Shock and Awe with the Vienna Gambit
Here is a temporary break from the indignity of my getting thrashed by master level players, in the shape of another Vienna where I, and hopefully your good self, get to have some fun.
Recall if you will, the charms of Vienna. It has nothing to do with the modern city of Vienna. We have to go back to a seedier time; when the human dregs of the dying Austro-Hungarian Empire drifted through the city; when bohemians (ethnic or in lifestyle) played chess in coffee houses; when Steinitz was the past champion of the world, Tarrasch the great teacher, Lasker and Capablanca the colossi of the moment, and only Rudolf Spielmann was flying the lone flag of romanticism in the face of scientific chess.
In the end even Spielmann fell by the wayside as he also took up the scientific way of playing, albeit in the style of the so-called neo-romanticism of Nimzovich. But it wasn’t the old rock and roll that was playing. True romantic chess was as dead as the imagination of a player of the Queen's Gambit.
You don’t always have to play scientifically. Life is short, so don't die wondering. You can put a little adventure in your life by playing the Vienna Gambit.
Anyway, the Vienna has a science of it's own if the truth be told. But what an enjoyable way to be scientific. Just let the orchestra play those waltzes. Bring out the pieces and the champagne and let's have at it.
The following game is part of a series of Vienna’s played over 25 years by correspondence chess, email, and across the board (see previous posting 'The Vienna Gambit ~ more tricks than a dog has fleas'). I have always relied on the Vienna - especially it's wilder scion, the Vienna Gambit. And why not? It's fun; it's sound; people think it's rubbish and don’t study it; and therefore, it wins.
Apart from Spielmann, essentially a spirit of the 19th Century, the only other modern players to have tried it have been (in order of playing strength) Spassky, Larsen, and Harding. The latter wrote a wonderful monograph on the Vienna (and the Bishop's Opening) and I would urge you to find a copy and start reviving your stale chess repertoire, before you get too old to play chess. Do you really want to be known in the nursing home as a player who once played quiet, positional chess, or would you rather be known as a rakish, bold, gambiteer?
Do it now. Your wives and children will thank you for it. At the carrot eater level of play - somewhere around 1600 and below, I am the only person I know of who plays it regularly if given a chance. I have done so since the 1970's; even in the so-called ‘ultra accurate’ world of correspondence chess I have done well with it. More importantly, I have had fun with it.
In the absence of any other player of note, or another average oik like me willing to stick his furry neck out, the following game will have to suffice as an ersatz tribute to the Vienna.
Hope you have some fun playing over this latest offering.
Played by correspondence in the 4-2 Tournament 2570, 1996/97 of the Correspondence Chess League of Australia.
This game received only a runner-up award for ‘best game with sacrifice’ in 1997. I thought it was better than the competition, but then I would, wouldn’t I?
George Eraclides Versus M. S. Schmidt
1. e4 e5
2. Nc3 Nf6
3. f4 d5
4. fxe5 Nxe4
The Oxford Variation - the thinking players gambit line. Other variations start with Nf3 or even Qf3!?
6. bxc3 d4
Black tries to stop White from building a strong centre with d4 and Bd3. So far we are playing by the numbers.
7. Nf3 Nc6
The other main line is 7 ...c5; 8 Be2 but that's another story.
It’s time now to reflect upon the general idea of the Vienna and in particular, it's sly and seedier relation, the Vienna Gambit. It begins seemingly without passion or threat with 2 Nc3; a move many annotators have denigrated in their ignorance. However, that move is only a feint. Matters become feral very quickly after 3 f4! If Black is not careful and naively believes what the Opening's hacks tell him, he will very quickly become the victim of a whirlwind attack. Of the relative moderns, Spassky and Larsen have bludgeoned opponents to death with this opening. One awaits a further spiritual awakening among players like Kasparov, Shirov, Short, Morozevich, and other neo-romantic attacking players - what a wonderful surprise weapon it would make in their hands.
8. cxd4 Bb4+
This is better than the immediate 8 ...Nxd4. First some pieces are exchanged and Black is ready to castle.
9. Bd2 Bxd2+
10. Qxd2 Nxd4
According to the collected wisdom to date, White is supposed to play 11. c3 next. That’s the line given by Harding in his classic work ‘The Vienna Opening’ published by Batsford in 1976. Older players whose chess has become stale should try and get a copy - it’s Viagra for chess. My impression of the analysis hereabouts revealed only a relatively bleak landscape, where Black upsets White's pawns (11...Nxf3), develops apace, and White is left scowling and thinking ‘Is that all there is?’ So I tried something new and impulsive.
11. 0-0-0!? (TN)
This appears not to have been seriously attempted before. No doubt because it seems so obviously a stupid move. No one with a modicum of chess talent would bother with 11. 0-0-0. Given that my chess talent is ‘negligible-to-the-vanishing-point’, I seriously examined and then played this theoretical novelty (TN). It exposes the White King somewhat, but it also forces Black to play on his or her own terms in what is a very complicated position. The Queen's Rook is swiftly centralised, and any attack by Black will increase the quanta of complexity to chaotic proportions. Meanwhile passivity by either side will be met with swift retribution, for instance White can work up an attack on any part of the board. Those are the objective reasons for playing this move. The other important reason is that no one with any brains would play this way!
The possibilities here are, of course, practically endless, each unleashing a totally different chain of complicated play:
11...Bg4 and White has:
12. Qe3 or 12. Qb4 or 12. Qf2 or 12. Qc3 or even 12. Qf4; Black can be hit with c3 if he does not exchange; after 11...0-0 we have 12. c3 or 12. h4 - what complicated fun. Black decides not to sit on his hands and gets on with it; he now has Bxa2, Qd7 and 0-0-0 as serious options.
Also possible was:
12. Qb4 Nxf3
13. gxf3 Qc8 (or Rb8)
and the world is still a very dangerous place. With 12. Qe3 I wanted to force an exchange and open lines for the King's Rook, in order to attack the kingside.
Black obliges White. 12...Nf5 was perhaps safer, with one line 13. Qe4 and if 13...Qd5 white can try for the ending after 14. Qxd5 Bxd5; 15. Kb2 but
15. c4?! Bxf3; 16. gxf3 Nxd4 seems good for Black; also possible is the riskier 14. Qa4+. Every line seems to be unclear.
It is important to keep the White Queen on this black diagonal (13. Qxf3 Qg5+), where she also threatens a7 restricting the opponents options. Notice that White is poised to play moves like Rg1, Bg2, or d4 depending on Black’s actions. My opponents lack of development and White’s piece placement will soon start to tell. In particular, Black’s Rooks remain frustrated onlookers.
A cautious move, making possible O-O-O at some future time and threatening to check on a3. White has offered a speculative Pawn sacrifice for development, which is temporarily declined. Pity the humble infantry, always singled out for sacrifice.
Again offering the a2 pikeman in return for time to attack.
Black is reacting to the accumulating threats by simple but inappropriate development. This is an example of the clash between routine thinking (development must take place in the opening) and the needs of the actual position. He wants to take the offered Pawn and mix it with White, while also achieving the requisite level of development so he can feel safe - desires which are basically incompatible. Perhaps 14...Qa3+; 15. Kd2 O-O-O; 16. f4 was better. If 14...O-O-O immediately, the a7 and g7 pawns are loose, while 14...g6; 15. d4 stops any a3 Queen check. White is unafraid of a few checks on his King as the sequel shows, and in the meantime thereis a definite target of royal proportions for his aggressively inclined pieces.
Stopping the a3+ and planning to develop the Bishop on d3, from where he will menace the opponent’s King-side while also defending c2.
Finally - but what a time to go Pawn-grabbing. I should mention that the White a2 Pawn left the board with a very sullen expression directed at his King. Perhaps it was not too late for Black to play 15...c6 or even 15...Bf5.
All kinds of combinative visions swam before my eyes but I lacked the ability or the organizing skills to place them in any coherent order. I thought it was best not to rush, as now the Bishop eyes h7, the Rook g7, and the White centre is made more secure. I was concerned at the lack of a dashing Knight (so complementary to a Queen, with perhaps a little dalliance on the side), but the pious Bishop would do. Notice that 16. Qh6 is superficial and bad; Black plays 16...Qa3+ spoiling the fun.
Now that he has ‘won’ a Pawn Black tries to consolidate by restricting the White centre and lining up on the King. But too much time has been lost. 16...f6 allows 17. Qh6 now that the Bishop has been played to d3.
Intending either Rh5 or Rdg1 depending on Black’s reply.
I thought that 17. Rxg7+ was a flamboyant gesture which just fails. I was not concerned about Queen checks, believing in Steinitz’s dictum that the King is a strong piece and can look after itself while Black wastes time.
If 17...h6; 18. Rxg7+ is decisive after 18...Kxg7; 19. Rg1+
Interesting is 17...Qa3+; 18. Kd2 Qb4+; 19. Ke2 transposing to similar themes as in the actual game below.
18. Rh5 g6
I thought a better chance was 18...Kf7 but 19. Rxh7 Rg8; 20. Rg1 (or Bg6+) threatening 21. Bg6 keeps the initiative with a Medieval ‘hack and slash’ in prospect. If 18...Qa3+; 19. Kd2 Qb4+; 20. Ke2 Qd4 (or Rxd4); 21. Bh7+ wins.
19. Rg1 Qa3+
Hoping the checks will stop some of the relentless pressure.
If 20. Kd2 Qb4+ and White must play 21. c3 or alose a Pawn and the game.
Black has to do something to meet White’s smorgasboard of threats, including the brutal Rxg7+ or Rxh7 with a final, deadly, embrace to come. The move played is relatively best and ‘threatens’ the Rook at g1, but White has anticipated this position and is prepared for more sacrifices.
21. Rxh7! Bxf3+
22. Qxf3 Qxa1+
The best square as will soon become evident.
It looks as though Black has saved his game, but...
The immediate threat is Bc4+ and checkmate to follow soon after. Notice that Black has no useful checks at all with the White King on e2.
Despair. If 24...Rd7; 25. Bc4+ wins.
If 24...Rf7; 25. Rh8+ Kg7; 26. Qh6/h7++
If 24...Qxd4; 25. Rh8+ Kf7; 26. Bg6+! Ke7; 27. Rh7+ Rf7; 28. Rxf7+
If 24...Rxd4; 25. Bc4+! Rxc4; Rh8+ Kf7; 27. Qd7++
If 24...Rd5 then simply 25. Rxh8+ and 26. Qh7+ or even the piquant 25. e6!
Could the soul of the humble Pikeman at a2 become reborn at e5 I wonder?
25. Bc4+ Rd5
26. Rh8+ Resigns
If 26...Kg7; 27. Qh7 brings down the curtain. Similarly after 26...Kf7; 27. Qd7++
You can see what fun the Vienna has been for me over the years, and how I regret not being able to play it more often.