As a modest club player 4.Nc4 probably would appear fairly often and is a sound alternative. I believe however that 4.Qh5 is the only move to put serious pressure on Black's position.

I'm glad you mentioned 6.Kd1 because after seeing all of the featured games on this database a line frequently talked about goes 6...Nf6 7.Qh3/Qh4 hg6 8.Qh8 and after 8...Ng4, Black appears to have tremendous compensation for the exchange. There may well be a way out for White but I can't see anything. What do you think?

---
In essence, the “philosophical” question about gambits – in our case, the Latvian and PCG of previous answers- , is what makes a gambit playable ?, and the ways for the answer are various.

Firstly, we should to think about our own personal style ( of play and personality ). If I prefer open, tactical positions with attack and counter-attack I will build a repertoire based in positions of those characteristics ( Pelikan, Dragon, Open Spanish, Spanish Jaenish, King’s Indian, Latvian g., Grunfeld ).

Second, the surprisevely value. A gambit is easily brought about, full of pitfalls for the opponent. Your opponent, in all probability, is playing something he has never studied and has no hope of understanding as well as I myself do. It matters little whether there is a path to an objective advantage for him so long as that path is well hidden among a plethora of plausible alternatives. I have experimented a great surprising, a psychological impact, a bewildering for all and even the “relatively” best prepared opponents when I moved 2..f5!?. It is not enough to make “fairly natural moves”, they need to be the right natural ones !!

I am 2070 ELO FIDE player and usually I play tournaments where my opponents have 2000-2300 Itn. Elo. Anybody can to think that if I defend the Latvian is because I am low rated player, but paradoxically I represent the 90% of these players in the World (!), and thus I don’t see why we can not play the gambit ( also Evans, Albin, sidelines of Two Knights, etc. ) if “ theoretically” speaking it is not refuted in OTB. It is very reasonable that in the “peaceful” of our own home, with the helping of the engines we can study or even “refute” a chess variation ..of any line of play of chess ...but I can confirm that with the board in front of your eyes, in a REAL OTB game, matters are very different .... My opponents, on average, play far worse than Fritz, Hiarcs or Shredder !?. I am not averse to play a move ( or an opening ) that I know can be refuted if I think my opponent would only be likely to find the refutation if he has the “engine” in his mind, which is impossible indeed. I note if I myself or any of the readers of this forum has had recourse to computer assistance to come up with the gambit, and if the moves or “refutations” are so natural, why we use computers at all ?. If they ( or I ) aren’t, then what does that say about one’s practical chances with the LG at levels far below the 2300 plane on which we play ?. I will assume ( only ) that above 2300 FIDE Latvian is a bit unsound ( but only, against well-prepared players, and also they would win with us another opening ... ), but below of this, I don’t see any problem on playing it ( remember, we are 90% of the players of the World ).

Last words about: I’ve won several times in official OTB games opponents close 2200-2250 FIDE ELO with the gambit, and generally I’ve seen he doesn’t know even the Main Lines far from 9-10 moves, or worse the “spirit” of the middle game positions, so I must to assume the “shock” value !. Apart from this, paradoxically 2..f5 only represents 25% of the whole of my official games, so I usually play often 2..Nc6, and also the Sicilian, so the “problem” is not the LG, the problem is opposed !!, any players know a correct way against the LG ! ( in CC the question is quite different indeed ).

When you select an opening, you are not selecting the position that arises at move 20 after best play by both sides. You are selecting the whole opening with all of its traps and twists, its side lines and main lines, and so you are an authentic specialist on LG ( for instance ), and your opponent don’t .... for a player who has a high tolerance for risk it does not constitute a conclusive argument against playing such gambit

Is funny, but Emil Diemer once wrote: “In order to win, one must sometimes have the courage to play badly.”. At present LG is being needed of some new improvements ( see ALL the serie of my past answers ), but I don’t believe is already dead, maybe many people don’t know some of the best specialists, ( Budovskis, Strautins, Krantz, Rosenstielke, Oren, Zemitis, etc. ) are finding new ideas and improvements. Silman’s theorethical article is truly hard ( even I've have collaborated discrediting Black http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_o... ) , but many of us will continue with our private analysis encouraging Blacks play !?. The same to Philidor Countergambit 3..f5 ( played by NM James West, Kosten and Mestel ) or Rousseau gambit 2..Nc6 and 3..f5. I suggest any person with interest to know updates of LG visit www.gambitchess.com and the series of LG World Tournaments ( and many theory or games ).

Alejandro Melchor, Barcelona, Spain
amelchor@eresmas.net

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Qf6
3. d4 exd4
4. e5 Qe7
5. Bf4 c5
6. Nbd2 (this is a planned pattern I am going in)

.... f6
7. Bc4 (crap pc recommends Bb5)

7...Nc6 (...fxe5 maybe =)
8. O-O g5
9. exf6 Qxf6
10. Re1+ Nge7
11. Bxg5

after 11 Bxg5 can our mad friend survive this?

click for larger view

Advice for white : Sac a knight on e5.

Elephant Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.f3 d5

click for larger view

Latvian Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.f3 f5

click for larger view

Brazilian Defense
1.e4 e5 2.f3 e7

click for larger view

Damiano Defence
1.e4 e5 2.f3 f6

click for larger view