[quote author=Frendo link=1153640335/0#11 date=1167186731]In the 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 move-order White also has to contend with the move 3...Bb4

Yes it's probably the main drawback of the vienna move-order

No. The reason why you can find here:

http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1133442133/0#0

MNb wrote on 07/26/06 at 01:17:19:


Actually the Vienna move-order also avoids the Elephant gambit (2.Nf3 d5). My clubmates who liked to play the Scotch used to be so scared of me playing either 2.Nf3 f5 or 2...d5 that they would play the move-order 2.d4 exd4 3.Nf3.
I can see another argument (quite predicatable coming from me, I know  ) in favour of the Vienna move-order. After 2.Nc3 d6 White might want to go for 3.f4! Whereas if Black plays the Philidor 2.Nf3 d6 White has blocked his f-pawn. Of course one can argue the opposite: 2.Nf3 d6 allows White 3.d4 whereas 2.Nc3 d6 3.d4 is probably not good.
It is obvious that Black cannot play 2.Nf3 Bc5 but 2.Nc3 Bc5 can again be met by 3.f4!

I think the main argument should be one of statistics. How are you more likely to end up where want to go? And are there any variations along the road that you don't like (say 2.Nc3 Bc5 3.f4). Of course this depends on the level of your opponents, so statistics from TWIC are probably of little use here.
2.Nc3 allows Black to deviate with 2...Bc5, 2...Bb4, 2...d6 or even 2...c6.
After 2.Nf3 Black can avoid the Four knights with 2...d6, 2...f5 or 2...d5.
Perhaps my final argument should be this: Are there any variations (whether Black avoids the four knights or complies) where you do not want the knight on c3 or it is a liability? what about Nf3?

If you are looking for a good book on the Scotch Four knights. I can recommend the German language (with figurines) book "4.d4 im Vierspringerspiel" by Lev Gutman from 1993. It is dated but still a good introduction to the opening. I don't know if it was translated into english.

On a different note Weaver W. Adams had the same move-order problem getting into the KG declined (2.f4 Bc5 version).
2.f4 allows 2...exf4.
2.Bc4 can be met by 2...Nf6 3.d3 c6 and ...d5.
After 2.Nc3 he was flummoxed by 2...Nf6 3.Bc4 Nxe4 or 3.f4 d5.
Yesterday I saw IM Jens Kristiansen get into the KG declined with 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Nc3 d6 4.d3 c6 5.f4 against Nigel Short at the Copenhagen open. Quite surprisingly Short was outplayed and mated in 36. (www.politikencup.dk)

The Four Knights by Jan Pinski is a fairly recent book (Everyman, 2003) on the Four Knights.  IMO, it's quite a good book on the opening.

New Ideas in the Four Knights is an older book (Henry Holt, 1993) by John Nunn which, although not current on some lines, is an excellent book.  However, Nunn's book does not cover the Scotch Four Knights.

In order to enter the Four Knights via a Vienna Game move order you also need to know something about the Vienna Game.  Unfortunately, I cannot recommend a good book here.  Gary Lane's book (Everyman, 2000) was rather superficial and disappointing (there are sections where you might wonder if it was even edited).

[This is not a general criticism of Gary Lane's writing, BTW - just this specific book. Based on the strength of other stuff I'd seen from Lane, I had high expectations for this book and ordered it from Amazon sight unseen.]

Thanks a lot for the replies! I really appreciate the advice. I will begin with the four knights then, as it seems this way wins on all accounts over the scotch move order. I also looked at the Vienna move order but I think this is less forcing and gives Black more options.

It depends upon your personal taste. Black can avoid the main variation in both cases.

1.e4,e5 2.Nf3,Nc6 3.d4,xd4 4.Nxd4,Bc5 is another main variation of the Schotch
1.e4,e5 2.Nf3,Nc6 3.Nc3,Nf6 4.d4,Bb4   is an interesting side-variation of the Four Knights

What is the better way for White to enter the Scotch Four Knights,

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 (via the Scotch) or
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. Nxd4 (via the Four Knights)?