The opening actually has a huge following, especially on the internet and in correspondence, and for every person looking to bust it with white, as Silman notes on his site, there are a hundred people with their Fritzes running 24/7 trying to keep black alive in the critical lines.
I used to play this opening regularly and still throw it in for shock value occasionally, with good results. The problem, at a decent level, is that white will know what he's doing, and if that happens then you can expect to find life as black fairly painful since, even if the positions that result are not technically lost, white gets *all* the fun.
While that line looks crazy, you will rarely find people so kind as to play 3.exf5 (I've only ever faced it once OTB - I don't count blitz experiences against 1100s which are the only other time I've seen this move). Most people, in this age of databases and hundreds of books, know that 3.Nxe5 is critical (I still believe that 3.Bc4 is probably objectively a refutation since I have some trouble believing Svedenborg's for black, and the old ...Qg5 lines have always been dicey - however, the masses of forced long lines that people need to know to play this as white make it less attractive), and after 3.Nxe5 white seems to have plenty of ways to secure a huge plus:
3.Nxe5 Nc6? 4.Nxc6!
3.Nxe5 Nc6? 4.Qh5+ (3...Nc6 is sadly just bad, even though I devoted 6 months of correspondence chess to trying to ressurect it)
3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4! (Leonhardt's Variation, black is being made to grovel in the main lines at the moment with Budvokis's 6.d3 - again, see
www.jeremysilman.com)
3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 and now, as Tony Kosten noted in his book, no fully adequate response has ever been found to 6.Be2 (usually attributed to Bronstein), and even in the old main lines after 6.Bc4 and 7.f3 black is not doing well.
Further, I believe white has good play after 3.d4 and the piece sacrifice line that follows (I played a game a few years back on IECC in this line as white and won convincingly in under 20 moves, however I cannot currently locate that game score) even after the improvement suggested in Kosten's book, and I think White secures an edge in the Motlowski (3.Nc3 variation) as well.
I hope someone can shatter these comments since I am a huge fan of the Latvian and, despite believing it to be unsound, will continue to venture it from time to time. If someone could prove it sound then I would possibly even move to play it again as my main defence to 1.e4.
Best wishes,
Craig
After 3.Bc4 you can play Nc6 transposing into the Rosseau Gambit which is very fun to play indeed! I have a 100% score with it OTB and the traps in it are quite numerous. White often looks at you with a look that says "Gosh your stupid" and then quickly gets crushed!
I have not had any one play the theoretical best move against me yet. And when i do i doubt i will be worried at all.
The trick is that when they think they have found somthing to work against the latvian you play a totally different opening! Thats my recipe anyway.
For information on the Rosseau check out chesscafe and go to the skittles room archive where i believe both articles on it are called the Guico Fortisimo! Written of course by the Godfather of the Gambit cartel Tim McGrew. If your a fan of his let me tell you your in for some of the same only in a more detailed manner.
If any one has any ideas on this or the latvian in general please leave your thoughts.
Craig i would be interested in some of your favorite lines with the black pieces as well.
Also a side question which i believe to be related to the latvian.
I played this at a recent tournament and won against some one with about 100 points on my my rating but i dont think i should have not the way i played it at least! Is this playable at any level. Does it even have a name? If so i would like to play it as i do enjoy pushing my f pawn rather early!