Quote:


What about 9.a3 ? Seems like white is just much better.

Jonathan Tait wrote on 02/10/11 at 14:28:55:


I know Georgiev in his Squeezing the Gambits book, thinks that White has "lasting pressure" in this position.  Apparently Taylor disagrees and for the record Georgiev quotes Moskalenko as writing, "What was Polugaevsky expecting in this balanced position?"

Markovich wrote on 06/16/11 at 18:25:32:

Glad you liked the idea. Probably the 11.Ne4 pawn sac (hardly a real sacrifice with those horrible doubled-isolated pawns on offer) is what Taylor missed.

And thanks for reminding me, I had completely forgot about this thread after nobody seemed interested! I should look over the analysis again.

P.S. Remarkably, Avrukh seems to think Black's sidelines after 4.Bf4 (4...g5; 4...Bb4+ 5.Nd2 d6) are a real challenge for White, so he went for 4.Nf3 instead.

Kant wrote on 02/09/11 at 22:56:00:


yes, but with the opinion that Nunn went wrong on move 12

Kant wrote on 02/08/11 at 02:15:15:


No, not at all. In fact he goes to some length to explain why this isn't any good. (In brief: a timely f2-f4 forces the e5-knight back to g6 and then the rook on a6 just looks silly.)

His line is 4 Nf3 Nc6! (not 4...Bc5); e.g. 5 e3 Ngxe5 6 Be2 g6 and White doesn't really have anything much at all, or 5 Bf4 Bb4+ 6 Nbd2 Qe7 7 a3 Ngxe5 8 Nxe5 Nxe5 9 e3 and now 9...Bc5! which is a very nice idea.

Taylor's books are always worth looking at, I think.

Stigma wrote on 05/19/10 at 22:48:19:


I am. Am I too late? I just got here. I am mainly a King's Indian Defender, but I am preparing the Faj as a surprise for my opponents since I have always used the same defense against 1.d4 for a few years now.

I've finally looked at Taylor's book, particularly the 4.e3 with Nh3 and 4.Bf4 with Nbd2 lines that interest me as white. After 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 he presents many games with White gaining the bishop pair after either 7.e3 or 7.a3, and then grinding away with his +=. Good study material for white players too!

Taylor thinks he has found rough equality by avoiding the depressing ...Bxd2 against both 7.e3 and 7.a3, but in very different ways:

a) 7. e3 Ngxe5 8. Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Be2 O-O 10. O-O Ng6 11. Bg3 Bd6 12. Bxd6 Qxd6  and now for example 13. Ne4 Qe7 14. Nc3 d6 15. Nd5 Qd8.

b) 7. a3 Ngxe5 8. Nxe5 Nxe5 9.e3 Bc5!? (discovered by Liz Taylor) and now 10. Be2 d6 or 10.b4 Bd4.

But what if White keeps both the 7.e3 and 7.a3 main lines in mind? After 4. Bf4 Nc6 5. Nf3 Bb4+ 6. Nbd2 Qe7 7. e3 Ngxe5 8. Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Be2 0-0 Taylor expects 10.0-0 Ng6 and so on, but White can switch plans with 10.a3!? and after the consistent "Taylor move" 10...Bd6 (only 10...Bxd2 accepting the transposition has been played here) 11.Ne4!? is a promising pawn sac: 11...Nxc4 12.Nxd6 Nxd6 and White can simply exchange on d6 and take the c-file, while 13.Rc1 Ne8 14.Bxc7 is more risky, but very interesting; White must be ready to allow ...Qg5xg2 in some lines. 
Instead 10...Bc5 looks playable; now 11.b4 Bd4!? is a version of Liz Taylor's idea again, but 11.Nb3 still wins the bishop pair since 11...Bb6? 12.c5 Bxc5 13.Nxc5 Qxc5 14.Rc1 Qd6 15.0-0 or 15.Qxd6 is clearly better for White. But maybe 11..d6 or 11...b6 here leads to some known theory? 

Instead of 9...0-0 Black can try 9...d6 to meet 10.a3 with ...Bc5 and be back in the Taylor repertoire. But now White simply plays 10. O-O O-O 11. Nb3 and we're right back in a position from Karpov-Short, 1992 and others, which Taylor tries to ridicule the world's top players for entering!

Probably it's a rare White player who prepares both 7.e3 and 7.a3 main lines for the sole purpose of catching out those who rely on Taylor's recommended repertoire (his lines have been pretty rare in practice, at least before publication). But if I'm right this move order trick is still a problem for black players.

Allright, sorry for misunderstanding. I'm still not sure I agree though.

My normal defences lead to strategically unbalanced positions, and are mostly reasonable tries for equality according to theory. I find this a good basis for both beating lower-rated opponents and challenging higher-rated ones.

If I play the Budapest against a stronger player, there is no guarantee that I will get attacking chances, in fact most of the main lines I've looked at are calmer and more endgame-oriented than my preferred Grünfeld, Nimzo-Indian or Leningrad Dutch lines. If White is a careful positional player he will choose 4.e3 or or 4.Bf4 and get his type of position. Sure there are some aggressive sidelines against 4.Bf4 but they just look dubious to me.

Besides, there is a big hole in this "Trapping Heffalumps"* theory of playing against stronger opponents: By avoiding your normal game against stronger opponents, you never get to test and perfect your real openings and style. 

Far better is to assess your own and the opponent's strengths and weaknesses in preparation, and find the best "match" to emphasize your strengths and his weaknesses. I try to do this for every tournament game and mostly within my normal repertoire.  Of course such an analysis may well suggest wild, tactical play as the best chance, but on the other hand even a GM could have his greatest strength in tactical positions, or in defence.

* referring to the classic "Chess for Tigers" by Simon Webb