The Latvian Gambit
Redefining Dubious?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Josh Bowman
Part 1: Introduction
What is a gambit? If you look it up in a chess dictionary, you'll probably find something like this: "Gambit- a voluntary sacrifice of a pawn or a piece in the opening, with the idea of gaining the initiative, a lead in development, or some other compensating factor." And of course, that leads to why someone would want to play a gambit. They hope that the dynamic advantages listed above will beat the static disadvantages that they are giving themselves by sacrificing a pawn or a piece. I myself am a gambiteer, someone who plays gambits for the majority of their opening repertoire. Of these, the Latvian Gambit is the most interesting by far. For those who don't know, it is: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5
The Latvian Gambit has a terrible reputation. It is considered to be unsound or dubious at best. If you ask a player of just about any level what they have heard about it, they will tell you that it is a bad opening. But if the Latvian Gambit is so bad, why do I play it? Why would I voluntarily "cripple" myself as early as move two? First of all, let us take a look for a moment why people play chess. The #1 reason why people play chess should be to have fun. That being the case, it would make a lot of sense to play an opening like the Latvian Gambit that will undoubtedly steer the game from the very start towards exciting positions.
All that said, the Latvian Gambit does not by any means put Black at a disadvantage. It often has just the opposite effect. I have found that since I have adopted it about three years ago, I have had far more victories than defeats. After all, a game of is far too interesting to be sealed on the second move!
Part 2: Practical Thinking vs. Irrational fears
When one goes about judging an opening such as the Latvian gambit, they should be reasonable as opposed to pessimistic. One fear that players often have is that if they play a "dubious" opening, it will be instantly refuted. I have to say from my personal experience, that this is almost never the case. The reason for this is that nobody knows anything substantial about an odd opening like the Latvian Gambit! Just because some grandmaster writes an assessment of (+ over -) in Nunn's Chess Openings, doesn't mean that the assessment is correct, or that anybody knows the lines. Most players around 2000 are much too busy studying what to play against Black in the 27th move of the Ruy Lopez, than to look what to play against 2...f5.
I remember just a couple weeks ago, I played the Latvian Gambit against someone rated 2150. This person was completely stumped and spent over 30 minutes for the first 7 moves, while I spent 0 seconds. Not only that, but I achieved an equal position which was eventually translated into a won endgame. After the game, my opponent said to me: "Wow, I don't face many Latvian Gambits!"
Let's take a look at some typical lines that demonstrate how White can be left lost in the dark.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Bc4 fxe4 4.Nxe5 Qg5
Now, according to opening theory, after 5.d4 Qxg2 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Bf7+ Kd8 8.Bxg6 Qxh1+ 9.Ke2, White maintains the advantage.
Of course, there are another 23 moves to prove this and I don't know many players who know 32 moves of Latvian Gambit theory off the top of their head. As for me, I'd rather be Black and up a rook with some knowledge of the position, than White with a "winning attack"
Here is another position that I have reached a few time myself
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.d4 fxe4 4.Nxe5 Nf6 5.Bg5 d6
Black has just attacked White's knight. Common sense would tell you to move it. "Theory", however, suggests that 6.Nc3 is best. After 6...dxe5 7.dxe5 Qxd1+ 8.Rxd1 h6 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Kd7 11.Nb6+ Kc6 12.Nxa8, white may be slightly better.
Luckily for me, my opponents must have "missed" this line and my games continued 6.Nc4 c6 7.Nc3 d5 8.Ne5 Bd6 9.Be2 0-0. I felt that I already had a slight edge.
Now it would be unfair to lie to you, and I must admit that in the 50+ tournament games and hundreds of blitz games in which I have played the Latvian Gambit, I have had two bad beats. One was in a Round Robin where everyone knew in advance who they were going to play and with what color. Of course everyone was studying up on each other. My opponent for one of the rounds went home and looked up a specific line that he knew I played and was able to get an advantage in the game which he translated into a win. The other time was against a master that I have played no less than a dozen times in tournament play. He eventually got so fed up with my openings that he went out and bought a book on the Latvian Gambit! Other than that, the Latvian Gambit has held me strong.
If you still have some doubts, think about it like this: Let's say you were white against a Grandmaster and he played the Latvian Gambit. You would still undoubtedly lose because he would play the best move more often than you would. On the other hand, let's say that you adopt the Latvian Gambit yourself against players your own level. By learning just some basic lines and ideas of the opening, you will almost always be able to play the best moves for the first 7-8 moves, while your opponent will be completely in the dark after move 2. From my experience, this usually more than enough time to equalize or gain the upper hand.
Another irrational fear that players have is that even if they do play the best moves, they will often end up in a "bad position" that makes them feel uncomfortable. They may be worried about such things as being down a pawn or having lost the right to castle. For example, here is a position that I reach in almost half of my Latvian Gambit games:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Nxc6 dxc6
In this position, Black is down a pawn, and because of the pawn structure, white's e-pawn could potentially become passed. of course, if we took everything off the board but the pawns and the kings, white would have a clear victory. If we take a moment though, we realize that this occurrence is very unlikely. Just about every player below master strength can agree that the majority of their games were decided by tactical matters, not concerning the number of pawns on each side. I would even go so far as to propose that Black has a much higher likely hood of losing by forfeiting on time, than by losing in a king and pawn endgame. At least in the games I've played, the attacking possibilities stemming from Black's open lines triumph more often than not over white's extra pawn. Some examples from tournament play are:
NN- Josh Bowman
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Nxc6 dxc6 5.exf5 Bxf5 6.Be2 Qh4 7.0-0 0-0-0 8.d3 Nf6 9.Nd2 Bd6 10.Nf3 Qh5 11.g3 Rde8 12.Re1 Rxe2 13. Rxe2 Qxf3 14.Rxe8+ Rxe8 15.Qxf3 Bg4 and Black wins
NN- Josh Bowman
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Nxc6 dxc6 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Qe2 Ne7 7.b3 Bg7 8.Nc3 fxe4 9.Rb1 0-0 10.Nxe4 Bf5 11.Qc4+ Nd5 12.d3 b5 13.Qxc6 Bxe4 and Black wins
The tactical possibilities are limitless with all the open lines. Black just needs to get all his pieces out and play aggressively.
The Latvian Gambit also serves as a great surprise weapon. Nobody is going to be expecting it, and you can gain a considerable time advantage. This can be a decisive factor in a quicker game, say G-30 or shorter.
Part 3: What makes a Good Gambit?
There are plenty of gambits out there, but not all of them are good. For example after 1.e4 b5 2.Bxb5, Black is only down a pawn, but he has little compensation to show for it. In other words, If White just continues with simple developing moves, he will be up a pawn for almost nothing.
The Latvian Gambit is a good gambit because there is no simple way to refute it. Notice how I say good and not sound because there is a distinct difference. it cannot be considered entirely sound because there are very long and complicated lines, worked out over hundreds of years that leave White on top. It is because of these lines that the Latvian Gambit has the reputation of being a "refuted opening." Although I have almost never had to face them, I know what they are and they are far from clear. For example, White may end up the exchange and a pawn ahead in material, but Black will retain a huge lead in development, piece coordination, and dangerous attacking chances.
When I say that there is no simple way to refute the Latvian Gambit, I mean that White cannot make routine developing moves and expect to retain any advantage. Let's examine some attempts at this:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nc3
This would appear to be a strong move as it develops a piece and defends e4. White now has two minor pieces in the game and Black hasn't developed any pieces. After a simple 3...Nf6 ,though, Black is at least equal.. For instance if 4.Nxe5 , then 4...fxe4 leaves black with a strong centralized position. Or if 4.exf5, then 4...e4 5.Nd4 Nc6 6.Nxc6 dxc6 leaves Black with many open lines. Once he plays ...Bxf5, the pawn on e4 is well defended and will stand as a thorn in White's side.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.d4
It is commonly taught that on should respond to an attack on the flank with a counter-attack in the center. 3.d4 not only obeys this principle, but it opens up lines against the lesser developed side. This makes it all the more surprising that with 3...fxe4 , Black has already achieved equality. after 4.Nxe5 Nf6 Black Black has a strong position. He will quickly castle kingside and probably build a formidable light-squared pawn chain spanning from b7 to e4. Of course an attempt to exploit Black's airy kingside by 5.Bc4 is punished by 5...d5
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Bc4
This move develops a piece, prepares to castle, and threatens an immediate assault on f7. It is even listed as the Main Line against the Latvian Gambit is Nunn's Chess Openings. This is a perfect example of how unreliable chess opening books are. In all my experience with the Latvian Gambit, I have only had 3.Bc4 played against me twice. It is a shame too because I am very fond of the positions that arise for Black:
3...fxe4 4.Nxe5 d5 and now Bishop retreats such as 5.Bb3 lose to 5...Qg5 (This was one of the two games I played against 3.Bc4) Therefore, White is practically forced to play:
5.Qh5+ and after 5...g6 6.Nxg6 hxg6 7.Qxh8 Kf7 8.Bb3 Bg7 9.Qh7 Be6 Black has tremendous compensation for the the exchange and pawn. For instance, the threat of Nd7-f8 winning the queen is hard to parry.
Just as logical developing moves don't refute the Latvian Gambit, passive moves are even more unsuccessful.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.d3
3.d3 falls somewhere in between meek and pathetic. Black has just responded to the attack on his e5-pawn by weakening his kingside and hanging a second pawn with 2...f5. All of that being the case, it is pretty sad if the best white can do is defend a pawn and shut in his powerful light-squared bishop at the same time. Believe it or not, though, I have face 3.d3 as much as 3.Nc3, 3.d4, and 3.Bc4 combined. You will not find 3.d3 in any opening books. It is barely even mentioned in books on the Latvian Gambit, and yet the majority of players below 1600 will respond to the Latvian Gambit with 3.d3 This is yet another example of how over the board experience is more reliable than books.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.d3 d6 3...d6 may not even be Black's best move but it proves a point. White has relinquished any hope at an opening advantage, and Black can very easily gain the upper hand due to his pressure on the e4-pawn.
Finally, One of the most fun things about playing the Latvian Gambit is the fun and unusual positions that you will arrive in. the complications will often favor Black. Here are some examples from tournament play:
NN- Josh Bowman
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.exf5 e4 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.g4 h5 6.g5 Ng4 7.h3 Nxf2 8.Kxf2 Bc5 9.c3 Nc6 10.h4 Nxd4 11.cxd4 Bxd4+ 12.Ke1 0-0 13.Bh3 d5 14.Rf1 Qd6 and Black wins.
NN- Josh Bowman
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bc4 fxe4 5.Nxe5 d5 6.Bxd5 Nxd5 7.Qh5+ g6 8.Nxg6 hxg6 9.Qxh8 Nc6 10.Qg8 Nce7 11.Qh8 Bf5 with a strong advantage to Black.
NN- Josh Bowman
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Bc4 fxe4 4.Nxe5 d5 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Nxg6 hxg6 7.Qxg6+ Kd7 8.Bxd5 Nf6 9.Bxe4 Qe7 10.d3 Rg8 11.Qf5+ Kd8 12.Qf3 Nc6 13.Nc3 Nd4 14.Qd1 Bg4 15.f3 Bd7 16.Be3 Nf5 17.Bf2 Rxg2 and Black has a crushing position.
Win or lose, playing crazy tactical games like these makes chess a lot more exciting
Aside from everything above, the Latvian Gambit is a great way to differ from all the normal and boring opening lines. By playing it, not just in blitz games but in serious competition, you are making a statement. It is an expression of creativity and originality, as well as a bold challenge to your opponent. It is a demonstration of power and control to show your opponent that you do not have to conform to what is considered to be appropriate. Playing with and opening that has been dubbed to be "dubious" and "unsound" makes victory all the more sweet. The Latvian Gambit has done wonders for me and will do likewise for anyone who decides to adopt it as part of their opening repertoire. I recommend it to anyone below master strength.
If you are interested in making the Latvian Gambit part of your repertoire, I recommend the book The Latvian Gambit Lives by Tony Kosten. This book offers tons of detailed analysis and serves as a great asset. Another good book is The Latvian Gambit: A Grandmaster View by Anatoly Lein. Both of these books written by experienced Grandmasters will help you to master this opening. Of course the best way of all to gain a feel for the opening is to play lots of blitz games on the ICC. You will be surprised how well you do.
Latvian Gambit, the Latvian Gambit, chess gambits, gambits for black, gambits against 1.e4