Bücker, Part 1: The Latvian Gambit is Bad; In Other News, Dog Bites Man
I like very much that Stefan Bücker has entitled his opening article on 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5?? "Lower Life in the Latvian Gambit". There's something remarkably appropriate there, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Anyway, while he reaches the conclusion that all sane people do and most of the insane ones do as well, I have a sneaking suspicion that in next month's part 2, he'll try to have the man bite the dog. We'll see!
Posted by Dennis Monokroussos on
Wednesday May 27, 2009 at 2:30am
Seriously, though, is there a place for the Latvian Gambit in club play? Especially against opponents whose repetoire seems to consist of nothing but either the Spanish or the Italian games? Schiller in SCO, for example, gives the example of Fischer-Pupols, 1955 US Junior Championship, 0-1. (But he also notes Fischer missed a draw, and also notes no professional player takes the Latvian seriously.)
Is there a place for the LG in club play? (You mean, other than in the garbage can.) I'll bring myself out of LG-abuse mode for a moment and say of course - chess is supposed to be fun, and if you like it, play it. And against those who are (a) woefully unprepared, (b) refuse to spend even a few minutes on research and (c) panic when something comes that's out of their comfort zone, it can be effective, too.
I'm not impressed by the idea that this will somehow shock players used to getting Ruys and Italian Games, however. With White, I see it as the chance to win 20 or more moves faster than usual. Even if I don't get a crushing advantage, I'll get more than I would in a main line opening. On the flip side, there are numerous ways to create trouble with Black in the main line openings - you don't need to play dubious lines to achieve meaningful counterplay.
So play it if you want to, by all means. But be aware that you're doing so in spite of its objective merits - which is fine!