Talk:Budapest Gambit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	Chess Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale.
	This article is in the list of Selected articles that are shown on the Portal:Chess.

Contents 1 Traffic statistics 2 Requested move (old) 3 Move order after 5...Bb4+ 6.Nc3 4 Kieninger trap 5 Ossip Bernstein? 6 4.Bf4 variation - Rubinstein line move order 6.1 Searching for a tempo with 7.e3 line 7 Change rating 8 References 9 Animated positions 10 Requested move 10.1 Survey 10.2 Discussion 11 Suggested wording change, and queries over 3...Ne4 4 a3 Qh4 12 Rarely played in top level?

[edit] Traffic statistics

Here is the monthly volume of view counts for the article including the redirects, i.e. Budapest Gambit, Budapest Defense and Budapest Defence:

• December 2007: 631 (not a full month)
• January 2008: 1266
• February 2008: 1167
• March 2008: 1334
• April 2008: 1222
• May 2008: 1109

[edit] 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:

• 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.

SyG (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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):

• For the change: SyG, Mibelz, Pawnkingthree, ChessCreator, Callmederek
• Against the change: Quale
• Neutral: Peter Ballard, Bubba73, youngvalter, Krakatoa, Sjakkalle

SyG (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been closed as "no consensus" by User:JPG-GR,[1] who as far as I can tell from Wikipedia:List of administrators/G-O#J is not an admin. I have posted on his talk page to request that he reconsider.[2] Callmederek (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?!. [3] That doesn't help solve the mystery. Krakatoa (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] References

Although there are a lot of references in the article, sections such as "The advantages of ...Bb4+" have none, and they need them. Bubba73 (talk), 04:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Requested move

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#Retaining_the_existing_variety

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 [5] [6] [7] 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#Retaining_the_existing_variety 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)