Talk:Budapest Gambit/Archive 1

Requested move (old)
All the external references and the authoritative works on this subject refer to it as the "Budapest Gambit" and not as the "Budapest Defence". I have not been able to find any serious reference calling it the "Budapest Defence". Hence my suggestion to change the name. SyG 08:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've heard "Budapest Gambit", but I think "Budapest Defence" is the original and more common name. In my library, it seems to be 3/3 in favour of "Budapest Defence": 1. Batsford's Modern Chess Openings (Nick de Firmian) (i.e. MCO-14) calls it "Budapest Defence". 2. Batsford Chess Openings (Kasparov + Keene, 1982) calls it "Budapest Defence". 3. I've also got an old book by Israel Horowitz that calls it Budapest Defence. Peter Ballard 08:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Batsford Chess Openings (Kasparov + Keene, 1989) calls it Budapest Gambit. ChessCreator (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think either name is correct, but "Budapest Defence/Defense" seems more common. In addition to the examples given above, other authors that use the defense terminology are Hooper & Whyld (The Oxford Companion to Chess) Fine (Ideas Behind the Chess Openings), and Burgess (The Mammoth Book of Chess).  It seems that Soltis (Grandmaster Secrets: Openings) also uses "Defense", but I don't have that book.  The two references that I have that use Budapest Gambit are Kasparov & Keene 1992 (BCO-2) and Nunn (NCO).  I searched amazon.com for book titles, and the results are very close with about 20 titles each way.  Many of the "Budapest Defense" titles are out-of-print Chess Digest pamphlets, so "Budapest Gambit" does seem to be more used more in recent publishing.  Most or all of that is from a single publisher (Batsford), so it may simply be a publishing house style decision.  Two factors in favor of "Gambit" is that it's clear that it refers to a chess opening rather than defense of the city Budapest, and "Gambit" avoids "Defense" vs. "Defence" disputes.  Despite this I think the page is best left where it is.  Quale 09:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify: I personally don't care. I just wanted to point out that there are reliable sources calling it "Budapest Defence". Peter Ballard 12:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK then, let's call that a consensus and don't change the name. SyG 14:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Seirawan also calls it Gambit. However, it is probably significant that MCO went from Gambit to Defense with the 14th edition, that may be the trend.  Personally, back in my day we always called it Budapest Gambit, but I don't have a strong opinion about what is best.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with SyG that the "Budapest Gambit" is generally better known and commonly used than the "Budapest Defence/Defense". It is the same in other languages (German "Budapester Gambit", Dutch "Boedapestgambiet", French "Gambit de Budapest", Polish "Gambit Budapesztański", Russian "Будапештский гамбит", and last but not least Hungarian "Budapesti védelem"). So, we ought to move it. Mibelz 17:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a quick summary of opinions so far: we have 2 Support (SyG, Mibelz), 1 Oppose (Quale) and 2 Don't care (Peter Ballard, Bubba73). That is far from a consensus, so I will let it as it is until more persons express their views. SyG 17:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Results from a quick survey of my chess literature:
 * Tim Harding (64 Great Chess Games, Chess Mail, p. 252) calls it the Budapest Defence.
 * John Nunn (Understanding Chess Move by Move, Gambit, p. 165) calls it the Budapest Gambit. (But as one of the editors of Gambit Books, he's obviously biased.)
 * John Watson (Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy, Gambit) calls it the Budapest Gambit on p. 78, and the Budapest Defence on p. 155.
 * Then a search on chesspublishing.com returns 50 hits for "Budapest Gambit", 58 hits for "Budapest Defence", and 25 hits for "Budapest Defense."
 * In short: most people are just as confused as we are. I propose a half-correspondence, half-OTB match between Tim and John; winner gets to name the article as they see fit! youngvalter 00:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm slightly partial to Gambit, since that is what it was called back in my day. However, MCO 14 is Defense rather than Gambit (as in MCO 13), and that may be the trend.  I don't see any consensus to change it to Gambit.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Two new arguments in the discussion: SyG (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In the titles of the specialised works (i.e. books dealing only with the Budapest, see the "References" and "Further reading") there are 5 books calling it Budapest Gambit (Oleinikov, Lalic, Borik, Moskalenko, Zavodny), 1 book calling it Budapest Defense (Staker) and 1 book wisely avoids the problem by just calling it Budapest (Tseitlin). Moreover the book by Staker is the oldest of all this list, and the book by Tseitlin calls it Budapest Gambit in the Preface ("This is how the opening that was afterwards named the Budapest Gambit received its baptism of fire", page 7). So the specialised works clearly favor Budapest Gambit.
 * In the Wikipedias of other languages, 7 use Budapest Gambit (Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Nederlands, Norsk, Polski, Русский) while 4 use Budapest Defense (Español, Magyar, Português, Puolustus). It seems especially important to me that the russians and the germans use Budapest Gambit given their special weight in chess.


 * I would argue that Budapest Gambit is a more accurate title than Budapest Defence. Black is giving up a pawn-- that's what a gambit is! "Defence" implies a response to something that White is doing, which is not really the case here Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak support of using Budapest Gambit. Technically it's a gambit so using that name makes logical sense. Chess literature seems to use both, but my subjective browsing of chess literature indicates modern preference is moving towards 'Gambit' over 'Defence' ChessCreator (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Budapest Gambit because of references used in article, WP:PROVEIT can then be cited in support of this name. I always knew it as Budapest Defense myself, but maybe because when I play as white I do not try too hard to keep the extra pawn so do not see it as a gambit opening. Callmederek (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak support of using Budapest Gambit. Don't care. Given that Black sacrifices a pawn, calling it a gambit rather than a defense seems more accurate. I also think "Gambit" is a little more common. As SyG notes, books on the opening predominantly call it that (maybe if you're selling a book "gambit" sounds cooler than "defense"?). btw, the Tseitlin/Glaskov book he cites is actually pro-"Gambit," not neutral. Although the title is the neutral "The Budapest for the Tournament Player," inside the book they consistently call it "Budapest Gambit," using that term five times in their preface (pp. 7-10). They do, however, mention Schlechter's posthumously published 1919 monograph The Budapest Defence to the Queen's Gambit [sic]. So my preference is for "Budapest Gambit," but I can't say that "Budapest Defence" is "wrong." Krakatoa (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I should have read SyG's comment more carefully. He already noted that Tseitlin/Glaskov use "Gambit" in their preface. Krakatoa (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Eric Schiller in Standard Chess Openings (p. 655) calls it "Budapest Defense." Using the presumption that Schiller is always wrong, that supports using "Budapest Gambit." :-) Krakatoa (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Another reference: Seirawan in his Winning Chess Openings (p. 157) calls it the Budapest Gambit. My recollection was that Yermolinsky in The Road to Chess Improvement had (like Seirawan) referred to his youthful fondness for the Budapest, but I can't find it. Krakatoa (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Iakov Neishtadt in his books Winning Quickly with White (pp. 130, 139) and Winning Quickly with Black (pp. 125, 133) uses "Defence." As Quale suggested, Soltis indeed uses "Defense" in "Grandmaster Secrets: Openings" (p. 63). So given that both terms are widely used, we should probably just leave the name alone. Given that my personal preference is for Gambit, I'm changing my vote to "Don't Care." Krakatoa (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding my voice as a "don't care" since both terms are used in chess literature. I think that in practice, White usually returns the pawn, so I'm not convinced that it is truly a "gambit", but the same is true, and even more so, for the Queen's Gambit. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Summary of opinions so far (in my understanding of the discussion): SyG (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For the change: SyG, Mibelz, Pawnkingthree, ChessCreator, Callmederek
 * Against the change: Quale
 * Neutral: Peter Ballard, Bubba73, youngvalter, Krakatoa, Sjakkalle

This has been closed as "no consensus" by User:JPG-GR, who as far as I can tell from List of administrators/G-O is not an admin. I have posted on his talk page to request that he reconsider. Callmederek (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Move order after 5...Bb4+ 6.Nc3
The current article text indicates that White doesn't have an advantage after
 * 4. Bf4 Nc6
 * 5. Nf3 Bb4+
 * 6. Nc3 Qe7
 * 7. Qd5!?

which seems reasonable. But why wouldn't White play
 * 7. Qb3!

Certainly that seems better than the supposed mainline
 * 6. Nbd2 Qe7
 * 7. a3 Ngxe5
 * 8. Bxe5 Nxe5
 * 9, e3

because after
 * 9, ... Bxd2+
 * 10. Qxd2 Nxf3+
 * 11. gxf3

things seem pretty even

AmericanJeffBowden 08:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. After 6.Nc3 the best for Black is to play immediately 6...BxNc3+, otherwise White gets the opportunity to avoid the doubling of its pawns with 7.Qb3 or 7.Qc2. I would suggest to replace 6...Qe7 by 6...BxNc3+, what do you think ? SyG 19:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh, that is very interesting. Somehow I have never seen 7.Qb3, and I own and have looked through two books on the Budapest. ECO likes 7.Qb3 and says it favors White. ECO also likes the similarly intentioned 7.Rc1, as does MCO-14 (which doesn't mention 7.Qb3). Both ECO and MCO-14 recommend 6..Bxc3+ immediately (as SyG suggests) so as not to allow White to keep his pawns intact. I will modify the article accordingly. Krakatoa December 2006?


 * 7 Qb3 is an mistake as 7... Na5 and the c4 pawn is lost. 8 Qc2 Nxc4 = ChessCreator (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

AmericanJeffBowden, in the Nbd2 line, White never plays Bxe5. He plays Nxe5, keeping the bishop pair and not allowing Black to double White's f-pawns, as in the line you gave. Krakatoa 06:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed 4. Bf4 Nc6 5. Nf3 Bb4+ 6. Nbd2 Qe7 7. a3 Ngxe5 when now 8. Bxe5 is a mistake as it gives up the bishop pair for no reason. ChessCreator (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Kieninger trap
After the moves 5...Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3 Nxe5 some people call "7.axBb4?? Nd3#" the Kieninger trap, but I have not been able to find good references for that. All I found in Google were sites taking this information from Wikipedia (a classic case of circular reference), and in my books there is no Kieninger anywhere. So unless someone has a valid source for that, I am considering deleting this affirmation. SyG 09:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that this claim should be verified by a good reference. When I google, I find two brief mentions not originally from WikiPedia:
 * http://members.aol.com/ELCC90/chess1/elcc_games/elccgames2.txt quotes Otto Borik, Budpest Gambit (1986): "The late German master Georg Kieninger once used it in an offhand game against Godai at Vienna 1925...". I don't have this book so I can't check that reference.
 * http://www.correspondencechess.com/marconi/534.htm has a mention from 1999, predating the WikiPedia Budapest Defence page by about 5 years.
 * There is no mention of Kieninger in The Oxford Companion to Chess, and I don't have any specialty literature on the Budapest with which to make a more thorough check. Quale 09:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, Quale, I ordered the Otto Borik book and there is the reference to the Kieninger trap indeed! Problem solved! SyG 19:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ossip Bernstein?
Is the Bernstein line named after Ossip Bernstein? --Wfaxon 15:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, I have searched hard for a clue about the surname, but I have not been able to find any factual proof. It could be Ossip Bernstein, but there are also a Jacob Bernstein and a Joseph Bernstein that have played in the same period, so unfortunately I am not sure of anything. Also, for the moment I have only one source that calls this line the "Bernstein line", so nothing clear-cut.
 * I should receive more sources by the end of the Fall, maybe this mystery will be solved by then. SyG 17:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not at home, so I can't check ChessBase's Mega 2007 database, which might perhaps shed some light on this. I looked on chessgames.com's smaller database, and the only Budapest I could find in which a Bernstein was involved was a simul game Capablanca-Sidney Bernstein (an American master, now deceased I believe) that went 4.e4 h5?!. That doesn't help solve the mystery. Krakatoa (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

4.Bf4 variation - Rubinstein line move order
Current text within the Rubinstein line 6.Nc3 is not valid as same move is repeated. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6. Nc3 7...Nc6 7.Nf3 Qe7 In above line Nc6 is played twice! ChessCreator (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed! I will correct that. SyG (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Searching for a tempo with 7.e3 line
"1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.e3 Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Be2 d6 10.O-O it is Black's last chance to exchange the Bb4 for the Nd2. Thus Black had better avoiding the exchange and continues with a normal move like 10...d6. Then White can try two ideas:"
 * Same issue here, can't play 9...d6 and 10...d6 ChessCreator (talk) 12:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well seen. I have replaced 10...d6 by 10...O-O SyG (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Change rating
I think this article is better than "start", so I changed it to "B". Bubba73 (talk), 18:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite agree. For a (relatively) minor opening it's very impressive. I looked it up just now expecting only a stub!Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is pretty complete for that size of opening. Bubba73 (talk), 17:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * He he, surprise, surprise! And it can still go a lot further, I think. Especially I would love to see a "History" section, I intend to work on that in a few months. By the way, maybe we could built some kind of general guidelines about how an opening article should be structured ? SyG (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with everyone above. Nice job. Krakatoa (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed the article is great, although from a Chess point of view reading the article you would think it 's all fine for Black, however I know from experience in the 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.e3 Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Be2 line White has a clear plus and as Black you are fighting an uphill battle. ChessCreator (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Speaking of how good the article is, I think that Moskalenko's The Fabulous Budapest Gambit is perhaps the best book on a single opening that I have seen. Bubba73 (talk), 03:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Animated positions
I don't know how these are done or what's involved, but it would be nice if the board colors matched the standard chess diagram. ChessCreator (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Budapest Defence → Budapest Gambit — per the strong consensus on this page (see above), and the wealth of references supporting the title —Callmederek (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support mostly for the following reasons:
 * All the works listed in the section "References" use the name "Budapest Gambit".
 * The most recent authoritative work on the subject (Moskalenko published in December 2007) uses the name "Budapest Gambit".
 * When the name "Budapest Defence" is used (which is rare), it is in general books on chess openings, while all the specialised books on the subject use "Budapest Gambit" (once again, see section "References").
 * It would avoid the complications over Defense/Defence.
 * The russian and german Wikipedias both use "Budapest Gambit", and these nations are the two strongest ones in chess (especially Russia, of course).
 * The opening corresponds exactly to the definition of a gambit.

SyG (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * mild support. I was one of the "don't cares" a few months ago.  Since then I've gotten two more books, Moskalenko's The Fabulous Budapest Gambit (probably the most recent book on the opening), and Understanding the Chess Openings, by Collins, which (briefly) calls it "Gambit".  So because of this and the fact that I've never heard a person call it "defense" (only gambit), that tilts me in favor of "gambit".  Bubba73 (talk), 01:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Increasing amount of sources brought forward in above posts confirm my feeling that 'Budapest Gambit' is the more accepted naming. ChessCreator (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support as per nom. Iamaleopard (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I will support move based on SyG's point 2 and 3. I am a bit skeptical to the last point about this being a true gambit (after 3...Ng4 White usually returns the pawn), but that is a very mild objection and does not outweigh the fact that the most authoritative references use "gambit". Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mild support. Given the large number of sources that call it "Budapest Defense," I can't say that that name is "wrong." That said, "Gambit" is more logical (no one calls 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 the "Latvian Defense"), I've always called it that myself, that's what I hear other people call it, and the reasons SyG gave. Btw, I do consider it a true gambit (as opposed to, say, the Queen's Gambit, which allows White to immediately regain the pawn with 3.Qa4+ or 3.e3 b5?! 4.a4), since White can hold onto the pawn with 3...Ng4 4.Qd4!? d6 5.exd6 Bxd6 6.Nf3 0-0 7.Bg5!, as I've often played successfully in blitz. Alas, 5...Nc6! is much harder to deal with IMO. Krakatoa (talk) 06:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Move request was created on 1 March 2008, which included opinions from previous discussion. Opinions offered over the following weeks included four supporting the move, two "not caring", and no opposiion. Sources used in the article almost entirely use "Gambit". A non-admin counted all opinions going back to last year, despite the huge changes in the article since then and closed as no consensus and refuses to reconsider. Relisting for "further consideration". Callmederek (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In the future, you'll get a lot further if you follow the steps as stated at WP:RM in the first place, rather than complain that your (incomplete) move request doesn't go your way. When the discussion "linked" shows the topic being discussed for over a year and doesn't show a consensus for either side, there is no reason to make the move. It's also wise to assume good faith and not assume someone "refuses to reconsider" when very little time has passed since a comment has been posted to someone's talk page, especially when someone had already responded to said comment. JPG-GR (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
 * Just a reminder that If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic WP:Manual_of_Style
 * One day ago it was called 'Budapest Defence' and already attempts have been made to change it to an American spelling 'Budapest Defense' article.
 * The existing English variety was clearly established by it's Defence name. Not only that but the article for years   has been in established as British English and the introduction in error of one occurance of the spelling of 'defense' on March 9th 2008 by SyG does not invalid that protocol, nor is it a reason to change this article from English to American.
 * Changes to this article to make it 'America' could look as if the rename was only a ploy to change it's flavour of English, rather then a genuine approval to call it the Budapest Gambit. ChessCreator (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Guideline WP:Manual_of_Style that you rightly cite states that If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety. Whereas I had tried to uniformise all the spelling, your last reverts reinstalled a situation where both varieties cohabit, which is not compliant with this Guideline. Please fix that. SyG (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. The article did confirm until this was added recently. Have now corrected article, at least so far as I can tell. ChessCreator (talk)

Suggested wording change, and queries over 3...Ne4 4 a3 Qh4
In general, an impressive article. However, in the discussions on "The rook lift to attack White's castle", I think "castle" should be replaced with "castled king" as "castle" isn't widely used to refer to a castled king position among chessplayers.

In addition, while the section on 3...Ne4 4 a3 Qh4 is well sourced, it's sourced from a 1986 article, and Tim Harding, in particular, suggests in his article that 4...Qh4 is now considered to be far from being a simple equaliser, with White often gaining a strong initiative by gaining time on the queen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tws45 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome, feel free to edit yourself, this is wiki. SunCreator (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, the wording about "White's castle" has been changed. For the 3...Ne4 4.a3 Qh4 variation, I agree the reference may be a bit outdated, I will try to find something more recent. However I have some doubts about Tim Harding; he has written an impressive number of books but I am not sure he is strong enough to be considered as an authoritative source. SyG (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the 3...Ne4 4.a3 Qh4 variation is unsound and the given variations from O'Kelly-Bisguier is something like a chess zombie, given in many books. The refutation is 5.g3 Qh5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Qc2! Qf5(given as "threatening" Nxg3 by Borik) 8.Nbd2 Nxg3 9.e4! and white wins. 14:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliver-hh (talk • contribs)


 * Unfortunately as I don't have any books on the Budapest I can't add any sourced material to the 3...Ne4 4.a3 line. But I suggest expanding it (in particular some coverage of 4.a3 d6), adding it to the list of critical (rather than misc. variations) and modifying the bit saying that Black can equalise after 4.a3 Qh4, as this is clearly wide of the mark with 4...b6 and 4...d6 the main focus in recent years. From what I've seen, a large majority of theoreticians actually consider 4.a3 to be White's best and most critical response to the Fajarowicz as it prevents 4...Bb4+, which is Black's main response in most other lines. Tws45 (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oliver-hh and Tws45 are right. First, 4.a3 is an important variation - de Firmian in MCO-15 (2008, p. 504) gives it "!" and says it leads to a large advantage for White. He gives two alternatives to 4.a3, both of which he considers weaker - 4.Nf3 (leading to a small advantage for W) and 4.Qc2 (leading to equality). 4.a3 should be given as a main line in our article, not an obscure, inferior sideline. Second, 4...Qh4 is by no means a simple equalizer, as our article claims. The line Oliver-hh gave looks extremely strong, and destroys Borik's recommended (Borik, p. 86) 7...Qf5. Wiegel-Fiebig, corr. 1984 followed the line given by Oliver-hh; after 9.e4! Black resigned. What are Black's alternatives to 7...Qf5? Apart from 7...f5 8.exf6 keeping the extra pawn, there seems to be only 7...Nc5 8.b4 Ne6 9.Bb2, holding on to the extra pawn, with a huge space advantage for White, and Black's queen out on a limb. Note, incidentally, that ChessGames.com has eight games with 4.a3 Qh4 5.g3 Qh5. White scored a rather respectable seven wins and one draw (93.75%). That casts further doubt on the claim that 4...Qh4 simply equalizes. Krakatoa (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've broken out 4.a3 into a separate subsection, so it's no longer lumped in with inferior 4th moves for White. Krakatoa (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a great improvement, thanks ! SyG (talk) 07:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Good to see 4.a3 (which may well merit a "!") get the credit that it deserves. Just coming to Black's rescue after 4.a3 d6 5.Qc2, Fritz 10's openings book gives 5...Nc5 as best, and as such Black may not need to waste a tempo with 5...d5.Tws45 (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have changed the text accordingly. SyG (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Rarely played in top level?
Two things, who says this? You'd better have some big names to back up this claim. Second, even if this is true, what good does saying this have to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyadam (talk • contribs) 16:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This statement is said by Viktor Moskalenko in his book on the Budapest Gambit. It is informative because it helps the reader to understand the notability of the opening. SyG (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

POV in Reference section
The reference section contains unreferenced statements such as some assessments are outdated. I think they are inappropriate for an encyclopaedia (even if they were referenced). But now surely they violate at least WP:POV. Voorlandt (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unable to locate "outdated" on the page now or on version of the date of the above post. Can you be more specific of the POV statement(s) you refer to? 17:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * References have show-option. Open them and youll see. Lab-oratory (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Animated images
Can they be restructured so as not to look like the rook is moving one square at a time? 91.107.131.23 (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Fajarowicz, 4.Nf3 Bb4+ 5.Nbd2
It says in the article that Tseitlin sees sufficient compensation for the pawn in all lines after 5...d5, but this is another line that I'm dubious about: what happens if White plays 6.Qb3 here? Best then seems to be 6...Nc6 7.cxd5 Nc5 8.Qc4 b5 9.Qxb5 Qxd5, or 6...Nxd2 7.Nxd2 Ba5 8.cxd5, and in both cases White ends up with two extra pawns, probably for about one pawn's worth of compensation. Or 6...Bxd2+ 7.Nxd2 dxc4 8.Qb5+ c6 9.Qxc4 and although Black is only one pawn down here, the compensation seems pretty scant.

I'm quite a fan of the Fajarowicz and have played it myself with good results, but I think the section on the "Faj" seems a little biased towards Black, particularly in the critical 4.a3 line as well as 4.Nf3 Bb4+ 5.Nbd2. It gives the impression that Black equalises easily in all lines, whereas in reality almost all authorities concede that White should have an edge with accurate play. In addition, since 4.a3 Qh4 leaves White better, it would be worth some discussion of the normal 4...d6 (someone correctly mentioned 4...b6 as an alternative also). Unfortunately I don't have any sources on the Fajarowicz other than Tim Harding's internet article from 1997 where he suggests 4...d6 with the follow-up 5.Nf3 Bf5. Tws45 (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree the article is currently biased towards Black, the main problem being that most sources on the Budapest Gambit are directed to the Black player. Maybe it would be possible to find more objective assessments in books on 1.d4, but unfortunately I do not have any. SyG (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 6.Qb3 is a good move. IMO White easily has a plus. I think 5...d5 is not good enough, but as GM Tseitlin is the source it would seems appropriate to use it. SunCreator (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Split this article in several
According to this analysis of readability, the article is much too long. I consider the possibility to split it into several different articles, along the different variations. Any comment ? SyG (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the Budapest is a large enough opening to be subdivided. Bubba73 (talk), 15:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Great idea. When I open this article, it loads so slowly, that disappears any desire to make this again in the future. --MrsHudson (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * With me it loads within 3 seconds, which is a lot better than some articles. Bubba73 (talk), 16:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm with Bubba73. It seems weird to split the Budapest into multiple articles when we don't split articles about much more common openings. The Budapest constitutes a walloping 0.17% of the games in ChessGames.com's database. Krakatoa (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

← All right, no consensus for split, sorry MrsHudson you will have to remain a victim of the connection-speed armor race. But then, how do I comply with WP:SIZE ? Shall I remove half of the article to be under 50 kB ? SyG (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So, no one has an idea on how I could reduce the size of this article ? SyG (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:SIZE a guideline not a policy. I seem to recall this question arose on a previous article and it was discovered that FA quality articles upto 250Kb exist, so I figure it's not a big deal. SunCreator (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is actually very short - only 135 Kb! Note that the much less important Bobby Fischer is 116 Kb. More relevantly, Sicilian Defense, an unimportant opening that is played over 100 times as often as the Budapest, is 66 Kb. :-) Of course, Sicilian Defense has a lot of spun-off variations. Krakatoa (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree the article is too short, but this is just because it is not finished yet. All the lines after the 22th move are still missing, as well as the typical endings, the statistics back to 1916 month per month, and a detailed description of every player having experienced the Budapest Gambit in history. Don't worry, I plan to add that under short notice. SyG (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * SyG, Krakatoa's immediately piece above yours is written with sarcasm. I point this out because I know your first language is not english and so it would be easy to confuse. He's not saying it's very short but long and not saying Bobby Fischer is less important but more. Yes the english language is complex sometimes! SunCreator (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * SunCreator, I think SyG understood that and was responding in kind - at least I hope so. P.S. SyG, If you're not being sarcastic, be sure to mention that once when I was a 1400 I played the Budapest in a tournament game, and drew, but only after my opponent missed the win of a piece. As White, I once played against the 4.Bf4 g5!? line and got a big advantage, but blew it and ended up having to scrounge a draw from the bad side of a R, RP, and BP versus R ending. I once gave a simul where one of my opponents played the Budapest - once again I played badly and ended up with two bishops as compensation for my lost queen. That was the only draw I gave up in the simul. In blitz games, I have often played 4.Qd4?!, usually with success, but I really don't like to see 4...d6 5.exd6 Nc6! Krakatoa (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, in the Norwegian chess championship last week, I saw a White player in my section (rating 1250-1499) horribly smothered mated after eight moves against the Budapest. OK, we might need to work trimming down the move by move analysis before we consider splitting the article in two. Wikipedia's mission is to inform, and some light analysis illustrating general ideas and strategies is part of that; but it's perhaps best if people who want detailed and deep analysis buy an opening book instead. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As a rule of thumb, I think a separate article on an opening variation is a serious option if the variation has an opening monograph devoted to it. In the case of the Budapest, this makes the 3...Ne4 line a possible candidate for splitting, which in fact has two books devoted to it, T. D. Harding in 1996 and Gutman in 2004. This is not essential, and I would prioritize separate articles for the Nimzo-Indian 4.Qc2, 4.e3, or 4.Nf3 lines higher, but if a split of the article is desirable, I think spinning out the Fajorowicz is the best option. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all for your input. Now I have 3 persons (including myself) in favour of a split, 2 persons against a split, and 1 person who thinks the size is not a big deal after all. My next move has to be cautious ;-) SyG (talk) 08:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a completely contrarian opinion: the article is far too long and contains too much irrelevant detail. Wikipedia is both a general and a specialist encyclopedia, but the detailed discussion of lines most of which have never been tested in any important games is out of place here.  There is a place for that level of detail, but it isn't here.  Wikibooks chess would be a possibility.  As an example, take nearly any of the notes in the article.  Here is (currently) the last one:
 * 6.exd6 is considered an error by Lalic but after 6...Bf5! he only looks at 7.Qa4+ and fails to consider Borik's recommendation 7.a3 Bxd2+ 8.Bxd2 Qxd6, when Black has enough compensation for the pawn with his active Ne4 and Bf5. (Lalic 1998, p.148). (Borik 1986, p.81–82, citing the games Antainen – Nieminen, Finnish Correspondence Championship 1973, Bascau – Meewes, correspondence 1971, and Laghkva – Contendini, Leipzig Olympiad 1960).
 * Sorry to be blunt, but why would a reader of this article care? An appropriate level of detail is to cover the major lines and assessments and direct the reader to the specialist opening literature for detail. See WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTHOW.  I think this article currently steps over this line.  Quale (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that Quale has hit the nail on the head. The article is practically a treatise on the Budapest. Krakatoa (talk) 02:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is great stuff and a great job has been done on it, with a lot of dedicated work. But I think it goes into too much detail for an encyclopedia article, especially on one that is rarely played.  Back in my day we used to get booklets on openings from Chess Digest, and this article probably has at least as much information as one of those booklets.  In fact, I think I have the one on the Budapest.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's a very good quality article but also too detailed. It certainly reads more like a treatise on the opening rather than an overview.  I'm not sure about how to set about trimming it down though.
 * Further edit: I think much of the "Notes" section in particular may be overkill.Tws45 (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * About the Notes you are right, I recently tried to move there everything that could (in my opinion) be eventually wiped out. I will also try to trim down the article, but I want to be careful as I would like this article to be also useful for the expert players, not just a simple introduction. SyG (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

anymore?
I noticed that "anymore" was changed to "any more". I think "anymore" is correct. Bubba73 (talk), 16:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am also in favor of replacing the two "!" at the end of sentences with periods. Bubba73 (talk), 17:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For "anymore", I changed it to "any more" because the automatic peer review told me that "anymore" was American and "any more" was British, and I had to be consistent with one single language. I chose the British one because "defence" is British so if I had chosen American I would have had to change all the "defence" for "defense".
 * In all this I trusted blindedly this tool, so if you tell me it is incorrect I have no problem to change. SyG (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For your second point, I have done the replacement. SyG (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK about "any more". Bubba73 (talk), 19:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Fajarowicz 3...Ne4
Is this called Fajarowicz variation or Fajarowicz gambit? SunCreator (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Either name may be used. 91.107.160.243 (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

rubinstein variation, immidiate check
According to databases, the second most popular move is 4. ... Bb4+, which is not even mentioned here. It's likely to transpose of course, but why not say it to the people? 83.27.92.203 (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)