pfren:
I (as Black, has no intention of taking the Knight on h8, as you saw in the game). I guess White played 8. Qb3 to start an attack on the side Black is likely to castle to.
I would most likely play 9...Na5.
Well, after 9. d4, maybe Black plays 9...exd3. Then what?
Another thing we can probably say is that players on chess.com who like the Latvian Gambit defend it in the forums with great passion!
I'm more concerned about defending sound reasoning, and scientic rigor!
I'm so glad I've happened upon a bit of information to broaden your perspective surrounding this game you play so well, sir. It so happens that Louis Eichborn was the greatest chess player of all time. (Let's again ignore any statisticians hooha to the contrary) One may google at one's leisure. There are about 30 more-or-less riveting games with Adolf Anderssen as evidence.
Gentlemen, we must accept that the Latvian Gambit is unsound. Clearly Mr. Frendzas has proven it to us by word of mouth and 8 grandmaster games alone.
Or else...
Perhaps you could persuade your friend hotchicken to play the white pieces for the benefit of any who may still have doubts, which would permit your chess.com account to remain unsullied by any victories and protect your friend's precious anonymity. He is, as you say, an e4 player, and so perhaps better suited to the task.
But who will play the part of Louis Eichborn?
I'm so glad I've happened upon a bit of information to broaden your perspective surrounding this game you play so well, sir. It so happens that Louis Eichborn was the greatest chess player of all time. (Let's again ignore any statisticians hooha to the contrary) One may google at one's leisure. There are about 30 more-or-less riveting games with Adolf Anderssen as evidence.
Gentlemen, we must accept that the Latvian Gambit is unsound. Clearly Mr. Frendzas has proven it to us by word of mouth and 8 grandmaster games alone.
Or else...
Perhaps you could persuade your friend hotchicken to play the white pieces for the benefit of any who may still have doubts, which would permit your chess.com account to remain unsullied by any victories and protect your friend's precious anonymity. He is, as you say, an e4 player, and so perhaps better suited to the task.
But who will play the part of Louis Eichborn?
What???????
cigoL, please take no offense. My remarks were tongue-in-cheek. And to no avail. It seems pfren will not be trolled into a demonstration, regardless of the odds he gives himself.
Well, well.
love it!!
You have to take in account why GMs aren't playing it. There are opening variations that have been abandoned because of one move played in one game. Statistics could never tell you that. So in reality you would need to be informed on exactly why or have a very strong understanding of chess to understand why certain moves aren't played anymore by watching many games. Besides, under 2000 it isn't that big a deal anyway. If it's fun play it. Just know what you're getting into.
My thoughts exactly. Well said.
Yes, we can say that. But it tells absolutely nothing about worth of the opening. This is not my opinion, but has to do with statistics, and what is called the Law of Large Numbers.
Maybe the next 8 Latvian Gambit games between GM's will end with 8 Black wins. If so, the total score (in 16 games) will be approx. 30-70, rather than approx. 70-30 (in the 8 games you have posted).
You have to take in account why GMs aren't playing it. There are opening variations that have been abandoned because of one move played in one game. Statistics could never tell you that. So in reality you would need to be informed on exactly why or have a very strong understanding of chess to understand why certain moves aren't played anymore by watching many games. Besides, under 2000 it isn't that big a deal anyway. If it's fun play it. Just know what you're getting into.
I cannot disagree with this, and I never said otherwise. I only said that the stats themselves doesn't tell us anything.
riga..., yes, I agree, it's seems they don't have much faith in the Latvian Gambit. But that's all we can say. We cannot say that the Latvian Gambit is losing at GM level, since we simply do not have enough data (number of games) to support such a claim.
Wait a minute!? Isn't there a basic flaw in this reasoning?? Essentially what you're saying is that we don't know if the Latvian Gambit is good at GM level because no GM plays it. That reminds me of Yogi Berra's line: "Nobody goes to that place....it's too crowded." Of course, I understand your meaning, that the Latvian's infrequency in high-level play does not neccessarily indicate unsoundess. Maybe just too many sharp, dangerous lines for black in OTB play. ........ BTW, I love the Latvian and try it occassionally myself.........
That was actually not my point (what I've highlighted in your comment), although I agree with this too. And no, there is no flaw in my reasoning. My point is simply that we cannot say anything about how well the Latvian Gambit (or any other opening) scores at GM level statistically, if we only have 8 games to back our claim. We might be able to say something about the Latvian Gambit at GM level using other arguments, but a statistical argument (like: the Latvian Gambit isn't a good opening at GM level, because it only scored 30 % in 8 GM games). This is not telling anything about how good the Latvian Gambit is. To say anything about anything using the numbers to back our claim we need more data than 8 games (as I explained previously with the coin flips).
Well, as we both know, it doesn't really matter for us what GMs do (and don't do).
I don't know if it's possible, by someone told me that some chess engines can play with a "rating loft". Then, it would be very interesting to have various chess engines play against each other beginning from a specific opening position, with no rating loft for one side, and the "rating loft" of the other side gradually decreased, until the higher rated side wins consistently, or until the lower rated side gets a 50-50 score. Doing this many times with various openings might be a way to tell something about the strength of the opening. Does this makes sense? If not, here's an example.
Let's say an engine plays the Latvian Gambit against itself a thousand times, with no "rating loft". Let's say the rating (for both sides) is 3300, and the White side wins 60 % of the games. Now, we let it play a thousand games against itself again with a "rating loft" on the White side. We keep doing this until the score is 50-50. Let's say the score is 50-50 in a thousand games with a "rating loft" on the White side of 3000. So far, so good. Now we do the same with the Sicilian Defense. Maybe White wins 55 % of the games, and the score turns out to be 50-50 with a "rating loft" of 2700 (on the White side). This gives us a hint about the strenght of the opening, with the Sicilian Defense being a stronger opening than the Latvian Gambit - if my made-up numbers are what we'll see.
When done with this experiment, we can try to set a "rating loft" on both sides, letting Black play at e.g. 1500, while trying various ratings for White, until we find the value where the score is 50-50. At this lower level, I'm guessing the difference in rating between the two sides will be less. If so, what does it tell us? That the opening choice means less at a 1500 level, than at GM level. Or at least, this is my hypothesis. If I had an engine, I would try it out. Unfortunately, I don't. If anyone does have one, I would be very curious to hear the result.
I hope this makes sense. 
pfren, you seemingly don't get it. So, I repeat: statistically we cannot say anything about the Latvian Gambit at GM level. If you do not agree with this, then there is only one thing for you to do: take a beginner course in statistics. 
My rating is a few points shy of that number, but I still try it once in a while. I win about once in every 4000 tries!
Oh, and this experiment would certainly tell something about the openings.
No.
I am new to chess.com and this Forum. I recently ran into the following which I haven't seen elsewhere. 1 e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nc3 fxe4 4.Nxe5 Nf6 5.Bc4 d5 6.Nxd5 Nxd5 7.Qh5+ g6 8.Nxg6 Nf6 9.Qe5+Be7 10.Nxh8 Nc6 11.Qf4 Qd4 12.Bb3 Bg4 13.Qxc7 Rc8 14.Qxb7 Nh5 15.Bf7+Kf8 16.Bxh5 Bxh5 17.Qxc8+. It's the fifth move Bc4 that was new to me instead of the "book" Ng4. PLaying this in Lichess, and getting Black's moves 5 to 7 endorsed by Stockfish, not sure how to improve. For example, what would Black play at move 5, OTHER than ....d5? At move 8, Stockfish advised ...hg but then the game still went very quickly south on Stockfish's follow-up analysis. SO, the question is, what does Black do against 5Bc4? I haven't seen this analysed anywhere yet. And if there is nothing better after % Bc4, what does Black do prior to that, to avoid being forced into that position anyway? Hmmm...has anyone else come across this alternative 5th move by White? If yes, what is the answer?
Thanks for link to ICCF games. So, on basis that we are at very start of game - there has been no point, really, to veer off earlier, since we are only at move 5 - it makes White's Nc3 option challenging. I will have a good look at the ICCF games that use it.
I noticed the internet-based challenge to the authoritatively speaking International Master was rebuffed with what seems now to be a little white lie.
From the Internet Chess Club:
Once we crossed the line from theory to fantasy, I began to imagine our friend Mr. Frendzas playing the white pieces with Louis Eichborn on the black. All draws are wins for Mr. Eichborn.