Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Do you think the Budapest Gambit is better than the Sicilian for club level?


  • 10 months ago · Quote · #41

    mashanator

    Dolphin27 wrote:

    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.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #42

    Dolphin27

    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."

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #43

    Dolphin27

    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.

    http://timothytaylorartist.com/2011/08/chess/the-budapest-gambit-%E2%80%9Cbut-it%E2%80%99s-bad-right%E2%80%9D/

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #44

    mashanator

    Dolphin27 wrote:

    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."

    I will not honour this post by constructively replying to it.

    I did not say I was seventeen.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #45

    TwoMove

    Not if you are playing against 1.e4.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #46

    Fiveofswords

    TwoMove wrote:

    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.

  • 9 months ago · Quote · #48

    satanichess

    sicilianka no more gg

  • 9 months ago · Quote · #50

    mike_tal

    Do you guys pronounce it 'pest or 'pesht?


Back to Top

Post your reply: