The Blackburne-Hartlaub-Gambit

3.Nc3 does not "refute" the Latvian, but it does give white the advantage without messing with long, forced lines. 3.Nxe5 might be "better", but white does have to memorize a few lines.

Facing the Latvian in blitz might be a bit tough but with standard time controls I think blacks counter play can be neutralized with sensible moves..

As painful as it is, I do prepare for those crazy sidelines, because you never know when oyou might see one of them.  If those openings work for you then keep on keeping on :-)  I view them as cheap tricks, and lack of opening book knowledge, but again thats just me. 

Dark_Falcon is right, you can't underestimate gambit lines at club level even for otb. One inaccuracy and a loss can follow for both sides. 1800 club players can afford to play them. I understand why masters don't, but for club I don't see why not.

Good thing masters go to my club

This is what many players think...unsound openings are only playable in blitz or bullet, but i think its also playable in long time controls.

When you dont know the right responses, because amateur players, like we all are, cant invest too much time in learning opening theory, wont find the critical lines over the board.

I play these crap openings for several years now, with really good success.

What do you think is the most common response i meet when playing the Latvian (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5)...its the coward move 3.d3, which is not bad at all, but can hardly described as a refutation of the Latvian, because there are many better ways to test it, like 3.Nxe5 or 3.Nc3. But playing the critical lines means, that you have to do deal with these openings and i often play sidelines, you never saw OTB, like 3.Nxe5 Nf6?! or 3...Nc6?!

Do you know the right replies on this ones?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 see my analysis above. I've beaten experts before. and in sound openings. I would have even better chances against you if you played this against me. There is nothing to be scared of in this gambit>>> white does not have any weaknesses to attack. 

Sorry, but your analysis is crap...of course i castle long instead of 0-0, i also delay Nf6 to develop my queenside first and i bring my queen to e7 to have vis-a-vis with my rook on d8 and the white queen on d1.

Of course, it maybe not worth one pawn...but you have to show the best play for black and not the worst one...

totally agreed...

iam not one of these gambit players who say, unsound gambits are the ultimate weapon and the holy grail...but all of these anti-gambit-players here cant show a single critical line, although they say its so easily to refute...funny 

I wouldnt label some as "anti-gambit" players.  Maybe call them "questionable" opening players.  You can say anything is playable, but to what extent?  As far as refuting them?  I think its been shown that they can be refuted with proper play.  And then it becomes hope chess, which i prefer not to play.

take a look at my games...and then tell me again, that its unplayable...

f.e. ive played more than 100 OTB and correspondence chess games with the so called refuted Latvian...only two players found a forced line which gave them an advantage. Surely i lost more than these two games, but the others i have lost because of bad playing and blunders, not because of choosing this gambit.

Believe what you want, i dont force you to play it...stick with your chess, ill stick with mine.

DF....I just read ur page & I absolutely love this playing style. It truly brings fun to chess 4me2.

Also, when I'm up against 1. e4....I play d5. If accepted, then I play Nf6....& that starts things too.

Thanks mate...good to see, that i dont have to fight on my own :D

I never said "dont play the Ruy Lopez or the QGD or you will be doomed"

Amateur Chess is about having fun, i have a good job and dont have to earn my money with chess...so what? :-)

The ruy can get crazy tactical...

Dark_falcon, you still have not refuted my refutation

7.Bd3 is one of plenty moves for White in this position...but i dont think its the strongest one, but your 8th move is really near to a blunder.

It is pretty astonishing seeing someone play stuff like the Soller Gambit above the 2000 level in correspondence and win convincingly with it. Doesn't even seem to be holding him back.

I play a lot of gambits as well, though I don't have the same philosophy as Dark_Falcon. I do want to improve to some kind of master level and I'm using gambit openings partly as tools to practice tactics. (Though ironically he's the one who's improved faster with his pull-no-punches style). I used to play defensive openings for many years and felt like I was stagnating around ~1700. Switching my style improved my chess all around and I finally made real gains. I've run into the occasional sourpuss who's given me a lot of flack for my openings, but it's worth it. Ultimately I just want to play good chess. If breaking a few rules gets me closer to that goal, then so be it.

I wouldn't dare touch stuff like the Englund. For me, if my engine cannot find sufficient resources to draw and also still have counterplay in the critical lines I won't play it. But there are plenty gambits that seem to satisfy that--even ones with very poor reputations among the top brass.

This is wander yonder off topic....but I like to play hellasharp games w/out the concern to just win. I've found in 5 minute chess that there's a clear winner by somewhere in the middle game so being a footie soldier or two down is like....whatever. Where I snap is when my opposite trades down down down or dissipates for simple sake....yuk !

I sense players wanna stay in their comfort zone. I strongly advise ?....no. Play unbridled wild, 4get about winning, throw theory out w/ the bathwater & see where ur creativity takes you !........and that's why I like Dark Bird's philosophy.

....and Dark Falcon ?....I'm gonna rename this Black Bird's Heartthrob Gambit 'cuz you luv it !