Vienna Gambit (Max Lange) | COMEBACK from a MISTAKE!
#viennagambit #maxlange #chessriposte
First, a proposition:
Casual recreational chess should be fun!
- vitualis the Chess Noob
This is the philosophic position that I’ve adopted now while on my chess journey. Yes, I still want to learn and improve, but seeing my ELO rating go up isn’t my primary goal. Rather, my goal is that I want to enjoy the playing and learning of chess. And for me personally, an insight that I’ve developed about myself, is that a good amount of my enjoyment in chess is not simply in winning; it’s the intellectual stimulation, being part of an engaged community of enthusiasts, and in learning about the history of certain openings and lines, and the former chess masters who played them.
Now, that doesn’t mean that winning a game doesn’t matter. It is of course the proximal purpose and goal of a match. However, equating winning as the only or primary purpose for playing, in participating in the human endeavour of chess, is a pathway to disappointment and frustration. After all, people will lose half the time on average. Chess isn’t work for me, and I suspect that it isn’t for the vast majority of people playing online chess. Play for fun!
And with this in mind, there are many styles and approaches that you can take to chess. One can play in a very theoretically solid manner, follow opening principles, learn opening theory, etc. This is of course, a very reasonable and arguably the most appropriate approach to learning to play chess competitively.
However, one can also consider the Romantic approach to chess, which was the dominant style in the 18th and 19th centuries. That is, playing with an aggressive tactical flair, and knowingly choosing risky manoeuvres, because it’s beautiful; because it’s fun! And to consider: why not take some risks in online chess when for most of us, it is fundamentally a low- to zero-stakes activity?
With that digression out of the way, let’s have a look at this game!
My usual approach when I’m playing a game for fun is to try to play a gambit. These are generally suboptimal in some way, but the openings trade material/evaluation accuracy for activity and tactical possibilities. In this game, I had the White pieces, and I played the Max Lange, Vienna Gambit (1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4). Black’s best response is to accept the gambit, but they decided to respond with (3… d6), which is an inaccuracy. I commonly find that Black at the beginner-intermediate level rarely knows how to deal with this version of the Vienna Gambit as it is almost never covered by chess content creators.
We have some centre trades, and theoretically, I know that I should be ahead from having played similar positions before. Then on move 7, Black played (7… Qe7?!). Hmmm… Their tactic was clear, putting two attackers on my e4-pawn. In my mind, I kind of knew that Black’s move was probably a mistake, but I couldn’t see how to punish it during the match… However, after thinking and calculating for a minute-and-a-half, I tripped over my own feet and blunder by playing the symmetrical queen move (8. Qe2??)! Almost immediately, I saw that I had just hung my d4-knight!
The right move was to just castle (8. O-O) as Black’s queen’s attack the e4 square is illusory. If Black’s f6-knight captures the pawn (Nxe4), White can capture back (Nxe4), and if Black’s queen then takes (Qxe4), then they blunder their queen to a lovely pin down the e-file (Re1)!
But in the actual game, overthinking, and then impulsively making a move resulted in a clean blunder and Black wins my knight for free (8… Nxd4). Oh well! 🤣
And when one plays a relatively aggressive opening, one must be prepared for an opening mistake or blunder. However, this isn’t the end of the match! With lots of pieces left, there is always the opportunity to claw back the disadvantage in the middlegame, or at least, angle strategically for a draw! I really enjoy games where the goal is a comeback from a mistake as it allows a certain freedom. When you are already LOSING, the impact of risky tactics is different. If it fails, not much is lost – you were losing already. However, if it succeeds, potentially the game turns around!
So, firstly, my approach was that I needed to consolidate and get my king to safety. Black opted to opposite-side castle, which potentially favoured more tactical and aggressive approaches. I had some small development advantages, in that my pieces were largely developed, while Black’s king’s bishop was blocked in, which also hemmed in their king’s rook. In the short term, my material disadvantage wasn’t necessarily felt or expressed on the board.
I judiciously made a few trades in the centre of the board, and especially on move 15, traded my bishop for Black’s d4-knight. My logic for Bxd4 was to remove a very active piece and attacker, doubling Black's d-pawns, and opening the c-file which exposed Black's king. Black then continues to trade a set of rooks (which is a correct approach while they are up in material), but on move 17, I was excited with the position. According to Stockfish, Black is definitively winning, giving an evaluation of [-4.2]. However, I had a good opportunity of a counterattack with my queen, and my rook controlled the fully open e-file.
Black perhaps underappreciated the risk from my queen and played (17… Be7??). This move makes sense at a surface level; black wanted to develop their bishop which also opens the back rank for their rook. However, this is a blunder [-4.2 → -0.1] that practically equalises! The problem for Black is that their queen is the only defender of their bishop on e7, and after (18. Qxa7), the black queen is overloaded! Their queen was needed to defend their back rank but cannot defend their bishop at the same time.
Black makes the attempt (18… Qc7??) but this was a cascading blunder [-0.1 → +4.7] as (19. Qa8+) skewers Black’s king against their h8-rook. I now not only equalise but have gained a winning advantage! We have the same number of pieces, but I have a rook for Black’s bishop. I have a queenside pawn majority. And on the clock, I had eight minutes to Black’s three!
The one disadvantage that I did have was that my queen was temporarily a bit stuck on Black’s back rank. Black makes a great counterattack, but I find the right move and force a trade of knights. With time ticking away and their attack broken, Black suffers emotional damage. The position is still tricky to navigate, but after they make their move on move 26, Black doesn’t wait for my response and resigns, psychologically defeated. GG!
The big takeaway in this game is to not be afraid to take risks in the opening, and even if an opening gambit fails, roll with the disadvantage, and play on! Making a comeback in the middlegame is enormously satisfying!
