Forums

How to play against Budapest Gambit

Sort:
darkunorthodox88
NM darkunorthodox88
Show your flair!
Apr 14, 2018
0
#221
ponz111 wrote:
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!?

 

I would love to see the line of the scandinavian you are referring to. im always up for learning some new critical line of an opening. im just a little skeptical on whether it leaves black THAT bad. why dont you start a new forum on the line? call it " a bust to the center counter" or something.  Maybe some of us, can find an improvement somewhere.

darkunorthodox88
NM darkunorthodox88
Show your flair!
Apr 14, 2018
0
#222
MrDodgy wrote:
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.

idk bro, after the nf5 move, stockfish 8 and depth 36 gives me 0.8 .  your 10.bd6 might be busted.

ilusmte
ilusmte
Closed: Inactive
Apr 14, 2018
0
#223

"A complicated debate for not so complicated opening" 

ponz111
ponz111
Apr 14, 2018
0
#224

The Center Counter/Scandinavian is much more complicated than the Budapest Gambit. Thus a forum of a "bust" would be too much for me to undertake.

 There are 2 basic lines also. 1. e4  d5  2. exd5  Qxd5 and also

1. e4  d5  2. exd5  Nf6

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
Apr 14, 2018
0
#225
darkunorthodox88 wrote:

people are over-complicating the situation here.

 

1.budapest doesnt lose by force, not even agaisnt the best book line or engine opposition

2.the position black gets agaisnt the best replies however are not pleasant to most master level players. having to give the bishop for, well... not much and white's pawns having easy room to expand is not ideal

 

i recall early in my chess career having to give up  a  specific variation of the nimzowitsch defense (1.e4 nc6 2.nf3 d6 3.d4 nf6 4.nc3 bg4) bc one of the main lines was busted by a computer and the alternative was to give the bishop pair for absolutely no compensation. i tried that agaisnt an equally strong opponent OTB, and i went down in flames. But the worst part is that during post-mortem, black really didnt do almost any mistake, it was just that black's position is reduced to compete passivity and reactive moves agaisnt decent play by white.

 

this I fear is a similar fate to improving budapest players who are moving to expert and master level. they play more prepared opponents that know how to reduce black to a boring inferior position, until they eventually give it up. its not just that white is about 0.5 up, some lines of the KID are like 0.5 too. It's that the resulting positions really give black limited chances if white doesnt want an exciting game.

 

SF's 0.5 in the KID and 0.5 in The Budapest(actually more like 0.7 in both cases to shallow depth) are 2 very DIFFERENT things.

One should listen to what SF says in open positions and largely disregard its closed assessments.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
Apr 14, 2018
0
#226
Optimissed wrote:

I love the big edge white gets in the Bf4 line. It's extremely difficult to play against if white understands what he's doing. Black is playing for a draw and white is playing to win. The 3. e4 and 4. f4 line looks interesting but white has to understand both retreats and at the end of it there's no forced win.

Correction - at the end of it THERE IS a forced win, in sharp distinction to most other lines.

Again, I offered people to show how black does not lose in this line, no one accepted my invitation.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
Apr 14, 2018
0
#227
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]:



Indeed, white is much better in this line.

Winning chances are approximately 70-30 here, I have analysed this with SF for a while.

But this is not the main refutation of the Budapest.

Still, it is indicative that too many lines, Nf3, Bf4, e4 and f4, etc., give white large advantage, this certainly points out to a dubious opening.

ilusmte
ilusmte
Closed: Inactive
Apr 14, 2018
0
#228

I agree with all of you...... I will be glad to be called Mr. Paradox. 

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
Apr 14, 2018
0
#229
ponz111 wrote:

Here is my analysis regarding the line in post #240...



Indeed, white can play a3 much earlier, 7. a3 instead of e3, which should give white even larger edge, as a7-a5 is not allowed.

SF sees a3 too in different lines.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
Apr 14, 2018
0
#230
ponz111 wrote:
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!?

 

Indeed, the Center Counter is very dubious in a large swathe of lines, though a small number of variations might hold.

Even SF frequently gives +80 here.

darkunorthodox88
NM darkunorthodox88
Show your flair!
Apr 14, 2018
0
#231

show some of these lines. very dubious? really? dubious is the st, george defense, dubious is the elephant gambit.  are you going to say, the alekhine and the pirc are "very dubious" too?

 

 

DrChesspain
DrChesspain
Apr 14, 2018
0
#232
darkunorthodox88 wrote:

show some of these lines. very dubious? really? dubious is the st, george defense, dubious is the elephant gambit.  are you going to say, the alekhine and the pirc are "very dubious" too?

 

 

He'll need to check with Stockfish and then we'll have our answer.  

ToddA10
ToddA10
Apr 14, 2018
0
#233

Yasser suggest nc3, but I don't like the pawn structure for white. 

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
Apr 14, 2018
0
#234
darkunorthodox88 wrote:

show some of these lines. very dubious? really? dubious is the st, george defense, dubious is the elephant gambit.  are you going to say, the alekhine and the pirc are "very dubious" too?

 

 

There is a thread on the Alekhine here, try to find it, I already refuted it. happy.png

The Pirc is playable.

The Scandinavian playable, but not recommended.

Give me a concrete line for black which you think is good in some of these openings, and I will tell you why it is not.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
Apr 14, 2018
0
#235
DrChesspain wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:

show some of these lines. very dubious? really? dubious is the st, george defense, dubious is the elephant gambit.  are you going to say, the alekhine and the pirc are "very dubious" too?

 

 

He'll need to check with Stockfish and then we'll have our answer.  

SF is very useful indeed, but most of the better moves are suggested by me.

Top engines simply SAVE a lot of time, that is why I use them.

Besides, people will be in general more awed by a line outputted by SF than one suggested by me.

That is why I use engines.

Otherwise, it all boils down to concrete positional assessment.

When one side is much worse in terms of evaluation, like in the Alekhine or many lines of the Scandinavian, then of course you might reasonably suppose such lines are not playable.

As said, this is just the intermediate point.

You need someone to use SF intelligently to look into the future.

In 15 years' time, SF will distinguish the losing and other openings just by itself.

Btw., many people are making fun of me, but, note well, latest SF development at big depth gives what?

1. c4 as the best move.

So, laugh on.

I will keep the good knowledge for myself.

darkunorthodox88
NM darkunorthodox88
Show your flair!
Apr 14, 2018
0
#236
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:

show some of these lines. very dubious? really? dubious is the st, george defense, dubious is the elephant gambit.  are you going to say, the alekhine and the pirc are "very dubious" too?

 

 

There is a thread on the Alekhine here, try to find it, I already refuted it.

The Pirc is playable.

The Scandinavian playable, but not recommended.

Give me a concrete line for black which you think is good in some of these openings, and I will tell you why it is not.

it seems from a quick stroll through your books on amazon, half your fandom thinks you are a crackpot, and the other that you discovered a new chess paradigm. 

ponz111
ponz111
Apr 14, 2018
0
#237
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
DrChesspain wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:

show some of these lines. very dubious? really? dubious is the st, george defense, dubious is the elephant gambit.  are you going to say, the alekhine and the pirc are "very dubious" too?

 

 

He'll need to check with Stockfish and then we'll have our answer.  

SF is very useful indeed, but most of the better moves are suggested by me.

Top engines simply SAVE a lot of time, that is why I use them.

Besides, people will be in general more awed by a line outputted by SF than one suggested by me.

That is why I use engines.

Otherwise, it all boils down to concrete positional assessment.

When one side is much worse in terms of evaluation, like in the Alekhine or many lines of the Scandinavian, then of course you might reasonably suppose such lines are not playable.

As said, this is just the intermediate point.

You need someone to use SF intelligently to look into the future.

In 15 years' time, SF will distinguish the losing and other openings just by itself.

Btw., many people are making fun of me, but, note well, latest SF development at big depth gives what?

1. c4 as the best move.

So, laugh on.

I will keep the good knowledge for myself.

A strong player plus a strong chess engine is stronger than just a strong chess engine.

darkunorthodox88
NM darkunorthodox88
Show your flair!
Apr 14, 2018
0
#238
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
DrChesspain wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:

show some of these lines. very dubious? really? dubious is the st, george defense, dubious is the elephant gambit.  are you going to say, the alekhine and the pirc are "very dubious" too?

 

 

He'll need to check with Stockfish and then we'll have our answer.  

SF is very useful indeed, but most of the better moves are suggested by me.

Top engines simply SAVE a lot of time, that is why I use them.

Besides, people will be in general more awed by a line outputted by SF than one suggested by me.

That is why I use engines.

Otherwise, it all boils down to concrete positional assessment.

When one side is much worse in terms of evaluation, like in the Alekhine or many lines of the Scandinavian, then of course you might reasonably suppose such lines are not playable.

As said, this is just the intermediate point.

You need someone to use SF intelligently to look into the future.

In 15 years' time, SF will distinguish the losing and other openings just by itself.

Btw., many people are making fun of me, but, note well, latest SF development at big depth gives what?

1. c4 as the best move.

So, laugh on.

I will keep the good knowledge for myself.

its hard to take seriously a man who claims to override both the opinion of much stronger practioniers of an opening AND chess engines, yet is not even an FM. all the good your secret knowledge has done for you.

 

you are the one making outlandish borderline crackpot assestment. you should be eager to show and defend such evals. not the other way around.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
Apr 14, 2018
0
#239
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:

show some of these lines. very dubious? really? dubious is the st, george defense, dubious is the elephant gambit.  are you going to say, the alekhine and the pirc are "very dubious" too?

 

 

There is a thread on the Alekhine here, try to find it, I already refuted it.

The Pirc is playable.

The Scandinavian playable, but not recommended.

Give me a concrete line for black which you think is good in some of these openings, and I will tell you why it is not.

it seems from a quick stroll through your books on amazon, half your fandom thinks you are a crackpot, and the other that you discovered a new chess paradigm. 

The crackpot ones are trolls.

If GM Smerdon says 'The Secret of Chess' is an unique book, then so must be it.

IMs Welling and Grooten have only confirmed it.

You seem to have missed the editorial reviews: https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-secret-of-chess

darkunorthodox88
NM darkunorthodox88
Show your flair!
Apr 14, 2018
0
#240

dont get ahead of yourself. your book is unique. so is "the killer grob". dont go about translating some praise for your book to some universal endorsements by these players.Now you are being petty.