Talk:Vienna Game

	This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Chess Mid‑importance Chess portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

3.a3

There's a problem with the Mengarini line. The last sentence,

Also possible is 3...Bc5 4.Nf3 d6, when Black stands well after 5.Bc4 d6 6.d3 Be6, while 5.d4 cxd4 6.Nxd4 gives White little or no advantage.

has Black playing ...d6 twice, on move 4 and move 5. Does anyone know what was intended here? Quale 18:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radical Right Wing?

What is the "radical right wing of chess," and how is the characterization relevant to the article? Dynzmoar (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weaver was extreme (in thinking that one side had a forced win), but the quote is omly partially accurate. Bubba73 (talk), 23:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked further and found more of the quote. However, I changed the article but I put more of the quote in a footnote. Bubba73 (talk), 01:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2...f5

Is this move--a King's gambit in reverse--worthy of mention?Dynzmoar (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BCO2 doesn't mention the possibility of 2... f5. I suspect it's unsound because White's extra tempo makes it much easier for him to attack, and unlike the similar Latvian Gambit, the diagonal for White's queen to reach h5 is still open. 91.107.130.107 (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vienna Gambit "risky"?

I don't have access to the source and I don't have much regard for Raymond Keene's column anyway, but it seems to me a strange statement to characterise the Vienna Gambit as "risky". I think the reason it's not often seen at GM level (except in blitz and rapid) is because Black's 3...d5 is well known to equalize without too much trouble, not because it is "risky". There haven't been any significant theoretical developments in this line since the Handbuch. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxBrowne2: Do you think this still should be removed? I already downplayed the line (which felt pretty awkward/unnecessarily negative rather than objective, i.e. why is this gambit being targeted for negative comments as the first sentence of the section about it despite being fairly sound for a gambit?) in my revisions but I think it could just be removed but idk if your current view is the same as it was 9.5 years ago. Dayshade (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster Finegold said this Wikipedia entry makes controversial assertions

In his YouTube tutorial on the Vienna Game, Grandmaster Ben Finegold said that this Wikipedia entry about the Vienna Gambit "makes assertions that about half the grandmasters wouldn't agree with." I wonder if it would be worthwhile to make edits to this entry on some of the disputed points. I tried to include a link to the YouTube video, but apparently Wikipedia forbids that. But you can do a YouTube search on: "The Vienna: Lecture by GM Ben Finegold". See the video at 1:16. CoffeeBeans9 (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think specific criticisms or observations by a GM could be used in this article. Quale (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link for anyone curious: [1] His comments include: it is false that in the Falkbeer, 3.f4 is the most common move (though this was never claimed; it seems he misinterpreted being the first entry as meaning it was most common), but also later says that 2...Nf6 3.f4 is the most common which contradicts his earlier statement, so I guess he misspoke at the beginning?; that 3.a3 is stupid (it does seem like it should be moved to an "other lines" section to me); 3.f4 is the most common response to the Max Lange (what? this is false, he must have misremembered); Max Lange itself is "very rare" (also false? just rarer than the Falkbeer); 3.f4 d5 4.exd5 Nxe4 5.Qf3 is incorrectly "poo-pooed by Wikipedia" and "is the main move now" and he disagrees that the continuation 5...Nc6 6.Nxe4 Nd4 7.Qc3 is good for Black. Dayshade (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He makes a similar false claim close to the end of the video that "you almost always play 3.f4 against 2...Nc6", but this is demonstrably false. Maybe he meant he recommends it, but doesn't seem so. Dayshade (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Max Lange Vienna Gambit

If I were hypothetically to split this out, would it be preferred to use Max Lange Vienna Gambit or Max Lange Defense, Vienna Gambit or something else? Btw, still shocked the normal Vienna Gambit (higher priority to create) name had gotten removed from the Falkbeer version of it, which is more common; was there any good reason for that or just a mistake? Dayshade (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ihardlythinkso: It wasn't me who messed up the order of the move and name in the headers :P Also any thoughts on the above and the next section above on this talk page? Dayshade (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. It was you, on July 28. [2]. --IHTS (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ihardlythinkso: Weird! Probably got confused by some of the weirdnesses of the page and got the convention mixed up at the time. Also any thoughts on the original question at the top of this section as well as the next section immediately above on this talk page? Dayshade (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I realized Hooper-Whyld only calling the Max Lange Vienna Gambit the Vienna Gambit probably caused the removal of the name "Vienna Gambit" for the Falkbeer version. Gary Lane's book seems to avoid using the name "Vienna Gambit" for either line, but the name "Vienna Gambit" is used all the time online for 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4. Btw, Gary Lane's book also calls 5.d3 in the Falkbeer Vienna Gambit the "Oxford Variation". Maybe it's supposed to be "Falkbeer" for 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4, "Stanley" for 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bc4, "Mieses" for 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3, and then 3.d4 transposes to Center Game and 3.Nf3 to Petrov 3 Knights, and somehow it got screwed up and everyone got confused collectively. Dayshade (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even chess.com calls "2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4" the Vienna Main Line... oof. What have you done, Gotham. Dayshade (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Quale: @MaxBrowne2: Do either of you have any thoughts on what to do about the naming issues regarding 2...Nc6 3.f4 vs 2...Nf6 3.f4, or know of any other sources that define what the "Vienna Gambit" is? In the few PDF sources I have been able to access on the Vienna, the term "Vienna Gambit" is either never used (such as in Gary Hall's book and FCO, and by Santasiere/Smith, where despite the name of their book literally being "Vienna Game and Gambit", they don't give a definition for what the Vienna Gambit actually is), or only used for the Nc6 version (e.g. in Hooper & Whyld, as well as 101 Chess Opening Surprises, which mentions the Hamppe-Allgaier as a "rather scary line of the Vienna Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nc6 3 f4 exf4..."). Other misnamings common online (like Fried Liver for all 4.Ng5 lines in the Two Knights) don't have the dominant usage that this one seems to; doing a search, these days it seems virtually everyone just agrees that 2...Nf6 3.f4 is the Vienna Gambit. There is also theoretical discussion around about "declining the Vienna Gambit" with 3...Nc6. I've also seen masters call 3.g3/3.Bc4/etc lines the "Vienna Game" and 3.f4 lines the "Vienna Gambit" too, regardless of Black's second move. This is just the single most baffling naming issue I've encountered. I don't know if the current situation where 2...Nf6 3.f4 is not being referred to as a gambit despite also having text like "the gambit is considered too risky at the grandmaster level" works out (maybe add some text like "the variation can be considered a gambit as..."?). It's sort of a grey area kind of like Jaenisch Gambit vs Schliemann Defense where there are reasonable arguments for and against the line being considered a gambit. Another thing about 2...Nc6 3.f4 is that it has much in common with KG, whereas 2...Nf6 3.f4 doesn't (in its main line). Dayshade (talk) 10:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC) [I also wonder if the 2...Nc6 version should really be called the Hamppe Gambit or something, which would make sense with the terms Hamppe-Allgaier and so on? Also, Spielmann played 2...Nf6 3.f4 a ton but the line actually called the "Spielmann Attack" seems to have been rarely played by him - I think it might have just been his strategy against the 2...Bc5 (or via transposition with a 3...Bc5) sideline?][reply]

I'm glad you're scrutinizing this, but unfortunately I don't have anything useful to offer on this question. Quale (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, mostly just curious if anyone can track down any other sources. Can't find any other free ones. Dayshade (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]