1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Nxe4 4.Qh5 Nd6 5.Qxe5+
I had a couple of games this past weekend, it's not such a bad choice in a team event. One of my opponents played a plan not covered by Ovetchkin/Soloviov.
5...Qe7 6.Qxe7+ Bxe7 7.Bb3 Nf5 8.Nf3 c6 9.O-O d5 10.d4
(10.Re1 is their move order, but they don't consider 10...Nd7 at all. This could be even better than 10...Na6 mentioned by Straggler. It has the same incidental "threat" of ...Nc5, and takes the same number of tempi to reach the e6-square, but from f8 it also covers the g6-square.)
10...Nd7 11.Re1 Nf8 12.Ne2 Nd6 13.c3 f6
During the game I was thinking I wouldn't mind making black's moves.

14.Ng3
(14.h3 I found one predecessor in the database with this ...Nb8-d7-f8 idea: Depasquale - Solomon, AUS ch Adelaide 2004 https://old.chesstempo.com/gamedb/game/2655009)
14...Kf7
(14...h5! is thematic, black only had this idea on move 15)
15.Bc2 Bd7
(15...h5 16.Nh4 is puzzling)
16.b3 Re8 17.a4 g6 18.Bd2
(18.c4! is sharper, in fact this was my idea behind 17.a4, but I was getting tired.)
18...Ne6 19.Bd3 Ng7 20.c4 Bg4 21.c5! Ndf5 22.Nxf5 Nxf5 23.h3
The game is briefly entertaining.

23...Bxf3 24.Bxf5 gxf5 25.gxf3 Rhg8+ 26.Kf1 Rg6 27.Bf4?
Starting here, all my moves were bad.
(27.b4 was my other candidate, probably += but it should be a draw of course.)
27...Reg8 28.Reb1? Bf8! -+

Honestly I never saw ...Be7-f8 coming. Here I woke up to the fact I was losing, but of course in a team event one plays until the bitter end. (0:1,43)

I'd be happy with the queenless middle game after 3.Bc4 Nxe4 4.Qh5 Nd6 5.Qxe5+ Qe7 6.Qxe7+ Bxe7 7.Bb3 if White did have the slight edge that the authors promise. But it has been pointed out on another forum* that after 7...Nf5 8.Nf3 c6 9.0-0 d5 10.Re1 (intending d3 rather than d4) the authors don't mention 10...Na6 -- although it was once played by Rubinstein, and seems to scupper the authors' plan, since 11.Ne2 Nc5 wins the bishop pair. Is this as big a hole in the repertoire as it seems to be?

*by someone who I think is a member here, but I'm not certain so I won't name him.

Well, take a game a like this . I cant see any obvious mistakes. I think this is nothing for white and certainly not an opening to have as your main weapon...



GG

They also cite the move 5...Be7 (mentioned by Gut Gambit above) as a reason for going with 5.Qxe5+ instead of 5.Bb3 Also I believe it's a more practical choice, for one thing, 3...Nxe4 isn't the most common move to begin with. 3...Nc6 and 3...Bc5 are much more likely, and anyone who plays 3...Nxe4 will undoubtedly be prepared for the sharp Frankenstein-Dracula variation. Why should we similarly prepare for a move that's really not all that common? And especially when they can go 5...Be7 on top of it and avoid the whole thing if they wish.

A benefit of 5.Qxe5 as I see it, is like with the Vienna itself, we're forcing the game into the path of our choosing, not giving Black the choice. Endgames like that are full of mini-traps too, it's easy for people to make inaccuracies. Probably if you prepare and analyze that endgame even 25% of what you'd need to prepare for in the Dracula-Frankenstein variation your results would be extremely good.

I also think it fits the idea of what Ovetchkin and Soloviov were trying to do with this opening. When I ordered this book I did so because they described the Modern Vienna as an opening where White could often play aggressively and sacrifice material, but that positional considerations would come first so that White could be on the safe side and play soundly. This is exactly what I wanted in an opening and it's exactly what they delivered.

They write that in the Frankenstein-Dracula variation White completely gives up the center to Black. GM Ulf Andersson prefers the endgame, and I found the position quite comfortable the one time I went into it.

If the endgame isn't to your taste, that's no reason to discard the entire book. That's just one variation and there's so much more material in here.

I won yet another fun attacking game against my computer using a line from this book since last time I posted. The variation this time was this 1.e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.d3 Bc5 5.f4 d6 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.Na4 Bxf3 8.Qxf3 Nd4 9.Qd1 b5 10.Bxf7+ Kxf7 11.Nxc5 dxc5 12.fxe5 Nd7 13.0-0+ Kg8

I don't know about you, but I prefer positions like this where I give up a little material in order to get such central control instead of vice versa. Ultimately the game was decided by one of my passed central pawns.

I have my engine set at my same strength by the way, in fact as of yesterday we're exactly tied at 58-26-58. In the subset of games where I was able to play the Vienna however, I have a huge plus score against it. Out of like 15 games it's beaten me twice, the rest have been mostly wins with some draws sprinkled in. Absolutely love this opening, a big reason why I play 1.e4.

In my view it would have made more sense to use the 2.Bc4 move order for this kind of repertoire, precisely because of this 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Nxe4 variation which isn't only equal but the sort of equality where Black's position is very safe and his correct moves are quite obvious. After 2.Bc4 Nc6 you can always play 3.Nc3 to transpose back to the Vienna, though 3.d3 keeps the opponent guessing for one more move whether you're transpose to the Modern Italian with 4.Nf3 next.

Probably the reasons the authors didn't go for this is 2...Nf6 3.d3 c6 which is probably the best independent line, but at least you get a real game after 4.Nf3 d5 5.Bb3 where there are real chances for an unprepared player to go wrong as Black, for instance the most common move is 5...Bd6 which is not the strongest.

So its a great book.

But what about the variation : 1.e4-e5 2.Nc3-Nf6 3.Bc4-Nxe4...? Can you please tell what they propose against this? Following: 4.Qh5-Nd6 5.Bb3-and now the move: 5...Be7, as mentioned before in this thread, seems to fizzle out to a complete even game. Or isnt this the case?

GG

ArKheiN wrote on 08/07/14 at 21:10:44:


Or is it the Frankenstein-Dracula? Trying to remember that old BCM article where Dracula played a series of monster opponents (the Mummy and the Wolfman was it?), who played increasingly better lines until the final clash with Frankenstein. Can't remember if Dracula was White or Black, it may have been more thematic for him to be the latter 

Curses, I must resist the temptation to buy this book in another of my ooh squirrel moments, and get back to learning the Lopez