Talk:Latvian Gambit

Chess Low‑importance

	Chess portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latvia Mid‑importance

	Latvia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latvia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latvia related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatviaWikipedia:WikiProject LatviaTemplate:WikiProject LatviaLatvia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Old talk

Ok, so my questions is where do you go from here? What are black's goals from this point on, and how does he take advantage of this position?

Is the Latvian seriously used?

I've removed the bit that said that while it wasn't played in major tournaments, it "appears to be a favorite of postal chess players." It's true there are a lot of postal games with the Latvian, but that's because there have been a lot of thematic tournaments where all participants had to play the opening - I don't think any of the top players play the opening by choice. --Camembert

I agree. This opening is terrible. At superhuman levels- Lc0 or Stockfish on strong hardware- it is unplayable, as black loses basically every time. I find it hard to believe that changes significantly when used in correspondence games. Maybe some weak CC players use it... but so do weak OTB players. "Some correspondence chess players are devoted to it" seems misleading at best. What's the rule for just taking out that claim and reference? Alas, it's beautifully sourced. Mack Robot (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Luzhin Defence

The article on The Luzhin Defence says, "For the chess opening associated with the movie see Latvian Gambit." But there's no info about the Luzhin Defense in this article. What's the link between the two? -Phoenixrod 18:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beats me. I saw the movie and don't remember anything about the Latvian Gambit. Unless someone comes up with some substantiation for this, it should go. Krakatoa 21:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a mistake.

In the main line - ...3.Nxe5, the last moves mentioned: Bxh3 11.Bxb7 cannot be played because Black hasn't moved the d7 pawn. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.132.169.142 (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I've changed it to 9...Qg6 as this is the only safe square the queen can go to. 91.105.28.251 13:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other mistake? In White's 3rd move 3.Bc4 how does black's knight go from f7 to c3?? "13.Nf7+ Ke7 14.Nc3!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patogracho (talk • contribs) 16:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mention Why

You should really point out that 3. Nxe5 fxe4 can't be played because of a forced mate after 4. Qh5. You think people would know but it's been played against me in tournaments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.249.74 (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC) NO after Qf5 f3 is plaed not Ke7?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessjoe (talk • contribs) 01:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Nxe5-Qe2!

This is one of three the most popular answers for black and this is exactly what Gioachino Greco played! (Greco Variation),not Qf6 or Nf6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuhister (talk • contribs) 09:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You must mean 3…Qe7, which is a legal move. HughieGRex (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Official" name

I removed the claim that FIDE "officially" renamed the opening to the Latvian Gambit in 1937 because no source was given and I'd never heard of FIDE giving "official" names to openings before. After further research I find that FIDE did make an attempt to standardise opening names in the 1930's but it never had much influence. They published a short book in 1934 entitled "Débuts du jeu d’échecs - Leur désignation uniforme", which included the term "Gambit letton", a mildly controversial name at the time. Of course, people just kept on calling openings by whatever name they always had; naming of chess openings is and always has been an informal process. See http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/winter13.html#CN_3902 for more details. Unfortunately, the claim that FIDE "officially" renamed the opening has been in the article right from the first version in 2002, and has been repeated all over the net in blogs, forums etc so it's become something of an internet myth. To restore the claim, a source published before 2002 would be necessary. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was going to add the name "Mayet Attack" to 3.Bc4....

... but I can't find any reliable source for the name. I can't get any hits for it on google books, hathitrust or archive.org. So is it just a recent internet name? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Internet names" again - Bilguer Variation

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 is simply a main line Latvian Gambit, though it is true that 4.Nc4 (Leonhardt Variation) is increasingly regarded as superior. I get a bit fed up with "internet names" that were never part of chess terminology before the rise of chess.com, chessgames, lichess etc. You'd think one of the standard references on the Latvian Gambit, Tony Kosten's The Latvian Gambit Lives! (2001) would include the term if it had any currency; but no, even though the line is covered in the very first chapter of the book, there is no mention of anything called the "Bilguer Variation". Similarly I could find no references to the "Bilguer Variation" in the entire Chess Life archive, or in any pre-internet source. Google book search similarly turns up only recent mostly self-published works. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source for Game

Under "History", it says:

The Austrian International Master (IM) Albert Becker once published an article that Bētiņš judged to be dismissive about the Latvian Gambit. In response, Bētiņš published and analysed one of his own games in order to defend the gambit: Ilyin-Zhenevsky vs K Bētiņ, 1921.

But it gives no source! I can't find it in chessgames.com. Can anyone find this game? (And the spelling of Bētiņš' name should be consistent.) HughieGRex (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like many Latvians Kārlis Bētiņš was of German ancestry; the German form of his name is Karl Behting, and this is the name used by chessgames and other sources instead of Bētiņš. Latvian, uniquely, actually changes people's surnames to conform to the grammar of the language, so Mikhail Tal was known as Mihails Tāls in Latvia, the -s suffix indicating masculine. I presume this is the game being referred to, but the caveat here is that chessgames is not considered a reliable source, just a convenient way to link to games for playing through. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]