The Modern Vienna, I don't see anything modern here, it seems that the book is giving the traditionnal (and romantic) way of playing the Vienna (the g3 Vienna seems more "modern", but the book gives the Dracula-Frankenstein, the King's gambit declined with 2..Bc5 by transposition, the reversed Schliemann, etc), but I like the romantic way! Unfortunately I have lost much of my analysis and notes on the Vienna after a computer'crash. So I will try to respond despite that. I remember having been inspired by Mitkov and Mirumian's games. In the line you give, Mirumian played 8.Ne4 a few time while Mitkov prefered 8.Bxe4 Bxe4 9.f4. I liked both but I have got a preference for Mitkov's plan and this is one of the line I always wanted to play as White in the Vienna, for example after 9..0-0 10.f5 f6 11.Ng3, the position should be objectively equal, but I like the human's play, with clear plans in the kingside. The attack is quite slow and if Black's play is good the mate isn't here, but if you play good you are not worse too. So for GM this is not very satisfactory, but at amateur's play, or at master play as surprise weapon, it can be crushing. For me 5..Bb4 is far from taking the fun away for white, but 5..Na5 is or was supposed to be more disgusting for White. Here too White should be ok but the play is more positionnal and less fun. And I should add that 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6(!) 3.Bc4 Bb4 (! ->this one from my feeling as an "old" Vienna player and Schliemann's lover), where White is playing a reversed Schliemann (Jaenisch) defense of the Ruy Lopez, with a Bishop already on c4 (so it could be seen as an improved Schliemann but for tactical reason that's not the case..), but I really like Black even if here too, White should be ok. In conclusion, I think the Vienna is perfectly playable at all level, but at master level it should work only as a surprise now, but to fight for an advantage it can't be recommanded. But for amateurs and improving players I don't see problem for White!
|