Just the Budapest has some lines teaching development principles very well. If you don't go too deep you get a lesson about development, centralisation, king safety, disturbing the opponents idea's which is the main part.

Additionally you learn being careful in fighting against sidelines. The Fajarowicz is a special case also teaching to be alert.

This is nothing special, as other openings are material to teach this too. My comment is not meant to promote the 2... e5 move. It is meant to respect it. The games with it might be fun and I would never censure a learning player to have some games with it. Chess is for amateurs too difficult, to exculde fun out of it.

@ an ordinary chessplayer
My point is: 
If even the great Rubinstein goes down against the Budapest, 
it is optimistic to believe that juniors will find good moves 
without knowing theory if they are caught by surprise 
in a maybe ultimately dubious opening. 

brabo wrote on 04/19/18 at 06:22:04:


Congrats!
You should produce an article/post about this subject sometime!

In my article http://chess-brabo.blogspot.be/2017/09/jokes.html I wrote:
"While reading the book H.E. Bird of Hans Renette I noticed not only that in the 19th century a lot of matches are organized but also many games are played offhand. At that time it was normal to visit a club and play an informal game against some random available player. This we don't see often anymore today. If you don't make any appointment with a player in advance then you risk not getting any game in a club. I often encountered that I left the club after a half hour to go back home as I wasn't able to find anybody free willing to play chess with me.

This sets the bar for newcomers of course a lot higher. I sometimes hear people getting rejected of a championship as the competition has already started. They need to wait for a couple of months to join any new competition. A sad consequence is that many drop out immediately after the introduction. Today we don't have enough fresh blood so this only accelerates the ageing of the club.

Likely the wide choice of tournaments explains the lack of interest in offhand games today. Most regular clubplayers don't want to play anything else than the tournaments and prefer to have a drink at the bar when they have finished their games. It is a pity as those offhand games are ideal to get softly introduced to our noble game. The score is not recorded and it allows you to experiment without needing to worry about the outcome. In offhand games it is not forbidden to talk or laugh during play at contrary as it often creates a positive ambiance."

I touched this subject a couple of months ago in a blogarticle: http://chess-brabo.blogspot.com/2018/01/halloween.html
"I sometimes hear parents complain that their children lose games due to those kind of dubious gambits. They find it lame that some players try to win by using traps so preventing their children to play a full game of chess. However traps are also an important part of chess which you need to deal with. Or you adapt the repertoire to avoid those kind of gambits or you learn the anti-dotes often after a number of losses. Recently I was again criticized of not willing to let my son play some main-openings. This would be bad for this development. Personally I don't see what the benefit is of letting my son lose games in less than 20 moves due to some traps. Today it is more important to let him play long games. First priority for him should be to build up a solid position and how to proceed instead of learning a number of theoretical moves."
Oh and my 9 year son just won the national title in the category -10 (so 1 year ahead of the competition) which is for me a strong indication that I made the right repertoire-choices for my son. Of course my son has an enormous advantage to his peers as he is the only one with a fide-master as father.

Well, I myself don't play trappy trash or "rabbit-bashing" openings against anyone, in part because it offends my taste and in part because I don't want to lose the habit of playing the best move. But when a child is my opponent and not my student, then I do not spare him, nor would I expect him to spare me. I remember once playing some innocent kid, and suddenly my kingside was going down in flames as he sacrificed two pieces, apparently soundly. I went for complications and barely survived when he hesitated in the face of possible counterplay on the g-file. Afterward I found out it was Jordy Mont-Renaud, who later became the then-youngest master in American history. He would have defeated me if he could have. 

Playing to beat your opponent is the nature of chess. I'm not sure if losing to a trap is very instructive, but one must learn to tolerate many kinds of losing if one is to thrive.

I didn't have a post-mortem with Mont-Renaud, but I would hope, that in a post-mortem with a kid I could impart some wisdom--most especially the impression that hostilities need extend only from a1 to h8.

They got to learn what's right or wrong and to think themselves. Sidelines are pretty good to show lack of knowledge and if they take the discussion after a game wrong, it's their fault.

This is wrong consideration here in the topic. Pain is the key of learning.