Latest Updates:
Normal Topic C26: Vienna g3 (Read 3614 times)
Lurdock
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Orđstírr deyr aldregi

Posts: 14
Location: Reykjavík
Joined: 06/01/09
Re: Vienna g3
Reply #7 - 07/06/09 at 10:51:55
Post Tools
Bowen wrote on 07/06/09 at 10:33:12:
GM Nigel Davies recommends following the Glek Four Knights as a means of playing the g3 opening and limiting Black's rejoinders.

It always seems strange to see 3 g3 f5 as a good rejoinder as, positionally, it opens up the diagonal for White's g2 Bishop, but I guess the semi-open f-file is sufficient compensation for Black.


It strikes me as not least a matter of central control. In this system, white has a strong grip on d5 which black sometimes tries to shake by playing ...c6 and ...d5. After ...f5 exf5, white just gets pushed back in the center, when ...Bg4 is annoying if white plays Nge2 to reclaim some central influence with d4.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bowen
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 147
Joined: 07/01/09
Re: Vienna g3
Reply #6 - 07/06/09 at 10:33:12
Post Tools
GM Nigel Davies recommends following the Glek Four Knights as a means of playing the g3 opening and limiting Black's rejoinders.

It always seems strange to see 3 g3 f5 as a good rejoinder as, positionally, it opens up the diagonal for White's g2 Bishop, but I guess the semi-open f-file is sufficient compensation for Black.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2141
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: Vienna g3
Reply #5 - 07/06/09 at 00:46:43
Post Tools
urusov wrote on 07/05/09 at 19:36:48:
I could have written your question myself word for word and so thank you for posting it.  Motwani's discussion of the Vienna with g3 was also my own inspiration, though I have long debated between the Vienna method and Glek's Four Knights method with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 (2...Nf6 3.Nc3!) 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g3.  I have favored the Vienna because it leaves open the possibility of f4 in some lines and because it is just simpler.  Lately, however, my trouble with the 3...f5 line argues in favor of Glek's method.

As Black against the line I play 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 Bb4!? followed by d6, f5, and Nge7 in various orders, meeting Nd5 with Bc5.  From my experience with that line, my own inclination as Black has been to play for ...f5 against the g3 lines.  So 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 f5! seems perfectly logical to me.  Certainly White cannot be happy with 4.d3, when Black basically has an easy game.  And taking, as you point out, simply transposes to the Pierce Gambit or Allgaier Gambit with colors reversed.  I think Black is probably fine there, but I try to avoid that line as Black so why should I have to submit to playing it (and studying it) as White?

So I think my answer is to follow Glek's Four Knights, and maybe that's why he chose that method himself.


In that case you must get hold of NIC Yearbooks 42 and 43. Excellent surveys of this by The Man himself Glek. By far the best material available. (Oh and thx urusov for your dragon stuff).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10460
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Vienna g3
Reply #4 - 07/05/09 at 20:31:23
Post Tools
Of course it is possible to combine the two:
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3,
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3.

In both cases ...d5 gives equality with chances to take over the initiative.

MNb wrote on 06/25/09 at 01:45:13:
Anything new since the games Conquest-Van der Sterren, Bern 1993 (Black should have played 20...Rg5+) and Ambroz-Klovans, Riga 1981 ?

  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
urusov
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 147
Location: Kenilworth
Joined: 08/04/05
Re: Vienna g3
Reply #3 - 07/05/09 at 19:36:48
Post Tools
I could have written your question myself word for word and so thank you for posting it.  Motwani's discussion of the Vienna with g3 was also my own inspiration, though I have long debated between the Vienna method and Glek's Four Knights method with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 (2...Nf6 3.Nc3!) 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g3.  I have favored the Vienna because it leaves open the possibility of f4 in some lines and because it is just simpler.  Lately, however, my trouble with the 3...f5 line argues in favor of Glek's method.

As Black against the line I play 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 Bb4!? followed by d6, f5, and Nge7 in various orders, meeting Nd5 with Bc5.  From my experience with that line, my own inclination as Black has been to play for ...f5 against the g3 lines.  So 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 f5! seems perfectly logical to me.  Certainly White cannot be happy with 4.d3, when Black basically has an easy game.  And taking, as you point out, simply transposes to the Pierce Gambit or Allgaier Gambit with colors reversed.  I think Black is probably fine there, but I try to avoid that line as Black so why should I have to submit to playing it (and studying it) as White?

So I think my answer is to follow Glek's Four Knights, and maybe that's why he chose that method himself.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10460
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Vienna g3
Reply #2 - 07/04/09 at 21:11:09
Post Tools
Actually 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 f5 4.exf5 Nf6 (d5 5.Qh5+ is a reversed Staunton Gambit) 5.g4 is a reversed Pierce Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.Nf3 g5. The reputation of these two is somewhat dubious. But it takes a lot of study of extremely wild lines.
At the other hand 4.d3 is innocent.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bowen
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 147
Joined: 07/01/09
Re: Vienna g3
Reply #1 - 07/04/09 at 20:45:18
Post Tools
I pulled out Chessbase 2004 and found 15 games that started 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 f5.

Here White splits into two different directions 4. exf5 and 4, d3. The first was played as early as 1889 by the famous Jacques Mieses as well as Paul Motwani later on. Both games provided wild tactics under the theory that states that the best way to refute a gambit is to accept it!

More recently, the more solid, and sedate 4. d3 has emerged.

Most of the 15 games are played by players below the 2500 level so no definitive bust of Black's saucy 3....f5 has emerged.

Good luck with your hunting, if you wish to check further than Chessgames.com and the Chessbase websites may be of help. Hopefully someone else can find a definitive anecdote.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Lurdock
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Orđstírr deyr aldregi

Posts: 14
Location: Reykjavík
Joined: 06/01/09
C26: Vienna g3
07/04/09 at 16:17:00
Post Tools
I have recently been trying out the 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3 system in the Vienna, as advocated by Paul Motwani, and find the resulting positions to my liking. However, in one game I ran into 2...Nc6 3. g3 f5!?, after which I found myself drifting into a sort of reversed old fashioned King's Gambit, even giving up a tempo after exf5 d6 to play g4. Needless to say, I'm not happy if this means 3. g3 is less valid an idea after 2...Nc6 than in the normal 2...Nf6 form. Does anyone have a counter to this idea of blacks's?
« Last Edit: 09/21/11 at 06:04:36 by Smyslov_Fan »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo