WHAT DID THEY THINK ABOUT THE LATVIAN GAMBIT
by Frantz Destrebecq
Its always an advantage to exchange the pawn of your King’s Bishop against the King’s pawn of your opponent; because by this way your King’s and your Queen’s pawn can occupy the center of the board. Moreover, in castling on the Kingside, your rook can come into the action from the beginning of the game. — Philidor, 1749.
According to K Betins, who I am inclined to believe, this move is perfectly playable. Actually, I don’t know any refutation of it. — Aaron Nimzowich.
This counter-attack is more violent than any other; therefore she is more easily refutable. — Reuben Fine
Practice showed that, despite of the first impression, the Latvian Gambit is not easy to refute, and in some cases Black even get good attacking chances. — Paul Keres
The Black counter-attack on the White center is premature and generally leaves White with a considerable advance of development. — Fred Reinfeld
Although the actual judgment of theory favors White, it is not easy for them to refute the opening of Black. — Alexei Suetin
... one of the most infamous openings of Chess. — Tim Harding
In the Latvian Gambit Black’s King lands on d8 60% of all games, on d7 25 %, and in the remaining 15% Black only loses in the endgame. — Kenneth Kirby
The best thing about the Latvian Gambit is that it is not as bad as its refutation. There are a couple of lines that give White a small advantage, but no more, — Jonny Hector
....if the LG is playable in correspondence chess, where the antagonists have access to theoretical works and further, where both White and Black are themselves experts on the opening, then how much more effective it will be over-the-board with the clock ticking away? The Latvian Gambit is the practical opening par excellence.” — Tony Kosten