Vienna Game
Sort:
As I was studying a book called "Opening Repertoire for The Positional Player". It said that the Vienna Game counts out the Latvian Gambit and the Philidor. My question is how does it count out both of them?
Maybe because, for one reason, white can still play f4? And of course, Nc3 defends e4 whereas there's no knight on f3 being attacked by pxe4. And so on and so forth. Vienna Game is good but can be drawish.
Optimissed wrote:
Maybe because, for one reason, white can still play f4? And of course, Nc3 defends e4 whereas there's no knight on f3 being attacked by pxe4. And so on and so forth. Vienna Game is good but can be drawish.
Â
Good point. Vienna gambit is substantially better for white than KG. 
The Latvian Gambit and the Philidor both occur after 2. Nf3. In the Vienna White plays 2. Nc3 instead so the initial positions of neither opening can be reached. It might be possible to transpose to some kind of 4 knights variation of one or the other, but for the most part it's going to be a different line. I don't see why Black can't play d6 in response to the Vienna but it seems pretty passive and it's not going to be Philidor unless White follows up with Nf3 after that. As far as responding to 2. Nc3 with f5 that seems to just be a bad move, but then the Latvian Gambit seems to be a bad move too. Regardless of any of that 1, e4 e5 2. Nc3 d6 is not the Philidor and 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 f5 is not the Latvian Gambit.Â
The Vienna Game and the Bishop's Opening are both basically attempts to get a favorable[for-White King's Gambit Declined position with a strong, delayed f4 move before putting a N on f3.
Vienna is a surprisingly underrated opening. Sure, it isn't as ambitious as 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3, and black equalizes relatively easy, but the resulting positions have a lot of potential for white.
Â
Regarding your question, while Philidor and Latvian Gambit transpositions can still occur after 2. Nc3, it is very uncommon and black has better responses than that. For example. 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 d6 3. Nf3 is a transposition of Philidor, but black doesn't have to play such a passive move as 2...d6, he can instead play something more active, like 2...Nf6 or 2...Nc6. In both cases, black usually ends up playing ...Nf6 before pushing the f-pawn; pushing the f-pawn, however, is the central idea behind Latvian Gambit and most Philidor lines, and in this case that idea is practically shut down indefinitely.
Yigor wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Maybe because, for one reason, white can still play f4? And of course, Nc3 defends e4 whereas there's no knight on f3 being attacked by pxe4. And so on and so forth. Vienna Game is good but can be drawish.
Â
Good point. Vienna gambit is substantially better for white than KG.>>>
I wouldn't play the Vienna Gambit because black equalises and the resulting position is pretty turgid. Not much in the way of tactics and it's hard for white to get an attack. However, playing f4 at the right time in the Vienna Game is another matter. The Vienna Game is very subtle and I found it was an excellent way to draw with much stronger players, when I was starting out in chess. But hard to win with unless Black doesn't understand the positions.
Â
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.