SuperWario wrote:
Budapest Gambit
Sort:
Mar 24, 2016
0
#23
mistycane wrote:
SuperWario wrote:
Your posts are not displaying for some reason.
I just had a rated OTB game concerning the Budapest. I have learned from GM lectures from ben finegold that you should just return the pawn.
This is how we played the opening, were there better moves for both sides we missed?
Almost all GMs, with a few exceptions, do not play the Budapest as Black, certainly for a reason. In the early 80s I saw IM Walter Shipman play it at the NYC Chess Center and then I adopted it as my one and only weapon against 1.d4, and about 5 years later beat an IM with it in a simul. So I kept playing with it, for a total of 3 decades, but finally got sick of being positionally lost by about move 12 or 15.
Mar 24, 2016
0
#26
jengaias wrote:
porzingis_dunk wrote:
Almost all GMs, with a few exceptions, do not play the Budapest as Black, certainly for a reason. In the early 80s I saw IM Walter Shipman play it at the NYC Chess Center and then I adopted it as my one and only weapon against 1.d4, and about 5 years later beat an IM with it in a simul. So I kept playing with it, for a total of 3 decades, but finally got sick of being positionally lost by about move 12 or 15.
If you are positionally lost on move 12 or 15 it's not the opening's fault , it's your fault.
+1
SuperWario wrote:
jengaias wrote:
porzingis_dunk wrote:
Almost all GMs, with a few exceptions, do not play the Budapest as Black, certainly for a reason. In the early 80s I saw IM Walter Shipman play it at the NYC Chess Center and then I adopted it as my one and only weapon against 1.d4, and about 5 years later beat an IM with it in a simul. So I kept playing with it, for a total of 3 decades, but finally got sick of being positionally lost by about move 12 or 15.
If you are positionally lost on move 12 or 15 it's not the opening's fault , it's your fault.
+1
Baloney. I usually wasn't getting positionally lost positions as White out of the opening, and not as Black against 1.e4 either.
Below is the beginning of a game where an expert was positionally lost against me on move 18 after he played 1.b4?! as White: on move 13 I achieved a 2-to-1 majority on the queenside, and on move 18 snagged the bishop pair to boot. This doesn't happen if you don't play a crappy opening like 1.b4?!, or the Budapest
jengaias wrote:
That is positionally lost?
Ok Black has the 2 bishops and q-side majority but positionaly lost???
Not even close.Unless you are a 2700 GM.
Absolutely and unequivocably positionally lost, to anybody who has a SHRED of chess sense.
jengaias wrote:
porzingis_dunk wrote:
jengaias wrote:
That is positionally lost?
Ok Black has the 2 bishops and q-side majority but positionaly lost???
Not even close.Unless you are a 2700 GM.
Absolutely and unequivocably positionally lost, to anybody who has a SHRED of chess sense.
So I guess you can play that position and win it against any opponent.
Right?
That's not what "positionally lost" means, especially since I'm rated 1000 points lower than super GMs. But if you want to get a position that is positionally lost a lot faster than with other 1.d4 defences, go on and play the Budapest. Just don't say I didn't warn you when White has a knight on d5 that is a tower of strength
I don't suppose you can understand the difference between a prepared novelty in an otherwise unsound opening and technical superiority in a drawish but otherwise sound opening. Not all GM's share the same values neither in life nor when playing their preferred game. In blitz the element of surprise is even more important. So much about blitz and who plays it.
From my feeble point of view in the 'Budapest Gambit' Black is lacking a strong central stronghold ergo a pair of bishops should prevail.
I will thanks, but anyway
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4 Nxe5 5.f4 Nec6 6.Be3 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 Qh4+ 9.g3 Qe7 10.Bd3 Na6 11.Nf3 O-O 12.O-O Nc5 13.Bc2 Nxe4
( 13...d6 )
14.Re1 Nf6
( 14...f5 or b6 )
15.Qd3 Qd8 16.g4
comes to mind, and it's not the critical line either, unless I'm a genius of some kind, and I'm not .
You should be asking moskalunku. So what? I saw the game moskalunku.
Mar 28, 2016
0
#34
We have to cut players in the 1200s to 1400s rating range some slack.
Oftentimes, such players are the kings of chess in their immediate environment. They are not familiar with tournament play, masters, titles and such - they simply have talent and understanding and pretty much crush everybody they know - siblings, friends, colleagues...
Then the inevitable moment arrives, when they come in contact with "the big world" out there - either through an online resource (and many people in these levels are totally clueless that such even exist) or through a chess club (ditto) - but they are still being "the expert" or "the king of chess" - they just don't know better, as players in the 1700+ range are much more rare, and you generally ONLY meet them if you go to these specific "meeting places", online or offline.
We have to be tolerant, patient and friendly with them.
After we answer their ideas a number of times, they will get it on their own, that superior levels to their own actually do exist, and that numbers such as 1700, 2000 or higher actually mean greater knowledge or skill. Let them reach these conclusions through natural interaction, rather than rudely force it down their throat.
We were all 1200-1400 players once upon a time, and we came up the line thanks to interaction with stronger players. So let's make that interaction as pleasant for them as possible.
solskytz wrote:
We have to cut players in the 1200s to 1400s rating range some slack.
Oftentimes, such players are the kings of chess in their immediate environment. They are not familiar with tournament play, masters, titles and such - they simply have talent and understanding and pretty much crush everybody they know - siblings, friends, colleagues...
Then the inevitable moment arrives, when they come in contact with "the big world" out there - either through an online resource (and many people in these levels are totally clueless that such even exist) or through a chess club (ditto) - but they are still being "the expert" or "the king of chess" - they just don't know better, as players in the 1700+ range are much more rare, and you generally ONLY meet them if you go to these specific "meeting places", online or offline.
We have to be tolerant, patient and friendly with them.
After we answer their ideas a number of times, they will get it on their own, that superior levels to their own actually do exist, and that numbers such as 1700, 2000 or higher actually mean greater knowledge or skill. Let them reach these conclusions through natural interaction, rather than rudely force it down their throat.
We were all 1200-1400 players once upon a time, and we came up the line thanks to interaction with stronger players. So let's make that interaction as pleasant for them as possible.
Right, and someone sells the house at less than half of its price, grandmother's house, and does not have to listen to moskalenku.
pfren wrote:
# 49 is a dream position for Black in the Budapest (before the commital 11...0-0).
This is a position known as early as 1937 and a game Keres- Gilg in Prague. Keres won, but no good player cared repeating. The reason is rather obvious: Black has a safe king, and various white liabilities to work against. Black's plus score in chess praxis should not come as a surprise to anyone sane enough.
At least draws are rare here (only three out of twenty games- Black won half of them). Keres can't repeat the experiment, and since other strong masters don't care, it's unlikely to see some serious games in that variation.
white: Nd4-Nb3-0-0 black: f5-fe4-0-0-0
Preserving my pair of bishops. What about the engine? I don't knooow and I don't caaare. Kidding. It's unclear. In my humble opinion.
Mar 28, 2016
0
#39
Didn't Gligoric "bust" the Budapest Gambit back in the 1970s, with an approach centred around g3/Bg2?
Apologies if this has already been mentioned, I haven't read the entire thread.
One thing to mention that I dont normally play standard games so I thought that this opening maybe something to consider when playing blitz game and obviously not against a GM or IM, NM etc. thanks all for explanations and please lets keep the conversation in respectful manner as this is only a game we are talking about. Have a good day!