Considering the Budapest

If anything choosing an inferior opening would help someone's chess improvement because you have to be more precise, and you're forced to use all your middlegame and endgame technique to win. But  the Budapest isn't even inferior I feel, just very underestimated and underrated.

I know that you personally Ponz are at that highest level where opening choice matters a great deal, for a amatuer like me, I haven't even read Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual yet. I'd rather spend my chess study time reading that book than studying a new opening, even though doing so would mean sticking with the Budapest and stymying my chess development as you indicate it will.

Well, now this is getting really funny.

What's so big about "hitting at f2" after 4.Nf3 (my personal preference) Bc5 5.e3?

Black will make all the usual moves to get back the e5 pawn, and still have to deal with the same white pressure scheme. White's bishop will be perfectly placed at b2, and his overall development is very smooth and natural.

It is funny, that's the benefit. I inwardly laugh everytime I play 4...Bc5 because I can almost sense my opponent is thinking "Does this niave fool really have the audacity to be doing this scholar's mate type thing against me?" It's provocative, even though of course f2 being hit is just a side effect of Black's development. We're not really ever expecting to capture on f2.

Pfren what do you mean "Black will make all the usual moves to get back the e5 pawn"? The you mean the usual move (singular) Ngxe5? That's not too hard is it?

I've devised a simple mnemonic system for playing against the Adler variation as Black. The "capture system", first rule of this opening is capture the e-pawn as soon as you're able, there are three exceptions  where it would be best to delay this capture, but none of them cause Black real problems and at least one of them is bad for White. Second rule is after the e-pawn has been captured, then capture the knight on f3+, generally this is a good move with a few exceptions. Within this rudimentary framework of two captures I have plans or at the very least ideas against all of White's sixth move alternatives, and none of those ideas even involve the Drimer rook lift!  Very easy system and opening to play for Black, and as far as I'm concerned, I have no need to worry about d4 c4 ever again. I'm done with that part of my repretoire.

I wish Tim Taylor's blog was still up. He had a funny article about how a 1900 player asked for his recommendation of what to play in a tournament and after Taylor recommended the Budapest the 1900 player just kept repeating "but it's bad right?"

I have experience with the king's gambit, it's more often than not quite a drudgery.  You have to undermine the solid f4 point, any attempt to build a solid center can get refuted by piece activity, your king is weak (some lines require an h4 from white, leaving g3 weak) and there's too much to worry about.  The Ruy Lopez on the other hand can be quite fun, attempts to build a center are sound, there's lots of strategic flexibility, and there are clear cut goals that depend on black's setup.  Perhaps most of all the center in the Ruy is quite dynamic, especially in the ...c5 variations where white can capture on e5 or c5, play d5, or maintain or bolster the central tension.  Weak pawns and entry points play a major role in decision making.  

In the king's gambit on the other hand it isn't that easy to make something of black's extended pawns.  In an endgame they may be somewhat loose however.  

If you liked Taylor's Budapest book, then you are (almost) alone. The only good thing about it was that it was not as horrible as his Steinitz deferred and Alekhine books have been, and that's all. Moskalenko's book on the Budapest was ages better, which is no surprise.

Well... if you find the Adler easy to play, then good luck. You will need it.

In the Adler variation the Black pieces stream out, we take our pawn back, and what I really like it about it, there is no Nf3 on the White kingside. Either they're going to take on e5, which is White's best move most of the time,  or we're going to take on  f3. Then with no gaurding knight the Black queen deploys over to the kingside. There follows moves like Bf5, or Bg4 sometimes, Rfe8 where there's going to be some convergence on e3 with the bishop. The knight on c6 can hop to e5 at will, this is very good activity. Indeed splendid.

Perhaps this will be a future series of blog posts by me that you can all look forward too. "Smashing the Adler variation with the capture system."

Wow.

This thread is full of great info! So, the Berlin equalizes quickly and is very drawish. The top GMs in the world should be following this thread!

The real discussion can be made for someone who considers to use the Budapest in level above 2000 OTB is under which conditions he will do that. I mean it's a opening that positionally gives an advantage to white from move 2 already, so either black should accept that and try to find deviations from the standard theory part that may! cause some trouble to white or to create a Nimzo imbalance like the double c pawns where he can find something to play for until white complete the development. Whatever it's not a opening idea underrated or underestimated as Dolphin claims because there are much better ideas to choose from it and the difficulties which occurs from the nature of the position. It's a nice mystery to explore, to train tactics and positions with it but if you want results I don't know how you can trust this. There are few GM's who have expertise in Budapest like the Latvian Miezis Nortmund but I don't know if this dedication have gave them back what is worth for doing such a thing.

The great Vugar Gashimov left behind him a legacy using the Benoni under difficult positions and occasionally escaping with good results but looking and other games of him in other openings I tend to believe that he wasted his time and talent with the Modern Benoni when he would probably have achieve his enter to the top ten.

Ah, so true... That's why Misha Tal (also a big Modern Benoni fan) never managed something more than becoming World Champion...

Dear mr. Bishop_g5, did it ever enter your mind that the late Vugar might have understood the Benoni better than you (or most other people) do? Chances are very slim, but nevertheless they do exist... Actually it seems that you cannot even tell between a completely sound opening, like the Modern Benoni, and a borderline sound one, like the Budapest.

@ IM Pfren

That's a convenient explanation. From someone who train champions I would expect something more unless your coaching includes teaching the Modern Benoni as a " main weapon " to take someone results. Nevertheless Mikhail Tal become World Champion not because he uses the Benoni but because he's tactical ability and understanding was 300 points at least above all that period but it's a detail which no one counts and especially a FIDE trainer.

Vugar Gashimov understood the Modern Benoni better than everyone who played it the last two decades but that not makes the opening more sound than the KID or the Gruenfeld. The position around this weird pawn structure has some certain weaknesses where strategically White can put a lot of pressure! It has also a lot of counter play but not with out compensate white for that. I didn't compared the soundness of the Modern Benoni with the Budapest gambit one, I just said that there are more strong choices for black to choose and if Vugar was not insist to much playing the Benoni he might had achieve greater thinks. If you disagree with that, you are entitled to know something more than me. Thank you.

Gashimov is one recent player who understands the Modern Benoni, two others include Garry Kasparov and Veselin Topalov. Poor fellows. Imagine how strong they could have been if they had just known that the Modern Benoni is weak.

How many players rated +2700 use the Budapest as regularly against +2700 opponents in standard time controls?

You're right though; the Modern Benoni isn't more sound than the KID or the Grunfeld. They are all three sound.

One of the amazing things about modern chess is that modern GMs understand far more about what is playable than in the past. Nakamura and others have turned openings such as the Dutch and the Scandinavian into real weapons. Kramnik turned the Berlin from a weak byline into one of the monsters of modern chess theory. The Catalan, which was always a poor cousin of the QGD, is one of the most important areas of theoretical discovery. 

And yet, for all that, the Budapest still isn't being played by top players. It could just be a fashion choice. But when you consider how voraciously these top players cull through old openings, you'd think some of them would have played it by now if it really offered the dynamic chances some here seem to think it does.

I do NOT teach any opening in particular. Advanced students make their own SOUND openings choice, and I just provide them study material, as well as several instructions about the opening tabiyas. There is nothing wrong with the student showing preferences very different than the ones oh his/her coach, and the good coach should be able to give guiding lines for all sound openings.

Agreed, Pfren! 

@ Smyslovfan

I never sow Kasparov or Topalov to use the Benoni more than once in a series of Championship matches or tournament games. If it is so strong and sound like the other why they don't use it more frequently?

In his 1989 match series Kasparov against Karpov's 1.d4 he almost played KID, Gruenfeld and QGD but not the Benoni. Anti contrary there are a lot of tournaments where Gashimov plays only the Benoni with mixed results and showed that he was unfair against his talent/potential.I don't want to accuse him for something but when I sowed his games using the Slav or the QG I said the obvious?! Why the heck you insisted so much with it?

As far for the Budapest, it's difficult to trust this opening at a higher level in classical games even as a surprise.

GMs themselves say so. It's a drawing weapon and stats bear that out:

1. History

2. Players

a) Strong grandmasters who used this line as Black:

b) Other notable players:

3. Statistics
Black scores above average (47%).
Black performs Elo 2549 against an opposition of Elo 2570 (-21).
White performs Elo 2590 against an opposition of Elo 2570 (+20).
White wins: 54 (=23%), Draws: 145 (=61%), Black wins: 39 (=16%)
The drawing quote is high. (10% quick draws, < 20 Moves)

White wins are long (51).
Black wins are long (48).
Draws are of average length (39).

The draw rate is huge but the black win rate is totally abysmal.  

The Poisoned Pawn Najdorf on the other hand gives these statistics:

1. History

2. Players

a) Strong grandmasters who used this line as Black:

b) Other notable players:

3. Statistics
Black scores above average (50%).
Black performs Elo 2273 against an opposition of Elo 2273 (0).
White performs Elo 2301 against an opposition of Elo 2301 (0).
White wins: 1646 (=36%), Draws: 1357 (=29%), Black wins: 1605 (=35%)
The drawing quote is lower than average. (6% quick draws, < 20 Moves)

White wins are shorter than average (37).
Black wins are of average length (39).
Draws are shorter than average (34).

Statistics do not know, or play chess.

Players like Aronian do play chess, and claim they play the Marshall to draw, and the Berlin to win. The ever infamous Berlin middlegame is everything the average Joe cannot suspect: Unbalanced, risky, sharp, very complex.

What if they choose an unsound opening?