Great discussion. Really enjoyed it. I'm going to use this latvian counter gambit in my new game. thanks.

You use the word 'probably' as if you were a little unsure of this move. That's a good indicator that this maybe a mistake by White. You see the reason for the move, yet you are still unsure. You have good reason to be unsure of White's move here. White is ignoring development. The way he has developed earlier requires him to trip over his own pieces. He is moving a piece multiple times in the opening without absolute necessity to do so! That is asking for trouble. **** The Latvian Gambit makes little sense in the traditional sense. Because it is wild, it might be good for players below Master to try it, if they are good tacticians. Otherwise, I hate it. You often get sloppy play on both sides of this opening. Black can sometimes win because White abandons principles and simply plays worse. But maybe that is the sound strategy in this game for Black--tempt White to play worse chess. What if White doesn't follow that temptation? Then White should have an easy win. He just has to be patient.

If he was going to trade the knight for the bishop, why not do it instead of Nb5. Can you see just how bad White is playing here now? This is the fourth time moving this knight in the opening. Meanwhile, nearly all White's pieces remain on their original squares. This is truly a sad state of affairs. I could win nearly every time, if my opponent gave me a couple of extra moves every game.

This is actually a very sneaky move by white! Black may well recapture with Nxf5, leaving him a pawn down but with a huge lead in development. But, if black goofs and plays gxf5 to recapture, white has the forcing 16. Qh5+!, which leads to the exchange of queens and a +1 pawn endgame for white, where there's a lot of chess left and white can develop his queenside without problem.