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

Did you just use a racial slur?

Also you say you prefer classical as opposed to fast chess yet you've played 4,000 blitz and bullet games here and barely any standard.

And yes, we know you used to use the Budapest and gave it up, you've wrote that several times, we get it. You blame your losses on openings and stop using them. I'm the opposite and never blame my failues on the opening. All the openings I decided to use when I started playing I'm still using now.

Sure why not if you are an aggressive player will be at home.

Heh. Despite agreeing with Mash, on certain points in your "conversation"...for the most part, you're right, Dolphin. The Opening used is ultimately not the reason one loses an game. In fact, till this day, I'm scared of facing the Budapest. Even though I haven't faced it in 20+ yrs (OF COURSE, heh, I play specific move orders to avoid it and others. The Benko Counter-gambit, being another one!)

But as you've since elaborated on your original post, I would say most definitely the Sicilian is great at any level. But employing the Budapest at club level, especially if you're an devotee, is probably more sucessful.

I find myself agreeing that being known as the Budapest Player™ will hinder your chess the higher you go. I believe that people often gravitate towards this opening because it drastically reduces the amount of positions you must learn. But the opposite is also true. If you are the Budapest Player™, then people who play you know exactly how to prepare. And the higher you get, like if you're the lone Master in your region, then all of the people 100-200 points below you will actually spend time preparing just for that. Maybe you'll still win the games, but in that scenario you would have already lost the opening preparation battle.

OP I think you are right, but from what I have seen people that like offbeat openings end up with a lower peak. And once you hit it it will be there untill you go back and lay the ground work.

If you dont care about how far you can rise then less common openings are far better than main ones.

Here is an oversimplification on the concept. You've seen the budapest a 100 times your opponent 10 you beat him. You have seen the budapest 1,000 times your opponent 100 he beats you.

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.

Well rdecredico, perhaps you can tell us what you prepared and we can all discuss it so this preparation doesn't become a complete waste.

I regret making this thread and all other threads I've made in this subforum. When this thread was made I had only been  playing chess for a few months, and like a lot of beginners I was focused too much on openings. Learning the game of chess can be overwhelming and I think beginners take some comfort in being able to simplify it somewhat and say "I am a such and such opening player". By the way Ozzie, I started playing the Budapest not because I wanted to "reduce the amount of positions I had to learn" (how exactly is this since there are many responses to the Budapest including ones where White just instantly gives the pawn back?" The reason I started playing it is I needed some opening against 1.d4 and it looked interesting to me.

It's a great opening, I don't lose games because of it, if anything I win them, and the thought of an opening hindering someone's chess is laughable. I bet half the people here claiming openings can hinder chess development don't even know basic endgame procedures like the Lucena position.

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.

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.

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.

sicilian is a very good defense because i use it all the time but budapest is good too so yeah

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.

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

Not if you are playing against 1.e4.

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?

Today, I faced Budapest for the first time. Lost in the endgame. I found it to be an exciting opening.

My problem is that I could never get anyone to play 2c4 back at my club. I think no one wanted to have to prepare for all the different Indian defenses out there, so everyone ended up side-stepping with other moves, like Nf3, Bg5, etc. I wanted to be the one throwing them off their game, not the other way around. So despite having committed a ton of lines to memory and being totally into this opening, I never managed to get into it in a rated game. So from my point of view, that's the biggest problem. I think once you start playing better people, 2c4 shows up more, but by that point I had already given up and moved on to other openings.