1. d4 Nf6 2. c4?!

The Budapest is not a good way for black to play for a win at the highest levels. Even if black drew half the games and lost the other half, it is a terrible score.

The best thing that can be said about the Budapest Gambit is that it is better than the Englund Gambit.

The theoretical try for the advantage from white's side is to play d5 in response to ...c5.

You're correct about transposing to the Caro or the Slav. One further comment on that, is that the line 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 is far from easy to play for black.

Black is probably going to be playing like a white side of the QG down time, and he never has to exchange pawns if he doesn't want to. Since white has the extra tempo, I'm guessing he should probably be equal but most of those e3 or c3 lines offer few chances for an advantage don't they? Maybe the torre attack (with Nf3, Bg5) could be an exception, but I don't know much about it.

No, you don't need to be as well prepared against the Budapest. This is one of its problems. You can learn one or two lines and be fine. Really, actually, you just have to learn the couple of tricks that black is hoping for and avoid them.

I think if white gives back the pawn then he is probably going to come out with a small positional advantage, and it's not that scary to play either.

"System" is being rather generous. People usually start playing the Budapest because it is easy to learn. (They are lazy and don't want to put work in learning 1.d4 defenses). D Pruess wrote awhile back about this phenomenon. The advice people like hearing best is some variation of "you don't have to study that" or "you're doing well with what you're doing". They really hate hearing "you should work more on this" or "you should spend 2 hrs/day on that".

I mean, if you were really going to learn something, why handicap yourself by learning a tricky opening which will artificially cap your OTB rating? Again, if you had the time and the inclination, you would study a real opening.

Sure - this is probably the most popular way of handling it. There was a chess.com member awhile back who claimed it was busted in the regular Nc3 lines, with the doubled pawns. And his FIDE rating is about the same as mine. Unfortunately he left and didn't share the core analysis.

Let's face it, 1.d4! is the best move because 1.e4?! allows 1... c6! with equality.

One more comment on this - and I've said it before in other threads on the Budapest - that the scariest thing would be to encounter a Budapest player who is such an expert at that inferior endgame that they always hold the draw. It would be worth learning as a drawing weapon just for that purpose. Then your opponent plays 2.Nf3 and you're hosed! :-)

I played the Budapest for a while and it got me some blitz wins. But then I noticed that, if the opponent doesn't try to hold on to the pawn at all costs or makes some other naive mistake (such as 3. d5 Bf5 4. Bg4 ?), I get an inferior game. Still playable, for sure, but not the kind of active game you expect from a gambit.

If you're worried about c4 weakening a position, then you need to be encouraged. This move immediately gives most people a slight edge, I've never played well against the Queen's Gambit actually. I've tried many variations which would give me a decent position, but I'm still empty, I always seem to have less space than my opponent. In my opinion, that's what the Queen's Gambit is best for, to gain space. It definitely doesn't weaken your position, it attacks the center, and gains space, It will definitely be a dangerous weapon in your arsenal if you get used to it.

Lol I never thought of it that way!

@jemptymethod The variation I would recommend anybody is this.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5?! 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7

I used to play 7.a3 Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.e3 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 d6 11.Be2

Then I saw that Karpov played 7.e3 against short, not bothering with a3 at all. Not that this was a refutation of the opening by Karpov, but black's position just wasn't that good. The first line above gives white slightly more space, the bishop pair, and a pretty easy game. This is the line that one could imagine studying at GREAT depth as black, just as a drawing weapon. Because when I get this in blitz games, I nearly always win or draw. I think I have a better record from this position than one would expect.

Then of course after "preparing" my theoretical A-player for 5-10 minutes with this line, black would probably play 3... Ne4.

I was always intrigued by that 2200 rated FIDE player here who claimed that the Nc3 line with Qd5, which really forces black to sacrifice the pawn, was a very large advantage for white, in all lines. If I ever tried to learn about how to use engines, I would have this be my practice task on how to prepare an opening using a DB and several engines. Black's plan is pretty easy to see, and in fact black's position is pretty easy to play. I think his point was that black just doesn't get the extra couple of consolidation moves, and that white tactically has a large advantage.

I stand by my claim that the Budapest isn't really that good. It will get you some wins against weaker players at the expense of an artificial cap on your rating. And most people take it up because of the lure of laziness.

I don't claim that it's been refuted. (But I suspect that it is unsound. But I don't know.)

I'd also like to say that I am having trouble with the Queen's Gambit. I have no idea how to play against it.

Do you mean 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Bg4?!

Ozzie, about this variation. What's white supposed to do? He has the bishop, but it's just blocked by the knight so is it really that much of an advantage?

Generally speaking, white wants to play b4 and c5 with a 'minority attack' (3 vs 4 on the queenside). This also weakens the position of the knight on e5.
But alot depends on how black develops. he might fianchetto his bishop, he might castle queenside, he might play Ng6 and h5-h4, etc. etc.

The typical plan I've seen for black is playing a5, b6, and just sitting there waiting for white to make a mistake. If black can play ...a4 then there might be a weakness to attack later on b2. It doesn't strike me as the right plan to castle queenside. Also, some players play ...h5 and then are surprised (!) when I play Bxh5.

 What's wrong with the Tarrasch? I have never played it but I am interested in it.

To someone who REALLY wants to play the Von Hennig-Schara Gambit

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 cxd4 5.Qa4+ Bd7 6.Qxd4 exd5 7.Qxd5 Nc6 8.Nf3 Nf6 9.Qd1 Bc5 10.e3 Qe7

it seems almost the total opposite to want to play the Tarrasch. I just bought a book of E. Schiller's where he writes about the Tarrasch. It appeals to me, as someone who likes to play the Panov-Botvinnik attack against the Caro-Kann. But it's rather unique, shall we say, to find a player who is equally happy going into a quiet Tarrasch and a razor-sharp V H-S.

Rather like a player, after these moves

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6

saying "hey I'll flip a coin to decide whether to play Nxf7 or Nf3".