[quote author=Uberdeker link=1159148601/0#11 date=1159211742] White has several lines against the Budapest which prevent Black from completely equalising, and the Kth3 variations favoured by Markovich may be among these, but Black always has good counterplay at his disposal.
The line that limits Black's activity the most, while at the same time maintaining a slight positional edge is 4. Bf4 Ktc6 ; 5. Ktf3 Bb4+ ; 6. Ktd2 Ktcxe5 ; 7. a3.
For one thing, there's no Q'sRookswing to the King-side here.[/quote]
That's a good line (I presume 7..Ngxe5 not Ncxe5), though personally I feel 7 e3 is even a bit better as you save a tempo (and you are not suddenly mated in blitz ;D) which can be used to get the f1 bishop out.

I still fail to see the benefits of Nh3 though. Sure you can get a knight to d5 and put a pawn on f4, but in the meantime black can clog up the e-file and if need be play c6 at some point.

Thanks for all the feedback.  Hopefully I will get a chance to play it this weekend.

What's the deal with e3 and Nh3? After something like  5...Ng6 6. g3 Bb4+ 7.Bd2 a5 (Bxd2) you are left with less than with any of the other lines.

I've always played the line
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. Bf4 Nc6 5. Nf3 Bb4+ 6. Nc3 Qe7 7. Qd5 Bxc3+ 8. bxc3 f6 9. exf6 Nxf6 10. Qd3
as White and been rather succesful with it. Some people here say Black has full compensation but I hardly believe that. PLay can continue:
10...d6 11. g3 0-0 12. Bg2 Bg4 13. Rab1 (given by Hans Berliner) Rab8 14. Rb2

I feel rather comfortable in such a variation, as in all my games the question was only whether I can win or only draw. White has an extra pawn (OK, a pretty weird on on the c file, but still...) and his pieces are well placed.  I think he has a good and safe advantage in this line.

lnn2 wrote on 09/25/06 at 08:58:53:

It is a good line, but you really need to know what to do as white as the plan for black is straightforward while for white it is tough. The guys you mention have only played the line once or twice btw, while the only GMs I know of who play it with black are Rogers and Miezis. They indeed seem to use the Budapest as a drawing weapon and only lose to very strong opposition.
Quote:


That line is on the constant brink of complete refutation once a serious analyst looks at it.

I agree with Willempie in that the Budapest Defence should not be be viewed as a gambit, as the only line in which White hangs on to the pawn 1. d4 Ktf6 ; 2. c4 e5 ; 3. de Ktg5 ; 4. Bf4 Ktc6 ; 5. Ktf3 Bb4+ ; 6. Ktc3 Qe7 ; 7. Qd5 f6 ; 8.ef gives Black full compensation and -c3 is likely to fall to ...Qa3 anyway.
So the positional justification that one expects (but by no means always gets) from such real gambits as the Morra (d-file pressure) or Benko (Queenside pressure) is not needed here.
The simple fact that Black tries to prove that the c-pawn stands out of place is enough to make this a very interesting opening.
 Black's strategic goals are not clearly outlined but that does not mean he is relying on "cheap tricks". The Kingside attack he often gets is a strategic trump, which will not necessarily rely on heavy calculation. He is ready to play a complex middlegame based on active piece play and creative thinking.
 So in answer to DSanchez' worries, I can assure him that I am predominantly a positional player, and yet I very much enjoy the Budapest with either colour. It's not my main defence to 1.d4, because White has certain lines that lead to a clear edge-which doesn't meen there's no lee-way to outplay your opponent-, but as a reserve weapon, it can serve you very well.
You've already pointed out all the themes yourself, now there's nothing left to do but to play it!

I have recently started looking to add the Budapest Gambit to my repertoire.  I have found that one of the best ways to learn an opening is to find one or more masters who play the opening on ICC, and then play through a lot of their games.  I have played through mabye 50-60 games over the last several days, and the problem I am having with the Budapest is that while several tactical themes stand out, there seem to be very few positive, strategic ideas for Black.   

Compare to, for example, the Black side of the Benko Gambit:  Black's play is usually on the Qside.  He plays for pressure on the a- and b-files.  He usually must prevent the liberating f4 and e5 maneuvers by white.  If Black can neutralize White's Nc3 by either exchanging it or driving it off with ...b4, he often stands better. If Black can regain his gambit pawn, then the endgame with the Benko pawn structure should favor Black.  Black has concrete objectives he can aim for.

Also compare to the White side of the Smith-Morra Gambit.  White sacs a pawn for a lead in development.  In the main lines he gets pressure against Black's d-pawn, or perhaps a strong square at d5 for his pieces. White has concrete objectives he can aim for.

You can almost guide your entire game base on long-term strategic goals like these.

In contrast, I cannot determine any long-term, strategic objectives for Black in the Budapest.  I can't see any positional advantage, and I can't see any devlepment advantage (Black can harldly hope for such).  Besides the cheap tactic against White's f2 square, what is there?  I find the lack of concrete ideas very strange because so many legendary players have played the Budapest at one time or another.  Even in their games, I cannot find any consistent plan.  I understand the concept of "active piece play," but I think there are other Black openings that achieve this with less risk.  Maybe I am overlooking something.  If anyone could describe to me some thematic, long-term goals for Black, I would appreciate it.

By the way, here are some of the thematic ideas I have uncovered so far.  As mentioned above, they are more tactical then strategic.  Comments welcome.

- Black should always regain the pawn on e5 with ...Ngxe5 -- unless he should regain it with ...Ncxe5.

- One White idea is to develop the KN via Nh3, which adds support to the f2 square, and later improve its position with Nf4.  Black usually meets this idea with ...Ng6 to keep White's KN out of play on h3. For example:  1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.de Ng4 4.e3 Nxe5 5.Nh3 Ng6

- One question Black must always face is What is the best square for his KB, c5 or b4? ...Bc5 puts pressure on the f2 square, but it can be exposed to tactics here, especially White's Qh5. For example:  1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.de Ng4 4.e4 Nxe5 5.f4 Ng6 6.Nc3 Bc5 7.h4 Nxh4 8.Qh5 Bxg1 9.Ng6

or

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.de Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Nc3 Ngxe5 7.Nxe5 Nxe5 8.f4 Nc6 9.Bd3 0-0 10.Bxh7+ Kxh7 11.Qh5+

- An early f4 move by White may create tactical possibilites for Black based on ...Qh4+

- If White plays a3, then ...a5 is almost automatic.

- I have seen Black try to ram his a-pawn down White's throat, as in:  1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.de Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.e3 Nge5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Be2 a5 10.0-0 0-0 11.Nb1 a4, and eventually ...a3.

- A common idea for Black is ...a5, ...b6, and ...Bb7. This keeps some of White's Qside ambitions at bay, and by fianchettoing his QB instead of moving his d-pawn, it keeps d6 available for Black's KB in case it gets pushed aroundd. The B looks kind of strange on d6 with Black's d-pawn is still on its home square, but can be effective.

Another by-product of Black's ...a5 move is that the development of the QR via ...Ra6-Rh6 is possible.