< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
|Mar-14-05|| ||Dudley: White doesn't have to go into any of that -he can return the pawn and play quiet lines with e3, Be2, Nf3. |
|Mar-14-05|| ||RisingChamp: You mean 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 Ng4 4 e3 or do you mean 3 e3 ok those lines arent very complicated,and the first has the GREAT advantage that several black players miss the fact that Qxg4 is threatened(and not just 1400 players either),but to define an opening as non tactical because there is one line where white can play quitely by relinquishing any real advantage,is stretching it a bit far. |
|Mar-14-05|| ||PinkPanther: <RisingChamp>
Maybe it is tactical, just tactical crap. Perhaps that's the reason that I have such a plus score against it. Not to mention, in that line you gave, I don't know how black is supposed to play Ra6 without having it taken by the white bishop. But on a more serious note, I still don't find the opening particularly tactical, and as for your comment "it's a strange looking gambit" what the hell is that supposed to mean? Because it looks strange that automatically makes it tactically complex?
|Mar-15-05|| ||RisingChamp: Lol play it against someone who knows it and well see how long your plus score lasts,it is very far from being crap,otherwise there is no way Shirov and Short would have decided to use it against Vallejo and Karpov (Karpov-Short was a candidates final).The line which is very common,is 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e5 3 de Ng4 4 Nf3 Bc5 5 e3 Nc6 6 Nc3 0-0 7 Be2 Re8 8 0-0 Ngxe5 9 Nxe5 Nxe5 10 b3 a5 11 Bb2 Ra6. Besides EVEN if it is crap,that doesnt mean it isnt tactical. |
|Mar-15-05|| ||Dudley: <Rising Champ> The idea that White controls the variations better with 1.e4 is also stretching it a bit. Maybe, if White is willing to learn seperate, usually unrelated lines in response to Black's many defenses. It's a lot easier on the memory to play various closed openings which may not be forcing, but have more related ideas. The debate about the Budapest is interesting, but if White doesn't want to play it he doesn't have to. 1.c4 or 1.d4 and 2.Nf3 avoid it completely. By the way, when you get to be a GM I suspect you'll find out it's just not good enough. |
|Mar-15-05|| ||RisingChamp: Why GMs Blatny,Legky etc play it on a very regular basis and Blatny scores around 50% with it.Besides nobody would ever play an opening at a high level if it were "just not good enough" even analytically where is the line where it is falling short?The main problem is as you pointed out,one can just avoid it. |
|Mar-15-05|| ||PinkPanther: Do you know what kind of openings Blatny plays in general? The Budapest is one of the lesser frowned upon openings he plays...not to mention Blatny is only like 2400, so I wouldn't use him as your star example. |
|Mar-15-05|| ||azaris: Blatny has an opening repertoire? I thought he just moved a different pawn on each day of the week (h-pawn only on holidays). |
|Mar-15-05|| ||PinkPanther: Concerning what I've seen Blatny doing lately, azaris is more correct than Albertan. |
|Mar-15-05|| ||Helloween: White just gets at least a small positional advantage in the Budapest, and there is no way around it.|
Honestly, who likes playing this http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... type of position?
|Mar-16-05|| ||RisingChamp: Ok a)There is no real indication that the small positional advantage is enough for a win especially when u consider the miserable Berlin positions which Kramnik made fashionable.I mean who would want to play those any more than these. b)Here are 2 of the "ways around it" 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e5 3 de Ng4 4 Bf4 g5 and the second 4 Bf4 Bb4+ 5 Nbd2 d6 6 exd6 Qf6 a favorite line of Georg Mohr who was has used this with great effect.The strongest proponent of the budapest by the way is not Blatny,but Ian Rogers if you count only players who use it regularly GM Romero Holmes also plays it a lot.By the way it isnt present in the database,but it may interest ypu to play through the game Vallejo Pons-Shirov 0-1. |
|Mar-17-05|| ||Helloween: Berlin positions aren't necessarily miserable, just not particularly active. The 2 Bishops can come in handy. It's decent choice for a solid opening against an aggressive White player.|
Like I said, there is no way around it: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 g5 5.Bg3 Bg7 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Nc3 Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.e3 . Here, White achieves a nagging plus that will last through the middlegame without even trying. Tell me, would you rather play this position or a razor-sharp Semi-slav main line?
The second variation you give has been worked out to a White advantage and is quite unsound: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Bb4+ 5.Nd2 d6 6.exd6 Qf6 7.Nh3 Nxf2 8.Kxf2 Bxh3 9.g3 Bxf1 10. Rxf1 Qd4+ 11. Kf3
Bxd6 12.Ne4 Qxd1 13.Raxd1 Bxf4 14.gxf4 . A very clean advantage.
Besides, White has the choice of playing 5.Nc3 anyway, forcing a transposition into 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nc3, which is of course better for him.
Black in the Budapest is really at White's mercy, theoretically. Why not
play something with a little more tactical vigor?
|Apr-01-05|| ||Abaduba: <Helloween>
There's plenty of tactical vigor in the Budapest, as Rising Champ has pointed out. I have had fun playing the Budapest on occasion, and it works precisely because of your point, <Black in the Budapest is really at White's mercy, theoretically. Why not play something with a little more tactical vigor?>
Obviously, I play it because the nicest theory is useless to a player who doesn't know that theory. And nobody I have ever played has faced the Budapest before.
Besides, to play tactically against d4, you have to take risks. A little unsoundness can win lots of games (as Moro about that). (-:
|Apr-02-05|| ||RisingChamp: That evaluation is very debatable helloween in the first line,and with blacks plan being be6 0-0-0 and a kingside pawnstorm,the position just doesnt confirm to a nagging edge type what will develop is a tense struggle.You can say white is better and put all the "of courses" and make it sound so very simple.Do you have any reason to offer why hardly any GM games go with the Bf4 line nowadays when they face BG GMs play 4 e4,the 5 Nh3 line 4 Nf3 the only time I can remember recently a GM playing the Ribinstien variation with 4 Bf4 is the fascinating struggle VallejoPons-Romero Holmes1-0.Also Helloween there is no reason to believe the Budapest is unsound.You have a habit of posting one measly line saying it leads to a clear easy edge for white when the truth is enormosuly complex.Such as your one line "REFUTATION"of the Albin which has since claimed Sokolov(2686) Topalov(2757) as victims and had draws with Dreev and Susan Polger.Perhaps these eminent Grandmasters didnt know the "refutation"? |
|Apr-02-05|| ||An Englishman: Good Evening: You know why I never liked the Budapest? It wasn't complex enough. Tactically or strategically, it never interested me as much as the KID or the NID. Helloween has a point here; there are sounder lines out there which are a heck of a lot more tactical, so why not play them?|
I liked to believe that my opponents would always play the opening well (except for those occasions when I found a hole in their repetoires). Therefore, I couldn't play openings like the Albin or Budapest and I have doubts about sitting down to a game where your winning chances depend upon your opponents' *not* knowing how to respond to your choice of opening.
Besides, I got a lot of satisfaction out of slugging it out in a line everyone knows--and beating my opponents anyway.
|Apr-02-05|| ||RisingChamp: With all due respect-I dont wish to sound immaturely antagonistic but do you really believe that playing against the openings of Albin or Budapest is merely a matter of knowing the "refutation"or playing the opening well.This year for example Dreev Susan Polgar Veselin Topalov and Ivan Sokolov have all been unsuccessful against the Albin-they are all top class players who know their openings very well,and as a rule play the opening well,my point is that too many things are taken for granted.For example 30 yrs ago the Sveshnikov was considered ridiculous and the idea was much the same as the opinions of the Albin and Budapest which you and Helloween have presented much of the arguments strength is in your faith that the opening unsound something which is yet to be demonstrated in either case. |
|Apr-02-05|| ||ongyj: With a brief self introduction, I'm really an amateur who'se really into chess openings and hereby offers what I can see. Also I'll like to invite the participants of this forum page to move to budapest gambit instead(seems slightly out of place to put budapest discuessions on QGD page) :)|
Perhaps it'll be most appropriate to bring the discuessions back to the fundamentals: Defending against 1.d4. The old(perhaps classical sounds better:) way of thinking is that Black should hold the e4 square to prevent White from playing an ideal opening with central pawns on d4 and e4. Of course this old way of thought is challenged by systems such as Gruenfeld and King's Indian Defence, which concedes the central pawns to White but in return seeks other forms of compensations. However, like it or not, this point of view is still the most popular, which could account for the deep analysis of conventional Queen's Gambit Declined systems(eg. Slav defence, or conventional 2...e6) and also the Nimzo Indian and the Queen's Indian Defence, and the Cambridge Springs defence(Orthodox).
Often some Black players(myself included) finds it somewhat uncomfortable with the pawn on e6 as it blocks the c8 Bishop. Frankly, I didn't know how the Budapest Defence was first discovered and initially when I say this opening my reactions was similar to most of us here. "What the crap is this?" Only when I played 1.d4 more often on both sides, particularly as Black, do I realise that 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 deserves at least an !? and it is becoming part of my experimental repetiore(my conventional is Queen's Indian defence and Nimzo Indian defence.) Please be abit patient...I'm coming straight to the point:) The only reason why it's yet my standard repetoire, is that it's too tactical!(Yes, I firmly stand by your point after all, <RisingChamp>! )With 2...e5!?, Black has avoided the eyesore as compared to 2...e6.
A point to note is that unlike many opening gambits, the Budapest is hard to decline. For instance, some experts analysing the Budapest pointed out that the safe looking 3.e3 actually concedes the initative and Black is actually in advantage with the harmless looking 3...Bb4!
Black will later play ...d5 standing better than White.
With the tactical lines aside for a moment, a positional line continues with 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Bb4+ 5.Nd2 Nc6 6.Nf3 Qe7 and White will return the pawn followed by a series of unavoidable exchanges. In my opinion, Black has very, very good drawing chances with a high degree of equality achieved.
What more can be desired from an ideal opening defence? The Budapest offers Black player either a solid approach as I mentioned, or tactically rich ones as <RisingChamp> mentioned. Now I'm going to challenge the views that some of the other users have offered above.
|Apr-02-05|| ||ongyj: True enough, White can play quiet moves as <Dudley> has mentioned, but it still won't change the fact that Black will regain the pawn without much concession in position. In short, Black is still rock solid! The reason for Black's solidity may be that Black has succeeded to trade off one central pawn and put a knight onto e5. White would not have an easy time just to kick it off, let alone finding a way to gain advantage to finish Black off.|
Just because White can avoid it completely with 1.c4 and/or 1.e4 and/or 1.Nf3 doesn't belittle an opening at all. If it does, all openings should be belittled, since all openings can be avoided. It just doesn't sound right, does it!?:) In fact I do try my best to avoid it, personally with 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 and/or 2.Bg5 but that also means I've already avoided Nimzo Indian, Gruenfeld and QGD Slav. Does that make it unimportant to know those lines? It doesn't because I still want to catch those opponents playing 1.d4 2.c4 if I play any of these openings.
In fact with the idea of avoiding lines and with reference to the Symmetrical Advantage Theory I actually does 'belittle' Black in both the French Defence and QGD slav by the plain exchange variation. Now that's what I call Black is doubtlessly at White's mercy, theortically(symmetrical theory in this case) as Black is truely a move down as it is at the startup position. I wonder how razor sharp the Slav defence can remain after it's being blunt by the exchange variation(meant as a joke:)
I recognise that the Budapest is not so popular, even shown by this forum page itself, but I'm still positive about it. Also, I get more satisfaction playing something less common well, since I dislike to follow the crowd blindly without keeping my mind open for alternatives.
I apologise if the partifipants find what I said hurting and/or insulting. Perhaps I got carried away, but I just find it unfair that without proper evidence so many people belittle the Budapest just because it seems more difficult to play than it really is. Chess Openings really say something about a players' personality. Even myself have changed my opinion on openings and received many bombardment replies on my point of view. But even in those cases at least I provided a line or a few moves open for discuessions. At here there are not even one solid one and what most you did are just giving untrue opinions about it when I bet you haven't even been playing with and/or against it. Hence I hope to receive constructive response, be it harsh or not, on this. After all, with discuessions comes wisdom. Thanks!
|Apr-03-05|| ||An Englishman: Good Evening: RisingChamp and ongyj, I don't find your comments antagonistic or offensive at all; indeed, I think you both articulate your views quite well.|
Let me go into greater detail as to why the Budapest never interested me. The defense has one basic pawn structure in the center: c4 and either e3 or e4 versus c7 or c6 and d6. That's it. Just the one. Compare this with the KID:
c4 and e4 versus c6 and e5;
c4, d5 and d4 versus c7, d6, e5;
c4 and e4 versus c6 and d6;
c4 and d5 versus c5 and d6.
There are others, but that will do for now. Each of these structures leads to an amazing variety of lines containing anything from intricate positional struggles to tactical slugfests. The Classical KID is known as the Death Variation in Scandinavia!
By comparison, the Budapest always felt rather paltry to me.
This analysis does not consider the history of the line. The Budapest does enjoy brief spurts of interest, yes. However, so far the interest has not lasted very long as new ways for White to maintain an edge are found.
Of course, this could all change.
|Apr-03-05|| ||ongyj: <An Englishman> Thanks for the response. At least you show why you dislike Budapest. Also glad to know that you're not offended by my previous posts. Ihe information about the Classical KID aka. Death Variation in Scandinavia is interesting to know too:) |
|Jul-25-05|| ||Double O Seven: In this line is 6...h6 a good move for black?|
|Jul-25-05|| ||Robin01: <Double O Seven> It is a playable move.|
|Jul-25-05|| ||Swindler: Yup, should lead to the Queen's Gambit Declined, Tartakower (Makagonov-Bondarevsky) Syst (D58) , a favourite of Spassky.|
|Feb-28-06|| ||hayton3: <Double O Seven: In this line is 6...h6 a good move for black?> Yes - preferable to the passive 6...Nbd7 which is the classical line. 6...h6 puts the question to the bishop forcing white to make a decision as to take on f6 or retreat to h4 where it is moved off the c1-h6 diagonal. It is the usual move in the Tartakower 7...b6 or the Lasker 7...Ne4 variations|
|Apr-19-06|| ||hamworld: what other things do you need to focus on if you wanna have the better pawns structure?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·