PDA

View Full Version : Vienna's game



bunta
08-03-2006, 09:19 AM
Does Vienna opening have much theory behind it? what are the ideas?

qpawn
08-03-2006, 01:25 PM
The Vienna game has a lot of theory to it.

After 1.e4 e5 2. Nc3 there are two common replies: 2...Nf6 and Nc6.

2...Nf6 can lead to the sharp 3.f4 which should not be confused with the king's gambit. 3...e5 X f4 is bad because of 4. e5 banging black's n back to g8 and easily getting development for the pawn. So, the usual reply is 3...d5 leading to sharp play.

Tartakower once said that the strength of the Vienna game was that 2.Nc3 didn't threaten anything! :lol:

Denis_Jessop
08-03-2006, 08:15 PM
There is not a great deal of modern theory on this opening. For example it is dismissed off-handedly in a couple of pages in BCO 2 as an opening whose heyday has passed and it gets only four pages in NCO in which most of the lines show black as equalising the position fairly quickly. It really doesn't have much going for it.

DJ

eclectic
08-03-2006, 08:37 PM
2. Nc3 after 1.e4 is also associated with taking the sting out of the alekhine

qpawn
08-03-2006, 08:45 PM
I can't agree that the Vienna is a passe opening without potential.

That vienna gambit line of 3.f4 is great for lightning games! :D

It's worth recalling that Larsen made gold out of many so-called antiquated openings such as Philidors and bishop opening; no one can denythat the Vienna might, too , have a revival.

eclectic
08-03-2006, 08:49 PM
I can't agree that the Vienna is a passe opening without potential.

That vienna gambit line of 3.f4 is great for lightning games! :D

It's worth recalling that Larsen made gold out of many so-called antiquated openings such as Philidors and bishop opening; no one can denythat the Vienna might, too , have a revival.

coming soon from who knows?

a hypoaggressive opening repertoire for white with 1.Nc3

;)

Carl Gorka
08-03-2006, 09:54 PM
The Vienna has loads of theory and some very interesting lines that have recently (within the last 10 years) received some attention.

eg. 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bc4 (Nigel Short, among others, has played this move. He played it in a Candidates match against Speelman) 3..Nxe4 4.Qh5

Also the Hamppe-Allgaier is great fun and no one knows anything about it compared to the King's Gambit. Scottish GM Paul Motwani has played these mad Vienna Gambits for years. 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 (3.Nf3 is a safe transposition) 3..exf4 4.Nf3 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng5. I remember reading the classic King's Gambit books by Estrin and Glazkov and they thought the Hamppe-Allgaier was sound for White.

....and then there's the line 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Bb4 3.Qg4:lol:

Valenti
09-03-2006, 11:22 PM
Ive been playing the Vienna for 20 years with a 75 % performance.

A good opening, not giving much, with positional lines and a few others more tactical like the Dracula.

A typical middlegame with the 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 main line will be based on opposite castling, an isolated White pawn on e5 and a double-edged position. When White should play c4, is it best to play Kb1 or a3, is h4 and Ng5 possible are some of the usual questions for the White player.

The best book has been written by Gary Lane and I believe the first game of this book Adams-Anand is the most critical : Black refusing to castle and throwing everything to White.

On the whole, a good and pragmatic system for players below 2300.

Denis_Jessop
10-03-2006, 04:28 PM
The Vienna Game and other like weakish or unsound openings are now popular for several reasons. For example, they are less analysed and have a surprise value when used in weekenders and other tournaments played at fast time limits when finding the strongest move is difficult. It is instructive that one of the main lines against the Latvian Gambit was found by Smyslov when he encountered it in a game never having seen it before. But then he was playing at a time control that allowed deeper analysis over the board than is now generally possible.

DJ

ElevatorEscapee
11-03-2006, 12:09 AM
coming soon from who knows?

a hypoaggressive opening repertoire for white with 1.Nc3

;)

Whenever I sit down to play against the one in Victoria famous for championing that opening, I can't seem to get the "Rawhide" song out of my mind... only the performers are singing something slightly different than: "Rollin' Rollin' Rollin'" ;) :cool: :lol:

qpawn
11-03-2006, 08:50 AM
Quote: Dennis_Jessop:

The Vienna Game and other like weakish or unsound openings are now popular for several reasons. For example, they are less analysed and have a surprise value when used in weekenders and other tournaments played at fast time limits when finding the strongest move is difficult. It is instructive that one of the main lines against the Latvian Gambit was found by Smyslov when he encountered it in a game never having seen it before. But then he was playing at a time control that allowed deeper analysis over the board than is now generally possible.

***********
Again, I can't agree. The Vienna opening is opening is perfectly sound: developing a knight at c3 on move 2 is in accordance with opening principles of central control and development. The only defect one could point to is that the N at c3 blocks the c2 pawn and hence c3 is impeded as a support for d4.

Weakish or unsound openings surely include Grob, Guatamalan defence, Zuckertort gambit, Latvian, Damianos defence etc :D

The Vienna game is definitely not in the "shonky" category of any of the above.

Rincewind
11-03-2006, 09:11 AM
Again, I can't agree. The Vienna opening is opening is perfectly sound: developing a knight at c3 on move 2 is in accordance with opening principles of central control and development. The only defect one could point to is that the N at c3 blocks the c2 pawn and hence c3 is impeded as a support for d4.

Weakish or unsound openings surely include Grob, Guatamalan defence, Zuckertort gambit, Latvian, Damianos defence etc :D

The Vienna game is definitely not in the "shonky" category of any of the above.

Denis said weakish or unsound. I believe the Vienna is weakish in the sense that Black has an easy road to equality and therefore offers White little chance of maintaining the advantage. No doubt you can get some advantage from an ill-prepared opponent but this is true of any opening.

To quote from NCO 1999 (pg 285)

"Some of the lines of the Vienna Opening, 2.Nc3, are indeed quite promising for White; unfortunately, the standard response 2...Nf6 3 f4 d5 is fully effective as theory suggests"

Denis_Jessop
11-03-2006, 11:45 AM
Denis said weakish or unsound. I believe the Vienna is weakish in the sense that Black has an easy road to equality and therefore offers White little chance of maintaining the advantage. No doubt you can get some advantage from an ill-prepared opponent but this is true of any opening.

To quote from NCO 1999 (pg 285)

"Some of the lines of the Vienna Opening, 2.Nc3, are indeed quite promising for White; unfortunately, the standard response 2...Nf6 3 f4 d5 is fully effective as theory suggests"

Thanks, Barry. That's exactly what I meant.

DJ

Carl Gorka
14-03-2006, 10:40 PM
Denis said weakish or unsound. I believe the Vienna is weakish in the sense that Black has an easy road to equality and therefore offers White little chance of maintaining the advantage. No doubt you can get some advantage from an ill-prepared opponent but this is true of any opening.

To quote from NCO 1999 (pg 285)

"Some of the lines of the Vienna Opening, 2.Nc3, are indeed quite promising for White; unfortunately, the standard response 2...Nf6 3 f4 d5 is fully effective as theory suggests"


Errr.....the gambit lines with 3.f4 aren't even the mainlines of the Vienna. If White plays 3.Bc4 he has as much hope of gaining an advantage as in the Italian which the game may transpose into. Every now and again, if the Vienna is your speciality and you are in the mood, then it can be fun to go for one of the gambit lines. BTW, in megadatabase 2003 the opening 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d5 4.fe5 scores 52% for White over 2137 games. Not startling, but by no means bad.

It is wrong to suggest the Vienna is weakish or unsound...it is neither.

Rincewind
14-03-2006, 11:13 PM
Errr.....the gambit lines with 3.f4 aren't even the mainlines of the Vienna. If White plays 3.Bc4 he has as much hope of gaining an advantage as in the Italian which the game may transpose into. Every now and again, if the Vienna is your speciality and you are in the mood, then it can be fun to go for one of the gambit lines. BTW, in megadatabase 2003 the opening 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d5 4.fe5 scores 52% for White over 2137 games. Not startling, but by no means bad.

It is wrong to suggest the Vienna is weakish or unsound...it is neither.

I guess it is something of terminology. If you are saying the Vienna is ok because it might transpose into sound lines of the Italian that is a funny way to do it when you could just play the Italian with probably greater ease and success. Especially since you have no guarantee of getting into an Italian after 3.Bc4.

Still think that Black doesn't have too many problem equalising against a Vienna. It is not unsound but I think 2.Nf3 would Black cause more sleepless nights.

While I don't believe in selecting opening based on statistics, 52% for White doesn't sound lik anything to right home about. I would have thought that main lines in the Spanish would be batting at 55%. Perhaps you could check.

PHAT
15-03-2006, 07:28 AM
hypoaggressive[/B][/COLOR]

hypERaggressive! ..... unless you are into defence ;)

Carl Gorka
15-03-2006, 12:03 PM
I guess it is something of terminology. If you are saying the Vienna is ok because it might transpose into sound lines of the Italian that is a funny way to do it when you could just play the Italian with probably greater ease and success. Especially since you have no guarantee of getting into an Italian after 3.Bc4.

Still think that Black doesn't have too many problem equalising against a Vienna. It is not unsound but I think 2.Nf3 would Black cause more sleepless nights.

While I don't believe in selecting opening based on statistics, 52% for White doesn't sound lik anything to right home about. I would have thought that main lines in the Spanish would be batting at 55%. Perhaps you could check.

I am saying that the Vienna is sound in its own right with many transpositional possibilities. There are many interesting possibilities in the Vienna which don't transpose, including the gambit lines.

In megadatabase 2003 the Archangel, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bb7 7.Re1 Bc5 scores 51% for White over 1030 games. I agree that statistics are not the best method of determining correctness. One factor in choosing an opening is its suitablility to an individual's style preference. If a long strategic game in a relatively closed position is not your thing, then however correct the Spanish is, it probably won't help you to achieve good results. Choosing a more aggressive policy like the Italian, Scotch or Vienna will suit you better. And really, below master level, it doesn't make a huge difference what you play as you're not likely to come up against many, if any, players who will know best lines against openings. And best lines only remain so until some great pioneer discovers a new move in his pet line;)

Carl Gorka
30-03-2006, 11:01 AM
Seeing as it's the 120th anniversary of the conclusion of the first World Championship match today, here's the final game of that match. Not a great way for a player to lose a World Championship match:eek:

Steinitz,W - Zukertort,J [C25]
World Championship 1st USA (20), 29.03.1886
[ChessBase]

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.d4!? d5 5.exd5 Qh4+ 6.Ke2 Qe7+ 7.Kf2 [7.Kf3 Qh4 8.Ke2 Qe7+ 9.Kf3= Steinitz-Mackenzie New York 1883] 7...Qh4+ 8.g3 fxg3+ 9.Kg2 Nxd4 [9...Bd6 10.Qe1+ Nce7 11.hxg3 Qxd4 12.Nf3 12.h4= Steinitz-Tschigorin London 1883 12...Qb6 13.Be3 Qxb2 14.Bd3 Bb4 15.Bd4 f6 16.Rb1 Bxc3 17.Bxc3 Qxa2 18.Rb5 Steinitz] 10.hxg3 [10.Qe1+ Be7 11.hxg3 Nxc2 unclear Steinitz] 10...Qg4 11.Qe1+ Be7 12.Bd3  13.h4 +- Seinitz [12.Rh4 Nxc2 13.Qe5 Qg6 14.Rb1 Qf6 15.Bb5+ (15.Qxc7 Ne1+ 16.Kh2 Qxf1-+) 15...Kd8 with advantage to Black Steinitz] 12...Nf5 [12...Kd8 13.Ne4 Steinitz] 13.Nf3 Bd7 14.Bf4 [14.Ne5 Qxg3+ 15.Qxg3 Nxg3 16.Nxd7 (16.Kxg3 Bd6 17.Bf4 g5 unclear) 16...Nxh1 17.Ne5 f6 18.Bb5+ Kf8 with compensation] 14...f6 15.Ne4 Ngh6 [15...0-0-0 16.Nf2 (16.Qa5+-) 16...Qg6 17.g4 h5 (17...Ngh6 18.Bxh6+-) 18.Bxf5 Bxf5 19.Nh4+- Steinitz;
15...h5 16.Nh4  17.f2 16...Bc8 (16...Nd6 17.Nxd6+ cxd6 18.Ng6+-  19.h4) 17.d6 Nxd6 (17...cxd6 18.Nxf5+-) 18.Bxd6 cxd6 19.Nxd6+ Kd8 (19...Kf8 20.Ng6++-; 19...Kd7 20.Bf5++-) 20.Nf7++- Steinitz] 16.Bxh6 Nxh6 17.Rxh6 gxh6 [17...Bc8 18.Rh4 Qd7 19.d6 cxd6 20.Bb5 Qxb5 21.Nxd6++-;
17...Kd8 18.Nf2 Qa4 19.Rh4 Bb4 20.Rxb4+- Steinitz] 18.Nxf6+ Kf7 19.Nxg4 Zeit:Zukertort:34min Steinitz:30min 1-0