112 ( +1 | -1 ) Questioning NCO"Every move in this book has been personally examined by one of the four authors... We have used the latest computer tools at every stage of the writing process... an analysis engine looked over the author's shoulder, ready to spot any nonsense that might otherwise creep into the book." John Nunn, 1998. Taken from the introduction to NCO
Vienna Gambit, Kaufmann Variation C29 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d5 4.fe Nxe4 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.Qe2 This got played in Craven-Valle, Queensland Open Championship 2002. The game itself continued 6...Ng5 7.d3 and Black soon equalized.
After the game I checked NCO, and found the following variations; A) 7.d4 Nxf3+ 8.gf Be6 9.Be3 Nd7 = B) 7.h4 Nxf3+ 8.gf Be6 9.d4 Nc6 =
But what about the simple 7.Qb5+ ? Why is it not mentioned? I checked the chessbase database and found one game; Fayette-Meinsohn, Chambery open 1998 7.Qb5+ c6 8.Qxb7 Nxf3+ 9.gf Bxf3 10.Rg1 Be7 11.Rg3 Bh4 12.Qxa8 Bxg3+ 13.hg Qc7 14.Kf2 Bh5 White actually blundered away his clear advantage (and the game) in move 30. In the game White played 15.Nxd5 but what about 15.Na4 0-0 16.Nc5, and White is simply winning.
so, i guess some "nonsense crept into the book" after all...
129 ( +1 | -1 ) I think you're being a bit harsh on NCOIf you keep reading the Introduction, you'll see Nunn fully admit that "No book of this size and scope can be entirely error-free, but we have made every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate as possible." I've found a few inaccuracies in NCO myself, and I'm sure some of the evaluations have been overturned since the book was published (opening theory constantly changes, after all), but I don't think that this in any way diminishes the quality of value of the book. It just means you have to check the published opening analysis yourself before using it, which you should always do anyway.
As for the specific position you mentioned, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d5 4.fe Nxe4 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.Qe2 Ng5!? (6... Nxc3 looks to me like it equalizes pretty easily for Black) 7. Qb5+:
7...c6? 8. Qxb7 Nxf3+ 9. gxf3 Bxf3 10. Rg1 Nd7 (10... Be7?? drops a piece as in the game) 11. Rg3 Rb8 12. Qxc6 and Black has nothing for his lost pawn.
7... Bd7 and now:
-8. Qxb7 Nxf3+ 9. gxh3 Nc6 10. Nxd5 Qh4+ 11. Kd1 Rb8 12. Qa6 (12. Qxc7 Qd4) Kd8 when Black has some play for the lost pawns.
-8. Qxd5 c6 9. Qd3 (9. Qb3 Nxf3+ 10. gxf3 Qh4+) Na6 10. a3 Nc5 11. Qe3 with play for the pawn.
After your proposed continuation, the play all looks very unclear and dangerous for both sides. My guess is that 7. Qb5+ was probably not mentioned because it seems to be a rarely played continuation to begin with and is not objectively superior to the more common continuations.
42 ( +1 | -1 ) As a pseudo asideGallagher even admits to making a mistake in NCO in his book 101 Attacking Ideas in Chess. In NCO, after 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Bc4 Bg7 7. h3 O-O 8. O-O Nc6 9. Re1 Bd7 10. Bg5 Nxd4 11. Qxd4 h6 12. Bd2 Ng4 13. Qd3 Ne5 14. Qe2, Gallagher gave 14... Nxc4 15. Qxc4 as leading to a small advantage for White. However, in 101 Attacking Ideas in Chess, he points out his error with 14... Bxh3 15. gxh3 Qc8 with a sizable advantage for Black.
I think I can respect an author who is big enough to admit when he's wrong.