The World's Worst Opening
Wednesday, June 9, 2010 at 6:57PM In My 60 Memorable Games, Bobby Fischer famously made fun of the Dragon. Using the plan of castling queenside, trading the dark-squared bishops, playing h4-h5xg6 and "sac, sac, mate" even "weak players" could beat GMs with White in that opening.
The Latvian is a lot like that, except that White doesn't even need a good plan. After giving a lesson on ICC (interested readers, write me using the contact box on the right sidebar!) I decided to watch a game or two before logging off. I don't remember much about the first game, and when the second game featured an untitled player taking on a GM I was about to log off until I saw the priceless opening moves: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5?? Now I had to stay.
White was winning by move 6 - yes, winning - and it took him many, many, many mistakes before the GM was so much as a bit better but not yet winning. Further, the position was unclear, and one of White's many fringe benefits in this opening, the dubious position of Black's king, came to the forefront. The GM's attack was breaking through, but if his opponent found one very nice move, he'd win. It took him about a minute to play it (and I was mentally shouting for him to do so), but he finally did and mated his grandmaster opponent.
Have a look, it's fun.
Reader Comments (6)
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044024
Fischer loses in the Latvian... Oh my
Yes...but it's before Fischer was Fischer. Maybe the horror of losing to the Latvian is part of what spurred him to greatness in the next year or two. Still, it's pretty horrible - sort of like a politician having risque photos in her past.
Best part of the annotations (not analysis, of course, but nonetheless brilliant - sort of like Anand saying "What on earth was this move?" as his polite way of criticizing a player he respects) was f5? "Losing."
Everybody plays Qf6 in the Latvian; I don't know why but whenever it has been trotted out against me, that's always the move. I have no idea of the theory, but I usually just play Nc4-e3 to cover g2 and then develop normally. I don't understand the Latvian; there are a number of perfectly good gambits that don't result in positions that are +/- out of the opening.
Heck, Von Hennig-Schara is actually equal.
Schroedinger,
Everyone plays ...Qf6 on move 3 against the normal 3.Nxe5, yes. But this situation is different.
I agree that the vH-S isn't too bad, but I think "equal" is going a little too far. It's very dangerous though - for both sides!
Possibly hyperbole, but it's darned hard to crack. I had a friend who used to use the Scotch and Urusov gambits, too, with relatively reasonable results. Of course, gambit play with white is a bit safer, because if your opponent knows what he's doing, it's still probably equal.
(I really don't understand the Smith-Morra people though, they're like a cult).
My apologies for the Qf6 comment I missed the move order.
The Latvian is "darned hard to crack"? Either you're playing Magnus Carlsen in your spare time, or you spent too much time playing 1.d4 at the start of your career, and have to hone your 1.e4 instincts!
I don't think there's anything terribly wrong with the Scotch or Urusov gambits, and maybe not even with the Smith-Morra, though I'm a little skeptical there. But not all gambits are created equally, and if I were one of the gambits mentioned in this paragraph, I'd be offended by even the hint of a comparison or association with the Latvian.