MNb wrote on 11/15/10 at 21:54:09:


There actually is a book writtin on the Scotch Gambit, "Chess Openings for White, Explained". However, it leaves out Black's best move in almost every line.

Isn't 1 e4 e5 2 d4!? exd4 3 Bc4 Bb4+ 4 c3 dxc3 5 Bxf7+ just a dubious sacrifice?

Larry Kaufman also has good coverage of the Italian Game from the Black side in his repertoire book "The Chess Advantage in Black and White"   

Kaissibers 22-25 cover the Max Lange Attack.  Stefan Buecker kindly posted a summary of the analysis (much of which stems from Lev Gutman) in his column at Chesscafe.com here:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kaiss14.pdf

They believe that 8.fxg7 Rg8 9.Bg5 is better than the standard 8.Re1+ Be6 (8...Kf8) 9.Ng5, giving White good chances of an edge as well as attacking chances, and I agree.

The line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.Re1 d5 7.Bxd5 Qxd5 8.Nc3 is covered here:
http://www.chesscafe.com/kaissiber/kaissiber53.htm

Stefan Buecker here has an interesting gambit idea which, while not promising a theoretical advantage, looks pretty sound and at least avoids the sterility of lines like 8...Qh5 9.Nxe4 Be6 10.Bg5 Bd6 11.Nxd6+ cxd6 12.Bf4 Qd5 13.c3 Rc8 14.b3 0-0 15.Nxd4 Nxd4 16.Qxd4 Qxd4 17.cxd4 =.

Having played the Scotch Gambit a fair bit myself over the years I also prefer the line 4...Bc5 5.c3 Nf6 6.0-0 to the more standard 6.cxd4 (and have scored well with it in practice), but I also agree that it doesn't give a theoretical advantage.

Btw the Vienna Gambit approach could overlap with some discussions in the other threads (the Mason Gambit one in particular) as 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 transposes to 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nc3 Nc6, when there are some fun attacking lines for White, but it is theoretically doubtful if White has equality after 4.d4 Qh4+, 4.Nf3 g5 5.d4 g4, or 5.h4 g4 6.Ng5 h6 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.d4 f3!? which appears the most critical line at the moment.  But my main practical objection to the Vienna Gambit approach is the 2...Nf6 3.f4 d5 line given above by MNb- White doesn't really get the standard King's Gambit type attacking chances there.

I must admit I don't know much about the theory of the King's Bishop Gambit after 3...Nc6 4.d4, but 4.Nf3 g5 leads to the Hanstein Gambit which is generally considered a bit better for Black.  As far as I'm aware 3...Nf6 4.Nf3 c6 is merely equal.

MNb wrote on 11/16/10 at 21:50:24:


The 5.e5 line is not bad, although White can't just rely on the coverage in Chess Openings for White, Explained. Black should equalise, but that's the case with 3.Bc4 in general and this line is quite easy to play.

I agree with you on 7.Bd2 - Black can equalise comfortably with 7...Ne4 8.Bb4 Nb4 9.Bf7 Kf7 10.Qb3 Kf8!? 11.Qb4 Qe7. However, the Pomtow Attack could be worth a try.

I don't trust the King's Bishop Gambit for White due to 3...Nc6 and 3...Nf6 4.Nc3 c6. The Vienna Game with 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 is a safer way of reaching King's Gambit positions, but I can't recommend this either due to 3...d5 4.fe5 Ne4 5.Nf3 Be7.

jeome wrote on 11/16/10 at 18:00:49:


The Dangerous Weapons series are generally good, but the reviews I have read suggest that DW 1.e4 e5 is not as good as many of the other DW books. I don't own the book, though.

Since you're rated 2000, I think you should switch to 3.Bc4. You can play d3/c3/Nbd2/Bb3/h3 etc like in a Ruy Lopez against both 3...Bc5 and 3...Nf6 if you want (e.g. 3...Bc5 4.d3 Nf6 5.c3 a6 6.Bb3 Ba7 7.Nbd2 d6 8.h3; 3...Nf6 4.d3 Be7 5.c3 0-0 6.Nbd2), or if you are more ambitious you can play 3...Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 ed4 6.cd4 Bb4 7.Bd2 and 3...Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.ed5 Na5 6.Bb5 c6 7.dc6 bc6 8.Be2.

Personally I'd recommend the Pseudo Lopez (see above), since it leads to positions similar to the Lopez and still offers chances for an advantage without all the theory of the Ruy.

Thanks MNb, very useful indeed, I'll look at the references and the variations you suggest.
What is your opinion on Emms book "dangerous weapons 1.e4 e5..." ?
If anyone knows a recent reference treating the Max Lange, I'd be interested as well.

TN, I just reached 2000 with ambition to remain between 2000 and 2100 (not so young anymore - How much can one progress after 35 ...?).

Problem is that the Scotch Gambit is not an independent opening due to the numerous transpositions. So nobody writes a book on this subject.

My first remark: if you dislike the Petrov that much you can try 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Bc4 intending Nc6 4.Nf3.
After the Petrov move 3...Nf6 White has 4.Nf3, which is the Urussov Gambit. Note that 4...Nc6 transposes to the Anti-Max Lange, which is already in your repertoire.
The best source on the Urussov Gambit is probably Danish Dynamite.
You will also find a few notes on 3...Bb4+, but they are not satisfactory. I propose either 4.c3 dxc3 5.Nxc3 Nc6 (Alterman thinks Bxc3 6.bxc3 d6 better) 6.Nge2 or 4.c3 dxc3 5.Bxf7+ (Alterman).

On 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.Nf3 Bb4+ 5.c3 you can consult Danish Dynamite again. Still I would not rule out Rolf Schwarz' golden oldie on the Göring Gambit because of the transposition 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3 dxc3 5.Bc4 Bb4. He gives an excellent summary of 19th century analysis from the Bilguer, which is of high quality. It might be hard to find though.
You seem to prefer 1.e4 2.d4 exd4 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.c3 dxc3 6.Bxf7+ above 6.Nxc3. Then Danish Dynamite will suffice again. It's treatment of 6.Nxc3 is subpar alas. The positional treatment with 0-0 and Nd5 is neglected, while this is quite promising.
On 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.c3 Nf6 you have a wider choice, as this is just the Italian. Pinsky and Palkovi have written on it; several authors (especially Marin) have included it for their black repertoire.
Remains 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.Nf3 Nf6. Again Pinsky and Palkovi have written books on the Two Knights, but frankly I am not convinced. It seems to me that the best source is a couple of volumes of Kaissiber, a magazin in German run by Stefan Bücker. As he is active on this forum (sometimes) you can send him a PM.
I have no idea where you should look for the real Max Lange these days.