Budapest Gambit, Opening Traps For Black Compiled by Peter Yang –* queen trap in the opening (A52) Budapest Gambit, 6 moves, 1 game. budapest gambit trap, mate in 8 moves Heres a quick game with the budapest gambit system. this move actually sets up a trap, which my opponent bit on. 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.
|Published (Last):||7 October 2005|
|PDF File Size:||7.95 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.50 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The Budapest Gambit or Budapest Defence is a chess opening that begins with the moves:. Despite an early debut inthe Budapest Gambit received attention from leading players only after a win as Black by Grandmaster Milan Vidmar over Akiba Rubinstein in It experiences a lower percentage of draws than other main lines, but also a lower overall performance for Black. Ne4 which concentrates on the rapid development of pieces, but the most common move is Ng4 with three main possibilities for White. The Adler variation 4.
Nf3 sees White seeking a spatial advantage in the centre with his pieces, notably the important d5-square. The Alekhine variation 4. The Rubinstein variation 4. Bf4 leads to an important choice for White, after Nbd2 brings a positional game in which White enjoys the bishop pair and tries to break through on the queensidewhile 6.
Nc3 keeps the material advantage of a pawn at the cost of a weakening of the white pawn structure. Black usually looks to have an aggressive game many lines can shock opponents that do not know the theory or cripple White’s pawn structure. The Budapest Gambit contains several specific strategic themes.
Qe7, while White often defends it with Bf4, Nf3, and sometimes Qd5.
Nf3 variation the game can evolve either with Black attacking White’s kingside with manoeuvres of rook liftsor with White attacking Black’s kingside with the push f2—f4, in which case Black reacts in the centre against the e3-pawn. In numerous variations the move c4—c5 allows White to gain space and to open prospects for his light-square bishop. In a Chess Notes feature article, Edward Winter showed that the origins of this opening are not yet entirely elucidated.
This game already featured some key aspects of the gambit, such as active play for the black pieces, trapd White making the typical mistake of moving the queen too early. As the player of the white pieces was not a strong player, the new opening went unnoticed apart from the local experts who had witnessed the game.
Breyer played it in against the Dutch surgeon Johannes Esser in a small tournament in Budapest. Carl Schlechter published an optimistic analysis of the gambit gudapest the Deutsche Schachzeitung. The first use of the opening against a world-class player was at Berlin in Aprila double round-robin tournament with four players: Vidmar had to play Black in the first round against Rubinstein, then ranked the fourth best player in the world with a very positional style.
Vidmar followed Abonyi’s advice and beat Rubinstein convincingly in just 24 moves. After this tournament, the gambit finally began teaps be taken seriously. Top players like Savielly Tartakower and Siegbert Tarrasch started to play it.
Schlechter published in the monograph Die budapester Verteidigung des Damengambits which can be considered the first book on this opening. The gambit reached its peak of popularity around five Budapest Gambits for every thousand games played around so much so that many White players adopted the move-order 1.
Nf3 to avoid it. The leading exponents of 1.
Budapest Gambit Traps
Alexander Alekhine showed how White could get a strong attack with 4. Another tournament in Semmering the same year saw Alekhine losing to Karl Gilg in his pet line with White against the gambit, so that the e4-line had a mixed reputation. Rubinstein showed how White could get a small positional advantage with 4.
Nbd2, an assessment still valid today. Nc3 was also considered attractive, as rraps weaknesses were not valued as much as a material advantage of one pawn in those days. By the end of the s, despite the invention of the highly original Fajarowicz variation Ne4 inthe Budapest Gambit was considered theoretically dubious. This assessment was left unchanged for decades, as few players at the highest level used the Budapest Gambit and information about games from lesser players could not easily be found.
During that time, various responses were developed against the 4. Bf4 line; these included The vambit Kaposztas showed that even when White succeeded in his positional plan, it only trals for Black a worse endgame with drawish tendencies.
Nbd2 still in the 4. Bf4 linebased on pawn pushes d7—d6 or f7—f6 and a quick attack against b2. The Budapest Gambit saw a short-lived revival in —85 when Chess Informant included three games as many as in the previous fifteen yearsall played at a high level of competition, and all won by Black.
Bf4 g5, the Budapest Gambit almost never appears at the highest level. In the database of the website ChessGames. The percentage of draws is especially low compared to mainstream alternatives such as This opening gives more chance to win for both opponents, although gambti percentage of Black wins is still lower than the alternative In the main line 3.
Bf4 the percentage of Black wins already falls to The Budapest Gambit has never been widely used as Black by the top-ten chessplayers. Bogoljubov then ranked number four in the world,  Capablanca ranked number two,  and Rubinstein ranked number seven. Nicolas Giffard summarises the modern assessment of the Budapest Gambit: While White has several methods to get a small advantage, this defence is strategically sound.
Black gets a good pawn structure and possibilities of attack on the kingside. His problems generally come from the white pressure on the d-column and a lack of space buadpest manoeuvre his pieces. Boris Avrukh writes, “The Budapest Gambit is almost a respectable opening; I doubt there is a refutation.
Budalest in the budwpest where White manages to keep an extra pawn, Black always has a lot of play for it. In the Alekhine variation White does not try to defend his e5-pawn and keep his material advantage, but instead he concentrates on building an imposing pawn centre. This brings him good prospects of a space advantage that may serve as a basis for a future attack on the kingside. However, the extended pawn centre has its drawbacks, as Lalic explains: Hence in this variation Black lets White build his pawn centre only to undermine it later, a playing philosophy espoused in the teachings of the hypermodern school.
The “Budapest rook” is a manoeuvre, introduced by budapezt IM Dolfi Drimer in with which Black develops the a8 buxapest aggressively along the sixth rank using the moves buudapest and the rook lift Ra8—a6—h6.
Budapest Gambit, Opening Traps For Black
The rook is then used to support a piece attack against White’s castled king. The queen’s arrival on the h4-square is facilitated by the absence of a white knight on the f3-square that hudapest otherwise cover the h4-square and of a black knight on the f6-square that would block the way for the black queen. The Bc5 may not seem particularly useful in this attack, but by eyeing e3 it makes it difficult for White to play f4 to chase away the black knight; budapesg furthermore, the attack on e3 is sometimes intensified with major pieces doubling on the e-file.
Besides, the Bc5 can sometimes be recycled to the b8—h2 diagonal via Bc5—a7—b8, to apply still more pressure on h2. The “Budapest rook” was an invigorating innovation of the s, and gave the gambit new life. However, inconveniences arise from delaying d7—d6 in order to allow the lift: This, in addition to the risk of awkwardness in the king side a knight on gambut 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 repelledhas made some revisit the old lines, where it is instead the king’s rook that is developed to h6.
The queen’s rook can then be retained on the queensideand will be well-placed if the b-file opens as a result of Black’s Bc5 being exchanged and recaptured with a b6 pawn. If White blocks the check with Nb1—c3 then Black should capture the knight only if White is forced to take back with the pawn, after which the isolateddoubled pawns are a positional advantage for Black that fully compensates the loss of the bishop pairand even the gambitted pawn.
Due to its immunity to pawn attacks, the c5-square may be used by Black as a stronghold for his pieces. Piece exchanges 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.
If White is compelled to play Nb1—d2, it is sometimes a minuscule positional concession, as it makes it harder for this knight to reach its ideal square d5. For example in the Alekhine variation, after 1.
Nf3, the move Nc3 Black can either answer with Qf6, simultaneously attacking c3 and f4. In the Adler variation Nf3after 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, followed by putting the heavy pieces on the e-file with Rf8—e8 and Qd8—e7 see diagram.
Depending on circumstances, the Bc8 may be involved either on b7 or on f5, in both cases to assert control over the trals e4-square. This plan is viable only if certain conditions are met. The d7-square must be available for the Ne5, so that it can later transfer to f6. White should also not be able to easily advance the e3-pawn to e4, where it would be adequately defended by the Nc3 trapss a possible Bf3.
In the main lines the pawn push c4—c5 often brings positional gains to White. In the Rubinstein variation Qxd2 see diagram White gets the bishop pair and a space advantage. In order to build up on these potential advantages, the most common plan is to perform a minority attack on the queenside, with the goal of performing the pawn advance c4—c5 in favourable conditions.
For example, in the ttraps diagram, after the natural but mistaken White can immediately realise his strategic goal with Rd1 White gets trps pawn back and has created a weak pawn in d7, while if Black declines the pawn he has difficulties in developing his queenside for example Qxd6 cxd6 and the pawn on d6 is weak.
Similarly, in the Rubinstein variation Nc3after Hence the push c4—c5 can be used to free the light-squared bishop and disrupt Black’s position.