all gambits are juuuuust fine. some are more ok than others. 
sometimes a gambit can even be the best option in the position (an example, e4 c5 f4 d5 ed Nf6 is considered quite reliable for Black)
except the latvian gambit is awful. don't play that one. the rest are ok! 
jovanu You beat a 2300 rated player with the Latvian Gambit and you get kudos for that. You have also your analysis of the Latvian Gambit.
But regardless, the Latvian Gambit cannot be sound. Why? for one thing look at the moves in the opening such as f5 and Qf6 and Qf7 and with such moves the opening just cannot be sound for Black. My analysis indicates it is not sound.
You are a good player with good potential-- you should really consider not wasting your valuable time trying to rehab the Latvian Gambit?
jovanu You beat a 2300 rated player with the Latvian Gambit and you get kudos for that. You have also your analysis of the Latvian Gambit.
But regardless, the Latvian Gambit cannot be sound. Why? for one thing look at the moves in the opening such as f5 and Qf6 and Qf7 and with such moves the opening just cannot be sound for Black. My analysis indicates it is not sound.
You are a good player with good potential-- you should really consider not wasting your valuable time trying to rehab the Latvian Gambit?
I believe in practical results, I win more games with black than with white, it´s a fact, latvian gambit is good for me, i don´t wanna be a GM, just play for fun . I never had problems playin gambits against opponents better than me ( well in the beginnin when u don´t know the theory u can lose quickly ) , then i can lose because i ´m not good in the final , but the key here is why are so effective the gambits in the repertoire . Don´t believe in chess books , analyze yourself and y0u gona see magic. A 0.78 f0r houdini probably is a 0.32 in the final, just have to find the best moves ( that´s what i mean with magic)
jovanu I see your point. You play chess and will play an unsound gambit if it gives you good practical results. That makes sense. The only problem is that it may prevent you from increasing your chess ability.
But if your only goal is to have fun--you ARE having fun!
Unsound gambits can be useful even against very good players. I beat a GM with a gambit which is probably unsound.
lol, i believe in gambits because i believe in the beauty of sacrifice , i believe in the blunders , how they can do an exciting game and "refute" the refutation
i don´t believe in strategic games, i don´t believe in slow games , they are bored , i don´t believe you
i enjoy the game , i enjoy going crazy to my adversary.
Nuh uh:
^_^
You don't have to believe in gravity either.
all gambits are juuuuust fine. some are more ok than others.
sometimes a gambit can even be the best option in the position (an example, e4 c5 f4 d5 ed Nf6 is considered quite reliable for Black)
except the latvian gambit is awful. don't play that one. the rest are ok!
The Englund is probably a tad worse. The Wing gambit is also atrocious for white. The King's Gambit is dubious and gives white unneccessary challenges and a fight for equality, but should still draw with best play. The Benko and Queen's Gambit though are great. And my personal invention the Bird Wing, as black doesn't have the strike at the e4 pawn resources after 1.f4,c5 2.b4,cxb4 3.a3,d5 ^_^ Though it's still a good move.
all gambits are juuuuust fine. some are more ok than others.
sometimes a gambit can even be the best option in the position (an example, e4 c5 f4 d5 ed Nf6 is considered quite reliable for Black)
except the latvian gambit is awful. don't play that one. the rest are ok!
The Englund is probably a tad worse. The Wing gambit is also atrocious for white. The King's Gambit is dubious and gives white unneccessary challenges and a fight for equality, but should still draw with best play. The Benko and Queen's Gambit though are great. And my personal invention the Bird Wing, as black doesn't have the strike at the e4 pawn resources after 1.f4,c5 2.b4,cxb4 3.a3,d5 ^_^ Though it's still a good move.
u can see my own analysis about Englund gambit in my blog, http://www.chess.com/blog/jovanu/iexcl-juega-el-gambito-englund-1d4-e5--variante-zilbermints-3nge7 , it´s my favourite opening with 1.d4 . I t´s in spanish, but i will t0 translate when i finnish all the theory.
Will you review one with 1.d4,e5 2.dxe5,Nc6 3.Nf3,f6 4.e4,fxe5? Those are kind of interesting.
jovanu You beat a 2300 rated player with the Latvian Gambit and you get kudos for that. You have also your analysis of the Latvian Gambit.
But regardless, the Latvian Gambit cannot be sound. Why? for one thing look at the moves in the opening such as f5 and Qf6 and Qf7 and with such moves the opening just cannot be sound for Black. My analysis indicates it is not sound.
You are a good player with good potential-- you should really consider not wasting your valuable time trying to rehab the Latvian Gambit?
I believe in practical results, I win more games with black than with white, it´s a fact, latvian gambit is good for me, i don´t wanna be a GM, just play for fun . I never had problems playin gambits against opponents better than me ( well in the beginnin when u don´t know the theory u can lose quickly ) , then i can lose because i ´m not good in the final , but the key here is why are so effective the gambits in the repertoire . Don´t believe in chess books , analyze yourself and y0u gona see magic. A 0.78 f0r houdini probably is a 0.32 in the final, just have to find the best moves ( that´s what i mean with magic)
The question is do you have the technique and/or defensive capability to reach that .32? Calculating and assessing all those potential positions is quite a bit of work. Every chess skill is rooted in positional understanding and calculation (i.e., what will be the potential imbalances moves from now that results from this move?)
In the example of the Latvian Gambit it seems clear the the player of White did not know theory. Correct is 4. Nc4! Leonhards variation. This line, [I think] gives White the advantage in all variations. as in D.Taylor K. Reinhart, internet exhibition game 2004.
But it is true if White does not know the good lines he can fall into a bad game.