At the recent Metro FIDE International, I had a conversation with a 1900 player that went about like this. He asked me what he should play against his next opponent, a d4 player, and I said,
“Try the Budapest Gambit!”
1900: But it’s bad, right?
1900: But it’s bad, right?
Me: Actually I think it’s very good.
1900: But no one plays it, so it’s bad, right?
Me: Maybe so: A couple of the Budapest players whose games I put in the book were the “weak fish” Kramnik and Korchnoy. Then there’s Shirov, who put his win with the Budapest Gambit (against GM Bacrot—another weak fish!) in Fire On Board II. Besides that, I recently beat the high rated local players Huang and Wang.
1900: But it’s bad, right?
Me: No.
1900: But if White is prepared, it’s bad, right?
Me: Even if White is well prepared, he can’t get more than the slight edge White gets in any opening.
1900: So it’s bad, right?
Me: Obviously you are not going to play this: what do you intend to play?
At this point the 1900 shows me his preparation, leading to a position of appalling boringness.
Me: How would you win this?
1900: I don’t care about winning, I just want a draw!
And I walked away.
When the round started, I noticed 1900 got his preparation, and after both players played about 20 boring moves, they agreed to a draw (I was beside myself with excitement).
As for me, I played the Budapest Gambit, stunned my opponent by following my own recommendations, and won a sharp attacking game—and now here’s the game to show how “bad” the gambit is!
Jayakumar, Adarsh – Taylor, Timothy
Budapest Gambit
Metro Fide International, 2011
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Bf4 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3 Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.e3
There are three games in the database that feature the embarrassing 9.axb4? Nd3#
9…Bc5
r1b1k2r/ppppqppp/8/2b1n3/2P2B2/P3P3/1P1N1PPP/R2QKB1R w KQkq – 0 10
As I recommend in my book—why give up the B pair if you don’t have to? My opponent now took a very long think, from which I deduced that he hadn’t read my book!
10.Nb3
My wife got an excellent game after 10.b4 Bd4 11.Rb1 d6 12.Be2 Bf5 13.Rb3 Ng6 14.Bg3 and now instead of her 14…Bb6 with equality in Higa,R-Taylor,L/Los Angeles 2006, correct was 14… Bf6 with a slight advantage to Black due to the raking bishops.
10…Bd6 11.c5 Nd3+!
Not 11…Bxc5 12.Nxc5 Qxc5 13.Rc1 with advantage to White—I want to keep my dark squared Bishop.
12.Bxd3 Bxf4
r1b1k2r/ppppqppp/8/2P5/5b2/PN1BP3/1P3PPP/R2QK2R w KQkq – 0 13
I conclude my opening analysis of this line here in my book, with the comment: “Black for once has the two bishops, which make up for his slightly cramped game.” I still agree with my own comment—approximate equality is a fair assessment, but not boring equality—the imbalance of the minor pieces can lead to exciting play, and I was happy that I had reached an interesting position where I could play for a win.
13.0–0 Be5 14.Qc2 g6 15.f4 Bg7 16.e4 0–0 17.Rae1 d6 18.cxd6
r1b2rk1/ppp1qpbp/3P2p1/8/4PP2/PN1B4/1PQ3PP/4RRK1 b – - 0 18
18…cxd6!
It’s clear that over the last few moves White’s “attack” has gone nowhere, while Black has freed his position and more importantly, his bishops! The text recapture is precise: Black restrains White’s center, which is more important than the nominal pawn weakness.
19.Nd2 Bd7 20.Nc4 Rac8 21.Qe2
2r2rk1/pp1bqpbp/3p2p1/8/2N1PP2/P2B4/1P2Q1PP/4RRK1 b – - 0 21
21…d5!
The isolated pawn—and White’s center—are liquidated.
22.exd5 Qc5+ 23.Kh1
23.Ne3?! Rfe8 and the pins win.
23…Qxd5 24.Ne5 Rfe8 25.Be4
On the obvious 25.Bc4 Rxc4 26.Qxc4 Black wins with 26…Rxe5!
25…Qb5 26.Nxd7 Qxd7
Perhaps White thought this would be drawn due to bishops of opposite color, but actually the exchange helps Black, who has the attacking B.
27.Qf2 Rc4 28.Rd1 Rd4 29.Bf3 Qb5 30.Rc1 Red8 31.b4 b6
Black’s position is invulnerable, but White has targets at a3, b4, f4 and the WK itself.
32.Be2 Qf5 33.Qf3 Rd2 34.g4
White throws the pawns forward and hopes for the best …
34…Qf6 35.Rc7 Qb2 36.Re7 Bf8 37.Re4
3r1bk1/p4p1p/1p4p1/8/1P2RPP1/P4Q2/1q1rB2P/5R1K b – - 0 37
37…a5!
But gets this instead—Black is attacking on all fronts!
38.f5 g5 39.Qe3 h6 40.h4 axb4
40…R8d3! is even quicker.
41.axb4 Rxe2!
A deadly combination to expose White’s second rank.
42.Qxe2 Rd2 43.Qf3 Bxb4 44.Rxb4
Since 44.hxg5 Rh2+ 45.Kg1 Bc5+ wins for Black, White must return the exchange and remain a pawn down.
44…Qxb4 45.hxg5 hxg5 46.Qe3
46.Ra1 is White’s last hope, but Black simply answers 46…. Rd8 and stays a pawn up.
46…Qd6!
6k1/5p2/1p1q4/5Pp1/6P1/4Q3/3r4/5R1K w – - 0 47
Offering a poisoned pawn–with check!
47.Qxg5+
Losing at once. A spectator later suggested 47.Rf2 but this is no better in view of 47…Rxf2 48.Qxf2 Qd1+ 49.Kh2 Qxg4 with a winning ending.
47…Kf8
Now White can only stop mate at the cost of a rook.
48.Qf4 Qc6+ 49.Rf3
or 49.Qf3 Qh6+ 50.Kg1 Qh2 Mate!
49…Rf2 50.Qb8+ Kg7 51.f6+ Kh7 52.Kg1 Qxf3
There is no stalemate and mate is coming—
“It’s bad, right?”—yes, for White! After he resigned, my opponent asked me about what to him had been a surprising move, 9… Bc5. I replied, of course, that that was the book move … my book!
0–1
hi Tim,
I greatly enjoyed reading your book on budapest and am happy to read more here on your blog! I like your notion to keep on the DSB as black against the toughest line (imho) e3 in the Rubinstein … but there is a game I am wondering how you would play as the bishop can be forced off, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1473616 Papp vs Baki 2005 – where instead of 10 0-0 (as in your book) white THEN plays a3!? And so the B must really take on d2, as the retreat now loses a pawn as white can play Ne4! After Bxd2 I would play a setup with b6 and try and watch the c5 advance like a hawk. Annoyingly, in the game black loses, but quickly and this is mainly owing to his f5.
I am interested to know what plan you would follow after BxN for black – equality does not seem far off but I like bishops
I am only a 1600 player so go easy on me if my analysis is poor