♡ 35 ( +1 | -1 ) wellEven though Nimzowitsch once said that he didnt know any refutation to the latvian its still an extemely nice thing to see Cyrano master this opening in this way. Its clearly one of the openings that still have mystic and beauty surrounding it, at least my my little knowledge. Guess I just wanted to be part of it in some odd way.. ;)
♡ 7 ( +1 | -1 ) SorryBut the openng employed by Cyrano in the aforementioned game is The Dutch Defence.
♡ 4 ( +1 | -1 ) bothNf3-f5 is a Dutch, but after e4-e5 it is a latvian gambit
♡ 20 ( +1 | -1 ) Cyranoresponded with e5 to whites e4 to break up the center and to dislodge whites misplaced knight. Still makes it a Dutch defence. Latvian?/Dutch,? Cyrano is still a force to be reckoned with!
♡ 9 ( +1 | -1 ) not a dutch....main line Latvian with exf5.....In no way shape or form is it a Dutch anymore!
♡ 28 ( +1 | -1 ) Question?Does it matter what opening? What matters is that white was out played to the point of resignation. What matters is that the player with the black pieces was less concerned with opening theory and more concerned with playing chess!!
♡ 11 ( +1 | -1 ) woah.....Please,I meant no harm....just trying to help! Sorry! I won't open my mouth ever again!
♡ 9 ( +1 | -1 ) silly me…I thought opening theory was part of playing chess. Thanks for enlightening us all, shachfreund.
♡ 57 ( +1 | -1 ) Opening Theory?Whose opening theory and what opening theory? Everyone these days is so concerned with what GM's are doing and how they play? Most chess play these days is based on someone that has played before you and I. If chess is to survive and progress we as a collective should use our brains to uplift our games past what opening theory prescribes. Just because Kasparov or Kramnik play a certain move does not lend credence to this particular line of play, ahem, they still lose don't they!!!!
♡ 19 ( +1 | -1 ) SchachfreundYou started correcting players which opening it was and when you were wrong you got aggressive and started a discussion about players not focusing on chess instead.
There is no logic in that.
♡ 34 ( +1 | -1 ) unfortunately, shachfreund…not everyone is blessed with your natural chess ability. Personally, I find studying master games and opening theory very helpful to my understanding of the game. Much of it, I admit, goes over my head, but that does not prevent me from trying to improve my chess the only way I know how, by playing and studying.
♡ 103 ( +1 | -1 ) aggropolis first then honololuaggropolis, Firstly, the defence discussed in the prescribed game is and will be immemorial a Dutch Defence. Secondly does it matter which defence we associate a name? The player with the black pieces was unconcerned with this limitation and played the appropriate moves to take the advantage, and that is the crux of that discussion.
honololu. I love your wit! I wish I was born with a great and wonderful chessic gift I would not be working so hard at the paltry games that I extend myself to play. I work extremely hard at every game and at 24 games have over extended my abilites to the enth degree. My Father taught me this game after I pestered him relentlessly. I now know that I am far from naturally gifted! What chess gift I do have is patience and determination coupled with the time to realize both. Secondly, age brings about a certain cynicism which is really ego and knowledge. I would certainly not be where I am today if I didn't question the status quo.
♡ 100 ( +1 | -1 ) A hard timne admitting when you are wrongThe opening is clearly a latvian gambit by transposition on move 2, any opening encyclopedia in the world would recognize the position as a latvian gambit position an dnot a dutch defense regardless of which names are used. white pawn on e4, white knight on f3, black pawn on e5 and f5 on move #2 is NOT A DUTCH DEFENSE. and, YES, IT IS IMPORTANT, because if tulkos recognized this opening, he could have grabbed an opening book, and played 3.Nxe5! which grabs the gambit panw and gives almost no compensation to black, it is widely known that this gambit is extremely dubious for black, and is virtually never seen at the professional level. of course given the wide gap between the tow opponent's playing levels in this game, Cyrano probably would have won anyway.....but THIS IS THE DUBIOUS OPENING KNOWN AS THE LATVIAN GAMBIT AND YES IT IS IMPORTANT WHICH OPENING YOU PLAY...TRY PLAYING 1.E4 G5 2.D4 F3 AS BLACK AND SEE WHERE IT GETS YOU!!!
♡ 31 ( +1 | -1 ) SchachfreundWhy is opening theory important to know? Because the first few moves of any game have been mulled over for centuries and the best moves have been decided upon. It is because of opening theory that move orders such as e4-e5 Nf3-f6, or e4-f5 have been deemed useless and stupid.
♡ 33 ( +1 | -1 ) Well SchachfreundWell ordinary_man wrote it. Dutch Defence is 1. d4 f5 and not 1. Nf3 f5, he also pointed out that it transposes to Latvian Gambit at move 2, not ever being Dutch.
Ordinary_man. There are quite a few players on professional level who have played Latvian and I think black will get some compensation in form of initiative or the pawn back.
♡ 32 ( +1 | -1 ) very true...aggropolis , you are right I exaggerated a bit about how bad the LAtvian is, but it is bad! However, I admit when I am wrong and I back down that black gets no compensation....a strong player would be able to get the intiative or at least get a pawn back.
I stand corrected. :)
♡ 15 ( +1 | -1 ) thanks boys....nicely said boys.....she is surprising angry and aggressive for an aged person such as herself....I'm less aggressive and I'm a testerone filled 16 year old!
♡ 2 ( +1 | -1 ) guys and gals:can't we all just get along?
♡ 49 ( +1 | -1 ) She?I am delighted that you got my gender correct!! You are allowed to call me Mimi or Schachfruend. I thought it was mute whether this opening is a Latvian by transposition or a Dutch Defence? What was being said is Black was the superior exponent of the chess game. I meant not to be aggresive or a fuss budget but to make a logical point that it matters not the opening name but the user of the pieces. So don't diss me on chess, because despite my age I still have game, haha!!! Thanks everyone this was fun!!
♡ 14 ( +1 | -1 ) ??Wow are you weird, you have a good sense of humor though......Did you paste a different head on that body or is that a bad photo depth?
♡ 6 ( +1 | -1 ) t0ned0g…With all due respect, let's try to keep the discussion on chess and not get personal.
♡ 11 ( +1 | -1 ) Yes please t0nedog.does anyone have any comments on the game beyond that 3.Nxe5 was the normal form of procedure?
♡ 7 ( +1 | -1 ) sorry boys....I like 3.Bc4 against the Latvian, where 3..fe Ne5 gives white the initiative!
♡ 47 ( +1 | -1 ) While 3. Nxe5 is considered best according to theory, your choice of 3. exf5 is not at all bad. The idea then is to immediately attempt to exploit Black's weakened kingside using open lines. A sample try is:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 (to use a more standard move order) 3. exf5 e4 4. Ne5 Nf6 5. Be2 (intending Bh5+ to upset Black's king; in a superficial way, similar to a plan that can be adopted by Black against the King's Gambit) Be7 (5... Bc5 is probably also worth considering) 6. Bh5+ Kf8 7. d4 with a fighting game ahead.