I am just going to say it: the Englund Gambit only gives black an edge if after Qe7 there is a Bf4 by white. Otherwise, it is not playable.
Englund's Gambit or Budapest defense?
Sort:
moonnie wrote:
Optimissed schreef
4. Bf4 is far stronger than 4. Nf3, which allows the reply ....Bc5. 7. a3 is incorrect ... stronger is 7. e3 and white's much better.
I disagree with you on that. The systems are just different. Bf4 allows the systems with g5 where white theoretically might hold the advantage but the board is a complete mess something the Budapest player likes. The Nf3 system might give theoretically a smaller advantage but the position is much easier to play. Blacks best choice (theoretically) is to play d6 and be forced in a passive position (with d6 vs d4/c4). Generally these positions (passively defend a slightly worse position) is something Budapest players hate and d4 players love. You often see black playing sub optimal systems with a5 (based on the rooklift Ra6/h6) but if white knows this line it is easy to defend against and his advantage is actually bigger than in the Bf4 lines. >>>>
Well, I find the lines with the bigger advantage very much easier to play because, after all, I'm trying to win. Unlike the Albin, which I consider more dangerous, I don't think the Budapest poses any threat provided white plays the line I mentioned.
Nobody ever seems to want to play the g5 variation against me, so much so that i haven't a clue what the theory's supposed to be but, on the odd occasion when I have encountered it, I didn't seem to have much difficulty. It's just a little mre chaotic.
They almost always play the normal stuff with ...Bb4. At one time I actually used to play the Qd5 line otb occasionally, but honestly, the Nbd2 line is so strong for white that there's no point playing anything else. Only last month I was showing this line to a player in our club, 2200 strength, and he didn't know why I automatically centralised my rooks, without any thought. I told him that it doesn't matter too much what black plays, unless he really plays something forcing .... white plays his rooks to e1 and d1 and white is winning. When I beat him by doing exactly that, he agreed. 
White may have better moves than Bf4 but it's hardly an edge for Black.
Is 4. Bg5 any good in the Englund? Does anybody know? It looks probably playable to me and better than Bf4 because it doesn't come under attack by the queen, but quite probably not as good as 4. Nc3 looks to me.
Mar 9, 2017
0
#26
thegreat_patzer wrote:
ChePlaSsYer wrote:
dpnorman wrote:
ChePlaSsYer wrote:
I just always thought it was easier to open the book and study it so you are not afraid of a5-Ra6-Rh6 cheapos.
And what does this book say, mighty one?
I would go to jail if I share with you the content of the book called "Squeezing the gambits".
That book should be in the library of any 1.d4 player that dares to call himself a serious player.
https://www.amazon.com/Squeezing-Gambits-Benko-Budapest-Blumenfeld/dp/9548782758
the book, apparently, exists....
Of course the book exists. I red it and I have it. I was being serious.
A glance at chessbase's free database shows Bg5 in the Englund is an engine move and Black should elect not to transpose into the Bf4 lines but answer with Qc5 or Qe6 and White is close to winning according to two Stockfish and one Houdini "let's check" analysis. I don't see a reason not play into the Bf4 trap line, though as Black is doing even worse if they go for the trap, and why would anyone play this with the Black pieces if they weren't going for the trap?
zinkelburger έγραψε:
I am just going to say it: the Englund Gambit only gives black an edge if after Qe7 there is a Bf4 by white. Otherwise, it is not playable.
Really?
1.d4 e5? 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 4.Bf4 (or even more forcingly 4.Bg5, which virtually foces Black to enter 4...Qb4+ 5.Bd2 etc) is just winning for white. He just has to avoid after 4...Qb4+ 5.Bd2 Qxb2 a single cheapo, and play 6.Nc3, when Black is dead.
zinkelburger wrote:
I am just going to say it: the Englund Gambit only gives black an edge if after Qe7 there is a Bf4 by white. Otherwise, it is not playable.
Bf4 is actually very good for white, if he gots the right continuation.
edit :the post right above me shows you why. As black, I am obviously playing for cheapos, and in worse case, hoping my d4 opponent is not good engough to transform his dynamic position into a win.
Optimissed wrote:
Is 4. Bg5 any good in the Englund? Does anybody know? It looks probably playable to me and better than Bf4 because it doesn't come under attack by the queen, but quite probably not as good as 4. Nc3 looks to me.
Nc3 is really good and very tricky, I would definitely play it against an englund's gambit, but I don't know when. Probably right after Bf4 Qb4+, probably objectively bad, but turns the board into a mess, which aestetically pleases me.
IM pfren is correct that White has a won game after 6. Nc3. I suggest the Zilbermint's Gambit with 3. ... Nge7 or play a true gambit with 3. ... d6 or f6.
Anyone has one or two illustrative games about the rook lift in the budapest?
Mar 10, 2017
0
#33
They are all bad games... The Budapest is busted.
4xel, have you thought about the Albin countergambit?
ChePlaSsYer wrote:
They are all bad games... The Budapest is busted.
4xel, have you thought about the Albin countergambit?
I will come to it, eventually. My goal is to be knowledgeable on all openings, but I am starting by the bad ones, because I feel they leave less room of play, hence are simpler. six month ago, I started with the Duras Gambit and the nearly mandatory 2...Nf6. I dropped it as it really is the kind of gambit where you give your opponent the pawn and the compensation, but playing it gave me ideas with and against other f5/f4 pawn gambits.
Budapest looks really simple : attack the e5 pawn. From there I'll go into more interesting and less obvious sideplans, but the ideas behind it look very short sighted and simple.
I do play good chess on occasion (well as good as I can play), I especially like the English and the Sicilian, even though I have not dug them that much, since good flexible openings can be played solely on (tactics and) opening principles (and lines are impractical to learn anyway).
Masters lose to Englund Gambit, every gambit or defense can be dangerous, even strong players lose to them.
The Englund gambit can be a good weapon against weak player to score a quick win. :) The above game is played by to weak players.
Here is master game where a FIDE master to play the Englund gambit against another FIDE master.
Even masters lose to unsound opening, we are all susceptible to human flaws.
Ok, it's possible to lose a won game. Point taken. Maybe trick openings can create a psychological advantage when you're opponent is better right away and knows it and overplays because of it even at high levels, but I still don't think we should be advocating hope chess.
I just always thought it was easier to open the book and study it so you are not afraid of a5-Ra6-Rh6 cheapos.
And what does this book say, mighty one?
I would go to jail if I share with you the content of the book called "Squeezing the gambits".
That book should be in the library of any 1.d4 player that dares to call himself a serious player.
https://www.amazon.com/Squeezing-Gambits-Benko-Budapest-Blumenfeld/dp/9548782758
the book, apparently, exists....