Budapest Gambit


Budapest Gambit

The Budapest Gambit (or Budapest Defence) is a chess opening beginning with the moves:1. :2.

It is rarely played in top-level chess, but it is occasionally seen at amateur levels. It has two codes in the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings, A51 (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5) and A52 (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4).

Black's second move attacks White's centre, sacrificing, at least temporarily, a pawn to do so. White most often will not cling to the extra pawn since that ties his pieces to defence and often gives Black a lead in development. Instead White usually develops his pieces and hopes to gain a lead in development while Black spends time regaining his pawn. After 3.dxe5 (the only serious try for an advantage) Black must move his knight again.

The most common is 3...Ng4, with three main possibilities:
* The Adler variation 4.Nf3 when after 4...Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 White seeks a spatial advantage in the centre with its pieces.
* The Rubinstein variation 4.Bf4 when after 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ White has an important choice to make between 6.Nbd2 (giving the pawn back for the bishop pair) and 6.Nc3 (trying to keep the extra pawn).
* The Alekhine variation 4.e4 when after 4...Nxe5 5.f4 White tries to use the central pawns to seize a big spatial advantage.

White also has some other fourth-move possibilities, the most interesting being 4.e3, while the others (4.f4?!, 4.Qd4?!, 4.Qd5, 4.e6) do not promise much.

At move 3, Black can also try (the Fajarowicz variation) 3...Ne4!? which concentrates on rapid piece play.

The Budapest rook

The "Budapest rook" is a manoeuvre in the 4.Nf3 variation, when Black has the opportunity to develop its Ra8 aggressively along the sixth rank through the moves a7-a5 and Ra8-a6-h6. [Lalic 1998, p.12] For example this can happen after like 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Be2 Ngxe5 7.Nxe5 Nxe5 8.a3 a5 9.O-O O-O 10.Nc3 Ra6 11.b3 Rh6.

The rook is then used in a piece attack against White's castled King. Black can easily get several pieces around the white king, notably a rook in h6, a queen in h4 and a knight on g4. The queen arrival on the h4-square is facilitated by the absence of a white knight on the f3-square (that would cover the h4-square) and of a black knight on the f6-square (that would block the way for the black queen). If White tries to defend with h2-h3 then the Bc8 can be sacrificed in h3 in order to open the H-file. [Lalic 1998, p.13]

The Bc5 does not seem particularly useful in this attack, but by eyeing e3 it makes it difficult for White to play f4 to remove the black knight, and the attack on e3 is sometimes reinforced with heavy-piece doubling on the e-file. Moreover there are several motives of sacrifice on e3. BOn the other hand, the Bc5 can sometimes be recycled on the b8-h2 diagonal via Bc5-a7-b8, to put even more pressure on h2. It can also stay on the a7-g1 diagonal to put pressure on f2, if White pushes e3-e4 at some stage.

The "Budapest rook" was an invigorating innovation of the 1980s, and gave the gambit new life. However, inconveniences do arise from delaying d7-d6 in order to allow the lift: the light-square bishop has to wait a long time for development, and any attack on the Bc5 is potentially annoying for Black (since it means either closing the sixth rank with ...d6/...b6, abandoning the active a7-g1 diagonal, or getting in the way of its rook on a7). This, in addition to the risk of awkwardness in the king side (a knight on f5 will fork the Rh6 and the Qh4) and the single-mindedness of Black's plan (with nothing to fall back on if the direct attack is repelled), has made some miss the old lines, where it is the king's rook that goes to h6. The queen's rook can then be used on queenside operations (after, for example, the retaking the Bc5 with the b-pawn).clear

The advantages of ...Bb4+

In most variations Black has the opportunity to play Bb4+. The advisability of this check depends on White's possible answers:
* If White has to play Nb1-c3 then Black should capture the Nc3 only if White is forced to take back with the b2-pawn. Then the isolated, doubled pawns on c3 and c4 are a positional advantage for Black that fully compensates the loss of the bishop pair, and even the gambitted pawn. Black will also use the c5-square as a stronghold for his pieces that White cannot contest with pawn attacks. Exchanges of pieces can be good for Black even if he is a pawn down, as he can hope to exploit the crippled pawn structure in the ending.Lalic 1998, p.10] On the other hand, if White can take back with another piece (e.g. a Rook in c1, or a Bishop in d2), the capture of the Nc3 by Black would be bad as it would just lose the bishop pair.
* If White has to play Nb1-d2 then it is sometimes a minuscule positional concession, as it makes it harder for this knight to reach its ideal square d5. However, if Black is later compelled to exchange Bxd2, that is advantageous to White who thereby wins the bishop pair. Besides, in some situations the Bb4 could be as misplaced as the Nd2.
* If White has to play Bd2 then Black should exchange the bishops only if White is forced to recapture with the Nb1, because then this knight is slightly misplaced to reach its best square d5.

Chess diagram|=
tright|
=
rd|nd|bd|qd|kd| | |rd|=
pd|pd|pd|pd| |pd|pd|pd|=
| | | | | |nd| |=
| | | | | | | |=
|bd|pl| |pl|pl| | |=
| | | | |nl| | |=
pl|pl| | | | |pl|pl|=
rl|nl|bl|ql|kl|bl| |rl|=
Alekhine variation: here 6...Bb4+ is good
First example: in the Alekhine variation, after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4 Nxe5 5.f4 Ng6 6.Nf3, the move 6...Bb4+ (see diagram on right) is good because White has no good reply apart from 7.Nc3:
* 7.Nbd2? just loses a pawn after 7...Nxf4;
* 7.Bd2?! Qe7! causes White great problems: both the pawns in f4 and e4 are attacked, and 8.Bxb4 Qxb4+ results in a double attack against b2 and f4. [Tseitlin 1992, p.37] After 7.Nc3 Black can either answer with 7...Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 or with 7...Qf6, attacking both c3 and f4.

Second example: the game Döry-Tartakower (Vienna 1928) saw the first moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e3 Nxe5 5.Nf3 when the players continued with 5...Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Bxd2+ 7.Nbxd2 Nbc6 with equality. This sequence is fraught with errors:
* 5...Bb4+?! is bad because White is not forced to play 6.Bd2, and can instead play 6.Nbd2 to avoid the exchange of bishops and gain a tempo later with a2-a3, with a small plus.Tseitlin 1992, p.13]
* 6.Bd2?! allows 6...Bxd2+!, giving Black the opportunity to exchange the bishops while placing the Nb1 on a second-best square. White cannot take back with his queen, as 7.Qxd2?! Nxf3+ 8.gxf3 would ruin White's kingside pawn structure.

Third example: in the Adler variation after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Black should not play 4...Bb4+ because White can answer 5.Nbd2! Nc6 6.e3 Ngxe5 7.Nxe5 Nxe5 8.a3! Bxd2+ 9.Qxd2 and White has the better prospects. [Tseitlin 1992, p.69] He has the bishop pair and he can develop his Bc1 on the powerful a1-h8 diagonal.

The pressure against the e4-square and the e3-pawn

In the 4.Nf3 variation, when White has moved f2-f4, the e3-pawn becomes a backward pawn on an open file. Black can then apply pressure on the e-file in general, against the e3-pawn and the e4-square in particular.

Typical moves in this plan would include the manoeuvre Ne5-d7-f6, and putting the heavy pieces on the e-file with Rf8-e8 and Qd8-e7. The Bc5 is already well placed to pressure the e3-pawn. Depending on circumstances, the Bc8 may be involved either in b7 either in f5, in both cases to control the e4-square.

This plan can be investigated only if some conditions are met:
* the d7-square is available for the Ne5, so that it can go in f6 latter.
* White cannot easily advance its e3-pawn in e4, where it would be adequately be defended by the Nc3 and a possible Bf3.
* White does not have the time to launch a quick attack on Black's castle with f4-f5-f6.clear

The c4-c5 push

Chess diagram|=
tright|
=
rd| |bd| | |rd|kd| |=
pd|pd|pd|pd|qd|pd|pd|pd|=
| | | | | | | |=
| | | |nd| | | |=
| |pl| | |bl| | |=
pl| | | |pl| | | |=
|pl| |ql| |pl|pl|pl|=
rl| | | |kl|bl| |rl|=
Rubinstein variation - White is ready to push his c4-pawn
Chess diagram|=
tright|
=
| |bd| |rd| |kd| |=
bd|pd|pd|pd|qd|pd|pd|pd|=
rd| | | | | | | |=
pd| | |ql|nd| | | |=
| |pl| |nl| | | |=
|pl| | |pl| | | |=
pl|bl| | |bl|pl|pl|pl|=
rl| | | | |rl|kl| |=
Adler variation - White ready to push 15.c5

In the main lines the pawn push c4-c5 often brings positional gains to White.

In the Rubinstein variation with 6.Nbd2, after 7.a3 Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.e3 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 (see diagram at right) White gets the bishop pair and a space advantage. In order to build up on these characteristics the most used plan is to perform a minority attack on the queenside, with the goal of performing the push c4-c5 in good conditions.This push can give several advantages to White:
*enhance the prospects of his light-square bishop,
*create a half-open file to attack with the rooks,
*create an isolated, backward pawn in d6 after the exchange c5xd6.For example after the natural but mistaken 10...O-O?! (diagram on right) White can immediately realise his strategic goal with 11.c5! [Lalic 1998, p.32
Gurevich-Miezis, Bad Godesburg 1996
]
*If Black accepts the temporary sacrifice, after 11...Qxc5 12.Rc1 Qd6 13.Qxd6 cxd6 14.Rd1 White gets his pawn back and has created a weak pawn in d7.
*If Black refuses the pawn he has difficulties to develop his queenside, for example 11...d6 would be followed by 12.cxd6 Qxd6 13.Qxd6 cxd6 and the pawn on d6 is weak.Therefore Black generally tries to hinder the c4-c5 push with moves like d7-d6, b7-b6 or Rf8-d8 (if this creates a hidden "vis-à-vis" between the Rd8 and the Qd2)

Similarly, in the Adler variation, after 4...Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Be2 O-O 7.O-O Re8 8.Nc3 Ngxe5 9.b3 a5 10.Bb2 Nxf3+ Bxf3 Ne5 12.Be2 Ra6 13.Qd5 Qe7 14.Ne4 Ba7 (see diagram on right) White has a good opportunity to push 15.c5,Borik 1986, p.17
Akesson-Tagnon, Berlin open 1984] because this move:
*closes the diagonal of the Ba7 for now,
*makes it harder for Black to develop the Bc8, as a push b7-b6 (respectively d7-d6) may be answered by cxb6 (respectively cxd6), creating a weak pawn for Black,
*and enhances the prospects of the Be2.

In the Rubinstein variation with 6.Nc3, White is saddled with doubled pawns in c3 and c4 that limit the scope of his bishop pair. Hence the push c4-c5 can be used to free the light-squared bishop and disrupt Black's position. [Lalic 1998, p.10
Gligorić-Westerinen, Venice 1971
]

The Kieninger Trap

Chess diagram|=
tright|
=
rd| |bd| |kd| | |rd|=
pd|pd|pd|pd|qd|pd|pd|pd|=
| |nd| | | | | |=
| | | | | | | |=
|pl|pl| | |bl| | |=
| | |nd| |nl| | |=
|pl| |nl|pl|pl|pl|pl|=
rl| | |ql|kl|bl| |rl|=
The Kieninger Tr
The Kieninger Trap is a chess trap named after Georg Kieninger who used it in an offhand game against Godai at Vienna in 1925.Borik 1986, p.24]

In the Bernstein line, after 6...Qe7 7.a3 the Bb4 is attacked but Black does not have to move it for the moment, and instead both regains the gambit pawn, and sets a trap, with 7...Ngxe5. White seems to win a piece with 8.axb4?? but that in fact runs into the Kieninger trap 8...Nd3 checkmate.

Interestingly, after 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 White still cannot take the Bb4 because there is still the threat of 9...Nd3 checkmate. So this trap (and passive sacrifice) is in force during two moves.

A rare variant has also occurred in a miniature in the Fajarowicz variation, after the moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ne4 4.Qc2 Bb4+ 5.Nd2 d5 6.exd6 Bf5 7.Qa4+ Nc6 8.a3 Nc5 9.dxc7 Qe7! when White, trying to save his queen, fell into 10.Qd1 Nd3 checkmate. [Borik 1986, p.82
Laghkva - Contendini, Leipzig Olympiad, 1960
]

Adler variation 3...Ng4 4.Nf3

Chess diagram|=
tright|
=
rd|nd|bd|qd|kd|bd| |rd|=
pd|pd|pd|pd| |pd|pd|pd|=
| | | | | | | |=
| | | |pl| | | |=
| |pl| | | |nd| |=
| | | | |nl| | |=
pl|pl| | |pl|pl|pl|pl|=
rl|nl|bl|ql|kl|bl| |rl|=
The Adler variation 4.Nf3
"1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3"

The Adler variation is named after the game Adler-Maróczy which was played at the 1896 Budapest tournament.Oleinikov chapter 5] cite web
url=http://www.ewccf.com/eco.htm
title=ECO classification of WCCF
accessdate=2008-05-25
] White is ready to give up the e5-pawn in order to develop all his pieces on their best squares, i.e. the d5-square for the Nb1, the f3-square for the Ng1 and the a1-h8 diagonal for the Bc1.

In the main line 4...Bc5 the f2-pawn is attacked, forcing 5.e3 that blocks the way for the Bc1. Then after 5...Nc6 White has not enough pieces to protect his e5-pawn on the long run, e.g.:
*6.Qd5?! is a doomed attempt, exposing the queen and occupying the d5-square that should belong to the Nb1. This move has a historical interest as this was the line played in the first game where the Budapest Gambit occurred. [Adler-Maroczy, Budapest 1896, won by Black] Black continues calmly with Qe7/Ngxe5/d6/Be6.
*6.Bd2 O-O 7.Nc3 Qe7 does not prevent Black to regain his pawn either, and it obstructs the way to the d5-square for the Nb1. Once he has the pawn back Black has equality. [Borik 1986, p.12]
*6.b3 immediately allows Black to play 6...d6! when White cannot capture in d6 because of Qd8-f6 winning the Ra1. Play will likely transpose into the 6.Be2 variation.

An important theoretical decision for White is to choose whether he wants to make a2-a3 part of his plan or not. While this move avoids any possible Nc6-b4 and creates the possibility b2-b4, it may also be seen as a possible waste of time in some lines.

Black can also try the minor line 4...Nc6 that allows Black to delay the development of the f8-diagonal depending on the circumstances, and allows White to transpose into the 4.Bf4 variation if he wishes to do so.

The 4...Bc5 line with a2-a3

Chess diagram|=
tright|
=
rd| |bd|qd|rd| |kd| |=
|pd|pd| | |pd|pd|pd|=
| | |pd| | | | |=
pd| |bd| |nd| | | |=
| |pl| | | | | |=
pl|pl|nl| |pl| | | |=
|bl| | |bl|pl|pl|pl|=
rl| | |ql| |rl|kl| |=
After 12.O-O, the middleplay begins
"1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 6.a3"

After the standard moves 6...a5 7.b3 O-O 8.Bb2 Re8 9.Nc3 Ngxe5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Be2 d6 12.O-O both kings are in safety and Black has regained the invested pawn in the process. Both players can deviate at various points but the positions reached are similar, e.g. in one game White played an early Ra1-b1 in order to push b2-b4 in one move, but Black continued with the same plan as explained hereunder. [Tseitlin 1992, p.134
Gavrilov - Berdichevsky, Moscow 1989
] In another game White developed his Bf1 in d3 instead of e2, but this gave the opportunity for Black to sacrifice the Ng4 on the f2-pawn before the white castle. [Tseitlin 1992, p.135
Yrjola - Liew, Dubai Olympiad 1986
]

White has a space advantage in the center and can initiate pressure here or on the queenside by some pawn pushes like b3-b4 and c4-c5 (possibly supported by a knight on the d5-square). Meanwhile, the White king lacks some defenders so Black can start a pieces-driven attack with the standard "rook lift" (see the chapter on "Strategic and tactical themes"). As Tseitlin puts it, "the point is that 6...a5 fits into the plan of attacking White's kingside (!), whereas 6.a3 does little in the way of defending it". [Tseitlin 1992, p.83] Thus if White does not find a clear way to make good use of his move a2-a3, it may turn out to be a waste of tempo. [Tseitlin 1992, p.87]

After 12...Re6 White has to chose a way to react to the oncoming assault:
*13.Nd5 Rh6 14.g3 (to avoid the crushing 14...Qh4) 14...Bh3 15.Re1 when the Nd5 seems excellently placed, supporting the b3-b4 push on the queenside and one jump away from the f4-square where it can cover the weak light squares h3 and g2 if needed. Nevertheless, after 15...c6!? 16.Nf4 Bf5 it may be difficult for White to realise the b3-b4 push and the weakness of the d6-pawn is not of great significance as long as White cannot attack it with his minor pieces, so chances are level.Borik 1986, p.15] Thus placing the Nc3 in d5 may be premature.
*13.g3 Rh6 14.Ne4 seems crushing as White threatens to win both the Bc5 and the Ne5 (the d6-pawn is pinned). Moreover the Ne4 is well placed to support a later c4-c5 push. Black must react with 14...Qd7 in order to get out of the pin and continue the initiative. Now White has to lose a tempo and weaken his kingside further with 15.h4 in order to avoid the terrific threat Qh3-Qxh2#. After 15...Ba7 Black has dynamic equality.
*13.Na4 is another try for White, hindering Re6-h6 because of Bxe5. Black must switch to defence on the queenside with 13...b6!? 14.Nxc5 bxc5 15.f4 (necessary to improve the prospects of the Be2) Nd7 16.Bf3 Rb8 17.Qd3 a4! when Black is even better. [Borik 1986, p.16] In this plan it is important that Black does not fear to move his imprisoned Bc5, e.g. 14.Bc3 (threatening 15.b4) 14...Bd7 15.b4? Bxa4 16.Qxa4 axb4.

The 4...Bc5 line without a2-a3

Chess diagram|=
tright|
=
rd| |bd|qd|rd| |kd| |=
pd|pd|pd|pd| |pd|pd|pd|=
| | | | | | | |=
| |bd| |nd| | | |=
| |pl| | | | | |=
|pl|nl| |pl| | | |=
pl| | | |bl|pl|pl|pl|=
rl| |bl|ql| |rl|kl| |=
Choice for Black: d7-d6 or a7-a5 ?
"1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Be2"

After the standard moves 6...O-O 7.O-O Re8 8.Nc3 Ngxe5 9.Nxe5 Nxe5 10.b3, as White has not played the move a2-a3 it is more difficult for Black to initiate some rook lifts (like Ra8-a6-h6 or Re8-e6-h6) than in the previous chapter because he is roughly a tempo down in the same type of positions. For example if Black initiates the rook lift Re8-e6-h6 then after 10...d6 11.Bb2 Re6 12.g3 Rh6?! 13.Ne4 Qd7 14.h4 Black does not have the a7-square for his Bc5 because he had no time to play a7-a5. [Borik 1986, p.18]

Besides, Black tried the Ra8-a6-h6 lift in the game Åkesson-Tagnon (Berlin Open 1984). Black won but Borik considers that after 10...a5 11.Bb2 Ra6 12.Qd5! Qe7 13.Ne4 Ba7 14.c5 Rg6 15.Rac1 Bb8 16.f4 White had a positional advantage. [Borik 1986, p.17] Tseitlin recommends 15...Nc6! (instead of 15...Bb8) with dangerous threats, [Tseitlin 1992, p.80] while Kramnik chose to deviate earlier with 12...Ba7 (instead of 12...Qe7). [Tseitlin 1992, p.133
Odessky - Kramnik, USSR 1987
] When White tries a different move-order with 12.Ne4 Ba7 13.Qd5, Black usually opts for 13...Rae6, a promising pawn sacrifice. After the possible 14.Qxa5 Bb6 15.Qc3 Qh4 only 16.f4 enables White to organise resistance. [Tseitlin 1992, p.82]

If Black does not want to burn his boats with a rook lift, he can develop more casually by 10...a5 11.Bb2 d6 and White has to choose a plan. A possibility is to capture the Bc5 with 11.Na4 but then Black can simply react by 11...b6 when the loss of the bishop pair is compensated by the semi-open B-file and the improved control on the central squares. [Borik 1986, p.19
Osnos-Yermolinsky, Leningrad 1977
] Tseitlin considers that after the exchange in c5 Black has the better position. [Tseitlin 1992, p.78] A more consistent idea for White consists in gaining some space thanks to pawn pushes with moves like Kh1/e4/f4, while Black will try to avoid that by putting some pressure on the e3-pawn and the e4-square. In a game Spassky tried an accelerated version of this plan by launching the attack before playing b2-b3 and Bc1-b2. [Tseitlin 1992, p.132
Spassky - Illescas, Linares 1990
]

The 4...Nc6 line

"1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Nc6"

Black plays this when he wants to postpone the placement of its dark-squared bishop. Now White has a wide choice:
*5.Bf4 transposes in the 4.Bf4 variation explained hereafter.
*5.Qd5 transposes in the minor line 4.Qd5 explained hereafter.
*5.e3 and now 5...Bb4+ is not that good because White can react with the simple 5.Bd2. Better for Black is 5...Ngxe5 when Black can go into a kind of King's Indian Defence setup with g7-g6 and Bf8-g7.Borik 1986, p.11]
*5.Bg5 Be7 6.Bxe7 (6.Bf4 transposes in the 4.Bf4 variation) 6...Qxe7 7.Nc3 with the dangerous positional threat Nc3-d5. Black has to be precise with 7...Qc5 8.e3 Ngxe5, when he can react to Qd1-d5 with Qc5-e7 (and the d5-square is no more available to the Nc3), and to Nc3-d5 with Nc6-e7 (to exchange the annoying knight).

Rubinstein variation 3...Ng4 4.Bf4

Chess diagram|=
tright|
=
rd|nd|bd|qd|kd|bd| |rd|=
pd|pd|pd|pd| |pd|pd|pd|=
| | | | | | | |=
| | | |pl| | | |=
| |pl| | |bl|nd| |=
| | | | | | | |=
pl|pl| | |pl|pl|pl|pl|=
rl|nl| |ql|kl|bl| |rl|=
The line 4.Bf4
"1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4"

This is called the "Rubinstein variation" in reference to the famous game Rubinstein - Vidmar (Berlin 1918), where the move 4.Bf4 was first employed. [Moskalenko 2007, p.15] The move 4.Bf4 first aims to be able to answer 4...Bc5 with 5.e3 without blocking the Bc1, contrary to what happens in the Adler line 4.Nf3. On the other hand, the early development of the bishop means that White is slightly exposed to a Bb4+.

Also, in the Adler line White faces the risk of a strong attack against his kingside (see section "The rook lift" in the strategic themes), while in the 4.Bf4 variation this is seldom the case because White's Bf4 is well placed to protect White's kingside if needed. However in some cases the Bf4 can become slightly exposed (e.g. some variations of the Rubinstein line when Black plays g7-g5 and h7-h5).

Apart from the sideline 4...g5, the main line continues with both camps developing their pieces around the e5-pawn with 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ (preparing 6...Qe7) when White has an important choice to make between the two moves 6.Nc3 and 6.Nbd2, each leading to extremely different play. With 6.Nc3 White accepts to have his pawn structure on the queenside ruined, in return for a material advantage of one pawn, the bishop pair and active play in the center.

On the other hand, with 6.Nbd2 White gives back the gambited pawn in order to keep a healthy pawn structure and to get the bishop pair. After 6...Qe7 White generally plays 7.a3 in order to force the immediate exchange of the Bb4 for the Nd2 and get the bishop pair, a space advantage and a minority attack on the queenside. White can also try 7.e3 which tries to win a tempo over the 7.a3 variation but may end up with the Bb4/Nd2 exchange made in less favourable circumstances, or not made at all. The maverick gambit 6...f6 also exists. [Tseitlin 1992, p.126
Rubinstein - Tartakower, Kissingen 1928
]

ideline 4...g5

Chess diagram|=
tright|
=
rd|nd|bd|qd|kd|bd| |rd|=
pd|pd|pd|pd| |pd| |pd|=
| | | | | | | |=
| | | |pl| |pd| |=
| |pl| | | |nd| |=
| | | | | | | |=
pl|pl| |bl|pl|pl|pl|pl|=
rl|nl| |ql|kl|bl| |rl|=
After 4...g5, 5.Bd2 is considered best
"1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 g5"

The controversial sideline 4...g5!? weakens a lot of squares, which White can try to exploit with the manoeuvres Bf4-d2-c3 (pressure along the diagonal a1-h8), Ng1-e2-g3-h5 (pressure against the squares f6 and g7) and h2-h4 (to open the H-file). Hence, Borik has written that "the move 4...g5 creates irreparable weaknesses in Black's camp", [Borik 1986, p.22] while Tseitlin decided that "this extravagant tactical stroke weakens the kingside and, on general ground alone, cannot be good".Tseitlin 1992, p.41] Nonetheless, the 4...g5 line has found new supporters in recent years, thanks to Black's wins in Van Wely-Mamedyarov, Ciudad Real 2004 (where White played 5.Bg3), and Graf-Asik, Kavala 2007 (where White played 5.Bd2).

The reaction 5.Bg3 is not well considered because it does not make the most out of Black's provocative fourth move. Tseitlin considers that "the bishop is in danger of staying out of play for a long time". Black then concentrates on getting his pawn back, while White tries to get an advantage from the weakening of the black kingside. After the possible 5...Bg7 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Nc3 Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.e3 d6 10.h4 h6 Tseitlin considers that Black has a satisfactory game. [Tseitlin 1992, p.44] Moreover it is easy for White to go astray even with natural moves, e.g. after 10.Be2?! Be6 Black has already equality. [Tseitlin 1992, p.121
Almeida - Rossiter, World Cadet Championship 1984
]

Better considered is 5.Bd2 in order to place the bishop on the wide-open diagonal a1-h8. After the possible 5...Nxe5 6.Nf3 Bg7 7.Nxe5 Bxe5 8.Bc3 Qe7 9.Bxe5 10.Qxe5 10.Nc3 d6 11.e3 Black is at a loss for an equalising line. [Tseitlin 1992, p.47] White's advantage consists in his ability to install his knight on the strong d5-square and to attack the weakened Black's kingside with the advance h2-h4. A similar way of playing for White is 5...Nxe5 6.Bc3 Bg7 7.e3 with the threat f2-f4 that would win a piece. Then after 7...g4 8.Ne2 d6 9.Nf4 h5 10.Qc2 Joseph Staker suggests 10...Qg5 but play can continue by 11.Nd2 Bf5 12.Qb3 b6 13.c5! O-O 14.cxd6 cxd6 15.h4 Qh6 16.g3 Nbc6 17.Bg2 Rac8 18.O-O and White stands better thanks to the weaknesses in h5 and d6. [Borik 1986, p.23] Black has also tried 10...Na6 but it did not solve his problems. [Tseitlin 1992, p.122
Dalko - Soria, corr. 1968/70
]

The line 6.Nc3

Chess diagram|=
tright|
=
rd| |bd| |kd| | |rd|=
pd|pd|pd|pd|qd|pd|pd|pd|=
| |nd| | | | | |=
| | |ql|pl| | | |=
| |pl| | |bl|nd| |=
| |pl| | |nl| | |=
pl| | | |pl|pl|pl|pl|=
rl| | | |kl|bl| |rl|=
Black must chose between 8...Qa3 and 8...f6
"1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nc3"

This line is sometimes called the "Kornl Richter variation". [cite web
url=http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lab/7378/eco.htm
title=Bill Wall's classification of openings
accessdate=2008-08-15
] Black does best to immediately exchange the Nc3 with 6...Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 as otherwise White gets a small positional advantage simply by avoiding the doubled pawns (see "The advantages of ...Bb4+" in the chapter "Strategic and tactical themes"). [Lalic 1998, p.51
Korchnoi-Gomez Esteban, Pamplona 1990-91
] [Tseitlin 1992, p.49] Then Black can put pressure on the e5-pawn with 7...Qe7 when White's only possibility to keep the pawn is 8.Qd5. White threatens to ease the pressure with the move h2-h3 that would put the Ng4 on the unfavourable square h6, so Black's only possibilities to sustain the initiative are 8...Qa3 and 8...f6.

The line 8...Qa3 puts pressure on the white queenside pawns, this pressure can latter be reinforced with Nf6-e4. The black queen can also access to the a5-square at some point, where it puts pressure on the e1-a5 diagonal towards the white king. After 9.Rc1 f6 10.exf6 Nxf6 11.Qd2 d6 12.Nd4 O-O we reach the position of the famous game between Rubinstein and Vidmar, when Rubinstein erred with 13.e3? and lost the game. [Tseitlin 1992, p.7
Rubinstein - Vidmar, Berlin 1918
] After the better 13.f3 the correct method for Black is to target the c4-pawn with the regrouping Ne5/Qc5. [Tseitlin 1992, p.55]

In the other line 8...f6 Black does not want to decentralise his queen and prefers to concentrate on an active piece play in the centre. After 9.exf6 Nxf6 all three queen retreats 10.Qd1, 10.Qd2 and 10.Qd3 are possible but each of them has its own drawbacks: on d1 the queen is not developed, on d2 it is exposed to Nf6-e4 and on d3 it is exposed to Bc8-f5. Meanwhile, Black will try to create counterplay either by a pressure on the weak c4-pawn, either by a kingside attack with the pawn pushes g7-g5 and h7-h5. In both cases a key possibility is the move Nf6-e4 which centralise the knight, attack the weak c3-pawn, control the c5-square and support the g7-g5 push. For example in the 10.Qd1 case the game may continue with 10...d6 11.e3 O-O 12.Be2 Ne4 13.Rc1 Kh8 White does better to avoid 14.O-O?! because Black could launch a powerful attack with 14...g5. [Tseitlin 1992, p.56 & p.124
Inkiov-Djukic, Bor 1983
] Besides, after 10.Qd3 d6 11.e3 Ne4 12.Be2 O-O 13.Qc2 Nc5 14.Nd4 Ne5 15.O-O Black can start to press the c4-pawn with Qe7-f7. [Tseitlin 1992, p.59]

The line 6.Nbd2 followed by 7.a3

Chess diagram|=
tright|
=
rd| |bd| |kd| | |rd|=
pd|pd|pd|pd|qd|pd|pd|pd|=
| |nd| | | | | |=
| | | |pl| | | |=
|bd|pl| | |bl|nd| |=
pl| | | | |nl| | |=
|pl| |nl|pl|pl|pl|pl|=
rl| | |ql|kl|bl| |rl|=
After 7.a3 White will win the bishop pair
"1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3"

The Bb4 is attacked but Black does not have to move it for the moment, and instead plays 7...Ngxe5 to get the gambitted pawn back. Now Black threatens both to take the c4 pawn and to take the Nf3, when White will either have to accept doubled pawns or move his king. For example this is seen after 8.e3?! when 8...Nxf3+ forces either 9.gxf3 or 9.Qxf3 Bxd2+ 10.Kxd2, when White cannot castle anymore.

White cannot play 8.axb4?? because of the Kieninger trap 8...Nd3 (see the section on "Strategic and tactical themes"). White does not want to play 8.Bxe5?! either because it would lose the bishop pair, which is the main source of White's hopes for an advantage in the Bernstein line. So White is more or less forced to exchange a pair of knights with 8.Nxe5 Nxe5.

White still cannot win a piece with 9.axb4?? because the mate threat by Nd3# is still in force. White also cannot win a piece by 9.Bxe5?! because Black would play the "zwischenzug" 9...Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 Qxe5 with an equal game. White accordingly plays 9.e3 in order to protect the c4-pawn that was attacked by the Ne5.

Now there is no more mating threat on d3 so the Bb4 is really attacked and Black has to move it. 9...Bd6 (or 9...Bc5 10.b4 Bd6, intending to meet 11.c5?! with 11...Nd3+ 12.Bxd3 Bxf4) would misplace the bishop, and 9...Ba5?? would lose the bishop to 10.b4 Bb6 11.c5. That leaves 9...Bxd2+, when after 10.Qxd2 we get the real starting position of this variation.

It is important to note that for Black, the sequence 7...Ngxe5 8...Nxe5 9...Bxd2+ is not only cunning, but also the best move-order as another sequence would give White an early opportunity to realise the advantageous c4-c5 push (whose advantages are explained in the section "Strategic and tactical themes"). For example after 7...Bxd2+?! 8.Qxd2 Ngxe5 9.Nxe5 Nxe5 White should not play the usual 10.e3?! but should strive for more with the immediate 10.c5! as Black cannot take in c5 without losing the c7-pawn (because of the possibilities Ra1-c1 and Qd2-c3). [Lalic 1998, p.33
Lahlum-Madsen, Gausdal 1995
] Chess diagram|=
tright|
=
rd| |bd| |kd| | |rd|=
pd|pd|pd|pd|qd|pd|pd|pd|=
| | | | | | | |=
| | | |nd| | | |=
| |pl| | |bl| | |=
pl| | | |pl| | | |=
|pl| |ql| |pl|pl|pl|=
rl| | | |kl|bl| |rl|=
After 10.Qxd2, White has the bishop pair

After 10.Qxd2, Tseitlin explains that "opening manuals assess this position as favourable to White on the basis of the bishop pair. However, considering the closed nature of the position, White faces substantial difficulties in the realisation of this nominal advantage."Tseitlin 1992, p.63] Black has not a lot of things to be proud of as there are no targets in White's camp, but can put up a lot of resistance thanks to some small assets:
* Black's Ne5 is strongly centralized, attacks the c4-pawn, and restricts the Bf1 from moving to the natural squares d3 and f3. Moreover, exchanging the knight with Bxe5 is not appealing for White, since that would mean losing the advantage of the bishop pair.
* the Bc8 can sometimes become better than its counterpart the Bf1, if it makes it to the good squares b7 or c6 while the Bf1 remains restricted by the Ne5.

This explains the most natural plans for both sides. White will try a minority attack on the queenside, in order to increase its space advantage and to create some weaknesses in the black pawns (e.g. an isolated pawn or a backward pawn). So White will try to use the advances b2-b4 or c4-c5 in good conditions, supported by the queen and the rooks on the c-file and the d-file. On the other hand, Black will try to keep the position closed, most importantly keep the c4-pawn where it is in order to keep the Bf1 at bay. This can be achieved by moves like b7-b6 and d7-d6, and sometimes the manoeuvre Ne5-d7-f8-e6.

The first move by Black has to be 10...d6! because otherwise White plays 11.c5! and gets a clear advantage immediately. For example 10...b6? loses a pawn to 11.Qd5 Nc6 (forced) 12.Bxc7, and 10...O-O?! is bad because of 11.c5! when Black should not take with 11...Qxc5? because of 12.Rc1 Qe7 13.Rxc7 and White is winning already.

So after 10...d6! White can try (and has tried) about any move that goes into the direction of the aforementioned plan. In particular White has to chose if he wants to start active operations on the queenside immediately (e.g. Rc1, Qc3, c5), or if he wants to finish his development first (with Be2 and O-O).
* The immediate 11.c5!? is a possible pawn sacrifice in order to open some diagonals for the bishops. White gets a powerful attack for his pawn but nothing decisive, for example 11...dxc5 12.Qd5 Nc6! 13.Bb5 O-O 14.Bxc6 bxc6 15.Qxc6 Rb8 with a fully viable game according to an analysis from Tseitlin.
* The same idea can be tried with the preparatory 11.Rc1, and after 11...O-O 12.c5!? dxc5 13.Qd5 Ng6 14.Bg3 White should be reminded that he has not finished his development with 14...Qf6! and a counterattack on b2. [Tseitlin 1992, p.64]
* More solid is 11.Be2 but then Black has also more time to organise his defence, e.g. 11...O-O 12.O-O b6! 13.Rac1 Bb7 14.Rfd1 a5 15.b4 Nd7 and the game is still balanced. In a game Browne tried 11.Be2 b6 12.e4 but it did not bring the expected activity and he lost. [Tseitlin 1992, p.130
Browne - Speelman, Taxco Interzonal 1985
]

The line 6.Nbd2 followed by 7.e3

Chess diagram|=
tright|
=
rd| |bd| |kd| | |rd|=
pd|pd|pd|pd|qd|pd|pd|pd|=
| |nd| | | | | |=
| | | |pl| | | |=
|bd|pl| | |bl|nd| |=
| | | |pl|nl| | |=
pl|pl| |nl| |pl|pl|pl|=
rl| | |ql|kl|bl| |rl|=
After 7.e3, White concentrates on castling
"1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.e3"

In this variation White tries to avoid the move a2-a3 in order to gain a tempo over the 7.a3 variation. After the standard moves 7...Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Be2 followed by 10.O-O it is Black's last chance to exchange the Bb4 for the Nd2. The game will take an entirely different structure depending on whether Black gives up the bishop pair or tries to keep it.

Black gives up the bishop pair

When Black goes for it with 10...Bxd2, he runs the risk to end up a tempo down over the 7.a3 variation and to be soon unable to meet White's positional threats on the queenside. White can avoid the push a2-a3 and continue with the standard plans of the 7.a3 variation. [Borik 1986, p.24
Garcia Palermo - Rogers, Reggio Emilia 1984-85
] Tseitlin considers the main variation is 9.Be2 d6 10.O-O Bxd2 11.Qxd2 O-O 12.Rfd1 b6 13.b4 Bb7 14.c5 dxc5 15.bxc5 and then gives a line he analysed in which Black ends a pawn down but in a drawish position. [Tseitlin 1992, p.62]

However, everything is not that bad for Black. First, to implement his plan White has to concentrate on development (9.Be2, 10.O-O) before he turns his attention to the queenside. That means Black has more time to organise his play than in the 7.a3 variation, notably to organise a blockade of the c5-square. Moreover, as White does not put immediate pressure, Black is not compelled to castle rapidly and he can keep his king in the centre for a longer time, or even castle queenside. Hence Lalic note that "White has not wasted time with a2-a3, but in fact it is not so easy to capitalise on this extra tempo."Lalic 1998, p.17]

A possibility for Black is to develop his light-square bishop rapidly, by prioritising the moves b7-b6 and Bc8-b7 against castling and d7-d6. Moskalenko does not like this plan on the basis of the game Solozhenkin - Stiazhkin (Leningrad 1990) where after 9...b6?! 10.O-O Bxd2 11.Qxd2 Bb7 White sacrificed a pawn with 12.c5! bxc5? 13.Qa5! d6 14.Bxe5! dxe5 15.Rfc1 and White stands better (the assessment of moves and of the final position are Moskalenko's). [Moskalenko 2007, p.69] Lalic agrees with the assessment of the final position but does not think Black's ninth and twelfth moves are mistakes. Instead he thinks 13...d6? was the error and advises 13...Ng6! instead, with the example of the game Flear - Blatny that continued 14.Qxc7 Nxf4 15.Qxf4 O-O with a balanced position. [Lalic 1998, p.18]

White is not compelled to sacrifice the c4 pawn at all. In the game Chernin - Blatny (Brno 1993) White calmly prepared the c4-c5 push with 9.Be2 b6 10.O-O Bxd2 11.Qxd2 Bb7 12.Rac1 d6 13.b4 Ng6 14.Bg3 and here according to Lalic Black went astray with 14...O-O?! 15.c5 that lets Black without a plan to counter White's attack on the queenside. Instead 14...h5!? can be suggested to attack White's kingside and force the exchange of the Bg3 against the Ng6. [Lalic 1998, p.19]

In the game Gausel - Reite (Norwegian Team Championship 1991), after the same 9.Be2 b6 10.O-O Bxd2 11.Qxd2 Bb7 Black introduced a highly original plan by avoiding the natural advance d7-d6 and blocking a white c5-push in the most categoric way by realising a c5-push himself! The game went along 12.Qc3 f6 13.b4 c5!? Lalic was "deeply impressed by this plan, which really spoils all of White's fun". The c4-pawn is never allowed to advance, so that the Be2 is durably restricted. The Bf4 is obstructed by the Ne5, that cannot be easily removed. The weakness of the d7-pawn is not a worry as it can be protected by Bb7-c6 if necessarry. After 14.b5 Lalic recommends 14...a6 to neutralise White's queenside iniative.

Black keeps the bishop pair

After 9.Be2 O-O 10.O-O Black can avoid the immediate exchange of his Bb4 against the Nd2 in several ways. The first one, resurrected and enriched by the grandmaster Pavel Blatny, is to exchange the Bb4 against the Bf4. This can be achieved via 10...Ng6 11.Bg3 (11.Bxc7?? d6 loses a piece) 11...Bd6 12.Bxd6 Qxd6. White still has possibilities to play for an advantage due to his advance of development, his space advantage on the queenside and the remote possibility to install his knight on the good square d5. For example the possible 13.Ne4 Qxd1? 14.Rfd1 d6 15.c5! dxc5 16.Nxc5 c6 17.Rac1 is uncomfortable for Black who is still underdevelopped.Lalic 1998, p.21] The game Stohl - Blatny (Prague 1996) shows the proper way for Black with 13.Ne4 Qe5 14.Nc3 b6 15.Qd5 and here Blatny introduced the novelty 15...Ba6! that breathed new life to this variation as Black has succeeded in equalising. After the tactical sequence 16.Qxe5 Nxe5 17.Nd5 c6 18.Nc7 Bxc4 19.Bxc4 Rac8! Black regains the sacrificed piece and the endgame is equal.Lalic 1998, p.22]

Chess diagram|=
tright|
=
rd| |bd| | |rd|kd| |=
pd|pd|pd| |qd|pd|pd|pd|=
| | |pd| | | | |=
| | | |nd| | | |=
|bd|pl| | |bl| | |=
|nl| | |pl| | | |=
pl|pl| | |bl|pl|pl|pl|=
rl| | |ql| |rl|kl| |=
After 10.O-O d6 11.Nb3
The other possibility for Black is to keep his Bb4 as long as possible, exchanging it against the white knight only in favourable circumstances. A couple of attempts have been done with this in mind, with subtle variations along the moves a7-a5 and b7-b6:
* Against the mundane 10...d6 White can continue with 11.Nb3 (see diagram at right) to play on the queenside against the exposed Bb4. Black needs to fight for the dark squares b4 and c5, in order to avoid problems for its dark-squared bishop. After 11.Nb3 b6 12.a3 Bc5 13.Nxc5 bxc5 authors thought Black had an equal game with good play on the B-file, [Tseitlin 1992, p.60, citing Wedberg and Schüssler] until the game Karpov-Short (first game in their 1992candidate match at Linares) where White continued with the immediate 14.b4! and Black cannot really take in b4 because the a7-pawn would remain weak. Hence the game continued with 14...Nd7 15.Bg4 and White is calling the shots. [Lalic 1998, p.24]
Another path for White is 11.Nb1 to recycle the knight on his ideal square d5. Lalic does not consider this as dangerous for Black, on the account of 11...a5 12.a3 Bc5 13.Nc3 Be6 14.b3 f5! with a strong control of the centre. [Lalic 1998, p.22]
* The same move 10...d6 can be played with the different idea 11.Nb3 d6. After the logical 12.a3 Bc5 13.Nxc5 dxc5 White has a pawn majority on the kingside that Black hopes to immobilise, and counterattack on the c4-pawn.The Ra8 can be quickly developed along the fifth line. [Lalic 1998, p.25
Mozetic-novoselski, Tivat 1995
]
* A third idea is the immediate 10...a5, to have the d6-square for the bishop, impeach the b2-b4 push and having the possibility a5-a4 if the white knight comes on b3. In the game Mikhalevski-Chabanon (Bad Endbach 1995), Black succeeded in keeping the bishop with 11.Nb3 a4 12.a3 Bd6 13.Nd4 Bc5 14.Nb5 d6 15.Nc3 Ng6 16.Bg3 f5 with dynamic play. [Lalic 1998, p.27]

Alekhine variation 3...Ng4 4.e4

Chess diagram|=
tright|
=
rd|nd|bd|qd|kd|bd| |rd|=
pd|pd|pd|pd| |pd|pd|pd|=
| | | | | | | |=
| | | |pl| | | |=
| |pl| |pl| |nd| |=
| | | | | | | |=
pl|pl| | | |pl|pl|pl|=
rl|nl|bl|ql|kl|bl|nl|rl|=
The Alekhine variation 4.e4
"1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4"

This variation is named after Alekhine probably thanks to his wins in the games Alekhine - Rabinovic (Baden Baden, 1925) and Alekhine - Seitz (Hastings, 1926).Oleinikov chapter 4] Alekhine himself stated that "This is considered with good reason to be White's best system against the Budapest Gambit. White hands the pawn back, but in return gains control of d5. Over the next few moves, however, he has to play with extreme precision, since otherwise his central pawn position may become the object of a successful attack by Black.". [quoted in Tseitlin 1992, p.21, without references]

White does not try to keep its material advantage (the e5-pawn) and concentrates on building a strong pawn centre, in order to get a space advantage.

Black has to do something about its Ng4 that is attacked by the Qd1. Apart from the main line, two minor variations have been tried:
* with 4...h5?! Black does not want to get its gambit pawn back, and prefers to keep the Ng4 on its aggressive position. Thus White has to be careful not to fall in some traps like 5.Nf3? Bc5 or 5.f4?! Bc5 6.Nh3 Nc6 7.Be2? Qh4+. [Borik 1986, p.33] White does best to repell immediately the Ng4 with 5.Be2, after which the move h7-h5 is only a weakness and White has the advantage. [Borik 1986, p.36
Tseitlin 1992, p.24
Ahues-Helling, Berlin 1932-33
Golombek-Tartakower, Birmingham 1951
]

* with 4...d6?! (sometimes called the "Balogh variation") [cite web
url=http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lab/7378/eco.htm
title=Bill Wall's classification of openings
accessdate=2008-08-15
] Black continues in true gambit style, trying to develop rapidly its pieces, but the compensations are not sufficient. Here again, after 5.exd6 Bxd6 White needs to avoid some traps like 6.Nf3? Bc5! 7.Qxd8+ Kxd8 when Black regains the pawn with advantage. [Borik 1986, p.37] White continues with 6.Be2 to gain a tempo on the Ng4 when Black's only option to sustain an initiative is 6...f5 7.exf5 Qe7. Then White has a choice between chasing a slight positional advantage with 8.Nf3, [Borik 1986, p.41
Tseitlin 1992, p.112
Capablanca-Tartakower, Bad Kissingen 1928
] or taking a piece with 8.c5! Bxc5 9.Qa4+ Nc6 10.Qxg4. In the later case, Tartakower and Euwe initially considered Black had enough compensation but more recent analysis proved them wrong. [Borik 1986, p.41
Egli-Bauer, Correspondence 1931
] [Tseitlin 1992, p.23]

The main line is 4...Nxe5 5.f4 when Black has an important choice to make about where to move its Ne5:
*5...Nec6 is considered to be the best [Borik 1986, p.47, citing the IMs Harry Schlüsser and Tom Wedberg]
*5...Ng6 is probably playableBorik 1986, p.46]
*5...Nbc6? (sometimes called the "Wikstrom gambit") [cite web
url=http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lab/7378/eco.htm
title=Bill Wall's classification of openings
accessdate=2008-08-15
] 6.fxe5 Qh4+ is just a bad piece sacrifice, with Black hoping for something like 7.g3? Qe4+ that wins a rook. As advocated by Nunn White can keep the material advantage with the funny 7.Kd2 Qf4+ 8.Kc3 Qxe5+ 9.Kd2 Qf4+ 10.Ke1 Qxe4+ 11.Qe2 when the black queen is pinned.

The 5...Nec6 line

Chess diagram|=
tright|
=
rd|nd|bd|qd|kd|bd| |rd|=
pd|pd|pd|pd| |pd|pd|pd|=
| |nd| | | | | |=
| | | | | | | |=
| |pl| |pl|pl| | |=
| | | | | | | |=
pl|pl| | | | |pl|pl|=
rl|nl|bl|ql|kl|bl|nl|rl|=
After 5.f4 Nec6
"1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4 Nxe5 5.f4 Nec6"

This line is sometimes called the "Abonyi variation". [cite web
url=http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lab/7378/eco.htm
title=Bill Wall's classification of openings
accessdate=2008-08-15
] The Knight on c6 is more safe than on g6, and can be part of a general strategy on the dark squares. It can go on d4 while the other Knight can go on c5 via a6 or d7.

White does not have a lot of moves because of the positional threat Bf8-c5. For example after 6.Nf3 Bc5 White has difficulties to castle, because the plan to exchange the dark-squared bishops with Bd3/Qe2/Be3 can be met by Bg4/Nd4 in order to muddy the waters. [Borik 1986, p.47
Vaganian-Wedberg, Buenos Aires Olympiad 1978
]

Another try is 6.a3 but it creates a significant weakness in b3. For example after the possible 6...a5 7.Be3 Na6 8.Bd3 Bc5 9.Qd2 d6 10.Nf3 O-O 11.Nc3 Bxe3 12.Qxe3 Nc5 13.O-O Re8 14.Bc2 a4 Borik has shown that the possibility to attack the c4-pawn with Be6/Na5 gives sufficient play to Black. [Borik 1986, p.50
Tseitlin 1992, p.28
] Note that Black could also treat a2-a3 as a mere loss of tempo by switching to another development like d6/g6/Bg7/O-O with equality. [Tseitlin 1992, p.29, citing Steiner] White can also try 7.Nc3, intending to follow by the aggressive setup Bd3/Qh5/Nd5. [Tseitlin 1992, p.117
Gilg - Vajda, Kecskemet 1927
]

Therefore White usually answers with 6.Be3 in order to control the a7-g1 diagonal. If Black wants to contest that he can try 6...Na6 to continue with 7...Nc5, [Tseitlin 1992, p.118
Rudakovsky - Ratner, Moscow 1945
] but most of the games continue with 6...Bb4+ 7.Nc3. Now Black's strategy has to involve Qd8-e7 sooner or later, in order to put pressure on the e4-pawn. Thus Black does best to exchange the Bb4 for the Nc3, in order to avoid a possible Nc3-d5 latter. As all Black's pieces are on the queenside, attacking White's centre with pawn pushes like f7-f5 is probably too weakening. [Borik 1986, p.51
Tseitlin 1992, p.119
Alekhine - Seitz, Hastings 1925-26
] It is better to attack with pieces, e.g. with the setup b6/Nc5/Bb7/O-O-O. [Borik 1986, p.53
Keres-Gilg, Prague 1937
] With a knight on c5 the move d7-d6 should be avoided if Black has to respond to the capture Bxc5 by dxc5, because in that case the white pawns in e4 and f4 would have too much leeway. [Tseitlin 1992, p.33]

The 5...Ng6 line

Chess diagram|=
tright|
=
rd|nd|bd|qd|kd|bd| |rd|=
pd|pd|pd|pd| |pd|pd|pd|=
| | | | | |nd| |=
| | | | | | | |=
| |pl| |pl|pl| | |=
| | | | | | | |=
pl|pl| | | | |pl|pl|=
rl|nl|bl|ql|kl|bl|nl|rl|=
After 5.f4 Ng6
"1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4 Nxe5 5.f4 Ng6"

The Knight on g6 puts the f4-pawn under pressure, but may be embarrassed and lose a tempo if White pushes f4-f5. White has two main possibilities:
*6.Nf3 controls the e5-square in order to prepare the push f4-f5. Contrary to the 5...Nec6, White does not have to fear 6...Bc5 as this would fall into tactical problems after 7.f5! Nh4? 8.Ng5! when the Black knight is already in great danger of being lost. [Borik 1986, p.43
Tseitlin 1992, p.120
Alekhine - Rabinovich, Baden-Baden 1925
Note that Borik wrongly attributes the black pieces to Seitz in his book, while Tseitlin righly corrects that the Black player was actually Rabinovich
] Thus Black must react quickly with 6...Bb4+ 7.Nc3 when he can adopt a normal setup with O-O/d6/Nc6/b6 or act boldly with 7...Qf6 threatening both the Nc3 and the f4-pawn. [Borik 1986, p.45
Chebotayev-Isayev, USSR 1948
] One point in favour of 7...Qf6 is that after 8.e5 Qb6 the black queen prevents White to castle short and is well placed if White castles long. [Tseitlin 1992, p.39]
*6.Be3 take the a7-g1 diagonal from Black's Bf8 and may in some lines prepare the long castle. Black can play in the same spirit than in the 6.Nf3 line, e.g. 6...Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 b6!? followed with normal development like d6/O-O/Bb7/Nd7/Re8/Nc5. Black can also play more aggressively by immediately putting pressure on the central white pawns with 8...Qe7 9.Bd3 f5 10.Qc2 fxe4 11.Bxe4 when he can free his play with the pseudo-sacrifice 11...Nxf4 12.Bxf4 d5 13.cxd5 Bf5 regaining the piece. [Tseitlin 1992, p.36]

In both cases the middlegame sees White trying to realise a favourable push f4-f5 or e4-e5, and Black trying to avoid it by putting pressure on the e4-pawn and/or the e5-square.

Variation 3...Ng4, other possibilities at move 4

The 4.e3 line

Chess diagram|=
tright|
=
rd|nd|bd|qd|kd|bd| |rd|=
pd|pd|pd|pd| |pd|pd|pd|=
| | | | | | | |=
| | | |nd| | | |=
| |pl| | | | | |=
| | | |pl| | |nl|=
pl|pl| | | |pl|pl|pl|=
rl|nl|bl|ql|kl|bl| |rl|=
After 4.e3 Nxe5 5.Nh3
"1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e3"

After 4.e3 Nxe5 White can transpose into the Adler line with 5.Nf3, but the game can also continue with 5.Nh3 when this knight starts the journey Ng1-h3-f4-d5 in order to reach the ideal square. [According to Tseitlin, this idea first occurred in the game Baginskaite-Stroe, Vilnius 1986] If Black tries to circumvent this plan with 5...Ng6, White can latter recycle the knight in an attack on the h7-square with Qd1-h5 and Nh3-g5. Black can also ignore White's intentions and concentrate on his own play by placing the Nb8 on c5, in order to put pressure on the d3-square.

The 4.e6 line

"1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e6"

This is generally an attempt by White to avoid complications and head for a draw. Indeed, after 4...dxe6 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8 the position is equal, Black's loss of the right to castle being of no great importance since queens have been traded. If Black wants to avoid this early endgame, he can try 4...Bb4+ 5.Bd2 Qf6!? with dynamic play on f2 and b2. [Borik 1986, p.59
Rasin-Ivanov, USSR 1979
] Tseitlin 1992, p.14] The other capture 4...fxe6 is also playable and avoids the endgame.

The 4.Qd5 line

"1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Qd5"

After 4...Nc6 White should seize the last opportunity to get back in calm waters with 5.Bf4 Bb4+ 6.Nc3 which will soon transpose into the Rubinstein line 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nc3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Qe7 8.Qd5.Tseitlin 1992, p.15]

Alternatively White can try 5.Nf3 with similar themes as the 4.Qd4 variation, Black aiming for rapid activity at the cost of a pawn with 5...d6. White achieves nothing with the "zwischenzug" 6.Bg5 because after 6...Be7 7.Bxe7 Nxe7 8.Qe4 dxe5 he cannot get its pawn back because of the "Schlechter trap" 9.Nxe5? Qd1+! 10.Kxd1 Nxf2+ with clear advantage to Black. So White has to accept the gambit with 6.exd6 Be6 7.d7+ Bxd7 when Black's lead in development compensates for the pawn. [Borik 1986, p.57]

The greedy 5.f4 is not recommended, as it combines the disadvantages of the early queen development and of the weakening of the a7-g1 diagonal by f4, with similar themes to those in the 4.f4?! variation given below.

The 4.Qd4 line

Chess diagram|=
tright|
=
rd|nd|bd|qd|kd|bd| |rd|=
pd|pd|pd|pd| |pd|pd|pd|=
| | | | | | | |=
| | | |pl| | | |=
| |pl|ql| | |nd| |=
| | | | | | | |=
pl|pl| | |pl|pl|pl|pl|=
rl|nl|bl| |kl|bl|nl|rl|=
The 4.Qd4 variation
"1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Qd4"

The move 4.Qd4 is natural as it protects the e5-pawn and attacks the Ng4. However, "the problem for White in the Budapest is that natural moves often lead to disaster". [Lalic 1998, p.129
Beliavsky-Epishin, Reggio Emilia 1991
Amura-Radu, Santiago 1990
] Black has a choice between:
* the calm 4...h5, aiming to recover the pawn a bit later.
* the gambit 4...d6 aiming for dynamic piece play, [According to Tseitlin 1992, p.18, this move was suggested by Schlechter in "Deutsche Schachzeitung" (1917, page 242)]

The loss of tempo implied in 4...h5 is not serious as Black will regain a tempo against the white queen when Nbc6 is played. Moreover after 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Qd5 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Qe7 8.Bf4 the game reaches a position similar to the ones in the Rubinstein variation (with the manoeuvre Qe7-a3 to come), when the extra move h7-h5 comes useful as it gives the retreat square h6 for the Ng4, and may prepare a raid g7-g5/h5-h4 against the Bf4 in some variations. [Tseitlin 1992, p.16]

In the gambit 4...d6 5.exd6, after 5...Bxd6 White cannot play 6.Qxg7?? because 6...Be5 7.Qg5 Qxg5 8.Bxg5 Bxb2 wins material. Thus for the sacrificed pawn Black has a lead in development (two pieces out) and will gain further tempi by attacking the exposed White queen. [Borik 1986, p.56
Laszlo-Abonyi, Budapest 1933
] Tseitlin 1992, p.18] White can complicate Black's development with 6.Nf3 O-O 7.Bg5!? in order to force the Black queen on an unfavourable square. [Lalic 1998, p.130
Amura-Radu, Santiago 1990
] Unfortunately Black can avoid this manoeuvre with a different move order thanks to 5...Nc6!? 6.Qd1 Bxd6 when 7.Nf3?? is not possible anymore because of 7...Nxf2! 8.Kxf2 Bg3+ winning the queen. Hence White has to come back to a pedestrian development with moves like Nf3/Nc3/e3/Be2, allowing Black to find active positions for his pieces with Nbc6/O-O/Be6/Qe7/Rfd8 and prepare several sacrificial ideas on e3 or f2, with excellent attacking possibilities. [Tseitlin 1992, p.20]

The 4.f4?! line

"1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.f4?!"

This is considered weak because White neglects development and weakens the a7-g1 diagonal. [Pachman 1983, p.190] [Lalic 1998, p.129
Akhundov-Simonenko, Ashkhabad 1990
] [Borik 1986, p.55] [Tseitlin 1992, p.111
Helmar-Krejcik, Vienna 1917
] Black immediately exploits this with 4...Bc5, which threatens a fork in f2 and forbids White's castling.

Then after 5.e3 Black has a pleasant choice between regaining the pawn immediately with 5...Nxe3 or gambitting another pawn with 5...d6 to open the centre against White's king, when play may continue 6.exd6 O-O 7.Nc3 Bxe3 8.BxB NxB 9.Qd2 Re8 10.Kf2 and Black has a nice attack.

So White may prefer to play 5.Nh3 when Black can also get some active play by gambiting another pawn with d7-d6, now or later. For example after 5...O-O 6.Nc3 d6 7.exd6 cxd6 Black has good squares for all its pieces, while White's castling is seriously delayed.

Fajarowicz variation 3...Ne4

Chess diagram|=
tright|
=
rd|nd|bd|qd|kd|bd| |rd|=
pd|pd|pd|pd| |pd|pd|pd|=
| | | | | | | |=
| | | |pl| | | |=
| |pl| |nd| | | |=
| | | | | | | |=
pl|pl| | |pl|pl|pl|pl|=
rl|nl|bl|ql|kl|bl|nl|rl|=
The Fajarowicz variation 3...Ne4
"1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ne4"

The Fajarowicz variation is said to have its origins in the chess circles from Leipzig, with the first important game being H.Steiner-Fajarowicz at the Wiesbaden tournament in 1928. [Borik 1986, p.60] [Tseitlin 1992, p.89]

Black does not mind to lose the e5-pawn and prefers to concentrate on active play with its pieces. As the game develops, White will have to avoid several tactical pitfalls, in particular a Bb4+ at an annoying moment, a Qf6 doing a double attack on b2 and f2, or a concerted attack on the d3 square with the setup Nc5+Bf5+Nb4 (once the e2-pawn has moved on e3).

The variation 4.Qc2 gives a tactical (after 4...d5) or positional (after 4...Bb4+) struggle, with good play for Black in the latter case. According to Borik, the best moves for both players are 4.Nf3 Bb4+ 5.Nd2 Nc6 6.a3 Nxd2 7.Nxd2 Bf8 when it is difficult for Black to justify his pawn sacrifice. [Borik 1986, p.92] The variation 4.a3 also gives Black some headache, since the recommended 4...Qh4 from O'Kelly-Bisguier (1969) turned out unsound.

Fajarowicz variation 3...Ne4, line 4.Qc2

"1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ne4 4.Qc2"

This line is sometimes called the "Steiner variation". [cite web
url=http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lab/7378/eco.htm
title=Bill Wall's classification of openings
accessdate=2008-08-15
] White immediately attacks the Ne4, but takes care not to put the queen on a square where Black could attack it while developping (as would be the case after 4.Qd3 or 4.Qd4). Now any retreat by the Ne4 would mean that Black loses his advance in development, in which case he has no more any compensation for the gambitted pawn. Thus Black must continue to develop while trying to keep the Ne4 on its square, but that is by no mean easy. According to Otto Borik, this move is the one "that gives Black the most problems to solve".Borik 1986, p.68] Black can try the hyperactive 4...d5 but then with precise play White can get an important lead of development with a counter-sacrifice. The other possibility for Black is 4...Bb4+ that try to misplace the white pieces before taking a decision about what to do with the Ne4.

Chess diagram|=
tright|
=
rd|nd|bd|qd|kd|bd| |rd|=
pd|pd|pd| | |pd|pd|pd|=
| | | | | | | |=
| | |pd|pl| | | |=
| |pl| |nd| | | |=
| | | | | | | |=
pl|pl|ql| |pl|pl|pl|pl|=
rl|nl|bl| |kl|bl|nl|rl|=
The line 3...Ne4 4.Qc2 d5
Chess diagram|=
tright|
=
rd|nd| |qd|kd|bd| |rd|=
pd|pd|pd| | |pd|pd|pd|=
| | | | | | | |=
| | | | |bd| | |=
| |pl| |nd| | | |=
| |nl| | | | | |=
pl|pl|ql| | |pl|pl|pl|=
rl| |bl| |kl|bl|nl|rl|=
The piece sacrifice 7...Nxe4
The reply 4...d5 protects the Ne4 and opens the way for the Bc8. Now various natural moves for White are not satisfactory:
* 5.cxd5 allows Black to develop its queen with 5...Qd5, when White is not able to keep the e5-pawn and parry the various threats on the a5-e1 diagonal on the same time, for example 6.Nc3 Nxc3 7.Qxc3 Nc6 with the double threat Qxe5 and Bb4, or 6.Nd2 Bb4 7.Ngf3 Nc6 8.a3 Bxd2+ 9.Bxd2 Nxd2 10.Qxd2 Qxd2+ 11.Kxd2 Bg4 followed by O-O-O and Rhe8.
* 5.Nf3? Bf5 (threatening 6...Ng3) 6.Qa4+ Nc6 7.Be3 Bb4+ 8.Nbd2 d4! and White has more and more problems to solve with g7-g5 to come. [Borik 1986, p.68
Mititelu-Seineanu, Romania 1955
] Therefore White's best is 5.exd6 so that the Ne4 remains under attack. As before, removing the knight from its outpost with 5...Nxd6 would mean failure, so Black continues to develop with 5...Bf5, in the same time creating the threat 6...Ng3.

Now again White has a lot of opportunities to go astray:
* 6.dxc7 is too greedy, giving an important tempo and opening the d-file for the Ra8. Black continues with Qxc7, Nc6 and O-O-O, then depending on the circumstances he can create pressure on the d3-square with Nc5 and Nb4. [Borik 1986, p.70
Rössner-Kipke, Berlin 1933
Krastev-Donev, Bulgaria 1954
]
* 6.Qa4+ and 6.Qb3 lose at least two tempi as the white queen will again be under attack when Black plays Ne4-c5. Black easily develops his pieces with Nc6, Bxd6 and an attack along the central columns. [Borik 1986, p.71-73
H.Steiner - Fajarowicz, Wiesbaden 1928
Gilfer-Richter, Munich Olympiad 1936
] Thus White has a lot of difficulties to get out of the pin, but on the other hand the Ne4 is also under a kind of pin as the Bf5 is not protected. Hence the best for White is the paradoxical 6.Nc3! when White keeps his queen under the threat of the Bf5 but develops his pieces and attacks the Ne4 once more. Now the e4-knight has only two discoveries that protect the Bf5, but 6...Ng3 fails to the tactical 7.Qa4+ Bd7 8.dxc7 Qxc7 9.Nb5! and White wins. Thus Black has only 6...Nxd6 to keep the initiative. [Borik 1986, p.74]

Now a retreat with the white queen would give a development advantage to Black, so White uses the fact that his sixth move has given him enough control of the e4-square to play 7.e4!, preparing the development of the Bf1 and attacking the Bf5. Unfortunately for Black any reasonable defence like 7...Qe7 or 7...Bg6 would give White the time to catch up in development, and remain a pawn up. Thus Black's best option is the piece sacrifice 7...Nxe4 to grab a pawn and tempt White into a fire of tactical pressure.

The acceptance of the sacrifice with 8.Nxe4 gives Black enough play for the piece, e.g. after 8...Bb4+ 9.Ke2 Nc6 10.Be3 Qe7 11.f3 O-O-O. [Borik 1986, p.75, citing Nikolay Minev in ECO] White does best to give in an exchange and continue his development with 8.Bd3! when after the possible 8...Nxf2 9.Bxf5 Nxh1 10.Nf3 White has an enormous lead of development for his material investment. [Borik 1986, p.76
Kottnauer- Martin, Czechoslovakia vs France, 1946
] White's position is to be preferred. [Tseitlin 1992, p.94]

Chess diagram|=
tright|
=
rd|nd|bd|qd|kd| | |rd|=
pd|pd|pd|pd| |pd|pd|pd|=
| | | | | | | |=
| | | |pl| | | |=
|bd|pl| |nd| | | |=
| | | | | | | |=
pl|pl|ql| |pl|pl|pl|pl|=
rl|nl|bl| |kl|bl|nl|rl|=
The line 3...Ne4 4.Qc2 Bb4+

Less committal is 4...Bb4+, intending to pin the white pieces before deciding what to do with the Ne4. [According to Borik 1986, p.79, this is an idea from the master Hermann Steiner] White cannot reply 5.Bd2 as he would lose the bishop pair and Black would easily regain the e5-pawn with Nc6/Qe7/O-O/Re8. After 5.Nd2 this knight is misplaced and blocks the Bc1, so Black can open the game with 5...d5 in favourable circumstances, when White can continue in several directions:
* 6.cxd5 will probably transpose into the 4.Qc2 d5 5.cxd5 variation, which is not very good as Black develops his queen with tempo.
* 6.e3 is a bit passive, e.g. 6...Bf5 7.Bd3 Qg5! 8.g3 Nd7 9.Ngf3 and here Borik recommends 9...Qh5 with a good attack, [Borik 1986, p.80
Timet - Meyer, Zagreb 1953
] a possibility that is also endorsed by Tseitlin. [Tseitlin 1992, p.95]
* 6.Nf3 was tried in 1987 for the first time but did not bring any luck to its inventor. [Tseitlin 1992, p.136
Stohl - Trapl, Namestrova 1987
]
* 6.exd5 is best, when after 6...Bb5 White shall take care of removing the pin on the Nd2 thanks to 7.a3 Bxd2+ 8.Bxd2 Qxd6. Black has enough compensation for the pawn with his active Ne4 and Bf5. [Borik 1986, p.81-82
Antainen-Nieminen, Finnish Correspondence Championship, 1973
Bascau - Meewes, correspondence 1971
Laghkva-Contendini, Leipzig Olympiad 1960
] The other possibility for White is 5.Nc3 so that the Bc1 is not blocked. Play can continue with 5...d5 exd5 Bf5 7.Bd2 Nxd6 8.e4 Bxc3 9.Bxc3 Bxe4 when Black has regained his pawn but White has the bishop pair and possibilities of an attack on the kingside. [Borik 1986, p.84] Instead of 8.e4 White can also try 8.Qb3 Nc6 9.e3 Qe7 10.Nf3 O-O-O but Black has good counterplay for the pawn. [Tseitlin 1992, p.91]

Fajarowicz variation 3...Ne4, line 4.Nf3

Chess diagram|=
tright|
=
rd|nd|bd|qd|kd| | |rd|=
pd|pd|pd|pd| |pd|pd|pd|=
| | | | | | | |=
| | | |pl| | | |=
|bd|pl| |nd| | | |=
| | | | |nl| | |=
pl|pl| | |pl|pl|pl|pl|=
rl|nl|bl|ql|kl|bl| |rl|=
Black plays 4...Bb4+ before White gets a2-a3
"1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ne4 4.Nf3"

This hinders the manoeuvre Qd8-h4-h5 that equalises in the 4.a3 variation. The most common move is 4...Nc6, which is strange as it is less good than 4...Bb4+. [Tseitlin 1992, p.98] If White replies 5.Nbd2 we are in one of the rare situations where the move Bf8-b4 (by 5...Bb4) is not good as the pin has no particular advantage here. White can immediately launch 6.a3 and after 6...Nxd2 7.Bxd2 Bxd2+ 8.Qxd2 Qe7 9.Qc3 Black has no easy way to gain the pawn back. Tseitlin gives the line 9...O-O 10.Rd1 Re8 11.Rd5 b6 12.e3 Bb7 13.Be2 Rad8 14.O-O Nb8 15.Rd2 as leading to a White advantage. [Tseitlin 1992, p.101]

Instead Black can improve with 5...Nc5, in order to let the Nd2 on its bad square where it blocks the Bc1. White can try to dominate the white squares with the development Bf1-g2, and after 6.g3 d6 7.exd6 Bxd6 8.Bg2 O-O 9.O-O Qf6 10.Nb3 Be6 11.Nxc5 Bxc5 12.Qa4 Bg4! Black retains good attacking possibilities for the gambit pawn. [Tseitlin 1992, p.104] Another idea for Black is too castle long, with 6.g3 d6 7.exd6 Qxd6 8.Bg2 Bf5 9.O-O O-O-O 10.a3 and now the move 10...Qf6 is essential to hinder the dangerous advance b2-b4. [Tseitlin 1992, p.105] White can also try a more classical development with 6.a3 (threatening 7.b4) 6...Qe7 7.e3 Nxe5 8.Qc2 a5 9.b3 b6 with roughly equal chances. [Tseitlin 1992, p.107]

Better than 5.Nbd2 is the preparatory move 5.a3!, hindering any Bf8-b4+ or Nc6-b4 idea that are very useful to Black in the 4.Qc2 variation. Now Black has to do something about the Qd1-c2 threat. He can try 5...d6 hoping to attract his opponent into something like 6.exd6 Bxd6 7.Nbd2 Bf5 8.e3 Qf6 9.Nxe4 Bxe4 10.Bd3 where Black retains some play. [Tseitlin 1992, p.108] But White should not oblige and must play the strongest 6.Qc2 so that after the sharp 6...Bf5 7.Nc3 Nxf2 8.Qxf5 Nxh1 Black will not be able to save his Nh1 and White has the advantage. [Borik 1986, p.88
Tseitlin page 109
Reshevsky-Bisguier, New York 1954-1955
] Even if Black reacts with the more prudent 6...Nc5 7.b4 Ne6 8.Bb2 dxe5 9.e3 f6 10.Bd3 g6 11.Nc3 Bg7 White has the iniative and Black can only hope to gradually neutralise White's strong pressure. [Tseitlin 1992, p.110]

Therefore Black does best to include 4...Bb4+ which is considered by Tseitlin as "the simplest and most reliable course", [Tseitlin 1992, p.95] as White then has to choose between different difficulties. After 5.Bd2 Nxd2 6.Nxd2 Nc6 7.a3 Bxd2+ 8.Qxd2 Qe7 9.Qc3 it seems White has everything covered, [Tseitlin 1992, p.138
Smyslov - Steiner, Groningen 1946
] but Borik thinks Black will eventually be able to regain his pawn with the plan b6/Bb7/O-O-O/Rde8/g5/g4, with an initiative on the kingside. [Borik 1986, p.89] Tseitlin does not agree and prefers the continuation 7...Bf8! (instead of 7...Bxd2+) 8.Qc2 g6 9.Qc3 Bg7 so that "Black not only makes sure of recovering the gambit pawn, he also preserves the advantage of the bishop pair".Tseitlin 1992, p.96] Black's chances are to be preferred.

So it is better for White to keep the bishop with 5.Nbd2 Nc6 6.a3 Nxd2 7.Nxd2 and now Borik recommends 7...Bf8 with difficult play for Black as he is not certain to gain his pawn back. [Borik 1986, p.91] A possible improvement for Black would be 5...d5 when Tseitlin sees sufficient compensation for the pawn in all lines.

Fajarowicz variation 3...Ne4, other fourth moves

Apart from the main moves listed above, the other possible fourth move do not promise much for White.

The moves 4.Qd3 and 4.Qd4 seem to gain a tempo by attacking the Ne4, but after 4...Nc5 followed by 5...Nc6 Black gets his tempo back and the queen remains misplaced. Then Black can develop with d6 its Bb8 with the pawn exchange d7-d6, and then setup an attack on the light squares c2 and d3 with moves like Bf5 and Nb4. It is important that Black gets the move d7-d6 soon enough, as he must be able to answer a possible Bc1-g5 with Qd8-d7. In that way he avoids an exchange of pieces and the queen can still play on the light squares via the f5-square. [Borik 1986, p.63] If White gets his queen on g3, Black can protect his g7-pawn with Nc5-e6 when the white queen will soon reveal to be misplaced. [Borik 1986, p.65]

The move 4.Qd5 seems better as the queen cannot readily be attacked by the black knights. Then 4...Nc5 is not good anymore, as White would have the move Bc1-g5 before Black plays d7-d6, for example 4...Nc5? 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bg5! and Black cannot avoid the unfavourable exchange of dark-squared bishops. [Borik 1986, p.66] Instead, Black must play 4...Bb4+ so that White has the annoying choice between giving his bishop pair with 5.Bd2, wrecking his pawn structure with 5.Nc3, or blocking his own bishop with 5.Nd2. In that latter case, an important tactical finess is that after the possible 5...Nc5 6.a3 Bxd2+ 7.Bxd2 b6! White cannot take the black rook because of 8.Qxa8? Bb7 9.Qxa7 Nc6 that wins the white queen. [Borik 1986, p66; Borik says it has been suggested by J.Staker] Thus Black can freely develop its queenside, harass the white queen and later regain the e5-pawn.

The move 4.Nd2 obstructs the Bc1 and misplaces the knight. For example after 4...Nc5 5.b4 Ne6 6.a3 a5! the attacks on the b4-pawn force White to give away the c5-square with 7.b5. Then Black has a good game as he can install a knight on the strongpost c5 and then concentrate on regaining the e5-pawn. [Borik 1986, p.85] [Tseitlin 1992, p.139
Alekhine - Tartakower, London 1932
]

The move 4.a3 allows White to avoid the annoying checks on b4 and prepares Qd1-c2, but allows Black to equalise with the manoeuvre Qh4/Qh5, the idea being to avoid the Bc1 coming on f4 to defend the pawn. For example after 4...Qh4 5.Be3 Bc5 6.Bxc5 Nxc5 7.Qc2 Nc6 8.Nf3 Qh5 White cannot protect his e5-pawn. [Borik 1986, p.86, citing Joseph Staker] Another possibility is 5.g3 Qh5 6.Nf3 Nc6 when White cannot play 7.Bf4 because of 7...Bc5 8.e3 g5, so here again Black gets his pawn back with an equal position. [Borik 1986, p.86
O'Kelly - Bisguier, San Juan 1969
] But after 5.g3 Qh5 6.Nf3 Nc6 White can play 7.Qc2! (instead of 7.Bf4), a move that Borik dismissed on the basis of 7...Qf5 threatening Nxg3, but actually White can have the better part of the deal with 8.Nbd2 Nxg3 9.e4! and White wins.

Then another possibility for Black is 4...b6, sometimes called the "Bonsdorf variation". [cite web
url=http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lab/7378/eco.htm
title=Bill Wall's classification of openings
accessdate=2008-08-15
]

The move 4.Nc3 is not very good as Black could simply react by 4...Nxc3 5.bxc3 b6! so that White's weaknesses are fixed and the gambit pawn can be won back latter. [Tseitlin 1992, p.90] If Black does not want a positional game he can go for a more dynamic struggle by 4...Bb4 as after 5.Qc2 the game has transposed in the 4.Qc2 Bb4+ 5.Nc3 variation.

Declining the gambit

Declining the gambit is almost never seen in master play because it promises White equality at best.

After 3.d5?! Bc5 White has prematurely blocked the central position, giving the a7-g1 diagonal to Black for his bishop. For example after 4.Nc3 d6 5.e4 c6 6.Bd3 cxd5 7.cxd5 a6 8.Nf3 Nbd7 9.O-O O-O Black is better. [Borik 1986, p.94, citing Minev] In this variation Black can either play on the queenside with a plan like b5/Nb6/Bd7, or on the kingside with a plan like Ne8/g6/Ng7/f5. [Tseitlin 1992, p.12, citing Kwiatkowski] In this line, 4.Bg5?? is a notorious blunder, giving Black a winning advantage after either 4..Bxf2+ 5.Kxf2 Ng4+ 6.Ke1 Qxg5, or 4...Ne4 (hoping for 5.Bxd8?? Bxf2#, as in F. Arnold-M. Hanauer, Philadelphia 1936) [Francis J. Wellmuth, "The Golden Treasury of Chess", Chess Review, 1943, p. 276.] 5.Be3 Bxe3 6.fxe3 Qh4+. [Burgess 1998, p.37]

After 3.e3?! exd4 4.exd4 Black can transpose into a line of the exchange variation of the with 4...d5. He can also wait a bit before committing to d7-d5, and develop rapidly with 4...Bb4+ 5.Bd2 Bxd2+ 6.Nxd2 O-O.Borik 1986, p.93] [Tseitlin 1992, p.12]

After 3.e4?! Black gains a crushing attack via 3...Nxe4 4.dxe5 Bc5 5.Nh3 d6 6.Qe2 f5 7.exf6 O-O! 8.fxg7 Re8 9.Be3 Bxe3 10.fxe3 Bxh3 11.gxh3 Qh4+. [Tseitlin 1992, p.11, citing Schlechter] Borik 1986, p.94, citing Schlechter]

After 3.Bg5?! the game Ladmann-Tartakower (Scarborough 1929) continued with 3...exd4 4.Qxd4 Be7 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Qd1 Ne4 7.Bxe7 Qxe7 8.a3 d6 9.e3 O-O 10.Be2 Qf6 11.Nbd2 Bf5 when both Tseitlin and Borik assess the position as favourable for Black.Tseitlin 1992, p.11]

After 3.Nf3?! the game Menchik-Tartakower (Paris 1929) continued with 3...e4 4.Nfd2 d5 5.cxd5?! Qxd5 6.e3 Bb4 7.Nc3 Bxc3 8.bxc3 O-O and White has problems to develop his kingside because of the potential weakness of g2.Another way is 3...exd4 4.Nxd4 d5 5.cxd5 Qxd5 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.Qa4+ Nc6 8.Nxc6 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Bd7 with a black advantage.

Footnotes

References

*cite book
author=Moskalenko, Viktor
title=The Fabulous Budapest Gambit
publisher=New In Chess
year=2007
id=ISBN 978-90-5691-224-6

*cite book
author=Oleinikov, Dmitrij
year=2005
title=Budapest Gambit
edition=2nd ed.
publisher=Chessbase (on CD)

*cite book
author=Lalic, Bogdan
title=The Budapest Gambit
publisher=Batsford
id=ISBN 9780713484564
year=1998

*cite book
author=Tseitlin, Mikhail
coauthors=Glaskov, Igor
title=The Budapest for the Tournament Player
publisher=Batsford
id=ISBN 978-0805024319
year=1992

*cite book
author=Borik, Otto
title=Budapest Gambit
publisher=The Macmillan Chess Library
year=1986
id=ISBN 978-0020175001

Further reading

*cite book
author=De Firmian, Nick
title=Modern Chess Openings: MCO-14
publisher=Random House Puzzles & Games
year=1999
id=ISBN 0-8129-3084-3

*cite book
author=Burgess, Graham
title=The Quickest Chess Victories of All Time
publisher=Everyman Chess
year=1998
id=ISBN 978-1857445381

*cite book
author=Zavodny, Zdenek
title=Let Budapestskeho gambitu 1917-1997:A51-A52
publisher=SNZZ
location=Brno
language=Czech
id=ASIN B000VLHGZK
year=1997

*cite book
author=Harding, Tim
title=The fighting Fajarowicz
publisher=Chess Digest
id=ISBN 978-0875682815
year=1996

*cite book
author=Burgess, Graham
title=Gambits
publisher=Batsford
id=ISBN 978-0805038989
year=1995

*cite book
author=Pachman, Ludek
title=Opening game in chess
publisher=Routledge
year=1983
id=ISBN 978-0710092229

*cite book
author=Staker, Josef
publisher=Chess Digest
year=1982
title=The Budapest Defence
id=ASIN B000KXI9BY

External links

* Harding, Tim (November 2000). [http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz54.pdf The Kibitzer: Playing the Budapest in Budapest] (PDF). ChessCafe.com.
* Harding, Tim (December 1997). [http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz19.txt The Kibitzer: How Stands the "Faj"?] . ChessCafe.com.


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Gambit De Budapest — Gambit de Budapest …   Wikipédia en Français

  • Gambit (echecs) — Gambit (échecs) Pour les articles homonymes, voir Gambit. Dans le jeu d échecs, le gambit est un sacrifice volontaire d un pion ou d une figure dans la phase d ouverture dans le but d obtenir un avantage non matériel : attaque rapide et… …   Wikipédia en Français

  • Gambit (jeu d'échecs) — Gambit (échecs) Pour les articles homonymes, voir Gambit. Dans le jeu d échecs, le gambit est un sacrifice volontaire d un pion ou d une figure dans la phase d ouverture dans le but d obtenir un avantage non matériel : attaque rapide et… …   Wikipédia en Français

  • Gambit de Budapest — Cet article utilise la notation algébrique pour décrire des coups du jeu d échecs …   Wikipédia en Français

  • Gambit — This article is about the chess tactic. For alternate meanings, see Gambit (disambiguation). a b c d e …   Wikipedia

  • Gambit (échecs) — Pour les articles homonymes, voir Gambit. Cet article utilise la notation algébrique pour décrire des coups du jeu d échecs …   Wikipédia en Français

  • Englund Gambit — This article is about the chess opening. For people with this surname, see Englund (disambiguation). Englund Gambit a b …   Wikipedia

  • Budapester Gambit — a b c d e f g h …   Deutsch Wikipedia

  • Budapester Gambit (Schach) — a b c d e f g h …   Deutsch Wikipedia

  • Fajarowicz-Gambit — a b c d e f g h …   Deutsch Wikipedia


Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”

We are using cookies for the best presentation of our site. Continuing to use this site, you agree with this.