ok so let's see some tipical positions arising from various black's defences:
so, which one is the odd one out?
Budapest is boring as hell. I bet you play the Colle as white.
I've played about 100 Budapest gambit games and I've never got in that position. It does not seem typical to me, in fact, I think there are several things about that diagram that are atypical, such as the bishop on d6. Did that even come from a real game, if so, which?
I understand that you don't like people playing the Budapest against you and messing up your preferred d4 openings, but mindlessly bashing the Budapest isn't going to solve your problem. The Budapest Gambit is a respected opening with a rich history, and played by some of the top GMs in the world like Mamedyarov and Alexei Shirov. By bashing the Budapest you're only making yourself look bad. You just seem like someone who's angry at the opening because you don't like people playing it against you.
That diagram comes from an opening theory book that I have.
Here's a line (for white), tell me how you'd improve the position for black.
So, tell me how you'd avoid it.
The way I see it, you either play ...f6 giving up the pawn completely for I don't think enough compensation, or you play Bxd2 giving up the bishop pair and being a little bit worse.
That's one down. I figured 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 b6 5. Nge2 c5 6. a3 Ba5 7. Rb1 Na6 out on my own. This is a sideline, but not necesarily atypical.
Your Grunfeld looks like Black lost a tempo at some point.
I am not so sure about Your Slav line, 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. e3 b5 6. a4 b4 now White plays the uncommon 7. Ne2!? making a gambit out of it. 7...Qd5 8. e4 Qa5 9. Bg5 e6. First off, is that you move order because I cannot find a game in the chess 365 database that reached this position? Second this is not typical. Third Nakamura played 8...c5.
In the Rubinstein variation with Nbd2 opening theory goes that black captures the knight on d2, not move the bishop back to c5, and then on the next move move the bishop again to d6. Moving the bishop twice in a row like that in your diagram is ridiculous and pretty much nobody would do that except maybe a noob with an 800 ELO who's playing the Budapest for the first time, so your book is garbage and yes that diagram would be very atypical. Following opening theory gives up the bishop pair, but the advantage is marginal and unless someone is Bobby Fischer I don't think they can extract an advantage out of it. And guess what? All black has to do is capture one of the bishops at some point later and there goes that mythical "bishop pair" that is supposedly going to win white the game.
Also against the Rubinstein variations there's a line with 4...g5 that Mamedyarov uses.
No, my move order is:
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 (I do this to avoid the mainline of the slav) dxc4
4.e4 b5 5.a4 b4
6.Nce2 (this is an ambitious move. I could get my pawn back with Na2 but then black equalizes) e6
7. Nf3 Nf6 8. Ng3 Ba6 9. Bg5 Qa5
and we reach a really interesting position to play. Unlike the Budapest :)
So I guess IM Taylor, that wrote a book on the Budapest that received good reviews, is playing the Budapest for the first time and has a 800 ELO.
Just FYI, the position after 7.e3 (instead of 7.a3) Ngxe5 8. Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Be2 that is a database mainline, scores 53% for white and 14% for black.
Upon opening with d4 Nf6 use e6 to cease the D4 pawn from gaing the extra square between your knight. Btw, what is ELO? I have a feeling it does not refer too the Electric Light Orchestra.
That is a nice gambit played by grandmasters on both sides of the board. In another thread, I claimed that beginers should avoid the Slav and play the Queen's Gambit Decline because the Slav involves giving up the center. I might start using this line as an example to ilustrate the point.
After 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. Bf4 Bb4 5. Nd2 Nc6 6. Ngf3 Qe7 7. a3 Ngxe5 8. Nxe5 Nxe5 9. e3 Bxd2+ 10. Qxd2 d6 11. Be2 O-O 12. O-O b6 13. b4 Bb7 where is Black's counterplay?
9...Bd6 fails as Plutonia already pointed out. Black's options are 9...Bc5, defending a worse position, or junking the line.
Oh, did IM Taylor go 9...Bc5 let the knight develop then move the same bishop in a row with 10. ...Bd6 in a game? Also can you give me the title of this book you took the diagram from, I would like to read for myself the context that diagram was put in.
As for the database percentage, It's a database with a few hundred games between grandmasters that don't apply to average games. For Grandmasters having the bishop pair is like being up in material, but for average players they can't extract this same advantage, or indeed, ANY advantage from the bishop pair.
FYI the line with 7.e3 trying to get the bishop pair without having to go a3 allows this idea of Pavel Blatney's.
Does the position after 7. e3 Ngxe5 8. Nxe5 Nxe5 9. a3 look familiar? How about 9. Be2 O-O 10. a3 Bxd2+ 11. Qxd2 d6 12. O-O b6 13. b4 Bb7?
I also don't see full equality after 10...Ng6 11. Bg3 Bd6 12. Bxd6 Qxd6 13. Ne4. This only solves one problem at the expense of the other two. White has more space and a lead in devolpment. The c pawn can be targeted. Sure Black is not lost, but I don't understand why you want these positions; they offer Black almost no winning chances.
The whole point of the 7.e3 line is that white is trying not to invest a move in a3. If a3 is played anyway, then black can just capture on d2 with a playable position. White has a marginal advantage, but so what? Do you really think the average chess player can make that much out of the two bishops? Alternatively one can always play Mamedyarov's line with 4...g5.
Why would I want these positions? Because first, I don't think it's bad for black especially not at sub-IM/GM level. Second, I have fun playing the opening, as there are more variations in it than just the Rubinstiens. Third, I enjoy a challenge anyway. Finally I'm a believer in sticking with an opening, I knew many people thought the Budapest was bad before I started playing it, but the more people who think it's bad the less people will play it, and the less experience my white opponent is going to have in it. By persisting in playing the Budapest, I'm familiarizing myself with the themes of these variations. Yes white gets the bishop pair, but now I'm going to familiarize myself with how to play against the bishop pair and how a knight can dominate a bishop. An added bonus is it messes up white's preferred d4 openings that they are actually familiar with, I'm sure plutonia who is a d4 player would rather get into a queen's gambit or a slav or whatever they've been studying for years, but I'm not going to give them that satisfaction. I'm going to use the Budapest, and take the initiative right from the start. Of course Plutonia would find this boring because it's an opening in which white lacks initiative and that's not really fun to play for white.
I play 1. d4 and I would rather see the Budapest then most other openings. I would also avoid worse positions that cede the bishop pair when there is a stable pawn structure and less space. Especially if there are no pawn breaks in the position. Maybe this is a personal flaw of mine, but if so it is shared by the majority of chess players and produces statistics that favor White.
Speaking of messing up opening prefrence, what do you do against 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3? 2...Nc6 3. c4 e5 4. d5 is a whole new can of worms.
I play your e6, and I like it. It works, do not change it.
The results in the Bd6 line speak for themselves - white scores a crushing 67% based on 89 games after Bd6 Bxd6. Black loses time and is playing catchup on a long and painful road to hopefully achieving equality. To get more specific, after Bxd6 Qxd6 Ne4 white scores 79% (stats from Mega Database 2013). It's also laughable to say that the Budapest "[takes] the initiative right from the start", as in the most common variation (Rubinstein) black is passively defending for the whole opening to middlegame. Your main defense of the opening is that most players aren't good enough to use the bishop pair - relying on your opponent's incompetence is not an adequate way to defend an opening. I'm not saying that the Budapest isn't playable, just that there is a reason it is almost never employed at high levels.
@Aggressivesociopath Against 2. Nf3 I personally just go into a King's Indian set-up. Also I'm glad you like playing against the Budapest, because I like playing it, seems everyone is happy. As long as my opponents play 2. c4 I'm going to play the Budapest.
@FrenchTutor, many Grandmasters use the Budapest from time to time at high levels. Shirov, Zeljko, Epishin, Mamedyarov, Speelman, Romero Holmes, the list goes on. Some more examples with links
Koepcke vs Yermolinksy 0-1
Mikhalevski vs Chabonon 0-1
You bring up database stats saying "out of 89 games." Yes, 89 games between grandmasters and a stat that doesn't apply to average players. I'll never be a GM, none of the people I play will ever be GMs, you'll never be a GM, so who cares? I play the Budapest every chance I get, I like playing with it, and I have a winning record with it. And there's always Mamedyarov's 4...g5 line.
The Budapest can be a challenging opening for black to play against the Rubinstein variations, but it's definitely not an insurmountable challenge, especially not at average level. If you're black you're already playing from a challenging position anyway no matter what opening you use. I don't mind playing against the Rubeinstein variations as black thus I will continue playing the Budapest and studying these games, so that when a white player does use this variation I'll be more familiar with it than them.