Hi all. I just created a group for those of you that regulary play (or plan to play) the Budapest Gambit. Personally, I play this gambit whenever I get the chance, but it is not that obvious to find people that also like this opening (and are able to share valuable information). Therefore - if you like the Budapest Gambit, join the Budapest Gambiteers, and start contributing!

http://www.chess.com/groups/home/budapest-gambiteers

Below you'll find one of the examples why I like this opening so much!

It really annoys me that people don't play it right as White.  It's an easy +/- game.  I used to play it and analyzed it extensively, but in the main lines with Bf4, Black is worse.

I have to agree. Black does gain compensation if White attempts to keep the pawn, but White can simply give the pawn back in exchange for the bishop pair. If black does not want to lose the bisho pair, he is a pawn down.

Even if White keeps the pawn, Black doesn't have enough compensation.  Sure he has positional pressure, but White's fianchettoed bishop is really annoying.  Black is toast if the game goes into an ending despite the doubled c pawns.

Too easy KillaBeez... . The Bf4 lines can indeed be challenging for black, but there's more to it than "black is toast"! Especially when you play OTB chess and your opponent does not enjoy the luxury of the game explorer, I like the straighforward ideas of this gambit and the chances it gives black.

But you're right, this is not the most popular choice amongst grandmasters. Even though very strong grandmasters use it from time to time you should be able to play something more solid - but will it be as much fun?!

I said that Black is toast "if the game goes into an ending"  He can get a fair amount of pressure on the White position, but if White knows what he is doing, he can defend those c4 pawns and restrict black counterplay.

Hi Killabeez,

I spent some time with this line, but don't think black is really worse in this variation. If you look at the game below - at move 14. Rfe1 the position seems to be equal. Black has given up a pawn, but centralized nicely and has the better pawn structure. I would say the game is about equal. I have seen from previous threads that you had some analysis going on with other players, I'd be interested to know what the problems for black are in this line.

http://www.chess.com/games/view.html?id=731341

Any ideas why Karpov didn't play this Bf4 + fiancetto + doubled-c-pawn line against Short?

I have no idea why white resigned, after QxQ, Rd2, white can play Rf1, or Qg3, or plenty of other moves w/ an even game.

Good point. Perhaps polleke can give a variation that he saw?

I like playing this gambit 

I love how people say gambits are easily refuted. We are not Fritz!

In the gambit world, those with complexity rank higher than the one-trick ponies. I put the Smith-Morra very close to the one-trick pony side, the King's Gambit (or Royal Gambit if you prefer) on the complex side, and the Budapest closer to one-trick than not. It's tough to play it as your primary defense when it's very easy for white to play the Karpov line and get a +=/= position.

I've been playing the Budapest for years.

I must admit I'm not very keen on 4 ... Bc5 I much prefer (what I think is) the main line, where it is tough to show a substantial advantage for White:

Hmmm, you're right. Rf1 would indeed lead to equality - during the game I only saw ... Qxf2 - Rd2, Qg3 - Rxb2, Rg1 - Rdd2, f5 (or something similar) - Rxg2, Rxg2 - Rxg2, Qxg2 - Bxg2, Kxg2 - g5 with a won ending for black. It was probably the queen sacrifice that was so scary to my opponent that he resigned ...

Polleke, I hate to say it, but Rf1 seems to lead to a better position for white, due to the pawn structure. Opposite colored bishops will not guarantee a draw. Perhaps after Rf1 Rxf2 Rxf2 you are thinking f5 for black?

Yes f5 makes sense... but it would make more sense to post a different example to show why I love this gambit so much!!!

Sure, granted.

For the record, I don't think the Budapest is very good.

I agree. As far as gambits go, it's extremely dull if White plays correctly (which isn't too hard to do).

Gonnosuke, you might be the right person to ask this: What do you consider to be the most critical variation against the Budapest?

I ask because, in theory, black could become very good at defending against what I've been calling the Karpov variation, and then use this defense as a means to a draw. Without debating the merits of playing a gambit opening to achieve a draw, and without comparing it to black's strategy in the Berlin Ruy, how hard do you think it is to learn the ideas behind that middlegame?