6.Ne3 gets a chapter of its own in Kosten's "The Latvian Gambit Lives!", so I don't think it's been ignored. It doesn't get as much attention as some of the other lines because most players of White try to refute the gambit outright.

Also I wouldn't take Nimzowitsch too seriously on the openings. He had many good ideas, but he also played some real rubbish. 

Ben Hague

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Qf6 4 d4 d6 5 Nc4 fxe4 6 Ne3!?

What is wrong with this move?!

In his world-renowned book, My System, Nimzowitsch writes : "Against this move speak (1) tradition, which demands 6.Nc3; (2) the principle of economic development, moving each piece only once in the opening; (3) the apparently small threat effect of the blockader.  And yet 6.Ne3, taken with the following move is in every respect a master move.  Even if all the rest of the world would play here 6.Nc3, I yet hold my move 6.Ne3 to be more correct, and this for reasons based on the 'system.'"   

So why, when this book is considered one of the top in chess literature, does no one take him seriously??  Why is 6.Ne3 such a rare move?  From my own experience it works out quite well...

??? ??? ???
NeX iRae