Fernando Semprun wrote on 03/31/08 at 19:45:56:


do you mean this line?
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. Bf4 Nc6 5. Nf3 Bb4+ 6. Nc3 Bxc3+ 7. bxc3 Qe7 8. Qd5 f6 9. exf6 Nxf6 10. Qd3 d6 11. g3

Thanks y'all who have taken the time to give your views, particularly Matemax there for a very considered review.

Finally I bought it too 

Reading throught the pages the last two days I got a very positive impression. You can feel Moskalenkos attidute to chess and to the Budapest Gambit - there is no final conclusion, no solution, no panacea - there are just ideas, thoughts, possibilities, riddles and lots of "fabulous" stuff. Its a book to work with, to have a very well analysed starting point. It highlights all the strategical and tactical ways within classic and modern games. I was mostly impressed seeing a game of Moskalenko dated 2007 were he came up with 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.de5 Ng4 4.Bf4 g5!? and won. I just had a look at chesslive.de on recent games in this line and its really fighting chess. There are very few draws (I looked at the games 2007 and 2008) and probably more black wins than white ones. I like this book much more than those encyclopaedic works which are outdatet the very next day.

Recommended to all chess workers and chess philosophers - not recommend for the pure chess consumers.

Nothing comes from nothing but something from hard work 

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 02/01/08 at 03:08:21:


It probably will not help you -- use your $ elsewhere.  Besides, White probably doesn't need any help against the Budapest.  I noticed Moskalenko himself avoided the BG against Akopian in Rd 1of the Moscow Open.

I got the book to see if it provided any insights to the Faj
I was not disappointed.

I bought Gutmans Faj book 2 years ago and could never get my head around the concepts. (Not that they were really explained). 
However this book certainly makes the Faj a lot more accessible. I would recommend it as a starting point for Faj players backed up by Gutmans encyclopaedia as reference for the lines that appeal.

Glad I bought it.

dsanchez wrote on 01/19/08 at 20:19:42:


No.  A normal move would be 3...Bc5.  It seems clear then that equality is the best that White can hope for.

Also I don't agree with Mosalenko that the Budapest is a very good surprise weapon. Versus the Fajarowicz all White has to do is go 4.a3 and play chess. Versus 3...Ng5, he plays 4.e3 Nxe5 5.Nh3 and once again just plays chess.

Matemax wrote on 01/19/08 at 20:45:23:


Hard to say where Moskalenko falls exactly.  At times he seems enthusiastic about Black's chances, at other times he is more reserved.  I don't think he's prepared to contend that the BG should supplant the Slav in someone's repertoire, but I think he genuinely believes there is room for creativity and reasonable chances on a sometime basis.  I haven't come across the phrase "drawing weapon" in relation to the BG -- I kind of get the impression that he thinks it's either going to be 1-0 or 0-1.

In the Introduction he writes:  "Like many other players, I had been quite sceptical about the Budapest Gambit.  But as I went on, I realized that my initial suspicions were just not justified.  What's more, this gambit can surprise any player who is not sufficiently prepared, even at the highest level."

He notes that BG players likely belong to one of four categories:
A) youthful love of romatic chess
B) the surprise factor
c) the avoidance of theory
D) love of risks

Nothing about a solid opening offering definite chances when the tournament is on the line.

He includes some Megabase statistics that show big advantages for White in some lines.  But he seems to offer playable alternatives for Black.  He also notes that White's rating tends to be higher than Black's. 

Unfortunately, White has a number of systems to choose from, so Black may never be able to count on a clear path to equality.