The Latvian Gambit

"Possibly the worst opening in chess" - FM Dennis Monokroussos

By way of an Introduction

I'm an attacking player, and accordingly prefer playing with the White pieces. As someone who'd got quite bored of chess, playing exclusively the Italian or Scotch Game, my introduction to Gambits really spiced things up. My favourite gambits are the King's Gambit, the Danish Gambit and the Smith-Morra Gambit, all of which are unpopular in tournament play, but I would argue, are sound. Even against perfect play (an engine, 'perfect play' is a bold presumption ik, just bear with me for now), White can draw most games.

Sadly, with Black, as a general rule - Gambits are unsound. Sacrificing material and playing second, simply doesn't work. And most of the imbalanced, attacking setups (like the KID or Nimzo-Indian) are slow. As should be the case, these systems prioritise development over attack, and almost inevitably require addressing a few of White's threats before you can launch your own attack. In short, you come to terms with the fact that you're a tempo down, and play for long-term attacking chances. These setups are Black's best chances of playing solid chess, while also playing for a win. And it is for precisely this reason, that most White players will be familiar with the mainlines. They would, nevertheless, be my preferred systems if I ever graduate to tournament play.

The Latvian Gambit, sometimes called the Greco Countergambit, is unsound. From as early as move 3, if White plays perfectly, Black will never win. This is probably why the Gambit is rarely ever seen in a serious tournament. The Swedish Grandmaster Johnny Hector is the only Grandmaster alive, who uses it. And similarly, it is for precisely this reason, that most of your opponents will be unfamiliar with most of the lines!

Quick note on Gambits, for the uninitiated:
There are broadly 4 advantages in Chess – material, tempo, space and position. The first 3 are somewhat more important in the opening, since most of your pieces are on the back rank. With gambits, you typically give up material for space or tempo. When you seek space, it is almost always in the centre.

Why I gave up on the Petrov Defence

My favorite response to 1.e4, e5, 2. nf3 was 2...nf6. This is known as the "Petrov Defence” or the “Russian Game” and has been seen in tournament play, even at the highest levels.

The mainline is 3. nxe5, d6 4. nf3, nxe4 (getting your pawn back). This variation has a drawish reputation, with a few sharp lines and great chances for both sides.

However, a far more fun variation to play for Black is 3. nxe5, nc6, developing with tempo and offering Black a knight trade. This is known as the Stafford Gambit. If White declines, Black has tempo. Like most Gambits, the best refutation is to accept it (any of the other variations, is worse for Black). After 4. Nxc6, dxc6 (the “starting position” of the Stafford Gambit), White is objectively better (with perfect play, Black will always lose). There are 4 games with this position in the Lichess Masters Database, featuring 3 wins for White and 1 Draw. However, the Lichess Players Database (2200+) is a whole different story. Remarkably, Black has won almost as many games as White!

This Gambit is actually from 1950, Lowens-Stafford (https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1243149), and is regarded as “essentially a trap.” But I would argue that, at the very least, it is a series of traps. Perhaps uniquely, you must be familiar with the Stafford Gambit to refute it, since most “normal developing moves,” land you in trouble.

After 4.Nxc6, dxc6
5. e5 (5.d3 is better) Ne4
6. d3??

White should play 6.Nc3, 6.d4 or 6.Qe2
6...Bc5!

I’m not going to dwell too much on this, since it is not the subject of this post. The Stafford Gambit has recently gained widespread popularity, thanks largely to the efforts of IM Eric Rosen, who has gone on to call it the “trappiest beginner opening in chess.” Here’s the video where he goes over the mainlines. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkB4IVNaZWw&t=1613s And here’s his Lichess Study that lays out all the traps White could fall into

Unfortunately, Rosen’s considerably large viewership has reduced the opening’s ostensible novelty value. Most times (from rating 1500+), White will not play into the Gambit with 3. nxe5 and simply transpose into the Three Knights Game with 3. Nc6 (Black’s best response is 3..bb4), the Modern Attack with 3.d4 (Black’s best response is 3..nxe4) or the Italian Game with 3. bc5 (Black’s best response is, still, 3..nxe4) instead. As stated earlier, all of these variations are slightly better for Black (-0.2). However, the advantage is negligible and White has many ways to proceed – it’s simply a “normal” game of chess; with lines I consider boring.

Now, it is worth noting, that whenever I got the Stafford Gambit’s starting position, I almost always won. But since I got the position far less often than I didn’t, I decided to explore other uncommon openings – a search that eventually led to the subject of this post – the Latvian Gambit.

The Latvian Gambit – 1. e4, e5, 2. Nf3, f5

"What is required to play the Latvian Gambit with any degree of success is a sharp eye for tactics and a mental attitude of total contempt for whatever theory has to say about it"
- GM Paul van der Sterren

I am also the primary contributor to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_Gambit, so there will be significant overlap between the two. However, this features "engine analysis" and my opinion on the various lines, among other portions I had to remove from Wikipedia because it constituted "original research."

This opening was originally called the ‘Greco Countergambit,’ owing to its first proponent, Gioachino Greco in the sixteenth century. It came to be called the “Latvian Gambit as a tribute to the Latvian players who propounded it, with Kārlis Bētiņ, being the foremost amongst them. You can read more about him at https://www.chessgames.com/player/karl_behting.html. The Austrian IM Albert Becker once published an article that Bētiņ judged to be dismissive about the Latvian Gambit. In response, Bētiņ published and analyzed one of his own games in order to defend the gambit: Ilyin-Zhenevsky vs K Bētiņ, 1921.

At the outset, like all Gambits, particularly for Black(emphasis added), Stockfish doesn’t like it. Stockfish thinks Black is worse in most variations, and the short answer is - Stockfish is right. Unlike the Vienna Gambit or the Queen’s Gambit (among other ostensibly “sound gambits”), there is no clear compensation received. On the contrary, Black has given White a pawn and opened up the Kingside. It is like a reverse King’s Gambit, except you’re down a tempo. Now the King’s Gambit is itself considered an unsound opening by several prominent Grandmasters like R. Fischer and S. Williams. While I don’t agree with this assessment (for what little my opinion is worth in front of a Grandmaster’s), that is a separate discussion entirely. The point I’m trying to illustrate is that if the King’s Gambit is unsound, the Latvian Gambit is surely a recipe for disaster!

Under all this negativity, there is a silver lining, and that is the opening’s novelty value – it is always a surprise. Irrespective of what level you play at, the chances of your opponent even knowing this opening, let alone knowing the best lines for White, are low. And as any experienced chess player will tell you, do not underestimate the advantage of pulling your opponent into unfamiliar territory; especially on move 2!. If the strength of a gambit, is decided by the players who use it, then the Latvian Gambit is indeed a most formidable weapon. It has been used by Boris Spassky and Mikhail Tal, amongst many others; albeit, in casual play. Most notably, even Bobby Fischer has lost to it (see: 1955, Fischer v. Pupols – available at https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044024). While I may not agree with some of Fischer’s opinions, his credentials speak for themselves. And the way I look at it, if he can lose to it, anyone can.

The Vilified Latvian

It is worth noting that most lines in the Latvian Gambit are very sharp. While White is better, White must work hard to prove it. In most situations, there are few moves that grant White an advantage; and these may be hard to come by if its White’s first time in the Latvian.

Now, after the moves 1.e4, e5 2.Nf3, with the moves 2...f5, we enter the Latvian Gambit. Black’s basic idea is clear – immediately challenge White’s centre and create early attacking chances.

https://lichess.org/study/JETSUN0G/ulqruJ2Y#4

In this position, White has 5 good moves:

· 3. d3
· 3. Nc3
· 3. exf5
· 3. Bc4
· 3. Nxe5

These are all of White’s best moves. If White plays a move that isn’t listed, Black is better. Simply solidify your centre and develop normally. As is the nature of the Latvian Gambit, none of the aforementioned variations are good for Black. They tend to lead to imbalanced games with plenty of chances for both sides. On the flip side, there are only two moves that are objectively better for White – 3. Nxe5 and 3. Bc4. The move 3. Nxe5 has been called the Latvian Gambit’s “refutation,” and in most cases, Black’s best hope is to play for a draw (usually by repetition).

Note:

In each case, Sample continuation #1 provides the best moves for White i.e perfect play.

In each case, the Stockfish evaluation shown, is for Sample Continuation #1.

3. d3

https://lichess.org/study/JETSUN0G/WnE3wpst#5

Of the moves listed, this is one of White’s worst responses. White decides to play a passive move to defend his e4 pawn, and in doing so, blocks in his light squared bishop.

Black’s response should be 3...Nc6.

Sample continuation #1
4. Nc3, nc6
5. Exf5, d5

Sample continuation #2
4. Nc3, nc6
5. Bg5, Bb4
6. exf5, d5
7. a3, Bxc3+
8. bxc3, Bxf5

Assessment: Normal position that is comparable to several other openings. White has a weak pawn structure but the Bishop pair. However, this is a tough advantage to prove, since White’s the light squared bishop is restricted.

Stockfish: 0.0

3. Nc3

https://lichess.org/study/JETSUN0G/OnhHJpwY#5

Black’s response should be 3...fxe4.

Sample continuation #1
4. Nxe4, d5
5. Nxe5, dxe4
6. Qh5+, g6
7. Nxg6, hxg6
8. Qxh8, Be6
9. Qe5, Kf7
10.Qxe4, Nf6
11.Qxb7, Nbd7

Sample continuation #2
4. Nxe4, d5
5. Ng3, e4
6. Nd4, Nf6
7. d3, c5
8. Ndf5, Nc6

Assessment: One of the best lines for Black. Even Stockfish agrees. Black has better bishops and a strong centre.

Stockfish: -0.1

3. exf5

https://lichess.org/study/JETSUN0G/jZ3BIrUx#5

Black’s response should be 3...e4.

Now, White has 3 possible moves:

• Ne5 (best move)
• Nd4
• Qe2

Sample Continuation #1
4. Ne5, nf6
5. Be2, d6
6. Bh5+, Ke7!
7. nf7, qe8
8. nh8, nxh5
9. nc3, kd8

Sample Continuation #2
4. Nd4, Nf6
5. d3, c5
6. Nb3, exd3
7. Bxd3, d5
8. Bb5+, Nc6

Common mistake
4. Qe2?, Qe7
5. Nd4, Nc6
6. Qh5+, Kd87. Nxc6+, dxc6
8. Be2, Nf69. Qg5, h6
10. Qe3, Bxf5
11. O-O, Nd5
12. Qd4, Qd6
13. d3, Nb4

Assessment: While Black is not lost here, this variation is hard to play for Black. It often involves Ke7, allowing Nf7 and saccing the Kingside rook (though, we can usually get two pieces for it).

Stockfish: +2.1

3. d4

https://lichess.org/study/JETSUN0G/0ZDdSmyX#5

Black’s response should be 3...fxe4.

Sample Continuation #1
4. Nxe5, Nf6
5. Be2, d6
6. Nc4, be6
7. Ne3, d5
8. c4, c6
9. Nc3, Be7
10. O-O, O-O

Common mistake – 8. O-O?, c5!

Sample Continuation #2
4. Nxe5, Nf6
5. Be2, d6
6. Ng4, Be7
7. Nc3, d5
8. Ne5, O-O
9. Bg5, c6
10. O-O, Bf5

Assessment: Black has a better pawn structure, and better bishops. The Stockfish evaluation is misleading. Few openings give you such a good position after just 10 moves.

Stockfish: +0.3

3. Bc4

https://lichess.org/study/JETSUN0G/BrCwsWro#5

Black’s response should be 3...fxe4.

Sample Continuation #1
4. nxe4, qg5
5. nf7, Qxg2
6. Rf1, d5
7. Nxh8, Nf6

Common mistake
7. Bxd5?, Nc6!
8. Nxh8, Bg4
9. f3, Be7
10. Qe2, Bh4+
11. Kd1, Qxe2+
12. Kxe2, Nd4+

Sample Continuation #2
4. Nxe4, Qg5
5. d4, Qxg2
6. Qh5+, g6
7. Bf7+, Kd8
8. Bxg6, Qxh1+
9. Ke2, Qxc1
10. Nf7+, Ke8
11. Nd6+, Kd8
12. Nf7+, Ke8
13. Nxh8+, hxg6
14. Qxg6+, Kd8
15. Nf7+, Ke7
16. Nc3, Qxc2+
17. Ke1, d6
18. Nd5+, Kd7
19. Qxg8, e3
20. fxe3, Be7
21. Ng5, Na6

Sample Continuation #3
4. Bxg8, Rxg8
5. Nxe5, Qg5
6. Ng4, d5
7. h3, Qg6

Assessment: Black is usually down material, but has fantastic compensation. Most of White’s pieces are still on the back rank. I would argue Black is better.

Stockfish: +0.4

3. Nxe5 – The Refutation!

https://lichess.org/study/JETSUN0G/Rh73M6Ea#5

Black’s response should be 3...Qf6.

Sample Continuation #1
4. d4, d6
5. Nc4, fxe4
6. Nc3, Qg6
7. f3, exf3
8. Qxf3, Nf6
9. Bd3, Qg4
10. Qe3+, Qe6
11. O-O, Qxe3+
12. Bxe3, Be7
13. Rae1, O-O

Common mistake
8....Qxc2??
9. Bd3

Assessment: White is better here, but Black should be able to defend (read: draw) with sharp play. The argument could also be made that White has a misplaced King and weak light squares.

Stockfish: +2.6

My two cents

· The Latvian Gambit is objectively dubious and therefore unsuited for tournament play.
· The Latvian Gambit is not for the faint hearted. It requires an attacker’s mindset. If you do not like taking risks, playing tactics or moving your King off the back rank, do not play it.
· This gambit is more useful in OTB play, where the psychological pressure and consequences of losing, are palpable.
· Prioritise initiative over material. Many variations lead to Black losing kingside pieces. However, it is key to not lose tempo trying to defend pieces, but rather, to create effective counterattacking chances.
· Play nf6 as early as possible.
· Unlike most openings, the Latvian Gambit has a surprisingly limited number of variations. Black gives White the advantage, and in turn, forces White to play aggressive lines to maintain it. Accordingly, the aspiring Latvian Gambiteer would do well to familiarise himself with the best moves for White in each of the variations.

Acknowledgement

I do not take credit for any of the ideas presented herein. This is, for all practical purposes, merely a compilation of freely available information.

My primary resource while studying this opening was the lecture by IM Miodrag Perunovic.

IM Miodrag Perunovic’s Lichess Profile - https://lichess.org/@/TheButcherMio

IM Miodrag Perunovic’s Website - http://www.miodragperunovic.com/

A short version of his lecture on the Latvian Gambit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ywv7EH47Po&t=862s

A video with Blitz games by IM Mio in the Latvian Gambit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bayh0707u8o&t=1826s

Links for further study

Here is my Lichess Study on the Latvian Gambit https://lichess.org/study/JETSUN0GIt provides an overview of all the lines I’ve discussed in this post and also contains the Blitz games by IM Mio in the Latvian Gambit.

Here is my Lichess Study of Latvian Gambit Games featuring the likes of Tal, Fischer, Spassky, Capablanca, Lasker and Chigorin https://lichess.org/study/W7S6APB1

GM Anthony Kosten’s “The Latvian Gambit Lives!” (Available on Libgen)

FM Dennis Monokroussos' 2007 Article trashing the Gambit is available at
https://en.chessbase.com/post/one-man-s-trash-is-another-man-s-treasure

More Latvian Gambit Games are available here:

listen50s’ Collection

a. Part 1: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1010406
b. Part 2: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1012399
c. Part 3: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1012410
d. Part 4: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1012745

Imsighked2’s Collection: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1039319

Mikelmm’s Collection: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1024552

InspiredByMorphy’s Collection: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1000995