From Opening Book A. Suetin: All the playable moves Bc4, exf and Nxe5 are better for white and black will be in troubles.

@Diabeditor: "(1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nxe5 Qe7)" - in this case white will play 4.Qh5+ g6 5. Nxg6 Qxe4+ 6.Be2 Nf6 7.Qh3 Rg8 8.Nc3, results in a better position for white... but maybe you've got a better line for black, i have study it just a little to know what to play with white :-).

[COMMENT DELETED]

I think that Silman would like to refute it because when it comes time to play at the master level, it just doesn't help a player to as much to use it as would to know, for example, the Sicilian.There are sharper, more solid defenses out there that would be more beneficial to learn.

I have mostly come across the Latvian playing blitz, where the guy with Black knows all the lines and takes 5 seconds to play the first 30 moves.  I also feel honor bound to "refute" the opening, so with White I pretty much lose to it all the time.

if the latvian is sooo bad then why do i keep winning with it?

and i dont mean otb, where it is a good surprise tool, but here online where proper research should refute it every time.

Dear LatvianGambit,

 

I share your love for this opening. But  I would err on the side of  caution.Lein’s book is of 1995 vintage.I would still recommend Stefan Bücker’s  series of articles, Lower Life in the Latvian Gambit on ChessCafe web site(May, June and July 2009)The main reason is that he treats IM Silman’s  analysis in some depth.You do not need to be convinced about the Latvian.

But others who wish to see current status of theory should check these articles.

Here is the link:

%20the%20Horizons

 

Well, folks, as you can guess by my on-line profile, I'm a big fan of the Latvian Gambit!  It's fun to play and there is a "shock-value" to the opening because most players have never seen it before.  I would recommend a book on the Latvian Gambit titled "The Latvian Gambit:  A Grandmaster View" by GM Anatoly Lein.  It's the 500th Anniversary Edition of the Latvian Gambit.  GM Lein quotes GM Paul Keres who analyzed the Latvian Gambit and said "Experience shows that despite the first impressions, the Latvian Gambit is hard to refute and in many instances Black obtains good attacking chances."  No offense to IM Silman, but I would rather take GM Keres opinion rather than Silman's. The opening first appeared in chess literature in the 1490 Gottingen Manuscript, which was a rare parchment text that catalogued a few "popular" openings.  Greco played this opening very successfully back in 1620.  Much of his analysis is still good today.  The Latvian Gambit has stood the test of time!!  Sorry, Blueoct, you are dead wrong to say the Latvian Gambit is rubbish. 

Dear friends,

I have a suggestion for all those who speak for or against the Latvian Gambit. It would not do any harm to see Stefan Bücker’s*  series of articles on this subject.

They were published on ChessCafe web site(May, June and July 2009).You would find it in the Archives under his column, Over the Horizons:

http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/archives.htm

 

*(He is the Editor of Kaissiber, a German chess magazine.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The question was asked by an OTB “B” player (USCF rating 1654).   I suspect that the Latvian is quite playable OTB at that level (although I hasten to add that despite being a B player myself I've never tried it -- but I'm a bit of a chicken .) As Silman says in the original article: “Nevertheless, (the Latvian) is tricky, and offers Black good practical chances against an unprepared opponent. Though various “refutations” have appeared, fans of the gambit always find ways to keep Black alive (or so they claim), until gambit debunkers come up with new ways to kill it. Then Latvian aficionados fix it again, the debunkers kill it, and…well, it's a never-ending cycle. ”

I have pretty good results with the Latvian Gambit, as much as anything else with Black. Even the lines where the books will say "White is winning", I still feel in my comfort zone playing the Black side, and win games from those supposedly losing positions.

Even the old Greco line (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nxe5 Qe7) White has to play 10 perfect moves to get any kind of advantage. OTB, he almost never does because it's not like players prepare against the Latvian too much. If he does, Black still has a more than playable game.

The article was NOT "Openings I Recommend."  I think he was pointing out that if you are a gambit type of player, you might be interested in that particular line.  Obviously he's aware of many proponents of the opening.  He didn't say, "Hey, I like it and I'd be playing it every day if I were a gambit player."

Silman IS a fan of the Maroczy Bind.  Because he didn't mention that in this article, does that mean he's contradicting himself?

I am sorry to all Latvianfans, but: This gambit is simply RUBBISH

My guess is that he just tossed out some gambits that occured early in the opening (as mentioned), or that it was a tip for low-rated players.

I am somewhat ambivalent about Silman. He's a good writer but not always consistently so. It seems obvious to me that in this case he's just tossing off a quick article to meet a deadline - or some similar circumstance.