Here is where analysis by strong players might help resolve a point.
I'm currently playing a travel chess computer I bought, and during one recent game play began 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d3; subsequently I looked up Vienna Game in an opening book and found that 3...Bc5 was marked ?! on account of 4.Qg4! which admittedly does look rather strong. (Also see interactive board below.)
I then checked a couple online databases and the only chance I see for Black after 3...Bc5 4.Qg4 looks like 4...Nd4. Play typically continues 5.Qxg7 Qf6 6.Qxf6 Nxf6 followed by either 7.Bd3 or 7.Bb3, and despite being a pawn down Black's chances seem OK if the game results are any evidence; however, the very small number of games makes this a bit difficult to evaluate.
I was a bit disappointed that even after more than 3 minutes the computer did not appear to even consider 4.Qg4, instead initially looking at 4.d3 but (this time) eventually settling on 4.Nge2.
After manually changing the position to reflect 4.Qg4 and then playing 4...Nd4 the computer's immediately predicted line (also played) was indeed 5.Qxg7 Qf6 6.Qxf6 Nxf6, showing that it indeed "seemed to know something" about the line in question. For move 7 it initially considered 7.Bb3 but settled on 7.Bd3. (Note that "think time" is set for an *average* of 1 minute at this level, so not every move gets 3+ minutes). Then 7...Rg8 8.g3 c6
My question is, does the computer's apparent refusal to consider (over a period of 3+ minutes) the move 4.Qg4 (instead of 4.d3 and 4.Nge2) indicate a lack of analysis strength on its part, or is it justified in rejecting this move? (Possibly with still more time it might select it after all, I don't know.) Or is the position difficult to evaluate so that the computer might or might not be correct and cannot be faulted here? Note that at its strongest settings it is supposed to be rated 2000.