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.pdfThey 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.htmStefan 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.