Budapest Gambit

 I was going through my ECO key the other day and ran across this interesting opening. I have not ran across anyone who plays it as black, but as you will see Maroczy turned this gambit into a win INBudapest. Maroczy goes on to win by resignation. It was going to be a forced checkmate

The Budapest Gambit is unsound. Black can gain some activity with it, but if white calmly builds his position without being too aggressive or too materialistic, he can get a solid positional advantage.

The MCO says it is not a true gambit unless black decides to make it so, and goes on to devote no less than 6 main lines to it (!), calling it the "Budapest Defense" rather than its gambit name.  I've heard many times that the gambit is unsound, but it's one of those that you can spring on an unsuspecting player and unless they are well versed in its lines, they will have a rough time.

It's a gambit. If White plays correctly, Black cannot possibly retake the pawn.

Cannot possibly retake the pawn? That is an awfully broad statement. I have not found a line in which Black has NOT retaken the pawn. Even in games they lost. Do you have a line in mind?

The main benefit to this gambit IMO is that there is no solid declined line for white.

 Declining is "solid", but supposedly still gives white no more than equal chances.  From what I've read, at top levels of play, it is still considered a dead end for black, but only if white wants to develop a strong pawn center and spend his time protecting it.  That gives black plenty of time to develop and attack, but there won't be any time to regain the pawn.

...umm, Karpov was able to keep his bishop pair?  What?

The best lines have nice surprises to them (like the Kieninger trap) but again, you won't get away with them if your opponent is ready for it.

Perhaps my wording was incorrect...

In the Rubenstein variation (main line) of the Budapest Gambit, White holds onto the gambit pawn.

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. Bf4 Nc6 5. Nf3 Bb4+ 6. Nc3 Qe7 7. Qd5 +=

Black normally plays f6 here. After exf6 Nxf6, White is a pawn up - Budapest Gambit Accepted.

 Better is

6.Nc3 Bxc3 7.bxc3 Qe7 8.Qd5 f6, etc...

when white is shackled with double pawns, as well as a queenside in shambles and a bad bishop.  Almost makes the 2nd pawn worth it (but not quite).

There are many posts on this and the Budapest Gambit is certainly a good opening.

Too many players at club (our) level read a book and say "it's unsound".  One good example is "take the pawn in the King's Gambit, because that's best".  Tru if you are a GM, know 20 variations and are happy to exchange a central pawn for an f-pawn because you know how to exploit this.  But... we are club players and 10 moves deep are off book and not understanding what to do.

My point is that the Budapest Gambit is often known by the Black player in much more depth than the White player.  So they have knowledge on their side.  The Budapest Gambit has never been refuted, but it disliked by GMs because the games are tactical, rather than positional.  The same reason they don't play the King's Gambit often!

"1.d4 players" usually want slower, closed games with pawns at d4, c4 and e3.  The Budapest takes this away and gives an open game.  I'd suggest that if you see an opening, like it and it fits with your style then play it.  So what, if some GM found a resource on move 12 that gives your opponent an edge - chances are they won't know it, find it or play it.  Giving you the edge.  Remember you are not playing books or GMs on here or in real life.  You are playing people who think they know whether an opening is good or bad because they read something in a book once - without never understanding the position or ideas to be played out!

My rant is over, so I'll just say this...

Go for the Budapest and enjoy it.

Mike

PS http://sites.google.com/site/michaelquigleyswebsite/budapest-gambit-blog

Gambits....I never did liked gambits, but this particular Budapest Gambit just might catch my eye......

Mike, you speak the truth. I understand the logic people are using , if the best say it is so then it is so. However that is why I brought it up here. I find that I like taking people out of thier element. like you said a 1.d4 player wants a longer positional game. This strikes me as a way to immediatly challenge that and try to force a sharp tactical game. this can and will bite you in the butt a few times I am sure. But it will get you some wins to I bet.

Turn. I am the same way i generally don't play Gambits and often times play declined lines from the other side, Which is what caught my eye, after 2...e5 Fritz estimates that any reply but 3.dxe5 leaves White at a slight disadvantage. not saying they can't be played. Just that after only 2.5 moves Black has swung estimated potential in his direction.

Do you know what Budapest is?

Playing 4.Bf4 against 1900-ish players OTB (my level), I've never had particular problems, I think the score is 4/4 in official games. The resulting positions (I usually play Nbd2 instead of Nc3) are easier to play for White.

Perhaps 4...g5!? is good, though. There is one guy who keeps beating me with it in blitz (but then, he beats me in blitz anyway :-)). I don't know the theory.

This is simply not true, and you shouldn't make speculative assertions like this just because you like this opening. The King's Gambit doesn't get played often for very different reasons: black can gain initiative by either giving back the pawn later or by means of counter-gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4 d4). The Budapest Gambit, on the other hand, simply lacks sound positional grounds if white returns the pawn and plays carefully. You argument that "it [is] disliked by GMs because the games are tactical" makes no sense. If that were true, then we should almost never see GMs play openings like the Benoni and the Anti-Moscow Gambit.

It is true that the Budapest Gambit is playable at amateur level, but that's not the point of our discussion. We are simply talking about the objective quality of this opening, not whether or not it can be played. If it is unsound (which it is), it is unsound, period.

Excellent post Bystanderz!

The Budapest isn't 'terrible' for black.  But why bother putting yourself into a needlessly worse position?  I doubt black can equalize with proper play.  The Budapest (as with many (Most?) gambits) is good as a surprise weapon only.

 Budapest is two cities Buda and Pest which became one.  They are on opposite banks of a river and linked by a bridge.

I concede that GMs don't play the Budapest Gambit because of the tactical positions, I phrased this wrongly.  I should have taken greater care.  It is not played by most GMs because the mainline tactical theory is known and deeply unexplored lines (e.g. the Fajarowicz Gambit) are tactic minefields where Black can get better play with another opening.

However, I will also correct that I said GMs don't play it.  This is too generalised.  Some GMs do play it and at some important times, namely when seeking wins rather than draws.  Yes, some GMs only try to draw with the black pieces (hardly a shock )!  In other words when trying to move away from long lines of theory.

Again, my point stands that we are not GMs and that the opening is perfectly sound for other levels, especially club-level players.  GM Nigel Davies often says that club level players should play more Gambits and obscure lines, because getting them off their book and on to yours is a building block of victory.  Even if you move onto a "refuted" line, my guess is that your club-level opponent does not know the refutation!

Good discussion this one,

Mike

Exactly what i was thinking!  

If you want to see some budapest gambit games i  played in a tournament not so long ago!

go to http://www.chess.com/tournaments/pairings.html?id=6771&round=1 to have a look at them. granted some might not be worthwhile to look at but some of them are!

I have played 10 or so games of the Budapest Gambit after reading a 2 page article on the basic ideas and lines. The results were that I either cleaned house very quickly (about 4 times), lost very quickly (about 4 times) and had 2 other epic struggles. I have to say, the games were not boring! I think it is good to try out some new stuff once in a while; you might not win, but you might learn some new patterns that will help you in some other situation.

10 games and 2 pages is definitely decisive. sound it is!

If you want to play the TRUE gambit then play 3.Ne4!?