Vienna Question

I am currently trying to learn the Vienna Opening (1.e4 e5 2.Nc3) in favour of the Ruy Lopez as it suits me better. To do this, I bought the Gary Lane book on the Vienna, titled "vienna game", which is a good guide to the Vienna to start off with. Most of his analyses are fairly objective, but there is one particular line which concerns me (having run it through Stockfish 7):

Your variation is a king's gambit declined after white plays f4.

I don't understand Bxf3 which is not forced, black usually waits white "loses" tempo with h3, so i prefer castle for black at this point, this is what Marin recommends in his excellent "Beating the open games".

About 9.Qg3, indeed this is a mistake.

Not only because of Nh5, but even with Nxa1, black secures a clear plus.

Lane sometimes has "holes" in his analysis...

I remember this one in his "winning with the closed sicilian" :

Thank you for the replies. I shall go through all the recommended lines with an engine and never just trust the author's analysis in the future.

It's terribly drawish for white.

Another thing you have to keep in mind is Opening Theory is like a revolving door.  It is not static. 

The idea of King in front of the pawn versus King behind the pawn in a King and Pawn versus King endgame will never change.  Not Today.  Not Tomorrow.  Not Next Year.  Not Next Millenium.  NOT EVER!

Opening theory is a whole different ball of wax, and will never remain static like endgames do except some obvious refutations.  For example, it will never change that after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.Bd3 cxd4 7.cxd4 that the sequence 7...Nxd4? 8.Nxd4 Qxd4?? is and will always be an outright blunder as 9.Bb5+ wins the Queen.  This will not change.  However, outside of clearly busted lines, things will continue to evolve when it comes to opening theory of any opening!

The book by Gary Lane is from somewhere around 2000 (give or take a year or two).  That is DINOSAUR age for an Opening book.  The fact that there is flawed analysis should come as absolutely NO SURPRISE WHAT-SO-EVER!

If you want to take up the Vienna Game, I'd recommend the follow, which was published in early 2015, not early 21st century!

http://www.houseofstaunton.com/the-modern-vienna-game.html

To give you a perspective of how opening books age:

An Opening Book from 2016 is like a baby that has started walking and talking

An Opening Book from 2015 is like a teenager

An Opening Book from 2014 is like a middle-aged man

An Opening Book from 2013 is like a person getting ready to retire

An Opening Book from 2012 is like an 85 year old in a nursing home

An Opening Book from 2011 is like someone on their last hours of life

An Opening Book from 2010 is like someone from the Civil War coming back to life and living at the age of 150.

An Opening Book from 2005 is like someone from the Middle Ages

An Opening Book from 2000 is like the days of the Dinosaurs

An Opening Book from 1995 or older is like the times before Earth was a planet!

I disagree. The Vienna is such a backwater of an opening that a book published in 2000 is probably as good as if was published yesterday. 

Why?

Because very few GMs use it on regular basis, and there is hardly any innovation taking place.

This is in sharp contrast to, say, the Sicilian Sveshnikov, where a 2005 book is indeed a dinosaur by today's standards.

Not all openings are equal. You can call me a bigot in this respect.

it is just a bad line, almost every books contains it.

The more important about a book is the explanations of ideas.

For some variations, u can fix them, not a big deal.

I think you are confusing the Vienna with the Colle Koltanowski.  Much has changed with the Vienna, especially in the lines with f4.

I should also add that when it comes to opening books, some authors are notoriously weak at analysis.  We all know about the problems with Schiller's books.  There are two authors that are not far behind Schiller when it comes to opening books being very weak:  James Plaskett and Gary Lane!  I own the Gary Lane Vienna book, and have owned it for a decade and a half.  It collects dust today.  His book on the Ruy Lopez is no better, and Plaskett's book on the Grand Prix Attack is horrific, and his Taimanov book from the late 90s wasn't much better - of course, even if it were good, it would be another "dinosaur" today!