Budapest Gambit

The Budapest Gambit (or Budapest Defense) is a chess opening beginning with the moves

1. d4 Nf6

2. c4 e5

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 defense 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:

• Adler line 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 when White seeks a spatial advantage in the centre with its pieces
• 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ when White answers either the Bernstein line 6.Nbd2 when White generally gives the pawn back for the bishop pair, or the Rubinstein line 6.Nc3 when White tries to keep the extra pawn
• Alekhine line 4.e4 Nxe5 5.f4 when White seeks for a big spatial advantage with its pawns.

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

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

Budapest Gambit

a b c d e f g h 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 a b c d e f g h
Moves	1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5
ECO	A51-A52
Origin	Adler-Maróczy, Budapest 1896
Named after	Budapest
Parent	Indian Defense
Synonym(s)	Budapest Gambit

History

Origins

The first known game with the Budapest gambit is Adler-Maróczy, Budapest 1896. This game already featured some key aspects of the gambit, with active play for the black pieces and the typical mistake of White moving his queen too soon. As the conductor of the White pieces was not a strong player, the new opening went unnoticed apart from the local experts who had witnessed the game.

Then the Hungarians Stephan Abonyi, Zsigmond Barasz and Gyula Breyer, further developed the opening. Abonyi played it in 1916 against the Dutch surgeon Johannes Esser in a small tournament in Budapest. The Austrian player Josef Emil Krejcik played it against Helmer/Helmar in Vienna in 1917. Schlechter published an analysis of the gambit in the "Deutsche Schachzeitung" (1917, page 242).

The first use of the opening against a world-class player was at Berlin 1918. The favourite was Akiba Rubinstein, who had to play with the white pieces against Milan Vidmar in the first round. Vidmar was at a loss of what to do and sought advice to his friend Abonyi, who showed him the Budapest gambit and the main ideas the Hungarian players had found. Vidmar followed the advice and played one of his most crushing game, beating Rubinstein in just 24 moves.

This victory put such heart into Vidmar that he went on to win the tournament. On the contrary, Rubinstein was so demoralised by this defeat that he lost another game against Jacques Mieses and drew a third one against Carl Schlechter, in the very same opening.

After this tournament the gambit was taken seriously at last. Top-players like Savielly Tartakower and Siegbert Tarrasch started to play it. Carl Schlechter wrote the monograph "The Budapest Defence to the Queen's Gambit" in 1919, which can be considered the first book on the subject.

Then the top-players playing 1.d4 with White started to look for reliable antidotes to the gambit. Alexander Alekhine showed how White could get a strong attack with 4.e4 in his games against Ilya Rabinovich (Baden-Baden 1925) and Adolf Seitz (Hastings 1925-1926). Rubinstein developed the 6.Nbd2 line in the 4.Bf4 variation to get a small positional advantage. Thus at the end of the 1920s the gambit was considered as dubious.

Use in competition

Use by top players

The Budapest Gambit has never been widely used as Black by the top-10 chessplayers:

• Réti used it three times against lesser opponents, scoring 1½ points.
• Tartakower used it three times in a unique tournament (Bad Kissingen 1928) but scored only ½ point against very strong opposition (Bogoljubov, Capablanca, Rubinstein).
• Mieses used it twice, winning against Rubinstein (Berlin 1918) but losing to Euwe (Hastings 1923).
• Spielmann also used it twice, winning against Euwe (Baden 1922) but losing to Sämisch (Copenhagen 1923).

Some top players expiremented with the gambit once against a lesser opponent, with generally good results:

• Alekhine won against Ibanez (Buenos Aires, 1926).
• Shirov won against Bacrot (Bosna SuperGM, 2000) when Bacrot was not yet among the world's top players.
• Flohr won against Staehelin (Bern, 1932).
• Breyer won against Esser (Budapest, 1916).
• Maróczy won against Adler (Budapest, 1896).

Some top players used the gambit once against another top player, for the element of surprise and because they reckoned it would not suit their opponent's positional style, generally with good results:

• Mamedyarov won against Van Wely (Ciudad Real 2004).
• Short lost against Karpov (Linares, Candidates match, Round 1, 1992).
• Speelman won against Browne (Taxco, Interzonal, Round 6, 1985).
• Bronstein won against Tolush (Moscow, USSR Championship, 1944).
• Schlechter drew against Rubinstein (Berlin 1918).
• Vidmar won against Rubinstein (Berlin 1918).

Some top players have only used the gambit in their youth, and they have abandoned it when they grew in the chess hierarchy.

• Svidler used it in 1991-1992 when he was 15 years old.
• Topalov used it against Dreev in 1989 when he was 14 years old.

Use against top players

Top players have seldom met the gambit:

• Rubinstein first had catastrophic results in the 1918 Berlin tournament when he made ½/3 against the gambit, but years after he improved by winning against Daniuszewski (Łódź, Poland championship, 1927) and against Tartakower (Bad Kissingen, 1928).
• Alekhine scored 3/4, with wins over Euwe (Amsterdam, 1921), Rabinovich (Baden Baden, 1925) and Seitz (Hastings, 1926), but a loss against Gilg (Semmering, 1926).

Strategic and tactical themes

The rook lift to attack White's castle

The rook lift

In the 4.Nf3 variation, Black often has the opportunity to develop its Ra8 aggressively through the sixth rank through the manoeuvre a7-a5, Ra8-a6-h6. For example this can happen with some moves 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 castle. Black can easily get a lot of pieces against the white king, notably a rook in h6, a queen in h4 and a knight on g4. If White tries to defend with h2-h3 then the Bc8 can be sacrificed in h3 in order to open the H-file.

The Bc5 does not seem particularly useful in this attack. 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. There are several motives of sacrifice on e3. On 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 defense new life. However, inconveniences do arise from delaying ...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).

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. On the other hand, if White can take back with another piece (generally a Rc1, a Bd2 or a Qc2), the capture of the Nc3 would be bad for Black as it would just lose the bishop pair.
• If White has to play Nb1-d2 then it is 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.
• 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.

For example, in the following variations:

• In the Adler line, after 4...Nc6 5.e3 Black would gain nothing by playing 5...Bb4+ as White could respond with 6.Bd2, meeting 6...Bxd2 with 7.Qxd2.
• In the 4.Bf4 variation, after 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Black should play 5...Bb4+ as both answers with the Nb1 have their usual drawback and 6.Bd2 loses a tempo.
• In the Alekhine line, after 4...Nec6 5.Be3 Black may play 5...Bb4+ as both answers with the Nb1 have their usual drawback and 6.Bd2 cedes the a7-g1 diagonal to Black after 6...Bc5.

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

Pressure against 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.

The c4-c5 push

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Bernstein line - White ready to push 11.c5

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

In the Bernstein line, after 7.a3 Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.e3 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 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!

• 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)

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Adler line - White ready to push 15.c5

Similarly, in the Adler line, 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 (diagram on right) White has a good opportunity to push 15.c5 as:

• it closes the diagonal of the Ba7 for now,
• it 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 in d6,
• it enhances the prospects of the Be2.

The Kieninger trap

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

The Kieninger trap: 8...Nd3 mate

The Kieninger trap is a chess trap named after Georg Kieninger who used it in an offhand game against Godai at Vienna in 1925.

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 did not want to lose his queen and was forced to go for 10.Qd1 Nd3 checkmate.

Main variation 3...Ng4, Adler line 4.Nf3

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

The Adler line 4.Nf3

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

The Adler line is named after the game Adler-Maróczy which was played at the 1896 Budapest tournament. 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. 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.
• 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 variation with a2-a3

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

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.

White has a space advantage in the center and can initiate pressure here or on the queenside by supporting some pawn pushes like b3-b4 and c4-c5. 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"). 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. 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 defense 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. 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 variation without a2-a3

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

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 Black has an important choice to do.

His first option is to iniate a rook lift (see the chapter "Strategic and tactical themes") with 10...a5 in order to bring his Ra8 on the kingside. The problem then is that the Bc8 may remain inactive for a long time. For example after 13.Qd5! Qe7 14.Ne4 Ba7 15.c5 Rg6 16.Rac1 Bb8 17.f4 White has a positional advantage in the center.

Another possibility for Black, after 10...d6 11.Bb2, is to iniate another rook lift with 11...Re6 but then he may well be a tempo down compared to the variation with a2-a3. For example after 12.g3 Rh6?! 13.Ne4 Qd7 14.h4 Black does not have the a7-square for his Bc5.

White can also capture the Bc5 with 10...d6 11.Na4. The retreat 11...Bb6 12.Nxb6 axb6 is dubious as Black does not have any compensation for the bishop pair, especially when the dark-squared Bc1 can go on the strong a1-h8 diagonal. It is better for Black to try 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.

The 4...Nc6 variation

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 Defense setup with g7-g6 and Bf8-g7.
• 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).

Main variation 3...Ng4, line 4.Bf4

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4

Whereas in the Adler line White faces the risk of a strong attack against his kingside with a black rook landing on the g6 or h6 square (see "The rook lift" in the section "Strategic and tactical themes"), here this is seldom the case as White's Bf4 could easily protect White's kingside if needed. So play evolves more around the queenside (in the Bernstein line) or the centre (in the Rubinstein line).

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". 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).

Despite the recent surge in popularity of 4...g5!?, it remains less common than the main line, which begins with 4...Nc6. The main line continues with both camps developing their pieces around the e5-pawn, e.g. 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ (preparing 6...Qe7) when White has to choose between 6.Nc3 and 6.Nbd2.

Rubinstein line 6.Nc3

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nc3

This line is named after Rubinstein thanks to his game Rubinstein - Vidmar (Berlin 1918), even if Rubinstein himself soon preferred the Berstein line. However, some other reliable sources call the whole 4.Bf4 variation "the Rubinstein variation", instead of only the 6.Nc3 subpart.

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"). 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.

Bernstein line 6.Nbd2

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2

The name of this line is not clear, as it may come from the chessplayer Jacob Bernstein but it seems he has never played the Budapest Gambit (neither as White nor as Black).

In this positional line, White gives up the e5-pawn in order to get some other advantages (e.g. the bishop pair). After 6...Qe7 White has to choose between 7.a3 with the idea of getting the bishop pair, or 7.e3 with the idea of winning a tempo over the 7.a3 variation.

Taking the bishop pair with 7.a3

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

The 7.a3 variation

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).

Fighting the bishop pair

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

After 10.Qxd2, White has the bishop pair

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3 Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.e3 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2

White has a tiny edge with two static advantages:

• the bishop pair,
• a space advantage on the queenside.

On the other side, Black has not a lot of things to be proud of, as there are no targets in White's camp. Still we can find some small assets:

• Black's Ne5 can be considered as powerful, because it attacks the c4-pawn and restricts the Bf1 by taking off the natural squares d3 and f3. Moreover White can generally not consider exchanging this Knight because that would mean losing its bishop pair, and thus losing a chunk of its advantage.
• the Bc8 can potentially become much 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.
• 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. Black will try to develop the Bc8 on the a8-h1 diagonal, where it points toward White's castled king.

Examples in practice

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 plan given above:

• 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.Rc1 f6!? (overprotecting the Ne5 in order to avoid the forks like 13.Qc3 or 13.Qd5 which would allow White to regain the pawn) 13.Qc2 b6 14.Bxe5 Qxe5 15.Bb5+ Kf8.
• With 11.Qc3 White prepares c4-c5 and puts pressure on the Ne5 (the d6-pawn is now pinned) and on the g7-pawn behind. Black can continue its natural plan with 11...b6, then White can consider sacrificing a pawn with 12.c5!? bxc5 13.Bxe5 Qxe5 14.Qxe5+ dxe5 in order to destroy Black's pawn structure. However a lot of pieces have been exchanged in the process and the bishop pair has disappeared so White may have difficulties to create an advantage now. Black's best bet is to be courageous and sacrifice all the weak pawns in order to activate its pieces, for example 15.Rc1!? Rb8! 16.Rxc5 Rxb2 17.Rxc7 O-O! and White has serious problems developing his remaining pieces.

Searching for a tempo with 7.e3

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 d6 10.O-O it is Black's last chance to exchange the Bb4 for the Nd2.

If Black goes for it with 10...Bxd2, he will be a tempo down over the 7.a3 variation and will soon be unable to meet White's positional threats on the queenside. White just has to avoid the push a2-a3 and continues with the standard plans of the 7.a3 variation.

Thus Black had better avoiding the exchange and continues with a normal move like 10...O-O. Then White can try two ideas:

• play on the queenside against the exposed Bb4
• recycle the Nd2 to its ideal square d5

The first idea is not enough to get an advantage if Black knows how to react. Black needs to fight for the dark squares b4 and c5, in order to avoid problems for its dark-squared bishop. For example after 11.Nb3 b6 12.a3 Bc5 Black has an equal game.

The second idea is more dangerous and can be combined with the first one. White recycles its Nd2 over the path Nd2-b1-c3-d5, where it will be ideally placed and will help to implement the b2-b4 push.

Main variation 3...Ng4, Alekhine line 4.e4

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

The Alekhine line 4.e4

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4

This line is named after Alekhine probably thanks to his wins in the games Alekhine - Rabinovic (Baden Baden, 1925) and Alekhine - Seitz (Hastings, 1926).

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+. White does best to repell immediately the Ng4 with 5.Be2 or 5.h3, after which the move h7-h5 is only a weakness and White has the advantage.
• with 4...d6 Black continues in true gambit style, trying to develop rapidly its pieces. 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. 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. White has an advantage but runs a few risks. However it is simpler for White to avoid any complication with 5.Be2 Nxe5 when he has a superior version of the main line because Black has blocked its Bf8 with the move d7-d6.

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
• 5...Ng6 is probably playable
• 5...Nbc6?! is just a bad sacrifice

The 5...Nec6 variation

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

After 5.f4 Nec6

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4 Nxe5 5.f4 Nec6

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, as 6.a3?! a5 plays in Black's hands by creating a weakness in b3, and 6.Nf3?! Bc5 makes it difficult for White to castle later. Especially, after 6.Nf3 Bc5, if White tries to force the exchange of bishops with something like Bd3/Qe2/Be3, Black can try to muddy the waters with the structure Bc5/Bg4/Nd4.

Therefore White usually answers with 6.Be3 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. It is better to attack with pieces, e.g. with the setup b6/d6/Nc5/Bb7/O-O-O

The 5...Ng6 variation

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

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. 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 the f4-pawn.
• 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.

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.

The 5...Nbc6 variation

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

After 5.f4 Nbc6

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4 Nxe5 5.f4 Nbc6

A piece sacrifice, where the straightforward continuation 6.fxe5 Qh4+ 7.Kd2 is best for both. Nunn has shown that black can now only win back at most two pawns for the knight, and even then only by giving a queen trade as well, because of the white resource of Qe2. E.g. 7...Qf4+ 8.Kc3! Qxe5+ 9. Kd2 Qf4+ 10.Ke1 Qxe4+ 11.Qe2 when the black queen is pinned. Black's better bet might be to settle for one pawn with 8...Bb4+ 9.Kb3 Qxe5 when the queens can stay on and the white king is more exposed.

Main variation 3...Ng4, other possibilities at move 4

The 4.e3 variation

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e3

to be developed

The 4.Qd4 variation

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

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". Black is able to seize the initiative with the dynamic 4...d6, allowing White to remain a pawn up. After the natural 5.exd6 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. However, White had a playable game after 6.Nf3 0-0 7.Bg5 Qe8 8.c5 Nc6 9.Qc3 Be7 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.e3 in Amura-Radu, Santiago 1990, but soon went wrong and lost. An alternative, which avoids the 7.Bg5 line, is 5...Nc6!? (instead of 5...Bd6) 6.Qd1 Bxd6 7.e3 (7.Nf3?? Nxf2! 8.Kxf2 Bg3+ wins) 0-0 with compensation for the sacrificed pawn. In this line, 6.Qe4+ Be6 7.dxc7?? loses to 7...Qd4!

The 4.Qd5 variation

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

After 4...Nc6 White has a 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.

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.

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.f4?! variation

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. 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.

The 4.e6 variation

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.

Fajarowicz variation 3...Ne4

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

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.

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.

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

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

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". 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.

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

The line 3...Ne4 4.Qc2 d5

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

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.Dxd2 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.

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.
• 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.

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.

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 defense 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. 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.

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

The line 3...Ne4 4.Qc2 Bb4+

Less hastened is the reply 4...Bb4+, intending to pin the white pieces before deciding what to do with the Ne4. 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.
• 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.

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.

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

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. Now after 4...Nc6 White should avoid 5.Nd2 Nc5 as he has just blocked his Bc1 and thus Black will be able to regain his e5-pawn or to achieve good piece play. Better is another preparation move with 5.a3!, hindering any Bf8-b4+ or Nc6-b4 idea that are very useful to Black in the 4.Qd2 variation. Now Black can hardly avoid the Qd1-c2 threat, e.g. after 5...d6 6.Qc2 Bf5 7.Nc3 Nxf2 8.Qxf5 Nxh1 Black will not be able to save his Nh1, so White has the advantage.

Therefore Black does best to include 4...Bb4+ when White 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, but 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. 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.

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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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 5.Be3 Bc5 6.Bxc5 Nxc5 7.Qc2 Nc6 8.Nf3 Qh5 White cannot protect his e5-pawn. 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.

Declining the gambit

Declining the gambit seldom happens in competitive games because it does not promise anything more than equality for White.

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 10.Bg5 h6 11.Bh4 b5 Black is better.

After 3.e3?! exd4 4.exd4 Black can transpose into a line of the exchange variation of the French defense with 4...d5. He can also wait a bit before commiting to d7-d5, and develop rapidly with 4...Bb4+ 5.Bd2 Bxd2+ 6.Nxd2 O-O.

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+.

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.

References

Moskalenko, Viktor (2007). The Fabulous Budapest Gambit. New In Chess. ISBN 978-90-5691-224-6.

Oleinikov, Dmitrij (2005). Budapest Gambit 2nd edition. Chessbase (on CD)
Strong points: historical developpement of the gambit; strategic themes. Weak points: the author is untitled; does not cover the Fajarowicz variation; the theoretical analysis is light.

Lalic, Bogdan (1998). The Budapest Gambit. Batsford.
Each chapter presents a variation through a set of selected games, with a summary at the beginning. Strong points: the author is a GM; the selected games are analysed in depth. Weak points: the author is not a regular user of the gambit; assessments are scarce.

Tseitlin, Mikhail & Glaskov, Igor (1992). The Budapest for the Tournament Player. Batsford.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Each chapter presents the theoretical moves, while the illustrative games are kept separate at the end of the book. Strong points: Tseitlin is a GM; theoretical analysis very detailled. Weak points: Glaskov is untitled; few assessments; few explanations.

Borik, Otto (1986). Budapest Gambit. The Macmillan Chess Library. ISBN 978-0020175001.

The author is an IM. Each chapter presents a variation by combining theoretical analysis and selected games. Strong points: the author has played the gambit in competition; a lot of explanations; a lot of assessments, backed by arguments and strategic plans; when there are not enough games in a given variation, the author presents a "demonstration game" that he invented. Weak points: the book is thin; some assessments are outdated.

Further reading

• De Firmian, Nick (1999). Modern Chess Openings: MCO-14. Random House Puzzles & Games. ISBN 0-8129-3084-3.
• Zavodny, Zdenek (1997). Let Budapestskeho gambitu 1917-1997:A51-A52. Snzz Brno.
• Harding, Tim (1996). The fighting Fajarowicz. Chess Digest.
• Burgess, Graham (1995). Gambits. Batsford.
• Pachman, Ludek (1983). Opening game in chess. Routledge. ISBN 978-0710092229.
• Staker, Josef (1982). The Budapest Defence. Chess Digest.

External links

• Harding, Tim (November 2000). The Kibitzer: Playing the Budapest in Budapest (PDF). ChessCafe.com.
• Harding, Tim (December 1997). The Kibitzer: How Stands the "Faj"?. ChessCafe.com.