"Won't make much difference" : It was not meant to say that playing the BG is a more pleasant way to throw the game away, but that it's a good policy to play more aggressively against stronger players, and that your results will be no worse than with your usual (or best) openings. Two reasons for that :

1. Have you ever been suffocated by a stronger player from an equal position after playing your best opening? this is the worst experience in chess, one that makes you want to say : "no more!"

2. When playing aggressively, you randomise the game, which benefits to the weaker player. More importantly, your opponent may start to make concessions just to keep the game under control, until he makes one too many and realises that he can't win any more - or worse. I recall a game between Davoud Pira (a strong IM) and Alexei Dreev (a strong GM) won by Pira. With great modesty, he said :" First he under-estimated me, and then he over-estimated me."

As for what can be proven with a chess game I'm not too sure, but I recall an opening ceremony when the city mayor - his name was Jack Ralite - said : "I am proud to welcome this chess tournament, a battle of intelligence, in my city. But with all the problems in the world, I can't see why so many brilliant people gather just the create, out of nothing, a new set of problems for themselves to solve."

Quote:


Won't make much difference?! It's precisely the players rated above yourself, and certainly as little as 150 points, you want to beat or draw to show you're improving! I try to always play my best openings (the ones I understand best, not necesserily objectively best) against higher rated opponents. Challenge them as much as I can and let them prove they're stronger! Quite often recently, they can't...

I would rather reverse this "trick"; I have many lines that I have really given up, but I still play them against patzers (at least 300 elo lower) who won't know the best lines anyway, to confuse the "basers".

True, Moskalenko does play the BG himself (I checked the database). But as a GM probably he has the broad understanding you need to win from both wild, calm and technical positions. I suspect most amateur BG players are most attracted to the opening's attacking and tactical nature, which makes the calm lines like Markovich's 4.e3/5.Nh3 all the more effective against them.

LeeRoth wrote on 09/23/09 at 01:44:01:

No, not really. He mentions both 13.Ne4, 13.Qc2 and 13.Nb3, but all these lines end in a slight advantage for White.

Moskalenko notes that Black doesn't score well in this line, and he goes so far as to recommend 6.Nbd2 to White players. From my superficial reading he seems to find most hope for Black in 9...d6!? 10.0-0 and now 10...a5!? or 10...Bd7; or alternatively 9...0-0 10.0-0 a5.

It will be interesting to see Taylor's analysis. If Black is eventually OK against both 4.Bf4/7.e3 and 4.e3/5.Nh3, I may need a new line against the Budapest...  

TopNotch wrote on 09/22/09 at 22:50:05:

Sounds logical. I see now that Moskalenko's 2007 book also covered this, using Stohl-Blatny, Prague 1996 as his example game. The queen on d6 looks a bit strange, but maybe it's OK. The following game by a Budapest expert could be important:

[Event "ZMD Open"]
[Site "Dresden GER"]
[Date "2008.07.22"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Kunz, K."]
[Black "Miezis, N."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A52"]
[WhiteElo "2231"]
[BlackElo "2540"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. Bf4 Nc6 5. Nf3 Bb4+ 6. Nbd2 Qe7 7. e3 Ncxe5 8. Nxe5 Nxe5 9. Be2 O-O 10. O-O Ng6 11. Bg3 Bd6 12. Bxd6 Qxd6 13. Qc2 b6 14. Bf3 Rb8 15. g3 Ne5 16. Bg2 Bb7 17. Bxb7 Rxb7 18. Rad1 f5 19. Qc3 Qe7 20. Qd4 Rf7 21. Rfe1 Rb8 22. a3 Re8 23. f4 Nc6 24. Qc3 Rf6 25. b4 Re6 26. Nf1 a5 27. c5 axb4 28. axb4 b5 29. Qd3 Rb8 30. Qxf5 Nxb4 31. Rd2 c6 32. Ra1 Rf8 33. Qb1 Nd5 34. Rxd5 cxd5 35. Qxb5 Rc6 36. Ra5 Re8 37. Qb7 h6 38. Ra7 Rxc5 39. Qxd7 Qxd7 40. Rxd7 Rb8 0-1

13...b6 was not mentioned by Moskalenko, who focused on 13...Qe7 but felt White had an edge (14.c5!).

Kunz' 15.g3 may be too slow to fight for an advantage. White has other options on move 13 too.

John Donaldson has a review up on http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jd/Budapest_Gambit.html

One line mentioned there is 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.e3. White just leaves the bishop looking sllly on b4 rather than spend a tempo on a3. 7...Nxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Be2 0-0 10.0-0.

Now Donaldson comments:
Quote:


Is this a typo from Donaldson? I just don't understand how 10...Bd6 can solve Black's problems after 11.Ne4! and now:
- 11...Bc5?? 12.Qd5 d6 13.Nxc5 +-
- 11...b6 12.Nxd6 cxd6 13.Qd4 with a R coming to d1.
- 11...Nxc4 12.Bxd6 (or 12.Nxd6 Nxd6 13.Rc1 Ne8 14.Bxc7 d6 15.Ba5 b6 16.Bb4 a5 17.Bc3. White has the bishop pair and better pawns.)12...Nxd6 13.Nxd6 cxd6 14.Rc1 with fantastic compensation.

I know some people enjoy playing with an IQP but this looks too much of a good thing!

Btw. I'm also interested in the 4.e3/5.Nh3 line you're discussing, it's a very easy solution for White.

I really find it hard to understand who the Budapest is suitable for. Even if it somehow holds up theoretically, it's a rare player who is comfortable with both patient positional play (e3/Nh3 lines), technical positions where White has the bishop pair (4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ lines), attacking lines with ...Ra6-h6, and playing against a big centre in lines like 4.e4 h5!? (Taylor).

5...g6 (followed by steering the QN to c5) was also Nunn's choice in NCO, where several games are cited (including the above-mentioned Gurevich-Tisdall) which supposedly led to equality.

Markovich wrote on 09/15/09 at 02:51:00:

Sure, but imo this line is better without the bishops than with it for black as the advance of the f-pawn lacks additional firepower (ie with the c1-bishop on the long diagonal). The black f8-bishop usually isnt much use on the q-side when e3 has been played (and is very prone to tempo losses due to a3 and b4), while I think on g7 it costs too many moves and indeed gives white the time he needs to execute the plans with the knight travel and advance of the f-pawn.

Then again we are not really discussing hot theory here as I think this e3 line is one of the many where it is black who has to prove equality. I think the lines of Palliser and Cox in their 1.d4 books are much worse for black in this respect (slight but very steady advantage to white), but that's me.

Markovich wrote on 09/14/09 at 19:46:46:

I am not sure what you get against a very simple black set up (as played by Mohr who played the Budapest with some success):
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e3 Nxe5 5.Nh3 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Bxd2+ 7.Qxd2 d6 8.Nf4 0-0 9.Be2 Nbd7 10.Nc3 a5 11.0-0 Nc5 12.b3 Bf5 13.f3 f6 14.Rad1 Re8
Sure you can try for some other stuff, but you are missing that bishop sorely and black always can bail out with c6 (sometimes combined with Ng6) to kick away a knight from d5.