Talk:Vienna Game

3.a3
There's a problem with the Mengarini line. The last sentence,
 * Also possible is 3...Bc5 4.Nf3 d6, when Black stands well after 5.Bc4 d6 6.d3 Be6, while 5.d4 cxd4 6.Nxd4 gives White little or no advantage.

has Black playing ...d6 twice, on move 4 and move 5. Does anyone know what was intended here? Quale 18:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Radical Right Wing?
What is the "radical right wing of chess," and how is the characterization relevant to the article? Dynzmoar (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Weaver was extreme (in thinking that one side had a forced win), but the quote is omly partially accurate. Bubba73 (talk), 23:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked further and found more of the quote. However, I changed the article but I put more of the quote in a footnote.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

2...f5
Is this move--a King's gambit in reverse--worthy of mention?Dynzmoar (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * BCO2 doesn't mention the possibility of 2... f5. I suspect it's unsound because White's extra tempo makes it much easier for him to attack, and unlike the similar Latvian Gambit, the diagonal for White's queen to reach h5 is still open. 91.107.130.107 (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Vienna Gambit "risky"?
I don't have access to the source and I don't have much regard for Raymond Keene's column anyway, but it seems to me a strange statement to characterise the Vienna Gambit as "risky". I think the reason it's not often seen at GM level (except in blitz and rapid) is because Black's 3...d5 is well known to equalize without too much trouble, not because it is "risky". There haven't been any significant theoretical developments in this line since the Handbuch. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)