In practice, a lot of players unfamiliar with the Vienna will instead give you 3. The resulting position is playable, but as with the Four Knights, generally not much fun for the sort of player who'd opt for the Vienna to begin with. f4 without gambitting the pawn, but indeed, Black can and should spoil your fun by trading off your bishop with Na5 as soon as you've played d3. Bc4 Vienna because of the fairly reliable prospect of getting 5. Before switching to the Vienna Gambit, I was originally drawn to the 3.
Bb3:įor several decades this line was considered equal, but Ovetchkin and Soloviov shared some new analysis demonstrating that White can apply some pressure if Black is not accurate. Now Ntirlis does write of the position after 7. Bc4 as a White system about 20 years ago, but the sources then indicated 3… Nxe4 as an antidote. I should note that, as with the previous example, the above defence is not an obscure one I looked seriously at the Vienna with 3. It is worth noting that Black managed to win the endgame in the classic game Rosselli – Rubinstein, Baden-Baden 1925 however, this was more a product of the difference in the endgame ability of the players. This is objectively equal and not terribly exciting. This is not going to be attractive to White players hoping to play the King’s Gambit Declined. Ovetchkin and Soloviov recommend this as 5. dxc3 f6 is a dodgy gambit that seems unsound. Nxe4 d5 wins back the piece with a comfortable position. Nxe4 d5 is well known to be good for Black. The problem with this move order is the sequence, recommended by Ntirlis in Playing 1 e4 e5 (Quality Chess 2016): The point is that Black has more than one defensive system in the King’s Gambit Accepted that is at least equal or possibly better for him on the other hand, King’s Gambit Declined with …Bc5 seems quite promising for White. The idea is to transpose to the classic King’s Gambit Declined with …Bc5, without allowing the King’s Gambit Accepted. The book is a White repertoire based on meeting 1. Why do I bring this up in a review of a completely different work? Well, while looking through The Modern Vienna Game by Roman Ovetchkin and Sergei Soloviov (Chess Stars 2015), I found a similar glaring problem with the repertoire it advocates. This kind of thing is a classic example of how not to put together a repertoire book. What made this worse was that the line was hidden away by the authors with no indication of the problem. The authors offered no way to avoid this line, so if Black were to defend this way, White would have a position that would not appeal to the “Attacking Player”. This defence was hardly obscure as it had been played several times already when the book was published, including the game Zaitsev – Averbakh, Moscow 1964.
White now regains the pawn, but with a dead equal position, for instance after:ġ3. Indeed, Keene and Levy included one variation against it which went:ĥ… Nxe4 6.
While this line can be dangerous if Black is unprepared, objectively it should offer White nothing.
My biggest issue was with the cornerstone of the White repertoire, which was the Scotch Gambit. While superficially attractive, closer examination showed some problems with the systems recommended, so apart from the Pirc Defence, which I played for about a year before taking up something more suitable, I did not employ any of the lines in a serious game.
Vienna game series#
The White repertoire was based on 1 e4 and consisted of a series of sharp, offbeat systems, while the Black repertoire was based on the Pirc Defence and Benko Gambit. This presented a wild and woolly collection of systems for the “Attacking Player” for both White and Black. The first chess opening repertoire book I bought was An Opening Repertoire for the Attacking Player by Raymond Keene and David Levy.
0 kommentar(er)
