Why I switched back to the Vienna

I played the Vienna for decades then switched to the Ruy for four years.  Decided a couple of months ago to switch back, and the following is a line with which I've won dozens of quick victories with over the decades.  I almost never got such quick wins with the Ruy.

You will never get a quick win if your opponent is any good.

According with certain master from the mid 20th century (I don't remember his name), the Vienna is a forced win for white. :)

Weaver Adams

One is that by not blocking the f-pawn with 2.Nf3, White can still play f4 as I did in my game on move 3.  It's a sort of way of improving on the King's Gambit, because as you see from my game, ...exf4 for Black is very dangerous, with ...Ng8 being forced (with or without ...Qe7/Qe2 interpolated) after e5 by White

Untrue -- my opponent was in the 12th percentile of Blitz players.  Furthermore consider this game between two up and coming (both in their early 20s) super-GMs of their day, with checkmate delivered in just 11 moves:

Yes, back to school stuff, a rare occurrence nowadays, a rarity back then as well, but anyway the theory of the time was giving equal chances to Black, if I'm not mistaken, before the game, I presume, it's not that it was already known that Black is lost.

Here is another game of mine from two and a half months ago (just my third after switching back to the Vienna) which, while admittedly against a much weaker opponent, demonstrates what can happen if Black chooses yet another incorrect third move.  Everybody's prepared for the Ruy, but almost nobody it seems is prepared for the Vienna.

What's the point, indeed, of posting non-Vienna material in a Vienna thread

More accurate of me to say is you will never get a quick win if your opponent plays well. In that game, Tartakower played horribly and simply lost. Same with your game, black just played badly.

The Vienna is capable of unleasing some nasty shocks on the unwary. I played a much lower rated player a little while ago and was almost ambushed. In the end I used my greater experience to swindle my way out of a tight spot.

Any e5 player should know that 3..d5 is the only playable move in the position.

When I first played 1e4 many years ago, I did adopt the Vienna Gambit and I remember my opponent played the ef mistake on one occasion. I would like to dispute the notion of quick wins as opposed to certain wins as a desirable destination. How did your stats with the Ruy compare with the Vienna ? Since overall, the Ruy scores better, it may be worth also looking at reason why it may not have worked for you. Were you playing a sideline ?

Perhaps the Vienna would be a good opening played amongst a large pool of players. Perhaps if you are playing in a small pool the Vienna might meet it's match if people are expecting it - just some thoughts...

ok we understood that u win with 3...exf4 but really...

2 things :

- u count on this trick to win but how does it improve your play?

- no stronger player will fall for it, so the question would be, how could u handle 3...d5 (that anybody know after beginner's level).

At least when playing ruy lopez :

- ok it is unlikely u will win in so few moves but u will play more interesting games, and u will have more chances to improve.

- against stronger opponent, u will get playable position and will fight. I doubt this is the case in f4 Vienna (though it is playable).

Anyway, i often suggest playing the italian with d3, which can give lots of fun and is really easy to handle.

First thanks for your feedback.  If you will notice the first game in this thread, a 1900-blitz player (on lichess anyway) fell for 3...exf4? so it is not so infrequent as you think, even by somewhat strong players; additionally I get lots of players who respond 3...Nc6?! and 3...d6!?  I'm comfortable dealing with all of the above, and of course the principled 3...d5! as I've played the Vienna for decades.

Maybe it doesn't improve my play (I have other methods for that), but the possibility of quick wins in OTB play, against weaker or equal opponents, will not tire me out as much as the "Spanish Torture", even if I'm doing the torturing, rather than receiving it.  I did recently think about the 4.d3 Italian, maybe I can play it against stronger opposition, I know it can transpose into closed-Ruy like positions, and my black repertoire includes the possibillity of transposing into the Closed Ruy (from the Modern Steinitz), so I would learn the positions from both sides.

I'm just not looking forward to telling my coach (an IM with a GM norm)   He did *not* want me to change to the Vienna, but I've been winning lots of miniatures with it, and already don't want to give it up again.  But my coach may not want me to play the 4.d3 Italian, he may want me to stick with the Vienna against all players, not just weak ones.  I'll have to talk to him about it.

Again thanks for the feedback

This thread is hope chess, though. A better reason to switch to the Vienna would be if you get good results and like your results against people who know what they're doing. I play crap on Lichess too, Nxe4 in the 2 Knights. I beat an LM with it even after he played one of the good lines. I am surprised by how many class A or expert rated players actually fall for it or take on f7 with the Bishop and then trade their knight for it. I play that junk because I have fun with it. If I want to take it seriously and improve, though, I know I need to stop with that. It might work for you practically until you reach a higher level than the 15th percentile on Lichess (which is not so hard, I'm in the top 20%, maybe sometimes I've been in the top 15) but you have to know from the gitgo your reason is a bad reason.

I don't know, we're going to have to agree to disagree.  Playing the Vienna ensures I am playing something I know much more about than my opponent, and they often start burning clock on move 2.  Then in the line 2...Nf6 3.f4 they have 3 sub-par choices to fall for, but I'm prepared for them to play the correct 3...d5.  I don't see how that is hope chess -- indeed as a low-1700s player I recently drew a 2000-player in USCF OTB (90/30) in the 3...d5 line, and to tell the truth had a winning position except for miscalculating, which is something that probably stands more work than changing my repertoire.

It's not "hope chess" to have traps in your repertoire, not if your repertoire is fundamentally sound (it's not like I'm playing the Budapest) -- it's just practical.  If you don't like free points once in a while because of your openings, that's up to you, but my coach says my openings should be a weapon, and I think the Vienna qualifies in a lot of cases.