they are energized playing offbeat, but bored playing normal, then playing offbeat can seem like the way to go. What's more interesting is the server MAY NOT KNOW the receiver's reaction. Some receivers will be highly motivated facing offbeat stuff, others will be destabilized to the point they can't assess the arising positions accurately. In that sense, the surprise value of an offbeat opening is a coin toss.

A final piece of advice I can make to receivers. It is not necessary to refute an offbeat opening. In fact against a specialist it's not too practical, as this is likely the line they have studied the most. What works well enough is to take the fun out of it. Study some good enough line that reaches a decent position, but most importantly one which doesn't give them the dynamic play they are hoping for.

As one example, I have looked at the Latvian Gambit refutation line 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Qf6 4 Nc4 fxe4 5 Nc3 Qf7 6 Ne3 c6 7 d3 exd3 8 Bxd3 d5 9 O-O Bc5 10 b4 

https://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/chess/YaBB.pl?num=1194567910/all

, but as white I play instead the simple 3 exf5 and get excellent practical results - I usually win. Factors in favor of my move:

• 3 exf5 is a pretty good move (granted it's not as good as 3 Nxe5).
• I have studied 3 exf5 closely and played it many, many times over the course of decades.
• Latvian players think 3 exf5 is not much to worry about, so they haven't studied it as closely as they ought. Strangely, they seem to persist in this view even after losing to 3 exf5, because after the first episode I start seeing even MORE Latvian Gambits (like, "How dare you play such nonsense against my gambit?" - HAH), but the results stay the same.
• Finally, the arising positions are not what they were hoping for when they played 2...f5!?. Or, more accurately, they are hoping they will get some attack, but it never materializes.

I will admit I never studied the Black side of the Latvian Gambit.

I didn’t know the Latvian Gambit had potential.

People told me it was terrible/trash.

I will admit I use to struggle against the Latvian Gambit.

I use to play Nf3 vs. Nc4 and it was struggle.

Yeah, I use to play Nf3 and it was tough position to play as white.

Black would try to take e4 pawn and kick my knight.

I was told to play Nc4 which is key move.

Very tough move to spot, unless someone tells you I think.

I know that refutation line very well. In fact, it has been used against me twice in official games.

In one of those games, my opponent confessed that the day before, he had memorized the entire line at home because he had studied my games.

Of course, I don’t play 9 . . . Bc5? , which is clearly refuted by b4, as you rightly mentioned.

So, at that time, I played the 9 . . . Bd6 line, which offers quite a bit of counterplay for Black.

This leads to the position in the diagram, where it can be said that White has +1.5 or +2.0, but it's still not clear.

I ended up winning that classical time control game against my opponent as soon as I brought my knight out via c6.

At the time, I delved deeply into and studied this variation with Black, so I wasn’t worried if they played the refutation. On the other hand, there are lines that bother me more, like the Mlotkowski Variation 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nc3.

In any case, if Black doesn’t want to complicate things too much and get into that Bd6 line, they can always play the interesting 6 . . . d5!? , sacrificing a pawn and trying to survive with the extra pawn down. I think it’s a more practical line, and it’s the one I play nowadays, but Bd6 still seems very playable, even in classical time control games.

Conclusion:

I believe that objectively, and according to the evaluation of the modules, the line 9...Bd6 is riskier for Black because it sacrifices 2 pawns, although the position has great dynamism.

On the other hand, in the line 6...d5, Black gives up a pawn but more or less survives. The position is no longer as dynamic, so I see that Black should aim for a draw rather than a win.

That's right, it's a somewhat unintuitive opening with the white pieces if you've never studied it, and you might end up in a worse position. The same happens with the Elephant Gambit.

I'm going to show you two lesser-known lines for White that can surprise a Latvian Gambit player and actually have very good results with the white pieces.

In these lines, the goal is not to refute the opening, as there are other critical variations for that.

First, I'll show you this line with Nfd2!? which is very, very rare.

The idea is to deliver a check with the queen on h5 and capture the rook on h8. Most Latvian Gambit players fall for this easy trick, but you need to study how to get the queen off h8 to avoid losing it, because if you manage to free it, you'll win the game.

Now I'll show you this tricky line for white

The best option for Black is to play c6 and not capture the knight immediately, but it's worth playing this line because many times our opponent will fall into the lower line due to their lack of knowledge

Very interesting indeed!

Nice OP

You hardly would bother a theorist. Even if you win, you dont.

Ive won games in 2-3 moves, but....you dont fool anyone. If I lose to Latvian gambit so what? Im 90% now...big deal. To a theorist its a terrible move.

The important thing in chess is the result, not playing perfect chess.

If you win one game, it means nothing, as you rightly say, but if you win 70% of your games with the Latvian Gambit, then it’s worth playing it, and that’s why I opened this thread

because through chaos, you can dominate most of your opponents who blindly trust in openings based on well-established opening theory.

Obviously, in a classical time control game, it's much harder to surprise your opponent, and I wouldn't recommend playing, for example, the Englund Gambit (1. d4 e5) there.

But in blitz? You can play and win with anything, and when I say win, I mean in the long run, not that you accidentally win a couple of games and think the opening works.