< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Dec-25-08|| ||parmetd: also let us not forget who won this matchup eh? :)|
|Jan-23-09|| ||Fusilli: <<parmetd>: I still love the comments Short said about this game in Hoffman's book the King's Gambit.> Ditto that. BTW, Paul Hoffman's book is highly recommendable. I thoroughly enjoyed it.|
|Feb-02-09|| ||ToTheDeath: Short would never venture this crap against Kasparov.|
|Feb-03-09|| ||M.D. Wilson: Call it crap if you want, ToTheDeath, but Short shouldn't have played an opening like this against Karpov. Just madness.|
|Dec-06-09|| ||The Rocket: "Far from "being busted long before the game ended" (notyetagm) right before the time control I could have played 39...Rxd6 40.Bxd6 Qg6 41.Qxg4 Qxg4 42.hxg4 h3 with adequate compensation."|
I disagre nigel this opening is bad because of the fact that white gets the bishop pair with this variation(the best one) in an open position and black has exactly what in return?. It may be ok but why would you want to play stuff like this if you dont get anything dangerous from it.
This view is also shared by other grandmasters and which is why the opening is almost never played.
|Jun-14-14|| ||Domdaniel: Sigh. The Budapest is played more frequently than some people seem to realize. It's risky, but far from bad.|
|Jun-14-14|| ||FSR: You gotta love how people presume to tell Short how stupid he was for playing the Budapest in this game, in a match in which he did <beat Karpov, the perennial world champion and then perennial challenger to Kasparov>. Give the man some credit.|
P.S. You may also wish to tell Rapport what a cretin he was for playing the Budapest in Gelfand vs R Rapport, 2014. Ditto for Miezis in Ivanchuk vs N Miezis, 2014, in which he achieved a dead won game against Ivanchuk, though unfortunately he managed to lose it.
|Jun-15-14|| ||Domdaniel: <FSR> Absolutely. And, in this case, Nigel even took the time to visit this page and point out the errors of his critics.|
Perhaps the sheer obtuseness of their response is the reason Short rarely bothers to engage like this anymore.
|Jun-15-14|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi DomD.
At the lower levels The Budapest is far from risky, and you are right, it is played very frequently.
It scores quite high on the lower boards because it is not a regular visitor to the GM boards and the Black player is usually booked up to the eyelids with all it's wrinkles and traps.
If I were a 1.d4 player ('which thank the Lord I'm not sir,') I'd play 1.d4 and 2.Nf3 just to avoid it.
Budapest Gambiteers love to see games at the top level where Black losses. It lowers the Budapest percentage and in most cases it is all weaker players look at. GM opening stats and GM games.
I've no idea why. The former does not apply to them and they cannot understand the latter.
If it's stats they want.
I have a DB of now nearly 3 million+ 1400-1800 games. Under 25 moves the Black side of the Budapest score 59%. Under 15 moves it goes up to 63%.
Games longer than that and I'm rather inclined not to blame an opening. However the stat including all gams still gives Black a healty plus.
Often found Black scoring higher in the 1400-1800 range when looking at so called 'unsound' opening. Budapests, Latvians, Elephants... This is because the lower level lads often spend more time booking up on their Black openings than they do their Whites.
I know I did.....still do!
|Jun-15-14|| ||FSR: The Budapest is indeed trappy. E.g., Henricksen vs B Pedersen, 1937; W C Arnold vs M L Hanauer, 1936; M Warren vs Jan Selman, 1930; A J Whiteley vs A Dunn, 1989.|
|Jun-15-14|| ||Domdaniel: <Sally S.> - Hi.
<If I were a 1.d4 player ('which thank the Lord I'm not sir,') I'd play 1.d4 and 2.Nf3 just to avoid it.>
I *am* one, sometimes, and I agree. There are a lot of more-or-less subtle move order transpositions which can be played either with black or white -- eg, reaching the Dutch or Indian defences via 1.d4 e6, or playing d4 openings after 1.Nf3.
Some people seem to have a very limited idea of openings ... they think anything not played at elite level is unsound, even though (armed with their engines) they criticize top GMs for 'blundering'. It's clear that these people have no experience of playing masters, don't appreciate just how brutally strong GMs are, and lack any real understanding of opening theory.
Sigh. I'm off again...
|Jun-15-14|| ||perfidious: <FSR: P.S. You may also wish to tell Rapport what a cretin he was for playing the Budapest....>|
Is that pronounced CREH-tin or CREE-tin? (wink)
When <Dom> notes that <Perhaps the sheer obtuseness of (some kibitzers' responses) is the reason Short rarely bothers to engage like this anymore>, I wonder whether he is not right about that. It can be annoying as a fairly experienced player and can only imagine what a GM who has played 'em all must feel like when some yahoo remonstrates with him.
|Jun-15-14|| ||Domdaniel: <Sally> - <This is because the lower level lads often spend more time booking up on their Black openings than they do their Whites.>|
Very true, and of course the dynamics are very different to GM games, where it's rare for anyone to be unprepared.
A couple of years ago, I had a huge plus score with black, playing mainly the French and Dutch - so much so that in team games I opted to play black in every game, moving up or down a board as necessary.
It worked for a while but then I ran into trouble and lost to a few prepared lines. Recently my results with white were better - unusual for me.
|Jun-15-14|| ||Sally Simpson: Sally Simpson: HI Dom,
I think it may be the same for everyone till you get yourself sorted out.
My Latvian Gambit scored me dozens of points. My main Black defence v 1.d4 was the Hennig-Schara Gambit.
Scored massive with Black.
As White I tended to dodge mainline defences with obscure lines. Soon my grade went up and I started to bump into these good guys. I soon discovered why these lines were obscure.
If someone took the time to check I'd be willing to bet that there are more opening books geared towards playing Black openings than there are for White.
Infact no need to check, I know there are.
|Jun-15-14|| ||perfidious: <Sally> Someone other than <Dom> might have taken offence to the original <Hi Dim>, but I rather suspect he would be amused...as would I.|
|Jun-15-14|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi perfidious,
It was a typo (i next to o on the keyboard and I'm watching the football, Argentina v Bosnia, I win £90 if Argentina win. Argentina (who I also hope win the cup) are 1-0 up but are not playind too well.
I spotted it the moment I posted so I deleted, corrected and re-posted just in case there was a misunderstanding.
|Jun-15-14|| ||perfidious: Of course-would that I had a dollar for every typo I have made.|
|Jun-15-14|| ||Domdaniel: The letter 'u' is also nearby. Try to avoid it, eh?|
|Jun-15-14|| ||Sally Simpson: Someone is bound to say if first, so I will.
Dumb Daniel and Silly Simpson.
|Dec-21-16|| ||johnkr: In a recent video, V Akobian claims that this game refutes the Budapest. Whereas I believe the line with 6 Nc3 is considered to be critical.|
|Mar-08-17|| ||offramp: The most sensible thing I ever read about openings was from Kramnik, "All you want from an opening is a playable middle game."|
|Mar-08-17|| ||Howard: I believe someone said that in the book How to Open A Chess Game (1974), too.|
|Mar-08-17|| ||tamar: Portisch wrote that in "How to Open a Chess Game" which always struck me as strange because he obsessed about the opening, and advantages.|
|Mar-08-17|| ||offramp: Krammers may have read that book, or he may have reached that opinion as an independent-minded Grandmaster. |
Shorters clearly believes the same thing as Porters.
|Apr-15-17|| ||saturn2: <39..Re4?? is a blunder in a lost position that looses in about 3 different ways 40.Qd3!,hxg4,and Karpov`s choice also.>
I think 40 RxR QxR 41 Rf8+ is a forth way.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·