Interesting idea I found for Black in the Budapest Gambit Adler variation

In his book on the Budapest Gambit IM Timothy Taylor recommends against 4...Bc5 against the Adler Variation (4.Nf3). He instead suggests that Black should play 4...Nc6 and try to transpose into a Rubenstein variation. He says this is both because the Smyslov-Spassky attack is a very strong idea for White, and also that if you try the rook lift plan  (first used by IM Dolphi Drimer) of going a5-Ra6-Rh6 White has many easy ways to shut this down by provoking d6 or driving the knight back to the sixth rank and thus blocking the rook's path over.

But what if instead of lifting the a8 rook all the way over to h6, you simply open the h-file for the rook already on h8?

Furthermore, what if you can utilize the same aggressive f-pawn push by White that Taylor is afraid of in order to accomplish this?

Looking at the game analysis you provided, you made at least two mistakes: a) you analysed f5 and called it "standard". I found three games that reached the position after 10...d6, and all three refrained from playing f5? Instead, they all castled and allowed Black to play f5. 

b) You claim, without any real evidence, that the position is "completely equal. Look at the sorry state of White's e-pawn." Well, Beliavsky managed to win from that "completely equal position, and he wasn't alone. 

You may have at least discussed that game to show where Black went wrong. 

For those who don't know the game I'm talking about, it's here:

Where were you six weeks ago when I posted this?

Thanks for posting that game. Though I don't agree with you 100%. This post was part of a pair I did about the "knee-jerk" moves in the Budapest that I noticed myself and other Black players were making. In this case the rule "always wait for White to move thier light square bishop before taking the pawn back". I found it's not so clear.

I did another one on the knee-jerk reaction to play a5 whenever White played a3 and how that's not always necessary. Give that one a bump for me too if you would.

What do you have against 4...Nc6? I don't have Taylor's book or any book, but I think 5 Bg5 Be7 is okay for black. 4...Bc5 was good against 1500s in U18 events but when I started to play against players twice my age and 2000+ I understood that I didn't have the advantage of knowing the position better so I switched to the simple 4...Nc6 and I have never seen 5.bg5 played against me OTB.

Well the first thing is I'm not scared of any f4 ideas, so I see no reason not to play 4...Bc5. Second, I've tried 4...Nc6 in a few games and didn't find it as exciting as 4...Bc5. I like the positions after 4...Bc5 and studying the various plans for both sides.

And my opponents in my games where I played 4...Nc6 realized if they played 5.Bf4 they would be transposing into a different variation and they were scared of that so they just played something like 5.Nc3. Here's one of my last games playing 4...Nc6 where that happened, although my higher rated opponent did end up playing f4 at some point anyway, and yes his e pawn became backwards and weak, and yes he lost.

http://en.lichess.org/KBv5tD20/black#9