kylemeister wrote on 01/19/08 at 19:54:40:


If there were some qualification for having an opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to have one.  But since there isn't  , I kind of feel like 3.d5 is not the most testing move, and it probably gives up any advantage White might have out of this opening, but is it possible that he is now fighting for equality?  If Black plays normal moves, it looks like we could end up in a normal-looking KID or Benoni type of position.  I've been toying with the idea of 3...c6 to mix things up a bit.  Moskalenko recommends the Benko-ish 3...b5.

I've long had the impression that 3. d5 is common below some rating level, but it always appeared to me that the theoretical issue is whether White can equalize.  

I also have the impression that John Donaldson's reviews are shadows of their former selves ...
http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jd/Fabulous_Budapest_Gambit.html

I have this book.  Haven't had a chance to dig in too deeply yet, but so far I like it and would recommend it above either Tseitlin's book or Borik's old book.

It has a nice mix of strategic discussion and theoretical analisys.  I'd say it's a good start for someone just starting out with the BG, or someone who wants an annotated collection of quality BG games.  It's a bit inconsistent at times.  Sometimes Moskalenko will look at alternative variations in some detail; other times he will simply say something like: "7...Bg4 is also okay."

Speaking of "Starting Out," I'd say this book falls somewhere between the first Starting Out books published 5 or 6 years ago, which covered basic ideas, plans, and piece placements, and the Starting Out books today with their ridiculous morass of variations. 

Moskalenko uses a lot of space covering Rubinstein's 4.Bf4.  In fact, the first 100 or so pages are dedicated to this variation.  He discusses the merits and drawbacks of 5.Nc3 and 5.Nd2 using both classic and modern games to illustrate the evolution of the opening.  He also discusses White's 11.e3 vs 11.g3 in the main lines, recommending 11.g3 as stronger.  He gives some analysis to the ubiquitous 4...g5, which seems to bet the prescription against almost any opening these days.

The second part of the book is devoted to Alekhine's 4.e4.  Moskalenko recommends either the immediate 4...Nxe5 or 4...h4!?. After 4...Nxe5 he spends some time on 5.f4.

The third part covers the classical 4.Nf3, which at amateur levels is far and away the most popular move.

The final part of the book is dedicated to the Gambit declined and the Fajarowicz.  Coverage of the declined gambit is relatively scant, Moskalenko dismissing the lines as "not posing Black great difficulties."  In my opinion, this dismissive view is a serious deficiency.  At amateur level, 3.d5 is almost as popular as accepting the gambit, and while it may not cause Black great difficulties, I think one would still have to say White has a slight edge, and the flavor of the game is changed considerably.  If you are going to write a book aimed toward amateurs about a gambit system, whether it's the Budapest, the Smith-Morra, the Goring, or whatever, you simply have to put some effort into the declined variations.

Moskalenko's style is a bit desultory, and sometimes it's a bit difficult to follow his train of thought.  He'll make a few introductory remarks about a system, then go off on a bit of a tangent, and then come back to it later.  But the overall organization of the book is coherent enough.

In summary:  I think it's a good book, and probably essential for anyone who plays the BG or who wants to learn the BG.

Quote:

I dont have the book but would appreciate comments on it. What I even more curios about is your position on this globe - lets say Paris=e4 where are you living?