10714 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Hm, the "Black Jet" of the Rubinstein variation, I've never played that myself though I should probably use it some. It is only necessary for White to have 7 moves memorized to almost refute it but I think most people don't know about it. It sounds like you prepared for the sidelines.
I don't know about flexibility of the pawn structure and all that mess, but I do know when d4xe5 Black gets a queenside pawn majority, and this is a feature of the Budapest that I like, especially having studied king and pawn endgames more than any other type of endgame.
4. ... g5 requires a bit more than 7 moves in order for White to gain and maintain advantage and is theoretically +/= and not +/-But: 1. d4 Nf62. c4 e53. de Ng44. Bf4 g55. Bg3 Nc66. Nf3 Bg77. h4 Nge58. Ne5 Ne59. Qb3! Looks really good for White and I belive is the 'main line'
The Budapest isn't as bad as its reputation. Most openings lead eventually to fairly balanced positions. Your main concern in the opening should be to reach a middle-game position in which you feel comfortable.
My main concern as white is to gain an advantage and maintain it.As Black I look to equalize, keep the balance of neutrality, and to play for the win if opportunity presents itself.
Getting a position that super-GMs consider advantageous is worthless at our level if you (personally) don't feel comfortable in that type of position.
I've been playing in tournaments since the 1970s, and I too was once hung up over theoretical +/= evaluations. Nowadays I just don't care about that sort of crap.
Getting a position that is advantageous and one knows how to play is better than one that is even, period.Winning games is easier from winning positions. This whole idea that winning a won game is the toughest thing is chess is just silly. Winning a lost game is a lot harder and only happens when the opponent makes serious errors.Study openings, learn the middle games that come from them and the types of endgames that arise. Learn piece coordination. Aim to gain advantage as White and keep the pressure on the opponent from a position of advantage.This leads to a lot more wins and prizes than simply playing from innocuous 'even' openings that one is comfortable playing.Learning how to think critically regardless of comfort level is, I suggest, going to lead to better gains than needing to get a comfortable position in order to play decent chess.And to your statement about "I too was once hung up" which I take as a passive agressive accusation that I am 'hung up' on this ... nonsense. It is just one part of being a well rounded player that gets good results at the tournament level. Speaking for yourself, and to your own goals is one thing, but these simple platitudes that get repeated ad nauseum and thrown out at other players along the lines that opening advantrages don't matter ... well that is just silly. In most Swiss System werekenf events, in games between relatively equal strengths, MOST of the games are absolutely decided in the opening to middle game stages, with much fewer being "the tables were turned because I was comfortable in my equal and playable opening."
sicilian is a very good defense because i use it all the time but budapest is good too so yeah
Hey Ozzie, what about being known as "The Caro-Kann" player? Doesn't that limit the amount of positions you must learn and won't your opponents know exactly how to prepare? There are some people who say you can never be a really good chess player unless you play the Ruy Lopez what about that?
If my opponents prepare for the Budapest good for them. There is no amount of preparation that will match the real life experience I've gained playing it in hundreds of actual games. I also prepare and study it too, I have read and know the same books they'll be using except I read them over time and enjoy them, not just cram them trying to prepare.
What I've learned is the people in this subforum place way too much emphasis on the opening. You guys act like playing a certain opening can be the end of the world, "oh no don't play this opening, you'll lose and be a bad chess player" and some of the threads here are ridiculous like "how good do you have to be to play the Sicilian."
The Budapest is a fine opening, and introduces some open game flavor against 1.d4 2.c4. Anyway I mostly study tactics now, I am done with any and all opening preparation except to watch opening videos at night as I fall asleep for entertainment. Almost none of my games are decided in the opening and I'm being exposed to tons of different positions solving problems at Chesstempo.
Maybe I will try something different but I'll do it without studying theory and maybe I'll play the Caro-Kann against 1.e4 like Ozzie does except without studying theory either.
The difference is that the Caro is a good opening, and people who say that you need to play the Ruy Lopez to get to a strong level are stupid. It does lead to rich and fascinating positions, that is true, but chess is a rich and fascinating game, and the Ruy is one opening.
If you think I'm saying "oh no don't play this opening you'll lose and be a bad player", then I must wonder why the hell I am arguing with you. Playing sub-par openings does not make you a bad player, it stops you from getting better. Very, very big difference, although you haven't noticed it yet because the Budapest has yet to hinder your growth, which is because openings don't really matter at club level. The Budapest is hardly the only way to get an open position against 1. d4 by the way, and the sterotype that it always leads to closed positions and subtle maneuvering is crap. Try the Benoni, which can easily lead to crazy positions, or the KID, which often leads to an extremely double-edged position.
I do play the Benoni by transposition sometimes when I play the Old Indian against the English.
I'm sorry but the idea that playing a certain opening (especially if it's one you're only getting in a fraction of your games) will "stop you from getting better" is laughable. If anything the opposite is true, and this statement can be lumped in with the other "nuggets of unwisdom" that abound in this forum, just like last night I read this multi-paragraph post of a guy saying knights are better than bishops because knights can go on both colors.
You said yourself you're only 17 so why are you acting like you're an expert chess coach? What makes you think you know what you're talking about especially in regards to master level? You're still in club level like I am so how would you know what things keep masters from getting better? I'll send the memo to Richard Rapport and Mamedyarov though "better stop playing the Budapest Gambit because some 17 year old in the chess.com forums say it will keep you from getting better."
And higher rated ones, the highest rated player I've beaten so far I beat with the Budapest gambit.
And yes if you play any opening often your opponent can prepare. How is the Budapest unique in this?
I think IM Taylor knows better than any of us, and he says it's a good opening.
I will not honour this post by constructively replying to it.
I did not say I was seventeen.
Not if you are playing against 1.e4.
lol thanks it was about time someone mentioned this. Anyway I guess we could imagine that he means which opening he should spend more time studying.
Fair points. First, I don't know that there is a huge difference, for example, at the 1500 level in being known as the Caro-Kann Player™ compared with being known as the Budapest Player™. I think that at my level, the 2200 level, it's likely that it's worse to be known as the Budapest Player™ because with a small amount of study white can get a += position, whereas with a small amount of study white gets a smaller edge against the Caro-Kann. At even higher levels, it's likely much worse to be known as the Budapest Player™. I think there are two intersecting problems though. First, in general it's disadvantageous at the higher levels to have a very narrow opening repertoire. Some top players do it, but since so much of the top game is preparation, it is usually a disadvantage. Obviously the flip side is that if you play a narrow repertoire then you know it very well. I'm specifically thinking of Kramnik.
Your other point of placing too large an emphasis on opening repertoire is quite spot on. If you just know the ideas behind the openings and play solid moves with a goal of getting a decent enough middlegame position (with both white and black), and then just play, you'll go as far as your other skills will take you. As you say, most games aren't decided in the opening. A friend of mine did this, and made it up to 2100 or so without studying any openings at all. He did obviously have to play catch up at that point, but his natural talent was such that he is now a strong GM.
sicilianka no more gg
I really don't recommend it. It's not really played regularly at high level. It's mostly a surprise weapon, (check out Gelfand-Rapport Tata Steel). It is mostly seen at club level. I think that white has a small (very comfortable) advantage here.
*Another Important Thing: You cannot rely on just the Budapest against 1.d4 because white can avoid it with 2.Nf3 if he wishes!
Do you guys pronounce it 'pest or 'pesht?
by kleelof a few minutes ago
Something I've noticed with 1700+ players and those who are under
by JamieDelarosa a few minutes ago
Best White 1.d4 2. c4 player opening repertoire book
by rdecredico 120 seconds ago
First person to win 1000 games against Comp1-EASY gets 1000 trophies!
by Here_Is_Plenty 2 minutes ago
WE ARE ONE
by DrSpudnik 3 minutes ago
Why does Fritz say this is a blunder?
by Here_Is_Plenty 7 minutes ago
Is chess a SPORT?
by kleelof 9 minutes ago
Have you EVER really finished reading any Chessbook??
by DrSpudnik 9 minutes ago
by cornbeefhashvili 11 minutes ago
Eligibility for title
by LouisCreed 13 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!