here is another example of 4. ...g5?
The Chess Mine was White
How to play against Budapest Gambit
Sort:
Here is a position that some people are discounting but should not be discounted:
Apr 13, 2018
0
#204
@ponz, Bronznick knows this about g5, but he also knows that White needs to be prepared for it. He discusses White's response in more detail in another part of the book. @kindaspongey posted Bronznick's conclusion.
If you're interested, the book is available to purchase. It may even be available at your local library.
i might buy it. ty
When one writes a book about a dubious opening, he/she is taking a big chance. I know this per my book on the Center Counter. The chance that somebody will have a refutation of a suggested line.
I had great success with the Center Counter for many years. But, i always have an open mind and always looking for the "truth" in chess. Now, i can say that if White knows what he is doing--the Center Counter/Scandinavian is not such a good opening. 
I have great respect for Bronznick for writing his book. However i have been able to "see" some of his lines.
He and i agree that this line gives White a clear advantage. [however i think it is close to winning and i have done a lot of analysis of this line]:
The other main line i have looked at is 4. Bf4 Nc6 5. Nf3 Bb4ch 6. Nbd2.
i also have been studying this line.
This line given by Bronznick comes out to an equal position and i will give my improvements for White:
Here is my analysis regarding the line in post #240...
Here is another line [avoiding 11. Nb3]
Apr 13, 2018
0
#211
ponz111 wrote:
When one writes a book about a dubious opening, he/she is taking a big chance. I know this per my book on the Center Counter. The chance that somebody will have a refutation of a suggested line.
I had great success with the Center Counter for many years. But, i always have an open mind and always looking for the "truth" in chess. Now, i can say that if White knows what he is doing--the Center Counter/Scandinavian is not such a good opening.
I have great respect for Bronznick for writing his book. However i have been able to "see" some of his lines.
He and i agree that this line gives White a clear advantage. [however i think it is close to winning and i have done a lot of analysis of this line]:
the center counter dubious? that's just a strange description. openings that take longer to equalize =/= dubious. i have never seen a line from white that really should make black reconsider playing his defense.
as for books on dubious openings, well one of the benefits of the computer era is that we can test any line a book gives you from home. especially so since now we are using cloud features which let us see the analysis of other top engines at high depths. this brings a new standard of a good opening book. IF an opening is worth playing, it ought to be computer "proof" against its most critical lines.
there is still room for human touch, in very specific positions, either closed positions or those that straightforwardly lead to a specific ending humans know of but the engine's horizon cant see, i think the engine can get evals wrong by a good 0.2-0.3. or not see a truly drawn ending result.
i at least use dubious opening to mean that the most critical (often best computer line) agaisnt your opening leads to a lifelessly inferior or practically unpleasant position i woudnt want to play in vs someone as stong as me. OR to put it another way. IF said hypothetical opponent where to go home tonight and prepare the objectively best response to said opening, would i groan and hope he doesnt play the ideal reply or do i find the position with enough "life" and acceptable eval to not facing it? (almost always should be below 0.5)?
Apr 13, 2018
0
#212
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
When one writes a book about a dubious opening, he/she is taking a big chance. I know this per my book on the Center Counter. The chance that somebody will have a refutation of a suggested line.
I had great success with the Center Counter for many years. But, i always have an open mind and always looking for the "truth" in chess. Now, i can say that if White knows what he is doing--the Center Counter/Scandinavian is not such a good opening.
I have great respect for Bronznick for writing his book. However i have been able to "see" some of his lines.
He and i agree that this line gives White a clear advantage. [however i think it is close to winning and i have done a lot of analysis of this line]:
the center counter dubious? that's just a strange description. openings that take longer to equalize =/= dubious. i have never seen a line from white that really should make black reconsider playing his defense.
as for books on dubious openings, well one of the benefits of the computer era is that we can test any line a book gives you from home. especially so since now we are using cloud features which let us see the analysis of other top engines at high depths. this brings a new standard of a good opening book. IF an opening is worth playing, it ought to be computer "proof" against its most critical lines.
there is still room for human touch, in very specific positions, either closed positions or those that straightforwardly lead to a specific ending humans know of but the engine's horizon cant see, i think the engine can get evals wrong by a good 0.2-0.3. or not see a truly drawn ending result.
i at least use dubious opening to mean that the most critical (often best computer line) agaisnt your opening leads to a lifelessly inferior or practically unpleasant position i woudnt want to play in vs someone as stong as me. OR to put it another way. IF said hypothetical opponent where to go home tonight and prepare the objectively best response to said opening, would i groan and hope he doesnt play the ideal reply or do i find the position with enough "life" and acceptable eval to not mind facing it? (almost always should be below 0.5)?
Apr 13, 2018
0
#213
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
what about here? how do you preserve the bishop ? 9.a3 bc5 10. b4 is good for black even with bd4 but 10.nb3! wins the bishop pair if your point is entirely on the bishop preserving side.
10. Bd6 preserves the bishop - if 11. c5 Nd3 12. Qxd3 Bxf4 and if you leave the engine running long enough it will see that it's just equal.
Apr 13, 2018
0
#214
Preserving the bishop isn't the end of the game obviously but the lines where white can torture black in some long, slightly better endgame are generally based on winning the bishop pair early, or at least a bishop for a knight. It isn't easy to do this.
Apr 13, 2018
0
#216
MrDodgy wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
what about here? how do you preserve the bishop ? 9.a3 bc5 10. b4 is good for black even with bd4 but 10.nb3! wins the bishop pair if your point is entirely on the bishop preserving side.
10. Bd6 preserves the bishop - if 11. c5 Nd3 12. Qxd3 Bxf4 and if you leave the engine running long enough it will see that it's just equal.
fair enough. Although 10.bd6 11.nd4 nxc4 bxc4 12.bxf4 nf5 and idk what to make of this chaos lol
darkunorthodox88 wrote: ponz in blue
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
When one writes a book about a dubious opening, he/she is taking a big chance. I know this per my book on the Center Counter. The chance that somebody will have a refutation of a suggested line.
I had great success with the Center Counter for many years. But, i always have an open mind and always looking for the "truth" in chess. Now, i can say that if White knows what he is doing--the Center Counter/Scandinavian is not such a good opening.
I have great respect for Bronznick for writing his book. However i have been able to "see" some of his lines.
He and i agree that this line gives White a clear advantage. [however i think it is close to winning and i have done a lot of analysis of this line]:
the center counter dubious? that's just a strange description. openings that take longer to equalize =/= dubious. i have never seen a line from white that really should make black reconsider playing his defense. By dubious, i mean close to losing or losing. Just because you have never seen a line from White that really should make Black reconsider playing his defense--does not mean that there are no such lines. [and i am not trying to be sarcastic]
as for books on dubious openings, well one of the benefits of the computer era is that we can test any line a book gives you from home. especially so since now we are using cloud features which let us see the analysis of other top engines at high depths. this brings a new standard of a good opening book. IF an opening is worth playing, it ought to be computer "proof" against its most critical lines. i do not think that the Budapest is computer proof against the most critical lines.
i have not used "cloud" but i also do not think the center counter/Scandiavian is computer proof against the most critical lines!?
there is still room for human touch, in very specific positions, either closed positions or those that straightforwardly lead to a specific ending humans know of but the engine's horizon cant see, i think the engine can get evals wrong by a good 0.2-0.3. or not see a truly drawn ending result. Sure engines can sometimes get evaluations a little wrong. Sure sometimes the best engines have not seen truly drawn lines. A position given by a GM i saw a line to draw that the best engines did not see.
I wrote the first book on the Center Counter which started to make it a popular opening--since then maybe a dozen books have come out on that opening. i have been able to observe all the new theory. i am saying [after all these years] that the Center Counter/Scandinavian is a dubious opening.
i at least use dubious opening to mean that the most critical (often best computer line) agaisnt your opening leads to a lifelessly inferior or practically unpleasant position i woudnt want to play in vs someone as stong as me. OR to put it another way. IF said hypothetical opponent where to go home tonight and prepare the objectively best response to said opening, would i groan and hope he doesnt play the ideal reply or do i find the position with enough "life" and acceptable eval to not mind facing it? (almost always should be below 0.5)? if you knew what i know--you probably would not wish to play the Center Counter or the Budapest Gambi!? 
Apr 13, 2018
0
#218
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
MrDodgy wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
what about here? how do you preserve the bishop ? 9.a3 bc5 10. b4 is good for black even with bd4 but 10.nb3! wins the bishop pair if your point is entirely on the bishop preserving side.
10. Bd6 preserves the bishop - if 11. c5 Nd3 12. Qxd3 Bxf4 and if you leave the engine running long enough it will see that it's just equal.
fair enough. Although 10.bd6 11.nd4 nxc4 bxc4 12.bxf4 nf5 and idk what to make of this chaos lol
Sure, it can get messy but that's half the fun.
Wish some of you would give some preliminary moves in the lines you are posting about so we can know what you are posting about!!
"... In the main variation 4.Bf4 Bb4+ 5.Nbd2 Nc6 6.Nf3 Qe7 7.e3 ... [White] returns the pawn, but thanks to his [c4 pawn], from then on he controls more space in the centre and frequently obtains the advantage of the bishop pair, with the result that it is very difficult for Black to find effective counterplay. For his part, Black can deviate from this plan at various points - 6...f6, 5...d6?! or 4...g5. But if White reacts correctly, 4...g5 or 6...f6 leads once more to a slightly worse position with little counterplay, whereas 5...d6?!, with all the complications which it calls into being, is probably objectively simply unsound and can very quickly cost the game." - IM Valeri Bronznik (2011)
4. g5? leads to a lost game. Here is one example game:
White is TThe Chess Mine vote chess team