Just searched it in the Mega 2022 and amazingly I can't find any either with the e3 line... remember a live video of some blitz wch where he was playing this line aggressively as white against someone.
But then again, my brain reeks of acute memory delusion syndrome so I may've been wrong.
The budapest has a similar problem to the Chigorin defense, even if white doesnt have an outright refutation (say the same way the latvian gambit is busted), white has way to many pleasant lines to claim a larger than average advantage and in a few of the critical lines, black is walking an objectivity tight rope where the reward is just surviving.
The budapest has a similar problem to the Chigorin defense, even if white doesnt have an outright refutation (say the same way the latvian gambit is busted), white has way to many pleasant lines to claim a larger than average advantage and in a few of the critical lines, black is walking an objectivity tight rope where the reward is just surviving.
What's the problem with the Chigorin?
It is an absolutely sound defence, where white has trouble demonstrating a slight edge, let alone an "outright refutation".
The budapest has a similar problem to the Chigorin defense, even if white doesnt have an outright refutation (say the same way the latvian gambit is busted), white has way to many pleasant lines to claim a larger than average advantage and in a few of the critical lines, black is walking an objectivity tight rope where the reward is just surviving.
What's the problem with the Chigorin?
It is an absolutely sound defence, where white has trouble demonstrating a slight edge, let alone an "outright refutation".
i dont think Chigorin is refuted. Its just a big homework defense where white has many different tries for advantage. I dont think its as sound as say, the 1.e4 nc6 2.d4 d5 Nimzowitsch defense, where only 3.e5 seems like a real try for advantage. Its more like the pirc where white has many acceptable set ups and black must do lots of homework to take a little longer to equalize.
I went through a period where i had to decide between 1.d4 nc6 2.c4 and either 2.d5 or e5 and i found the e5 positions much easier to play despite preferring the d5 nimzowitsch lines to the e5 lines.
and i think both Chigorin and Budapest reflect an innate difference between 1.d4 vs 1.e4 lines. Its that much harder to Spice a game up as black vs d4 so black must take slightly more risk to the objectivity of the position. There is no equivalent to the Sicilian vs d4. All the attempts to really win like the KID, dutch, benoni, and arguably even the Grunfeld carry inherently more risk. The closest one to the asymmetrical but sound nature of the sicilian is probably the nimzo-indian and black cant even force it .
Yeah Chigorin isn't a very reliable main opening.
I went through a period where i had to decide between 1.d4 nc6 2.c4 and either 2.d5 or e5 and i found the e5 positions much easier to play despite preferring the d5 nimzowitsch lines to the e5 lines.
I agree, 1.d4 Nc6 2.c4 e5! is basically the core of 1...Nc6 vs. 1.d4, so it would be a shame to cop out with 2...d5
After 3.d5 do you favor 3...Bb4+ or 3...Nce7? Schuyler convinced me that the former is probably more objectively correct, but I find that 3...Nce7 is more likely to lead to quick wins against bad players since the dark squared bishop stays on the board.
I went through a period where i had to decide between 1.d4 nc6 2.c4 and either 2.d5 or e5 and i found the e5 positions much easier to play despite preferring the d5 nimzowitsch lines to the e5 lines.
I agree, 1.d4 Nc6 2.c4 e5! is basically the core of 1...Nc6 vs. 1.d4, so it would be a shame to cop out with 2...d5
After 3.d5 do you favor 3...Bb4+ or 3...Nce7? Schuyler convinced me that the former is probably more objectively correct, but I find that 3...Nce7 is more likely to lead to quick wins against bad players since the dark squared bishop stays on the board.
i actually agree with schuyler's assessment that bb4+ is objectively superior but much prefer nce7. The only particularly worrisome lines there are some where white plays h4 at precisely the right time, but the amount of times i ever faced it are virtually nil. The rest of the lines are fairly harmless for black because the extra tempo was wasted on c4 which is not particularly advantageous. (there is no be6 equivalent to worry about because you can land bb4+ thanks to c4 being played).
Nimzowitsch defense, where only 3.e5 seems like a real try for advantage.
Really? Isn't 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.d5 just known to be good for white, or am I mistaken?
4...Ne5 is met with 5.Qd4 and 4...Nb8 is met with 5.f3 exf3 6.Qxf3
Nimzowitsch defense, where only 3.e5 seems like a real try for advantage.
Really? Isn't 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.d5 just known to be good for white, or am I mistaken?
4...Ne5 is met with 5.Qd4 and 4...Nb8 is met with 5.f3 exf3 6.Qxf3
yeah, for a long time this was the fear, but the 4...nb8 line works fine.
yeah the gambit line can be dangerous if black takes on f3, but after 5.f3 e6 and merely developing your pressure on d5 via, e6 nf6, bb4 etc, black equalizes.
Nimzowitsch defense, where only 3.e5 seems like a real try for advantage.
Really? Isn't 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.d5 just known to be good for white, or am I mistaken?
4...Ne5 is met with 5.Qd4 and 4...Nb8 is met with 5.f3 exf3 6.Qxf3
4...Nb8! is a safe equalizer.
After 5.f3, while Black can accept the offer, he can also play 5...e6, which is just fine for him.
My latest match was Budapest Gambit, I was white and made a stupid blunder.
No but we do need to develop the kingside and though it's look good but black has counter play here and we have more pieces on kingside so mainly we should either play in the center or on king side as black pieces are already on queenside
Something like Nge2, then after black plays O-O we play g4 attacking the king side of black?
Yess, for once I'm right on my facts. A quick google search seems to confirm this:
This variation is named after Alekhine thanks to his wins in the games Alekhine–Rabinovic (Baden Baden, 1925) and Alekhine–Seitz (Hastings, 1926).[55][105][notes 6] White does not try to keep its material advantage (the e5-pawn) and concentrates on establishing a strong pawn centre and space advantage.
Taylor considers 4...Nxe5 inferior, recommending instead a rarely played idea of Richard Réti, 4...h5! (Taylor's exclamation point). Then 5.Nf3 would allow 5...Bc5, while Taylor suggests meeting 5.Be2 with 5...Nc6! and 5.f4 with 5...Bc5 with quick development compensating for the lost pawn. He considers the main line to be 4...h5 5.h3 Nxe5 6.Be3 Bb4+, with good play for Black.
- Wikipedia.
Wtf donstienitz you r still relaing on game played in 1926 in the age of alpha zero, leela zero, stockfish thats ridiculous
Recently the (rather rare) line with (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4) 4.e3!? Nxe5 5.f4 has become very popular at ICCF, and Black is scoring miserably.
Compared to Alekhine's line 4.e4 Nxe5 5.f4 etc, keeping the pawn back at e3 does have certain advantages.
Indeed, it's been tried quite successfully in several games by Mamedyarov.
Really? These games must be well hidden then, as I do not know a single game played by the Shark in this line, with either color.