BATSFORD CHESS OPENING GUIDES
,77te
BUDAPEST
GAMBIT
Up-to-date coverage of a dangerous gambit
BOGDAN LALIC
1 d4 2 c4 e5
The Budapest Gambit
BATSFORD CHESS OPENING GUIDES
Other titles in this series include:
0 7134 8461 6	French Tarrasch 0 7134 8451 9	King’s Gambit 0 7134 8466 7	Scotch Game 0 7134 8471 3	Spanish	Exchange	John Emms Neil McDonald Peter Wells Andrew Kinsman
For further details for Batsford chess titles, please write to Batsford Chess
Books, 583 Fulham Road, London SW6 5BY.
Batsford Chess Opening Guides
The Budapest Gambit
Bogdan Lalic
B.T.Batsford Ltd, London
First published 1998
Copyright ® 1998 Bogdan Lalic
ISBN 0 7134 8456 X
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.
A catalogue record for this book is
available from the British Library.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be
reproduced, by any means, without prior permission
of the publisher.
The Batsford Chess Opening Guides were designed
and developed by First Rank Publishing
Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton
Printed in Great Britain by
Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Wilts
for the publishers,
В. T. Batsford Ltd,
583 Fulham Road,
London SW6 5BY
Chess set used in cover photograph courtesy of the
London Chess Centre
A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK
General Manager: David Cummings
Advisors: Mark Dvoretsky, Raymond Keene OBE,
Daniel King, Jon Speelman, Chris Ward
CONTENTS
Bibliography
Introduction
8
9
Part One: 1 d4 W6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ^g4 - Main Line with 4 J.f4
1	4...^c6	5^f3^.b4+6^3bd2	We7 7e3	/5
2	4.. ,<£c6 5 £if3 Jlb4 +	6 £3bd2	We7 7 a3	31
3	4...2>c6 5 2>f3 -&b4 +	6 &bd2	f6?!	45
4	4.. ,21c6 5 2>f3 i-b4 +	6 €k3	50
5	4...&b4+5£)d2d6l?	58
6	4...g5?l	65
Part Two: 1 d4 <^f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 <£ig4 - Main Line with 4
7	4...Ac5 5 еЗ £k6	73
8	4,..<53c6	89
Part Three: 1 d4 ?jf6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £ig4 - Other Systems
9	4 e3 <2ixe5: White plays 4ih3	97
10	4 e4: Main Line with 4...£jxe5 5 f4 <?3ec6	104
11	4 e4: Fourth and Fifth Move Alternatives	118
12	Odds and Ends	126
Part Four: 1 d4 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ^e4 (Fajarowicz Gambit)
13	4 a3	132
14	4 ^if3	141
15	4 Wc2	147
16	4 &d2	153
Index of Games
159
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings vol.A, Sahovski Informator 1996
The Budapest for the Tournament Player, Mikhail Tseitlin and Igor Glaskov
(Batsford 1992)
Periodicals
Informator
Chess Base MegaBase CD-ROM
New In Chess Yearbook
British Chess Magazine
Chess Monthly
INTRODUCTION
If I had to define the main concept of
the Budapest Gambit, it would have to
be rapid piece development. Black is
prepared to sacrifice a pawn in order
to seek the initiative and, indeed,
White often decides that it is prudent
not to hang on to his extra material.
The Budapest immediately challenges
the centre with a ferocity rarely seen
in other classical openings. The prin-
cipal strategical themes are as follows:
Strategic Themes
a)	White builds up an imposing
pawn centre
1 d4 <£>f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 <2ig4 4 e4
&xe5 5 f4
Here Black must fight against White’s
impressive looking pawn mass in the
centre (see Chapters 10 and 11). How-
ever, White must invest some valuable
tempi in protecting his pawn struc-
ture, which allows Black to seize the
best squares for his minor pieces with
excellent prospects for counterplay
against the white centre.
The technique of permitting the
opponent to build up a centre, with
the intention of undermining it later,
is based on the teachings of the
‘hypermodern’ school; players such as
Reti, Bogolyubov and Alekhine whose
ideas had a major influence on open-
ings such as the Four Pawns Attack in
the King’s Indian, the Alekhine De-
fence and the Griinfeld Defence, to
name the most important examples.
b)	The doubling of White’s c-pawns
after... Jlb4 and ..ЛхсЗ, b2xc3
This exchange is seen in several varia-
9
The Budapest Gambit
tions, the most common being
1 d4 ЗД6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £>g4 4 i_f4
<5ic6 5 £f3 ФЬ4+ 6 2)c3 We7 7 Wd5
i.xc3+ 8 ЬхсЗ
which is found in Chapter 4.
Here Black’s compensation for the
pawn lies in the immobility of White’s
queenside. The c5-square will become
the stronghold for Black’s pieces, as
White is unable to contest the outpost.
Black hopes to be able to exploit the
crippled white pawn structure in the
ending and will not shy away from
exchanges, even though he is a pawn
down. He may also be able to use the
f-file for an attack, an idea that has
been known to be a dangerous since
the encounter Rubinstein-Vidmar,
Berlin 1918:
8...Wa3 9 Ic1 f6 10 exf6 ^xf6 11
Wd2 d6 12 ?’>d4 0-0 13 e3 ^xd4! 14
cxd4 Se4 15 Wc2 Wa5+ 16 Фе2
see following diagram
16...Ixf4!!
Now the white king will never find
a safe haven and the game is led to its
conclusion with an iron grip from the
Slovenian grandmaster.
17 exf4 £f5 18 Wb2 Ie8 19 &f3
£id2+ 20 ФдЗ £te4+ 21 ФЬ4
Or 21 -4>f3 h5! 22 h3 h4 23 Sdl
^3g5+ 24 fxg5 JLe4+ 25 ФеЗ Wxg5+
with a winning attack.
21...Ie6 22 le2 Ih6+ 23 ±h5
Sxh5+! 24 ФхЬ5 Фд6+ 0-1
For his part, White must try to
keep his kingside pawn majority mo-
bile in this variation, which is no easy
task. Although White has the two
bishops, the doubled pawns severely
limit their scope. He may therefore
try and achieve c4-c5 to disrupt the
black position. For example, Gligoric-
Westerinen, Venice 1971:
8..>a3 9 Ic1 Wxa2 10 h3 ^h6 11
e4 2>g8 12 c5!
10
Introduction
Here White has achieved a practi-
cally winning positional advantage due
to the cramping effect of the advanced
c-pawn on his opponent’s queenside
and the sheer power of the unopposed
bishop pair.
The c4-c5 advance is also a common
goal for White in the next section.
c)	White seizes the ‘two bishops’
without allowing doubled pawns
One of the critical positions of the
Budapest arises after the moves
1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 Cig4 4 £f4
£>c6 5 £>f3 Jib 4+ 6 £ibd2 We7 7 a3
£>gxe5 8 4^xe5 £>xe5 9 e3 ^.xd2+ 10
Wxd2
as in Chapter 2.
Here White has given back his extra
pawn, but gained the two bishops in
return. Some 20 years ago this would
have been considered to be a major
achievement, but nowadays we have
learnt to take each position independ-
ently and judge it on its own merits.
Black is able to achieve rapid piece
development, and will try to restrict
the scope of his opponent’s bishops by
maintaining a closed position. White
will sometimes even sacrifice a pawn
to open up the position for his two
bishops. For example, in the line:
10..	.d6 11 Sc1 b6 12 c5 bxc5 13
i.xe5 Wxe5 14 &Ь5+
White obtains good compensation
for the pawn after both 14.. JLd7 and
14...i>f8.
d)	Black castles queenside and
attacks on the kingside
There are certain move orders that
allow Black to fianchetto his queen’s
bishop and enter the rather wild terri-
tory of castling on the queenside. The
bishop on b7 then serves both a defen-
sive and offensive role. The classic ex-
amples of this strategy in action are
Hebden-Hodgson (Game 47) and
11
The Budapest Gambit
Browne-Speelman, Montetaxco Inter-
zonal 1985:
1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 Cg4 4 ji.f4
Cc6 5 £if3 jLb4+ 6 Cibd2 Йе7 7 a3
£}gxe5 8 £}xe5 £lxe5 9 e3 JLxd2+ 10
Wxd2 d6 11 £e2 b6! 12 e4 ДЬ7 13
f3 0-0-0 14 0-0-0 f6 15 h4 h5 16
2he1 Shg8 17 Wc3 g5 18 hxg5 fxg5
19 £h2 g4 20 f4 C,d7 21 £d3 h4 22
b4 Wf7 23 Sf1 Hde8 24 fidel g3 25
•1g!
25...h3!
Speelman is in his element in these
unusual positions.
26 gxh3 g2 27 Sf3 2>e5 28 2f2
Cixd3+ 29 Wxd3 Wf6 30 ФЫ Wh4
Even more effective is the amazing
30..Ж5! 31 exf5 Sxel+ 32 <£>b2 flxgl,
when the promotion of the g-pawn is
inevitable.
31 e5 dxe5 32 fxe5 Sg3 33 Wf5+
*b8 34 Wc2 ЙхИЗ
see following diagram
The draughty position of White’s
king is beginning to tell. Black soon
invades.
35 ФЬ2 аб 36 Sd2 Jic8 37 fif2 Sd8
38 еб ji.xe6 39 Sf6 jkxc4! 40 Wxc4
2d 2+ 41 *M 2b3+ 0-1
42 Фа1 fixa3+ 43 ФЬ1 Па1+ 44
Фха1 Wa3+ is a nice touch.
e)	The ‘Budapest rook’
Most players are familiar with the
‘Dragon bishop’, but what is the
‘Budapest rook’? This is Black’s
queen’s rook when it comes to a6,
ready to swing to the kingside along
the unoccupied sixth rank. (Inciden-
tally, Black must be exact, for if he
unwittingly plays a natural move such
as ...d7-d6, the rook manoeuvre to the
kingside will no longer be possible.) It
would be difficult to conceive such an
idea over the board and the unknown
inventor deserves credit for such a
wonderful concept. The best illustra-
tion of the ‘Budapest rook’ up to its
tricks is the game Oll-Romero, Gron-
ingen 1984/85, which went
1 d4 Cf6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 Cg4 4 £if3
Ac5 5 еЗ £)сб 6 Cic3 <^gxe5 7 Cixe5
T xe5 8 &e2 0-0 9 0-0 Se8 10 b3 a5
11 &Ь2 Даб! 12Ce4 Да7
Classical players such as Dr Tar-
rasch and Steinitz would have turned
in their grave if they could have seen
this game. Indeed it appears as if the
pieces have been placed randomly on
12
Introduction
the board, although Black is in fact co-
ordinating his men for an attack. The
battle now revolves around whether
White can shut out his opponent’s
dark-squared bishop with c4-c5 or if
this piece will play a major part in
bringing pressure to bear on the white
king position.
13 Wd5 Eae6 14 Wxa5 &b6 15 Wc3
Wh4 16f4Eh6 17 h3 d5!
Another typical tactical blow, as
White cannot prevent the destructive
...jLxh3.
18 cxd5 £xh3! 19 gxh3 Wxh3 20
<i?f2 Wh4+ 21 £ig3 Wh2+ 22 £>e1
Wxg3+ 23 &d1 £id7 24 Ef3 Wg2 25
Sf2 Wxd5+ 26 &c2 Ec6 27 £c4
We4+ 28 &d1 £rf6 29 Ee2 Ed6+ 30
Ed 2 Eed8 0-1
f)	The attacking manoeuvre ...Wh4
In many variations of the Budapest,
Black strives to set up a kingside at-
tack, and therefore ...Wh4 is always
going to be on the cards. The absence
of the black knight from the f6-square
makes this easier to achieve and many
of the classic attacking examples in the
Budapest involve the black queen
swinging into action in this manner.
Vaisser-Epishin, Sebastopol 1986, is
one such case:
1 d4 2Л6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 <£g4 4 W3
£)c6 5 e3 £>gxe5 6 £ixe5 £ixe5 7
i.e2 Jtc5 8 «сЗ 0-0 9 0-0 Ee8 10
ФЫ d6 11 £ia4?! Wh4!
12 <£xc5 dxc5 13 f3
13 Wd5 does not achieve the desired
effect due to the tactical sequence
13...JLe6! 14 Wxe5 JLxc4, when Black
regains the sacrificed material with a
positional advantage.
13...£f5 14 Wei We7 15 Wc3 Sad8
16e4&c6!
An important stronghold on the d4-
square has been realised for the knight.
17 £f4 ig6 18 £d3 &d4 19 Eael
Ed7 20 &Ы Wf6 21 £c1 Wc6 22 a3
f6 23 &e3 b6 24 &f2 a5!
There are a number of key illustra-
tive factors in this game. Here Black
immobilises the white queenside.
25 Ed1 Eed8 26 Edel a4 27 £e3
£f7
The painful fact for White to digest
is that not only is his c-pawn fixed and
vulnerable, but he can do little to im-
prove the state of his position and
must just sit and wait.
28 Hd1 We6 29 id3 We5 30 f4 Wh5
13
The Budapest Gambit
31 Sd2 Wg4 32 f5 £>c6 33 h3 Wh4
34 JLc2 Sxd2 35 ^.xd2 £>e5 36 Ш4
Wh5 37 £xa4 We2!
This devastating queen intrusion
seals White’s fate.
38 £e1 C>d3 39 £g3 ^xf4 40 £xf4
Wf1+ 0-1
Before we move on, it is just worth
pointing out one or two of the tactical
tricks that can befall an unsuspecting
white player.
Tactical Tricks
The oldest trick in the Budapest is
1 d4 6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ®g4 4 &f4
®c6 5 Erf3 jLb4+ 6 ®bd2 We7 7 a3
£>gxe5 8 axb4?? Eid3 mate
I remember being fascinated by this
rather naive example as a teenager.
A slightly more plausible accident
that could befall White occurs in the
Fajarowicz Gambit (see Chapters 13-
16) after
1 d4 ^f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 2te4 4 a3
d6 5 exd6 &xd6 6 Ef3?? E»xf2!
when White is already destined to
suffer heavy losses because 7 &x.f2
JsLg3+ picks up the queen.
These examples illustrate the deadly
effect that the Budapest can have on
the theoretically unprepared oppo-
nent, and of course we shall come
across plenty of other tactical ideas
over the course of this book.
If you relish the initiative and do
not enjoy defending such positions as
the Queen’s Gambit Declined, the
Budapest could well be your answer to
1 d4.
Bogdan Lalic,
Sutton,
January 1998
14
CHAPTER ONE
Main Line with 4 Af4: 4..7ЙС6
5 4jf3 i.b4+ 6 ®bd2 We7 7 e3
In this chapter we consider the main
line position that arises after the se-
quence
1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £»g4 4 ^.f4
Cic6
The offbeat 4...jlb4+ and 4...g5 are
considered in Chapters 5 and 6 respec-
tively.
5 ДЬ4+ 6 £ibd2
The alternative 6 4k3 is the subject
of Chapter 4.
6...We7
The risky 6...f6?! is seen in Chapter
3.
After 6...We7 the trend for White in
recent years has been to continue his
development with
7 e3
rather than to force the issue of
Black’s dark-squared bishop with the
older 7 a3 (see Chapter 2), when play
invariably continues with
7...<?3gxe5 8 £}xe5 <йхе5 9 ji.e2
see following diagram
Here Black has to decide what to
do with his king, and what to do
about his dark-squared bishop.
Games 1-3 see Black choose a flexi-
ble set-up with ...b7-b6 where he
wisely keeps his options open on
which side to castle. Once White has
netted the bishop pair after 9...b6 10
0-0 JLxd2 11 Wxd2,
see following diagram
the main battle will revolve around
White’s desire to split the position
open with the c4-c5 break, but it is
interesting to see how Black prevents
this thrust in Game 1 by playing ...c7-
c5 himself.
15
The Budapest Gambit
A more modest plan is adopted by
Black in Games 4 and 5. Here Black
abandons any realistic winning
chances and instead aims for gradual
equality with 9...0-0 10 0-0 41g6 11
Jlg3 JLd6, which is effective for a
draw if Black is patient.
If Black delays in capturing on d2,
he must be prepared to face 41b3, as
for example in Games 6-8 after 9...0-0
10 0-0 d6 1143b3.
which leaves the dark-squared
bishop on b4 isolated. A noteworthy
antidote to this simple plan is found in
Game 9 where Black hits out with
9...0-0 10 0-0 a5, anticipating 11 41b3
a4.
Finally, Game 10 is a salutary warn-
ing for Black of the dangers of routine
play. White carries out a model exam-
ple of the key c4-c5 breakthrough and
is able to utilise his bishop pair to the
maximum.
Game 1
Gausel-Reite
Norwegian Team Ch. 1991
1 d4 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £ig4 4 £.f4
&c6 5 2tf3 ДЬ4+ 6 4bd2 We7 7 e3
41gxe5 8 41xe5 4)xe5 9 Jie2 b6
Black refrains from immediately
castling kingside (see Games 4-9) in
order to remain flexible and retain the
possibility of placing his king on the
opposite wing. The immediate
9...JLxd2+ is seen in Game 10.
10 0-0 £xd2
In combination with 9...b6, this ex-
change is prudent because after
10...Xb7?! the bishop on b4 is left
hanging in the air. In Etchegaray-
Sebban, Cannes 1995, White utilised
this factor brutally with 11 41b 1! a5 12
a3 JLc5 13 41c3 d6?? (digging a grave
for the dark-squared bishop) 14 b4!
axb4 15 axb4 Sxal 16 Wxal JLxb4 17
Wa4+ 41c6 18 4M5 1-0.
16
Main Line with 4 &f4: 4...&C6 5 &f3 &b4+ 6 fobd2 We7 7 e3
The game Epishin-Leuba, San Ber-
nardino 1992, provides further con-
firmation that 10.. JLb7 is dubious: 11
£hf3!? £xf3 12 £xf3 2d8 13 ±e2 a5 14
a3 JLd6 15 2b 1 0-0 16 b4 when Black
was under some pressure.
11 Wxd2 ДЬ7 12 Wc3
The sharp 12 c5!? is considered in
the next game and 12 2acl in Game 3.
12..Л6
12...d6 is also frequently played,
with a similar position to those
reached in the next chapter. The only
difference is that White has not wasted
time with a2-a3, but in fact it is not so
easy to capitalise on this extra tempo.
Although Black must be prepared to
meet the pawn sacrifice 13 c5,1 believe
that he should have no problems hold-
ing the endgame after 13...bxc5 14
Jlxe5 Wxe5 15 Wxe5+ dxe5 16 2acl
0-0-0 17 2xc5 2he8 18 2fcl Se7 since
Black’s only weakness, on c7, can be
safeguarded.
13 b4 c5!?
I am deeply impressed by this plan,
which really spoils all of White’s fun.
Suddenly his bishops (especially the
light-squared one) are severely re-
stricted and the c4-pawn is simultane-
ously fixed. Black need not be worried
about his d-pawn, as this can easily be
protected by ...Ji.c6 if necessary.
14 b5 h5?!
A risky, verging on reckless, deci-
sion. 14,..a61? is the most logical fol-
low-up, aiming to neutralise White’s
queenside initiative. Now things liven
up considerably.
15 a4 g5 16 Дхе5 fxe5 17 a5 0-0-0
18 axb6 axb6 19 Sa7 £c7 20 2fa1
e4 21 Н1а6 Sh6 22 Wai Sb8 23
Ka2?
I hope my English teacher taught
me correctly, as my first instinct is to
describe this move as a ‘lemon’. White
misses a golden opportunity to tear
open the position in his favour with
the stunning 23 JLxh5! 2xh5 24 йхЬб!
when 24...ФхЬб? is not possible due to
25 Wa5 mate. Instead of creating an
overwhelming attack, White allows
his opponent to consolidate his posi-
tion.
23..,g4 24 2d2 Sd6 25 Wd1 Sxd2
26 Wxd2 Sa8 27 Sxa8 ±xa8 28 g3
We5 29 Wd1 d5 30 cxd5 £xd5 31
Wc1 ®d7 32 Фд2 Фе7 33 Wa3 S>d7
34 Wa7+ Wc7 35 Wa1 £f7 36 Wa8?
At this further critical stage White
17
The Budapest Gambit
falters again. 36 Wg7! would have kept
him out of danger but now Black’s
passed c-pawn becomes the main fac-
tor.
36...C4 37 Wxe4 Wc5 38 Wbl c3 39
&d3 jLc4 40 £e4 £xb5 41 Wa2
Wc4 42 Af5+ &d6 43 Wb1 &c5 44
±c2 ±a4 45 £xa4 Wxa4 46 Wf5+
ФЬ4 47 Wf6 b5 48 e4 ФЬЗ 1-0
Game 2
G.FIear-Blatny
Andorra 1993
1 d4 6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ®g4 4 £f4
2>c6 5	3 i-b4+ 6 ®bd2 We7 7 e3
£jgxe5 8 ^xe5 2>xe5 9 £e2 b6 10
0-0 £xd2 11 Wxd2 £b7 12 c5!?
With this sharp move White is
happy to sacrifice a pawn to open up
the position for his bishops. Black
must tread especially carefully here, as
his king is still in the centre.
12...bxc5 13 Wa5 £ig6!
The key to Black’s defence. By re-
turning the pawn immediately, Black
ensures that he is able to complete his
development and it is true to say that
13...d6? 14 Дхе5! dxe5 15 fifcl c6 16
fixc5 f6 17 JLc4 looked particularly
horrible for Black in Solozhenkin-
Stiazhkin, Leningrad 1990.
14Wxc7
14 JLxc7?! is clearly dubious since
14...0-0 15 Sfdl <§3h4! allows Black
excellent counter-chances on the king-
side.
14...£xf4 15 Wxf4 0-0
We can assess the situation out of
the opening as balanced. Black has
successfully reached the sort of posi-
tion that can arise from the Tartak-
ower variation of the Queen’s Gambit
Declined.
16 Wc7 Eab8 17 Bad Efc8 18 Wf4
£c6 19 b3 aS
Black embarks on a standard minor-
ity attack in order to burden his op-
ponent with a weak b-pawn.
20 ДсЗ 2b4 21 Wg3 a4 22 Efc1
axb3 23 axb3 ±d5 24 £c4 £.b7 25
Bdl Eb6 26 Bcd3 d5
Of course not 26...2g6? due to 27
fixd7. After the text it is difficult for
either side to make much progress, but
it is instructive how Blatny pounces
on a few inaccuracies to create win-
ning possibilities.
27 JLxd5 -lxd5 28 Bxd5 Bxb3 29
Wg4 Sbb8 30 Bd7 Wf8 31 h3
18
Main Line with 4 S.f4: 4...Qhc6 5 Qhf3 &.b4+ 6 ^bd2 We7 7 e3
31 Wc4! is safer, in order to block-
ade the pawn.
31...c4 32 Sc1 c3 33 sfch2 Sb4 34
Wf5 g6 35 Wd3 Sbc4 36 Sc2 We8
37 g3 4>g7 38 h4 We6 39 <4>g2 E8c6
40 Sd5 Wf6 41 Ed4 We6 42 Agl
S4c5 43 Фд2 Wb3 44 Ed 7 Sf6 45
Фд1 h6
Things have changed dramatically
over the last 15 moves or so and now
Black cruises to victory aided by his
potent c-pawn.
46 We4 Wb1+ 47 Фд2 Ea5 48 Sb7
Wd1 49 Sb8 Sa1 50 &h2 Sc1 51
Sxc1 Exf2+ 52 &h3 Wxc1 53 We5+
Ef6 54 g4 Wh1+ 55 <£g3 Wf3+ 56
£h2 Wxg4 57 Wxc3 Wxh4+ 58 £g2
Wf2+ 59 ФЫ Wf3+ 60 ФИ2 &h7 0-1
Game 3
Chernin-Blatny
Brno 1993
1 d4 <5if6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 <^g4 4 JLf4
4bc6 5 ^f3 £b4+ 6 2)bd2 We7 7 e3
<21gxe5 8 4^xe5 <5^xe5 9 JLe2 b6 10
0-0 £xd2 11 Wxd2 £b7 12 Sac1 d6
13 b4
13...£>g6
The alternatives are worse:
a)	13...0-0-0? is downright suicidal as
White’s attack hits home quickly after
14 Wc3 g5 15 Jlg3 h5 16 c5!
b)	Although 13...0-0 is the more
sensible side to castle here, White is
still able to maintain a small but last-
ing advantage after 14 c5, when the
continuation 14...dxc5 15 bxc5 Sad8
16 Wc3 £)g6 17 Ji.g3 Hd5 18 cxb6 cxb6
19 fifdl lfd8 20 Hxd5 Hxd5 21 a3 was
particularly depressing for Black in
Alterman-Blatny, Pardubice 1993, as
he had nothing to compensate for
White’s powerful and unrestricted
bishop pair.
14 £g3 0-0?!
A rather automatic response that al-
lows White to go onto the offensive.
Chernin suggests that an interesting
possibility lies in 14...h5!?, intending
to forfeit castling. Then 15 c5 dxc5 16
bxc5 h4 17 £b5+ &f8 18 JLf4 Hd8 19
Wb2 I§3xf4 20 exf4 Sh6! with dynamic
play on both wings, is typical of what
Black can expect.
15 c5 dxc5 16 bxc5 Sfd8 17 Wb4
£c6 18 a3!
Threatening to win material with
19 cxb6. Black is therefore obliged to
weaken his queenside.
19
The Budapest Gambit
18...a5 19fb2 Ле4
19...bxc5?! does not help due to the
annoying 20 Wc3!, picking up the
weak pawns on the queenside.
20 cxb6 cxb6 21 Bc3 Wf6 22 Bfc1
<£®7 23 Лс7 Sd7?
It is probably at this point that the
game can finally be declared ‘gone’.
23...Bdc8 would certainly have been
more resilient, but 24 JLe5! (24 Wxb6?!
Wxb6 25 ЛхЬб ДхсЗ 26 ДхсЗ <?3d5 is
not so clear) 24...Wg5 25 JLfl still
leaves Black under immense pressure.
24 Wxb6 Wg5 25 ДдЗ Wd5 26 ЛИ
Wd2 27 f3 ЛЬ7 28 B3c2 Wd5 29 e4
Wg5 30 Bc7 Sxc7 31 Bxc7 Лс8 32
2a7 1-0
32...Жха7 33 Wd8+ would have
made a fitting end.
Game 4
Arlandi-Marchand
Turin 1996
1 d4 6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ^g4 4 Ji.f4
&c6 5 £sf3 ЛЬ4+ 6 ^bd2 We7 7 e3
£sgxe5 8 <5^xe5 £hxe5 9 Ле2 0-0 10
0-0 :~ig6
10..	.d6 is the subject of Games 6-8
and 10...a5 of Game 9.
11	ЛдЗ
It should be pointed out that 11
Лхс7?? is not possible due to ll...d6
and the foolhardy piece is trapped.
11..J	Ld6
This plan was enriched with some
new ideas and resurrected by the
Czech grandmaster Pavel Blatny.
Black seeks to exchange the dark-
squared bishops and thus avoid any
possible later suffering against his op-
ponent’s bishop pair. Relying on his
solid pawn structure, Black hopes that
the slight loss of time will not prove
significant and that equality can
gradually be obtained.
12	£xd6 ®xd6 13 Wc2
The alternative 13 £ie4 is consid-
ered in the next game.
13...We7
13...b6 was less convincing in
Vincze-Mozes, Hungary 1994, when
14 £)e4 We7 15 €k3 kb7 16 &d5 left
White with an opening plus due to his
greater space. Black should bear in
mind that he has a choice of two
squares on which to develop his light-
squared bishop, as both b7 and e6 are
ideal posts. However, Blatny demon-
strates a further course of action for
his queen’s bishop in Game 5!
14 c5 d6 15 cxd6 Wxd6 16 Bad
After 16 ffldl Black can also obtain
a satisfactory game via 16...We7 17
<£)b3 Леб 18 £>c5 c6 19 £lxe6 (a com-
mittal decision but otherwise Black is
following up with ...Had8 and ...Лс8
with nothing to fear) 19...Wxe6 20
Bd4 fifd8 21 Wd2 Sxd4 22 Wxd4 b6
23 Лс4 c5! 24 Wd3 Wf6 25 Hdl Hf8 26
Wb3 <2}е5, as in Korotylev-Pankratov,
Moscow 1995.
20
Main Line with 4 $Lf4: 4...^c6 5 ^hf3 £.b4 + 6 Ghbd2 We7 7 e3
16...c6 17 £>e4
Now Black makes full use of the
opportunity to advance his queenside
pawn majority with tempo and the
rest of the encounter sees Arlandi try-
ing to make something out of his
higher rating in a dead equal situation.
17...We7 18 £ic5 b6 19 ®a4 c5 20
jLf3 &b7 21 £.xb7 Wxb7 22 2>c3
Sad8 23 Sfd1 Sfe8 24 3xd8 Sxd8
25 Sd1 Wa8 26 &f1 h6 27 h3 £>e5
28 2xd8+ Wxd8 29 Фе2 Wh4 30
Wf5 Wc4+ 31 &d2 ^g6 32 Wd3 Vh4
32...Wxd3+? 33 l4>xd3 does not sim-
plify matters, as Black would find
himself in a lost knight and pawn end-
ing thanks to the invasion of the white
monarch into his queenside.
33 Ф,е4 We7 34 Wd5 £ie5 35 f4
£>d7 36 <йсЗ £»f6 37 Wd3 Wc7 38
b3 &f8 39 a4 Фе7 40 £Ъ5 Wc6 41
4jxa7 Wxg2+ 42 Фс1 Wb7 43 2lb5
Wd5 44 <£c2 Wg2+ 45 &Ы Wd5 46
sLc2 %-%
Game 5
Stohl-Blatny
Prague 1996
1 d4 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 2>g4 4 i-f4
2te6 5 &f3 -Lb4+ 6 £ibd2 We7 7 e3
£)gxe5 8 £)xe5 £ixe5 9 JLe2 0-0 10
0-0 <йд6 11 -Lg3 i.d6 12 £xd6
Wxd6 13 £te4 We5
13...®xdl? 14 Sfxdl d6 15 c5! dxc5
16 £1хс5 c6 17 Bad is uncomfortable
for Black, mainly as a consequence of
his poor development. Likewise, the
text is superior to 13...We7?! which
runs into 14 £1сЗ c6 15 Wd4 d6 16
Sadi Sd8 17 f4!, when the threat of
f5-f6 guaranteed White a huge initia-
tive in Petursson-Brestian, Moscow
Olympiad 1994.
14£>c3 b6 15 Wd5 &a6!
This surprising tactical resource that
Blatny had up his sleeve brings a new
assessment to the whole variation.
Previously it had been considered that
Black was in trouble after either the
passive 15...Wxd5? 16 ^3xd5 c6, which
leads to a miserable ending, or
15...Sb8?! 16 Wxe5 4ixe5 17 f4! 4^g6
18 4Л5, which left Black struggling to
solve the problems of his queenside
development in A.Schneider-Porper,
Berlin 1994. I am not suggesting that
Black is now better after the text move
15...JLa6, but rather that he has suc-
ceeded in equalising, which should be
21
The Budapest Gambit
his first consideration.
16Wxe5
It is too risky for White to accept
the pawn offer with 16 Wxd7 Sad8 17
Wa4 (against other queen moves the
strong ...Sd2 follows) 17...JLb7, when
he must face a dangerous initiative
against his castled king position.
16...5',xe5 17 £>d5 c6 18 £ic7 i.xc4
19 JLxc4 Hac8!
The culmination of the previous se-
quence. Black now regains the piece
and thus enters a totally equal ending.
The game quickly fizzles out to a
draw.
20 £>d5 cxd5 21 £xd5 Ec2 22 Sabi
Sfc8 23 Hfdl &f8 24 £b3 32c7 25
ФИ Фе 7 26 Фе2 Ф>с6 27 Sd2
Уг-’Л
Game 6
Reefschlager-Kebbekus
German Bundesliga 1988
1 d4 4T6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £ig4 4 jLf4
4k6 5 2rf3 i.b4+ 6 ®bd2 We 7 7 e3
£}gxe5 8 £lxe5 <5ixe5 9 Ле 2 0-0 10
0-0 d6
This natural move leaves the bishop
somewhat in limbo on b4.
11 4ib3
White continues with the most
straightforward plan of 11 £)b3 and 12
a3, obtaining the two bishops. 11 £ibl
is less dangerous here; Black can ex-
pect a balanced encounter after ll...a5
(Black must prevent a later b4) 12 a3
Лс5 13 £кЗ Леб 14 b3 f5! due to his
strong control of the centre.
11...b6
The most frequent response. Black
continues with the development of his
queenside and prepares to capture
back on c5 with the b-pawn after the
forcing continuation 12 a3 Лс5 13
^xc5. The less common ll...a5 is the
subject of Game 8.
12^d4
The more consistent 12 a3 is found
in Game 7.
12...Лс5 13 a3 a5 14 b3
White carefully avoids the thematic
fixing of the queenside with ...a5-a4.
Korchnoi-Piket, Monaco 1994, de-
viated with 14 Sei a4 15 £jb5 JLb7 16
£)c3 Лсб 17 ^d5 Wd7 18 ^b4 Sfe8
19 4ixc6 Wxc6 20 Wc2 Se6, when
Black’s position is extremely solid and
it is not easy to find a way for White
to activate his bishops.
22
Main Line with 4 &.f4: 4...lhc6 5 Q\f3 &.b4+ 6 ^bd2 We7 7 e3
14...jib7 15 Wd2f5!
Black reinforces his control in the
centre. This move is a vast improve-
ment over 15...£ig6?! 16 JLg3 d5 17
&f3 Sad8 18 Wc3 £e5 19 ^.xd5 £xd5
20 <?3f5 Wf6, as in Bellon-Illescas, Ali-
cante 1989, when 21 JLxe5 Wxf5 22
cxd5 would have left White a clear
pawn ahead.
16 b4 -icxd4 17 exd4
If 17 Wxd4, Black should go in for
17...^3g6, hoping for 18 JLg3?? f4!
picking up a piece.
17...£g6 18 £g5?
White’s main problem is that his
dark-squared bishop is a rather useless
piece, restricted by the black pawn
chain.
18...Wf7 19 £f4 Sfe8 20 Sae1 axb4
21 axb4 b5!
Using the fact that 22 cxb5? loses to
22...Ha2, Black succeeds in shattering
White’s pawn structure.
22 d5 3e4 23 £e3 bxc4 24 f3 Se5
25 ixc4 ±xd5 26 ±xd5 Sxd5 27
Wc3 f4 28 £f2 Sa2 29 Sal Sdd2 30
Sxa2 Sxa2 31 b5 £e5 32 £d4 £c4
33 Sa1 Sxa1+ 34 Wxa1 Wd5 35
Axg7 Wxb5 36 £h6 Wc5+ 37 *h1
Йе 5 38 Wa8+ Ф47 39 h3 Фдб 40
Й48 Wf5 41 Wg7+
41 Wg8+ ФхЬб 42 Wxc4 c5 is out of
the question as the queen and pawn
ending would be a trivial win for
Black, so White makes a desperate but
ultimately futile bid to activate his
kingside pawns in exchange for his
bishop.
41...ФК5 42 i_xf4 Wxf4 43 Wxh7+
Фд5 44 Йд7+ Ф45 45 Wxc7 Феб 46
Й'с8+ it'd 5 47 Wh8 Ue5 48 Wa8+
*d4 49 Wa7+ Фб5 50 Wa8+ 5>c6 51
Wh8 We5 52 Wh4 £d4 53 Wh7 5'45
54 ’ЙЬ7+ Феб 55 Wc8+ Ф47 56
Wb7+ Ф16 57 Wb8 d5 58 Wd8+ Ф17
59 Wd7+ £e7 60 Wb5 We3 61 ФИ2
d4 62 Wh5+ Феб 63 Wg4+ id6 64
Wg3+ Фс5 65 Wb8 £c6 66 Й48+
ФЬ6 67 f4 d3 68 Wd6 0-1
Game 7
Karpov-Short
Linares (1st matchgame) 1992
1 d4 £46 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £g4 4 Jlf4
£>c6 5 £f3 ±b4+ 6 £bd2 ®e7 7 e3
£gxe5 8 £xe5 £xe5 9 &.e2 0-0 10
0-0 d6 11 £b3 b6 12 a3 ±c5 13
£xc5 bxc5 14 b4!
Precision timing. Black was set to
23
The Budapest Gambit
expand with ...a7-a5, ensuring a strong
grip on the queenside. If Black were
now to respond with 14...cxb4? 15
axb4, he would be saddled with a
weak a-pawn, so this explains Black’s
next move.
14...	^d7 15 Лд4
Given the importance of the match
and the quality of the players in-
volved, I can only recommend the ex-
World Champion’s move order and
point out a couple of alternatives that
Black may encounter:
a)	15 Wa4?! was shown to be out of
place after 15...a5 16 Л13 Даб! 17 b5
Sa7 18 Hfel f5, when Black obtained
serious counterplay against White’s
weak c-pawn in Kaiser-Gegner, Corre-
spondence 1987.
b)	15 Л13 should present no prob-
lems. Van Laatum-Van Arkel, Nether-
lands 1996, soon led to an active and
promising position for Black after
15...ДЬ8 16 Wa4 a6 17 Sabi 4Л6 18
®c2 Леб 19 bxc5 dxc5 20 Wc3 ^xc4
21 Ле2 ДхЬ1 22 ДхЫ <53b6 23 Лхаб
£>d5.
15...а5
Short later reached this situation as
Black against Ivanchuk in a blindfold
game at Monaco 1993 and safely drew
after 15...Se8 16 Scl a5 17 JLxd7
JLxd7 18 bxc5 dxc5 19 Wd5 2a6 20
Ag5 Wd6 21 Л14 We7. However,
Prudnikova-Koglin, Bled 1994, re-
vealed a superior response to 15...Se8
for White: 16 JLxd7 Jlxd7 17 bxc5
dxc5 18 Wd5 h6 19 h3 a5 20 Лхс7 Леб
21 Wd6 Wg5 22 Wg3, when it was
only a question of whether White
would win or draw.
15...ЛЬ7 also lands Black in a diffi-
cult ending after 16 Лxd7! Wxd7 17
bxc5 Wc6 18 ®f3 Wxf3 19 gxf3 dxc5,
as long as White avoids spoiling his
efforts here with 20 e4? f5! and plays
20 &g2.
16 Лх<17 Лxd7 17 bxc5 dxc5 18
Wd5
Karpov has always been the master
of piece centralisation and this game is
no exception. Lesser mortals would be
tempted to grab the pawn with 18
Лхс7, but the game Van der Stricht-
Van Arkel, Gent 1997, confirmed that
Black is able to conjure up reasonable
compensation with 18...Лс6 19 Wd6
We4 20 Wg3 2fe8 etc.
18...Наб 19 We5 Зеб?!
19...Wxe5 20 Лхе5 Леб is perhaps
the lesser evil, as Black has some
chances to hold the position, but I
admire Short’s attitude of hoping to
obtain counterplay on the kingside.
20 Wxc7 Hc8 21 Wb7 We8 22 НаЫ
h5 23 f3 Лсб 24 Wb2 h4 25 h3 f5
26 Wc2 Wg6 27 Wc3 a4 28 Hf2
Hce8 29 Sdl Wh5 30 Wc2 Wg6 31
ФЫ?!
Can you see the eyes of Black’s
bishop on c6 light up? Instead of lin-
ing up his king on the a8-hl diagonal,
24
Main Line with 4 &.f4: 4...^c6 5 faf3 &.b4+ 6 G\bd2 We7 7 e3
White should have preferred the more
prudent 31 Sd3.
31...Wf6 32 Wb2 We 7 33 Sfd2 g5
34 $d6 W'f7 35 £xc5 g4 36 fxg4
fxg4 37 Ш2 Wh5 38 We2 Sg6?
Of course the bishop is taboo on
account of 38...Wxc5? 39 Wxg4+ ФЬ8
40 Ш7 leading to mate, but 38...Se4!
would have kept the position red-hot.
39 Hd6 Se4?
Sometimes chess is harsh. Last move
this would have received an exclama-
tion mark but now it leads to a forced
loss...
40 Sd8+ *h7 41 If 7+ Eg7 42
2xg7+ *xg7 43 Wb2+ 1-0
Game 8
Mozetic-Novoselski
Tivat 1995
1 d4 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £>g4 4 &f4
2sc6 5 2rf3 i.b4+ 6 «bd2 We7 7 e3
Qjgxe5 8 ^xe5 ^xe5 9 ke2 0-0 10
0-0 d6 11 " b3 a5
An interesting new idea in this posi-
tion, preparing the manoeuvre ...Даб
after the sequence 12 a3 JLc5 13 <?3xc5
dxc5. The crucial question then is
whether or not White will be able to
set in motion his kingside pawn ma-
jority. For his part, Black has counter-
chances against the weak pawn on c4.
12 аЗ Дс5 13 £}xc5 dxc5 14 Wc2
At first sight 14 Wd5 appears threat-
ening, but Black can hold the balance
with 14...Де8 (but not 14,..<?3g6?! 15
^g5!) 15 fiadl £lg6 16 ±g5 Wf8.
14.. Лаб 15 Sadi Ee6 16 Sd2 b6 17
2fd1 J.b7 18l.g3 f5 19f4
Realising the extreme solidity of his
opponent’s position, White tries to
sharpen up proceedings in the hope
that the intrusion of his rook to the
seventh rank will secure some gains.
19...£if7 20 Sd7 We8 21 2xc7 £.e4
22 Wc3?!
White begins to lose the thread a lit-
25
The Budapest Gambit
tie. Instead 22 JLd31? JLxd3 23 Wxd3
ДхеЗ 24 Wd5 comes into serious con-
sideration.
22...£c6
Threatening to trap White’s rook
with ...Wb8.
23 £h5 Sxe3
It is important to avoid 23...g6?! 24
Sxc6! followed by 25 Jtf3, when
Black’s position is full of holes.
24 Wd2 £e6 25 £xf7+ Sxf7 26 Wd8
JLa4 27 Wxe8+ Sxe8 28 Sxf7 &xf7
29 Ed6 Ee6 30 Hd2?l
This further inaccuracy leaves
White fighting for a draw. Instead 30
Sxe6 Фхеб 31 £el! ^.ЬЗ 32 ±c3 g6 33
JLe5 i’d? 34 Ф12 Jlxc4 35 ФеЗ etc.
would have secured the half-point
without any trouble.
30...£b3 31 Hd7+ Фдб 32 ДЬ4
±xc4 33 h3 Jlb5 34 Sb7 ±a6 35
Sc 7 £d3 36 £e7 Se1+ 37 ФЬ2 Se2
38 jLf8 JLe4 39 Sxg7+ Ф16 40 b3 b5
41 Sg3 Sc2 42 h4 &f7 43 Ad6 h5
44 JLc7 a4 45 bxa4 bxa4 46 Sg5
Феб 47 £e5 4/d5 48 Sxh5 Sxg2+
49 ФИЗ Sa2 50 Sh8 Sxa3+ 51 ФЬ2
Sa 2+ 52 ФИЗ Дд2+ 53 ФдЗ ±f1 54
h5 Фе4 55 h6 Sg2+ 56 ФК4
Finally it is clear that Black cannot
quite achieve the desired mating net
and the game soon reaches a peaceful
conclusion.
56...Sg4+ 57 ФИ5 £c4 58 h7 ±f74-
59 ФЬб Sg6+ 60 Ф115 Sg8+ 61 ФИ6
Sg6+ 62 ФИ5 Sa6+ 63 Фд5 Sg6+
64 ФИ5 'А-’Л
Game 9
Mikhalevski-Chabanon
BadEndbach 1995
1 d4 £if6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ^g4 4 Ji.f4
&c6 5 2rf3 i.b4+ 6 £ibd2 «е7 7 e3
&gxe5 8 ®xe5 ^xe5 9 £e2 0-0 10
0-0 a5!?
Now Black is ready to meet 11 £)b3
with ll...a4 in order to prevent his
bishop on b4 from being encircled.
11 £>b3
There are a range of other moves to
consider, e.g.
a)	11 <21f3 is relatively harmless after
U...d6 12 Wc2 Jlc5 13 Sadi ?3g6 14
JLg3 &d7 15 £)d4 Wf6 16 £f3 Sab8 17
<?1ЬЗ b6 18 £}xc5 bxc5 19 Sd2 ДЬ4
with chances for both sides, as in Shi-
rov-Budnikov, Moscow 1993.
b)	11 £>bl is not as strange as it
looks as the knight intends to re-route
26
Main Line with 4 £J4: 4...&C6 5 ЫЗ &b4+ 6 &bd2 We7 7 e3
to c3. White will eventually transpose
to a typical position without having
allowed Black to double his c-pawns
along the way. The game Van den
Berssel-Pelter, Netherlands 1996, con-
tinued ll...d6 12 a3 Jlc5 13 £кЗ Леб
14 ЬЗ £lg6 15 ±g3 f5 16 ±f3 Hab8 17
Wd2 with a minute edge for White
due to his space advantage.
c)	11 a3!? is probably the most diffi-
cult for Black to meet, as the natural
ll...JsLxd2 12 Wxd2 d6 ran into diffi-
culties after 13 b4 f6 14 bxa5! in Ma-
laniuk-Marjanovic, Yugoslavia 1993.
Therefore Black should concentrate
on meeting 11 a3 with 11...Л.С5. Now
12 <?3e4 £lg6 13 ±f3 (13 £1xc5?! £>xf4!
is fine for Black) 13...d6 14 JLg3 £le5
15 $Le2 occurred in B.Kovacevic-
Markovic, Zagreb 1993, when 15...b6!?
is perfectly playable.
11...a4 12 a3
Instead 12 21d4 Sd8 13 Wc2 d6 14
a3 Jlc5 15 Sadi JsLd7 allowed Black
comfortable equality in Schoen-
Forintos, Malmo 1988.
12...£d6
12...Лс5?! is shown to be worse af-
ter 13 <£jxc5 Wxc5 14 Wd5! Wxd5 15
cxd5 d6 16 fiacl with enormous pres-
sure down the c-file, while 12...Ла5?!
is also unsatisfactory for Black due to
13 £id4 ЛЬб 14 <5Tb5 d6 (14...We6??
led to a swift conclusion with 15 c5!
1-0 G.Flear-Vesin, French Team
Championship 1993, as White is win-
ning at least a pawn and probably sig-
nificantly more after 15...Ла5 16
Wxa4) 15 <Siic3 Леб 16 £)xa4, as in
Karpov-Budnikov, Moscow 1993.
13 ®d4 Лс5 14 2>b5 d6 15 СюЗ
2)g6 16 ЛдЗ f5 17 Л13
Just as on the 16th move, White is
ill advised to capture the pawn, since
17 £1ха4?! runs into 17...f4! (17...Kxa4?
18 Wxa4 f4 does not have the same
effect due to 19 b4! ЛЬб 20 c5 dxc5 21
Лс4+) 18 £lxc5 fxg3 and Black suc-
ceeds in destroying the white king
position.
17...We8 18 Wc2 ^e5 19 Ле2 Леб
20 2)b5 Wf7
Taking stock of the situation, we
can declare that Black has achieved an
excellent game thanks to White’s
permanent weakness on c4 and the
immobility of the white queenside.
Instead of settling for a mundane con-
tinuation such as 21 Sacl, White now
embarks on an ambitious but fool-
27
The Budapest Gambit
hardy plan.
21 JLxe5?! dxe5 22 Wc3
It seems that Black cannot ade-
quately defend the e-pawn, since
22...e4?! allows the strong response 23
We5l, but the Budapest player is usu-
ally adept at spotting activity in ex-
change for material and the rest of the
game is one-sided.
22...Hae8! 23 Wxe5 £.xc4 24 Wxc5
There is no way out as 24 JLxc4?
Wxc4 25 Had loses to 25...Wxfl+!
24...£xe2 25 Sfe1 b6 26 Wc6 Зеб
27 Wd5 c6 28 £id6
28...Wg6! 29 Wxf5 3xf5 30 ^xf5 Wxf5
31 Hxe2 Wd3 32 Sae1 c5 33 e4 b5 34
e5 g5 35 3e3 Wd4 36 S3e2 b4 37
axb4 cxb4 38 h3 b3 39 &f1 Фд7 40
Фд1 Фдб 41 g4 h5 42 gxh5+ &xh5 43
ФК2 *g6 44 Фд2 45 ФдЗ аЗ 46
ЬхаЗ Ь2 47 ДЬ1 Wd3+ 0-1
Game 10
Cosma-Kaposztas
Hungary 1996
1 d4 df6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 "g4 4 if4
^c6 5 £rf3 й.Ь4+ 6 dbd2 We7 7 e3
<£>gxe5 8 <£ixe5 <?3xe5 9 ie2 ^xd2+
10Wxd2 d6 11 0-0 0-0
By exchanging so early on d2 and
castling quickly Black has saved him-
self the worry of how to meet <5^b3
and what to do with his king, but such
simplistic logic is in no way going to
guarantee him a comfortable game. If
anything, the opposite is true because
White has entered into a position
from Chapter 2 without having had to
‘waste’ time playing a2-a3 to force the
exchange on d2. Now White’s task
will be to open up the board for his
two bishops.
12 Wd5!
A new idea that ensures White an
opening advantage. However, perhaps
the reason this had not been discov-
ered before is that White has also
scored well with 12 b4 and there was
no urgency to seek an alternative. Af-
ter 12 b4, Black has tried:
a)	12...f6. This passive waiting pol-
icy is unlikely to attract Budapest fans.
Mikhalevski-Miezis, Dieren 1997, led
to excellent prospects for White after
13 Wc3 Ad7 14 l.g3 Hae8 15 Bad
Ae6 16 a3 17 c5 d5 18 c6! b6 19
Hfdl Hd8 20 Hd4 Hd6 21 Ь5 a6 22 a4
axb5 23 axb5 Ha8 24 Hal Пха1+ 25
Wxal Hd8 26 Ha4 when the white
28
Main Line with 4 &J4: 4...^c6 5 Q\f3 &.b4+ 6 Qsbd2 №e7 7 e3
pawn chain on b5 and c6 is a great
asset for any ending.
b)	12...a5 is slightly more enterpris-
ing for Black, but still 13 a3 S.d8 14
Wc3 £6 15 Ifcl JLf5 16 f3 axb4 17 axb4
b6 18 e4 Jtg6 19 Exa8 Дха8 20 c5! led
to a clear advantage for White, which
he was able to convert despite the
imminent pawn exchanges, in
Smyslov-Blackstock, London 1988.
12...He8
Black is fighting hard to keep the
c4-c5 thrust at bay. Note that if Black
kicks the queen back with 12....c6, it is
more than happy to retreat with 13
Wd2, having provoked the fresh
weakness of the d-pawn.
13 Hfd1 fog6 14 ФдЗ Hb8 15 Wa5
2a8 16 c5 dxc5 17 Йхс7 Wxc7 18
jLxc7 Феб 19 Ф13 Eac8 20 id6
The triumph of White’s strategy is
obvious, as Black has nothing to show
against the powerful set of bishops.
20...b6 21 ФЬ7 f5 22 Фхс8 Exc8 23
a4 &h8 24 a5 Ф47 25 axb6 axb6 26
Наб Hc6 27 Ha8+ Фс8 28 Фе5 h6
29 Hd7 2ixe5 30 Hd8+ &h7 31
Haxc8 Hf6 32 ЬЗ Фдб 33 f3 Ф47 34
Hd5 Неб 35 £>f2 h5 36 Фе 2 h4 37
Hc7 £se5 38 h3 Ф16 39 £d2 Фдб 40
f4 ^сб 41 Hdd7 ^a5 42 Hxg7+ &h6
43 Hh7+ Фдб 44 Hcg7+ Ф16 45
Hh6+ Фхд7 46 Нхеб £>xb3+ 47 ФсЗ
1-0
29
The Budapest Gambit
Summary
In this variation the decision as to what to do with his dark-squared bishop must
be faced by Black at an early stage.
I cannot really get excited about any of the examples where Black obligingly
exchanges his bishop for the knight on d2. Admittedly Black may be okay if he
can contain the white bishop pair, but Game 10 is a stark reminder of the dan-
gers of such a strategy. Budapest players should avoid such anaemic positions at
any price.
The logical retreat to d6, as in Games 4 and 5, making use of the fact that the
white queen’s attack on the square is blocked by the knight on d2, is extremely
solid but not likely to bring a decisive result.
If Black wishes to play more ambitiously, I believe that his best strategy lies in
Game 8, with the bishop settling on c5 and an early ...a7-a5.
1 d4 £f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ^g4 4 ^f4 ^c6 5 ^f3 J.b4+ 6 ^ibd2 We7
7 e3 £igxe5 8 'У'хеб £ixe5 9 Де2
9...b6
9...0-0 10 0-0 (D)
10...^g6 11 &g3 ±d6 12 ±xd6 Wxd6
13 Wc2 - Game 4; 13 ^e4 - Game 5
10...d6 11 £ib3 (D)
ll...b6
12 4id4 - Game 6; 12 a3 - Game 7
ll...a5 - Game 8
10...a5 - Game 9
9...jLxd2 10 Wxd2 d6 - Game 10
10 0-0 &xd2 11 Wxd2 &b7 (D) 12 Wc3
12 c5 - Game 2; 12 Sacl - Game 3
12...f6 - Game 1
10 0-0
11&b3	11...$Lb7
30
CHAPTER TWO
Main Line with 4 JLf4: 4...^c6
5 JLb4+ 6 ^bd2 We7 7 a3
1 d4 £if6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ^g4 4 Af4
£jc6 5 £>f3 JLb4+ 6 £ibd2 We7 7 a3
In this chapter we consider 7 a3,
seizing the well-known advantage of
the bishop pair, instead of 7 e3. This
factor could become threatening in the
ending, as shown in Game 11, and
Black therefore should avoid the ex-
change of queens at all costs.
Following basic principles, White
must seek to open up the position for
his bishops; and this is best achieved
by the c4-c5 break. However, Game
12 shows the dangers of hesitation for
White, as Black is allowed to build up
a strong kingside attack.
An extremely flexible plan by Black
is executed in Game 13 where he cas-
tles queenside, aided in both defence
and attack by the fianchettoed bishop
on b7. The variation can be compared
to a line of the Nimzo-Indian which
runs 1 d4 2 c4 e6 3 <£)c3 JLb4 4
^f3 b6 5 £g5 i-b7 6 e3 h6 7 £h4
JLxc3+ 8 bxc3 d6 9 £id2 g5 10 Jlg3
We7 11 a4 £lc6 followed by ...0-0-0,
the only real difference being the dou-
bled c-pawns which perhaps work in
White’s favour due to the semi-open b-
file in the Nimzo case.
Games 14 and 15 require deep study
from Black’s point of view as White
tries to blow him away with a c4-c5
blitz before he has managed to castle.
Game 11
M.Gurevich-Miezis
Bad Godesburg 1996
1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ^g4 4 £f4
^c6 5 £>f3 ДЬ4+ 6 2>bd2 We 7 7 a3
£lcxe5
31
The Budapest Gambit
No, Black has not blundered; 8
axb4?? falls foul to 8...^3d3 mate!
8 £)xe5 £ixe5 9 e3 JLxd2+
Obviously this exchange has its pros
and cons: Black achieves free devel-
opment at the slight cost of relinquish-
ing the bishop pair. Here it is unwise
for Black to waste time retaining his
dark-squared bishop with 9...JLd6?, as
White is able to launch a dangerous
initiative with 10 ^e4! For example,
10...£>xc4 11 £ixd6+ <5^xd6 12 Scl 0-0
(12...£>e4 13 Sxc7 0-0 14 Wd4 Se8 15
£e2 Wf6 16 Wxf6 &xf6 17 Af3 d5 18
0-0 enabled White to obtain a techni-
cally winning ending due to the
weakness of Black’s d5-pawn and his
own strong bishops in lethal combina-
tion with the rook on the seventh in
Nenashev-Magai, Frunze 1989) 13
Bxc7 £k8 14 Scl Wf6 15 Wd2 d5 16
£e2 JLd7 17 0-0 ^.сб 18 Wc3 Wxc3 19
Sxc3 QAb 20 JLe5, when Black was
truly suffering in Evseev-Bryzgalin,
Moscow 1996.
10«xd2 0-0?!
A careless move. The superior
10...d6 is dealt with in the rest of the
chapter.
11 c5!
By tactical means, White restricts
the normal development of his oppo-
nent’s queenside. The point is that it is
too dangerous for Black to eliminate
the annoying pawn since ll...Wxc5 12
Scl Wd6 13 Wxd6 cxd6 14 Jle2, fol-
lowed by 15 0-0 and 16 Sfdl allows
White to regain the material with
huge positional pressure.
I am afraid that after the text move
Black must resign himself to a difficult
position.
11.. Лев
In Guliev-Mesropov, Moscow 1996,
Black decided to complete his devel-
opment and immediately saddle him-
self with a weak pawn with ll...d6.
However, after 12 cxd6 cxd6 13 JLe2
JLf5 14 0-0 Hfc8 I cannot see anyone
voluntarily wanting to venture into
this unpromising position again.
12Sc1 d6
12...b6 brings no relief. After 13
cxb6 cxb6 14 &.e2 Jlb7 15 0-0 Black is
already experiencing difficulties.
It is worth mentioning that many
decades ago the great Rubinstein
reached the identical position (as
White of course!) up to 12 Scl and
then duly punished his opponent’s
rather pointless 12...a5? with 13 JLe2
Wf6 14 0-0 b6 15 cxb6 Wxb6 16 Wc3
Ш 17 Sfdl Sb8 18 Sd2 h6 19 h3
Se7 20 JsLg4 f6 21 £f5! Ф17 22 h4 g6
23 &Ы h5 24 Wc2 f5 25 £a2+ *g7 26
Wc3+ 1-0 Rubinstein-Daniuszewski,
Lodz 1927.
13 cxd6 cxd6 14 ke2 _Le6 15 0-0
Sac8 16 Wd4 йсб 17 Wd2
17 Wxd6?! unnecessarily permits
Black excellent counterplay with
17...Wf6!, hitting the b2-pawn and
32
Main Line with 4 $Lf4: 4...^c6 5 Qf3 &.b4 + 6 Qtbd2 №е7 7 a3
threatening 18...Hed8.
17.,.2te5 18 Sxc8 Exc8 19 Sc1 2c 7
20 Sc3 f6 21 e4 a6 22 кеЗ b5 23
Wcl Sxc3 24 ®xc3 Wb7 25 f3 &c4
26 £.d1 ±e6 27 id4 £>c6 28 &f2
Wd7 29 h3 d5 30 exd5 jixd5 31
J.c2 Йеб 32 Wd3 g6 33 We3 Wxe3
34 ixe3
Despite the fact that Black has suc-
ceeded in getting rid of his weak d-
pawn, the assessment of the position
has not changed; the unrelenting force
of the white bishop pair is not going
to abate. On such an open board, pos-
session of the two bishops can easily
be worth an extra pawn.
34...7 35 Ф12 Феб 36 £b6 f5 37
1.еЗ &c4 38 g4 ®e5 39 ФдЗ ie2
40 Ф14 £d3 41 Jsldl £f1 42 Jld4
£)c6 43 gxf5+ gxf5 44 Дд7 ^e7
Note that Black cannot safely cap-
ture the pawn since 44...JLxh3? 45
JLe2! traps the bishop.
45 ФдЗ 2lg6 46 h4 £c4 47 £c2
ie2 48 h5 £te5 49 <£f4 £d3 50
i.d1 £>c4 51 £c3 £id6 52 ФеЗ Дс4
53 -w.c2 £.f1 54 Ф14 i.h3?
That bishop is never getting out
alive - watch how White carefully
rounds it up.
55 ^.d3 ^.g2 56 &b4 h6 57 ФдЗ
Ah1 58 ke2 f4+ 59 Фх14 2rf5 60
&c3 £>e7 61 ФдЗ <£>d5 62 Ad2 4tf6
63 ФИ2 £sxh5 64 S.d1 1-0
Game 12
Lahlum-Madsen
Gausdal 1995
1 d4 ^f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £>g4 4 ±f4
-c6 5 2rf3 &b4+ 6 £>bd2 We7 7 a3
JLxd2+?l
This may well transpose to the
main line, but it is more precise for
Black to adopt the move order with
7...^3gxe5. This is due to the additional
possibility that becomes open to
White on move 10 (that incidentally is
not utilised here).
8 Wxd2 ®gxe5 9 ^xe5 <^xe5 10
Wc3
This is where White could have
emphasised the inaccuracy of Black’s
seventh move with 10 c5!, with a simi-
lar theme to the previous game.
10...d6 11 e3 0-0
Now that the white queen has
taken up her post on the c-file, a lot of
bite has been taken out of the c4-c5
thrust because if the c-file opens, the
33
The Budapest Gambit
queen will be exposed. 11...b6 is also
possible here, as shown in Game 13.
12.fi.e2
12 c5 still comes into consideration,
but after 12...JLg4!, taking the impor-
tant dl-square away from White’s
rook, 13 h3 JLh5 is fine for Black.
12...He8 13 0-0 ±f5
A further solid option lies in 13...b6
followed by 14..,JLb7 and ...c7-c5,
which reaches a position akin to the
Queen’s Indian Defence (the 1 d4 £tf6
2 c4 e6 3 ^f3 b6 4 JLf4 line) where
Black’s only weakness at d6 is well
defended and he has ruled out the pos-
sibility of White opening up the board
for his bishops with ...c7-c5 himself.
14Sfd1 3ad8 15Sd2
Now the attempt to sharpen up the
play with 15 c5? runs into 15...£ig6! 16
cxd6 £>xf4 17 dxe7 <?3xe2+ 18 Ф11
fixdl+ 19 Sxdl (or 19 Фхе2 Sxal 20
Wxc7 ^.g6! and Black should win)
19...2)xc3 20 Sd8 ^.d3+! 21 Sxd3
47>е4, when Black has successfully re-
buffed the danger and maintains his
extra piece.
15...£e4 16 Sadi vig6 17 £g3 ®h4
18 f3 Дсб 19 e4 b6 20 Hd4?!
The situation is dynamically bal-
anced with Black’s activity compensat-
ing for the white bishop pair. How-
ever, White now begins to go astray in
this complicated middlegame position
and the scales gradually begin to tip in
Black’s favour. 20 -l.fi would have
been more logical here, since now
White must watch out for possible
tricks against his bishop along the e-
file.
20...£>g6 21 b4 h5 22 Wd2?
It is strange how often one mistake
leads to another, as White now com-
pounds his error by taking the retreat
away from the troubled rook on d4.
22...Wf6 23 &f2	24 £f1 Да4!
25 Se1 c5 26 bxc5 bxc5 27 e5 dxe5
28 Sxd8 Sxd8 29 Wa5 JLc6 30
Wxc5 2>h3+ 31 &h1 3d2 32 ,fi.g3
32...Wxf3!!
Forcefully destroying the last obsta-
cle protecting the white king.
33 Wg1 ®xg1 34 gxf3 2ixf3 35 Sbl
h4 36 Sb8+ &h7 37 Sc8 Де4 0-1
Game 13
Pikula-Legky
Novi Becej 1991
1 d4 £if6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 Vig4 4 Jlf4
34
Main Line with 4 £.f4: 4...^c6 5 ^f3 &.b4+ 6 Ghbd2 We? 7 a3
£ic6 5 2>f3 ±Ь4+ 6 £>bd2 We7 7 a3
£kjxe5 8 ®xe5 £>xe5 9 e3 £xd2+ 10
Wxd2 d6 11 Wc3 b6 12 b4
Black may have thought that he had
successfully prevented White’s c4-c5
thrust with ll...b6, but I actually
think that 12 c5! is critical here. The
idea is to embarrass the black king
while it is still in the centre, which
seems to be worth the price of a pawn
in all lines. For example, 12...bxc5 13
JLb5+ (13...сб? 14 JLxe5 cxb5 15
JLxg7 is clearly superior for White,
while 13...$Ld7 14 Jlxd7+ (4’xd7 15 b4
cxb4 16 axb4 gives White a strong and
long lasting initiative) 14 JLxe5 Wxe5
15 Wxe5 dxe5 16 Scl Sb 8 17 Sxc5
and White regains the material with a
slightly better ending.
12...i.b7 13 Jke2?
I wonder if White had realised that
his opponent could safely capture the
hot pawn on g2? Given that he can,
White should have opted for the sen-
sible 13 f3, after which 13...0-0-0 14
Jle2 g5! followed by ...f7-f5 is interest-
ing enough for both sides, although I
personally prefer Black’s position due
to his greater activity.
13...^.xg2 14 Sgl Де4 15 Wd4
White is desperately seeking some
compensation for the pawn, since he
cannot capture on g7 due to 15 Sxg7?
JsLg6! trapping the rook.
15...£g6 16 h4 f6 17 h5 jH5 18 e4
0-0-0 19 f3
Of course Black’s bishop is immune
on account of 19 exf5?? ^f3+, which
picks up the queen.
19...g5 20 hxg6 hxg6 21 a4 *b8 22
a5 g5 23 axb6 cxb6 24 JLg3 g4!
Destroying the once proud white
centre. Note that 25 f4? drops the key
pawn at e4 to 25...£k6!
25 fxg4 ±xg4 26 ixg4 ^xg4 27 c5
£ie5 28 We3 dxc5 29 bxc5 bxc5
White may be trying to create a
queenside attack, but these attempts
are futile due to the strength of Black’s
well-posted knight on e5.
30 Sa5 Wd7 31 Фе2 Фа8 32 Sga1
Wg4+ 33 &f2 fid2+!
The decisive counterattack has be-
gun. Since 34 Wxd2 Wf3+ and 34 'i’gl
Shl+! both lead to unavoidable mate,
White has no choice other than the
text, which only delays the inevitable.
34 £e1 Sh1+ 35 &xd2 £ic4+ 36
ФсЗ 2xa1 37 Sxa7+ Sxa7 38 *xc4
Sa4+ 39 &d5 Wd7+ 0-1
35
The Budapest Gambit
Game 14
Griinberg-Tamm
German Bundesliga 1987
1 d4 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ®g4 4 £-f4
^c6 5 £>f3 ±b4+ 6 £ibd2 We7 7 a3
£kjxe5 8 ‘йхеб £hxe5 9 e3 J.xd2+ 10
Wxd2 d6 11 c5l?
There is no getting away from this
thematic advance, but as long as Black
is not intent on hanging on to the ex-
tra pawn he should be able to com-
plete his development satisfactorily. It
must be best for Black to capture on
c5 here, as otherwise White will ex-
change on d6 and saddle Black with a
weak d-pawn. However, note that
after ll...dxc5 Black’s knight on e5 has
lost its support and therefore all tacti-
cal motifs based on Wd5 and JLb5+
must be carefully checked.
The alternative continuation 11 Дс1
is considered in the next game, while
the move 11 JLe2 is examined in
Games 16-20.
11...dxc5 12 Wd5 7 g 6 13 £b5+
£d7
13...&f8? 14 ^.g3 c6 15 Wd2 is no
fun for Black; he has no time to take
the bishop on b5 due to 16 Ji.d6.
13...c6!? is plausible and leads to
mass complications after 14 JLxc6+
bxc6 15 Wxc6+ Wd7, when the game
Avshalumov-A.Kovacevic, Belgrade
1989, continued 16 We4+ (if White
immediately grabs the rook with 16
Wxa8?, Black is able to conjure up an
extremely dangerous attack with
16../bxf4 17 exf4 0-0, and now 18 0-0?
loses at once to 18...JLb7 19 Wxa7
Wc6! 20 f3 2a8, trapping the white
queen) 16...We6 17 Wxa8 £ixf4 18 0-0
4id3 19 Wxa7 0-0 20 b4 cxb4 21 axb4
£ixb4 22 Habl 7^c6 at which stage the
players agreed to share the point.
14 Wxb7 0-0 15 £xd7 7'sxf4 16 £.f5
Sab8 17 Wf3 7ig6 18 We2 We5 19
£xg6 hxg6 20 0-0-0?
Revealing suicidal tendencies or at
the very least an extreme lack of any
sense of danger. Although Black is
slightly better after the natural 20 Bbl
Hb6 21 0-0, the game would have re-
mained very much in the balance. Not
now though...
20...c4!
White has no way of preventing
...c4-c3, which will lead to the deadly
exposure of his king. The rest is joyful
36
Main Line with 4 kf4: 4...Gc6 5 ^f3 &b4+ 6 fobd2 ®e7 7 a3
or horrendous depending on which
side you are!
21 Wd2 Sb3 22 Wd4 Wb5 23 Wd5
c5 24 Wd7 Wa5 25 Wd5 Sfb8 26
Wxc4 Sxb2 27 Sd7 2Ы + 28 Фс2
B8b2+ 29 <£d3 Wd2+ 30 Фе4 Wxd7
31 ВхЫ Wf5 mate 0-1
Game 15
Lesiege-Svidler
Oakham 1992
1 d4 ^f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £>g4 4 £f4
£ic6 5 £if3 ДЬ4+ 6 &bd2 We7 7 a3
?}gxe5 8 £)xe5 £ixe5 9 e3 Jtxd2+ 10
Wxd2 d6 11 Sc1
An ultra-solid positional move that
prepares the c4-c5 advance.
11...b6
If this does not stop White in his
tracks, nothing will. In fact Black
must accept that the c-pawn is going
to be used as a battering ram anyway,
but be ready to meet it in the best pos-
sible way.
11...0-0 obviously comes into con-
sideration. After 12 c5 dxc5 13 Wd5
<£lg6 14 JLg3 Black can choose be-
tween 14...Wf6, which generally leads
to sharp tactics, or the quieter 14...c6
15 Wxc5 ®xc5 16 Дхс5 JLe6, when
White maintains a nagging edge due to
the useful bishop pair.
12 c5!
A man’s got to do what a man’s got
to do! White is guaranteed a strong
initiative for the pawn, which can be
lethal in the right hands. However, we
must not forget the resilience of
Black’s position and I must stress that
returning the pawn at the right mo-
ment (which should not be a problem
for the non-materialistic Budapest stu-
dent) is always the key to Black’s de-
fence.
12...bxc5 13 b4
13 JLxe5 is quite tricky too (but not
13 ^.b5+?, which runs into 13...JLd7
37
The Budapest Gambit
14 Jtxe5 Jlxb5! 15 JLxg7 Eg8 followed
by 16...Exg2 with a plus for Black)
although Black can take the relatively
safe path of 13...Wxe5 14 ДЬ5+ ^f8 (I
don’t trust 14...Xd7 for Black, since 15
JLxd7+ '4)xd7 16 0-0, intending 17 b4,
sets up mounting pressure) 15 0-0 Eb8!
(15...g6? 16 f4 Wf6 17 b4! opens up the
position in White’s favour) 16 Wa5
Sb6 with unclear play.
13...0-0 14 bxc5 ДЬ7 15 f3 dxc5P
A key decision. Black voluntarily
worsens his structure in order to acti-
vate his pieces and make use of the d-
file. Of course not 15...JLxf3?? on ac-
count of 16 JLxe5! when Black drops a
piece. Now it soon becomes apparent
that Black’s initiative will readily hold
the balance through to the ending.
16 Wc3 2>g6 17 ДдЗ Hfe8 18 &f2
h5 19 h4 2ad8 20 ДЬ5 Ef8 21 Де2
Sfe8 22 Wxc5 Sd2 23 Hhe1 Даб 24
Wxe7 ^xe7 25 e4 ®f5 26 exf5
Дхе2 27 Exc7 £d3+ 28 £g1 2xe1+
29 Дхе1 Ed1 30 &f2 £xf5 31 Sxa7
Sa1 32 2a5 Ha2+ 33 ФеЗ Дс2 34
ДсЗ f6 35 g3 JLd1 36 £d2 ДхТЗ 37
£xf3 Sxd2 38 Exh5 У2-У2
Game 16
Koepcke-Yermolinsky
Los Angeles 1991
1 d4 £)f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 «g4 4 £f4
йсб 5 £jf3 ДЬ4+ 6 £ibd2 We7 7 a3
£icxe5 8 2ixe5 2)xe5 9 e3 £xd2+ 10
Wxd2 d6 11 Де2
Of all White’s possibilities in the 7
a3 variation, 11 Де2 remains the most
popular. White first seeks king secu-
rity and plans to play on the queenside
later.
11...0-0
Black can also adopt the move order
11...b6, which normally transposes to
the text after 12 0-0 ДЬ7 13 b4 0-0.
However, the game Foessmeier-
Sauper, Hallein 1988, witnessed the
aggressive 13...0-0-0?, which I cannot
recommend for the simple reason that
White’s attack is quicker: 14 a4 g5 15
Дхе5 dxe5 16 Wc3 f5 17 c5 We6 18
Efcl bxc5 19 bxc5 Wc6 20 f3 a6 21
Wxe5 Shf8 22 Sabi Sd2 23 Eb2 Sxb2
24 Wxb2 g4 25 Wg7 We8 26 &f2 gxf3
27 c6! flf7 28 cxb7+ ФЬ8 29 Wh6 f4 30
Ec3 fxe2 31 Wxa6 fxe3+ 32 Фхе2 Ef2+
33 *el 1-0.
Il...^.d7, intending ...Дсб, is seen
in Game 20.
12	0-0 b6
12...	a5 is the subject of Game 19.
13	b4
The most straightforward plan.
White prepares the thematic c4-c5
thrust, which will increase the scope
of his dark-squared bishop.
13...	Sd8!?
An equally logical response. Black
stubbornly refuses to let his opponent
carry out his aforementioned inten-
tion. The routine 13...ДЬ7 is consid-
38
Main Line with 4 S.f4: 4...Gbc6 5 fof3 &.b4+ 6 ^bd2 4ile7 7 a3
ered in Games 17 and 18.
14'Й'сЗ c5!
&f1 Sxc4 32 Sbl Sb4 33 Sxb4
cxb4 34 Фе2 Ad5 35 f3 Фс4 36
ld2 ФЬЗ 37 e4 Фа2 0-1
Restricting both of White’s bishops.
Now the positional battle will revolve
around whether the backward d-pawn
is too high a price to pay to neutralise
the bishop pair. I am of the opinion
that Black’s activity is sufficient to
compensate for the weakness on d6
and in fact it is the white c4-pawn that
could prove vulnerable one day.
15 Sfd1 i.b7 16 Ea2 f6 17 Ead2
Йас8 18 Ь5?
A grave strategical error that allows
Black to commence operations on the
queenside using the а-file. Instead 18
Wb3 would have held the balance.
18...Sa8! 19 Wb3 a6 20 bxa6
20 a4 axb5 21 axb5 Sa5 leads to
much the same.
2O...2xa6 21 Wb1 Wc7 22 £xe5
fxe5 23 £d3 g6 24 £e4 £xe4 25
Wxe4 Hxa3 26 Wxe5
see following diagram
This tactical resource does not actu-
ally help, as White heads straight for a
lost rook and pawn ending.
26...dxe5 27 Zxd8+ &f7 28 S8d7+
Wxd7 29 2xd7+ Феб 30 2d1 Sc3 31
Game 17
Grabarczyk-Nadanian
Czestochowa 1992
1 d4 £f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 21g4 4 £f4
<£c6 5 2>f3 ДЬ4+ 6 £)bd2 We7 7 a3
£jgxe5 8 £>xe5 $ixe5 9 e3 ixd2+ 10
Wxd2 d6 11 ±e2 0-0 12 0-0 b6 13
b4 i-b7 14 ДдЗ
White anticipates that ...£ig6 is go-
ing to follow soon and therefore re-
moves his bishop from the line of fire.
The immediate 14 c5 is dealt with in
the next game, while 14 Efcl?! looks
39
The Budapest Gambit
artificial, and Black can try to make
use of the fact that the f2-pawn is no
longer well protected. The game Abu
Hulayqah-Lodhi, Manila Olympiad
1992, continued 14...^ad8 15 Wb2
£lg6 16 JLg3 f5 17 c5 dxc5 18 bxc5 f4
19 exf4 <?lxf4 20 JLfl ФЬ8 21 Йс4 4hd3
22 Wc3 £1xc5 23 ДЬ4 Wf7 24 Wb2
Hd5 25 fiacl £ld3 26 Дхс13 Sxd3 27
We2 Wd5 28 f3 c5 29 Hg4 h6 0-1.
14..Л5?!
Although Black goes on to victory
in this game, it is important to remain
objective and consider the safer alter-
native 14...^d7 15 Sfel a5, when
Black prevents the breakthrough c4-c5
and commences counterplay on the
queenside.
15 c5!
Undoubtedly the best way for
White to seek the initiative.
15...dxc5 16 bxc5 £>g6 17 c6 Дхсб
18 Sac1 Sad8 19 Wb4 Wf6 20 Wc3
Wxc3 21 Sxc3 Sd2 22 ДН5?
Spoiling all his previous efforts.
With 22 Даб! White would have kept
all the chances, as the c7-pawn will be
ripe for picking, while even 22 Дхсб
Дхе2 23 Дхс7 Hf7 would have been
equal.
The text allows Black to emerge a
clear pawn up when the smoke clears
and his queenside majority will even-
tually prove decisive.
22...ДЬ5 23 Sb1 c6 24 Дхдб hxg6
25 h4 Sfd8 26 &h2 £d3 27 Sb4
Де4 28 Sxe4 fxe4 29 Sxc6 sif7 30
a4 S8d7 31 <£>h3 Sa2 32 Sc4 Se7
33 Фд4 a5 34 Фд5 Se6 35 Sd4 Фе7
36 Sc4 Sb2 37 Hc7+ <4>f8 38 Sc8+
Sf7 39 Sd8 Sc6 40 Sd7+ £f8 41
Sb7 Sa2 42 Де5 Sxf2 43 Дхд7+
Фд8 44 £d4 Sxg2+ 45 &f4 Se6 46
Sb6+ Ф47 47 Sb7+ Фе8 48 Sxb6
Sf2+ 49 Фд5 Sf5+ 50 &h6 Sxb6 0-1
Game 18
Twardon-E.Pandavos
Nalenczow 1989
1 d4 2sf6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ®g4 4 £f4
£ic6 5 ®f3 ДЬ4+ 6 ^bd2 We7 7 a3
£>gxe5 8 £ixe5 ^xe5 9 e3 JLxd2+ 10
Wxd2 d6 11 Де2 0-0 12 0-0 b6 13
Ь4 ДЬ7 14 c5
White swiftly opens up the position
in order to activate his bishops. How-
ever, with accurate play Black con-
serves excellent counter-chances based
on possession of the d-file.
40
Main Line with 4 &.f4: 4...&C6 5 fof3 £b4+ 6 ?hbd2 №e7 7 a3
14...dxc5 15 bxc5 2ad8?!
15...Wxc5? is clearly bad on account
of 16 flacl, when 16...We7 17 Wc3
?jg6 18 Wxc7 Дас8 19 Wxe7 €ixe7 20
JLd6 fixcl 21 Дхс1 Дс8 22 Дхс8+
4^xc8 23 tb4 a5 24 ±c3 f6 25 f3 £3d6
26 &f2 led to a substantial advantage
for White, which was converted to a
win, in Ostermeyer-F.Roeder, Ger-
man Bundesliga 1983.
However, 15...fifd8! is the most
precise, since the queen’s rook is
needed to cover the a7-pawn. For ex-
ample, 16 Wb4 <53d3 leads to a drawn
ending after 17 Jlxd3 Sxd3 18 cxb6
Wxb4 19 axb4 cxb6.
16 Wc3?!
16 Wb4! is even stronger, when it
should be noted that 16...£kl3?! fails to
17 JLxd3 2xd3 18 cxb6 Wxb4 19 axb4
axb6, as 20 2a7 and 20 Jlxc7 both
leave Black struggling for a draw.
16...Sd5 17 cxb6 cxb6 18 Sfd1 3c5
19 Wb2 Efc8 20 Sac1 ^g6 21 Exc5
Sxc5 22 £g3
22 ^.d6?! does not achieve the de-
sired result after 22...Wg5! and there-
fore White must concentrate on de-
fending his kingside.
22...h5 23 h3 Eg5!
Black now holds a useful initiative,
which he mishandles to allow his op-
ponent off the hook. However, from
Black’s point of view, an improve-
ment can be found as early as move
15.
24 .Xi.fi h4 25 ^.f4 Sixf4 26 exf4
Sg6 27 ®d4 Зеб 28 £c4 He1+ 29
Exel Wxe1+ 30 ФИ2 We7 31 a4 g6
32 &d3 Wc7 33 Wf6 Wc6 34 Wg5
Wd5 35 £e2 Фд7 36 Wg4 We6 37
Wxe6 fxe6 38 g3 hxg3+ 39 fxg3 a6
40 g4 £_c6 41 ±xa6 jLxa4 42 ФдЗ
JLc6 43 &f2 £f6 44 h4 b5 45 ФеЗ
b4 46 £d3 ±d5 47 &d4 b3 48 ФсЗ
e5 49 g5+ Феб 50 fxe5 Фхе5 51
£xg6 Ф14 52 £d3 Фд4 53 дб ФхИ4
54 g7 Фд5 ’A-’A
Game 19
Lavrov-Kaposztas
Eger Open 1993
1 d4 ftf6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ?jg4 4 £f4
ftc6 5	3 ±b4+ 6 2>bd2 We 7 7 a3
<^gxe5 8 ®xe5 ^xe5 9 e3 £.xd2+ 10
^xd2 d6 11 ±e2 0-0 12 0-0 a5
An interesting alternative to the
normal 12...b6, trying to hold up
White’s queenside play.
41
The Budapest Gambit
13 Sac1
On 13 b4 Black obtained excellent
prospects with 13...£3g6 14 JLg3 JLd7!
15 c5?! dxc5 16 JLxc7 Jlc6 17 JLd6
Wg5 18 g3 Sfd8 19 bxc5 Wxc5 20
JLxc5 Sxd2 in Adler-Von Herman,
Berlin Open 1987, when White’s
weakened light squares proved vulner-
able.
13...b6 14 ДдЗ jLb7 15 Wc3 fife8
Black would like to cramp White’s
opportunities of queenside expansion
with 15...a4, but here this is definitely
premature due to the strong reply 16
c5! bxc5 17 £xe5 Wxe5 18 Wxe5 dxe5
19 Пхс5 when Black loses a pawn.
16 Sfd1 ^d7 17 b4 axb4 18 axb4
£>f6 19 JLh4?
Incredibly this is a decisive mistake,
as the text will show. Instead 19 Sal!
£te4 20 Wb2 is perhaps the most logi-
cal, with a double-edged and balanced
position for the players to fight out.
19...We4 20 £f3 Wxh4 21 £xb7
®g4!
White must have overlooked this
before making his 19th move. The
double attack against f2 and h2 crushes
the life from White’s position, and the
rook ending that soon arises is particu-
larly hopeless.
22 £xa8 Wxf2+ 23 ФЫ Wh4 24 h3
<5?,f2-t- 25 &h2 4Jxd1 26 Sxd1 Sxa8
27 c5 bxc5 28 bxc5 Wh5 29 Sc1
Wxc5 30 Wxc5 dxc5 31 Sxc5 5c8
32 ФдЗ *f8 33 &f4 Фе7 34 h4 £d6
35 Sf5 f6 36 g4 c5 37 g5 Феб 38
gxf6 gxf6 39 Sh5 c4 40 Йа5 c3 41
Sa1 Sc4+ 42 &f3 c2 43 Sc1 h5 44
Фе2 Sxh4 0-1
Game 20
Funke-Kamp
German Bundesliga 1990
1 d4 ^f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £>g4 4 £f4
£)C6 5 ^f3 JLb4+ 6 ^bd2 We7 7 e3
<$3gxe5 8 £>xe5 &xe5 9 a3 jLxd2+ 10
Wxd2 d6 11 JLe2 £d7
While it is more normal to fi-
anchetto the bishop in order to oc-
cupy the a8-hl diagonal, it is also rea-
sonable to position the bishop on c6,
which avoids any queenside weak-
nesses. The drawback is that Black is
slightly congested.
12 Wc3?!
12 0-0 is more critical, when Ivan-
chuk-Epishin, Terrassa 1991, contin-
ued 12...f6 (unfortunately for Black,
42
Main Line with 4 kf4: 4...fcc6 5 ^>f3 £b4+ 6 ^bd2 'Vie? 7 a3
the natural 12...0-0 allows 13 c5!, when
13...dxc5 14 JLxe5 Wxe5 drops a piece
to 15 ®xd7 and therefore Black must
resign himself to a poor pawn struc-
ture) 13 b4 Sd8 14 JLh5+! £tf7 (after
14...g6 the white bishop will quite
happily retreat to e2, having created a
lasting weakness on Black’s kingside,
while 14...^g6? is even worse as
White crushes through the centre with
15 c5!) 15 c5 JLb5 16 Sfdl with a clear
plus for White.
12...f6 13 0-0 Jtc6 14 Sad &d7
It is important to prevent the c4-c5
break.
15 Ь4 b6 16 £d3 0-0 17 Sfe1 a5!
A timely response, seeking coun-
terplay down the а-file. White cannot
expect to keep the file closed, as 18 b5
gives away the c5-square for good, and
the chances are now about equal.
18 e4 axb4 19 axb4 Sa7 20 £b1
Sfa8 21 Scd1 Sa3 22 Wd4 Wf7 23
£d S3a4 24 &d2 Wh5 25 £c2
S4a7 26 £d We5! 27 Wd3
Black is gradually improving his po-
sition and would have stood much
better if the queens had been ex-
changed with 27 Wxe5 fxe5!, when the
plan of swapping off the light-squared
bishops with ...JLa4 would have high-
lighted Black’s domination of the a-
file.
27...Se8 28 f4 Wh5 29 Se3?
White must have overlooked what
is to follow.
29.. Ла4 30 £xa4 Sxa4 31 Wb3?
Succumbing at once, but the more
resilient 31 Sh3 Wg6 leaves all the
chances in Black’s hands due to the
vulnerability of White’s b4-, c4- and
e4-pawns.
31...Sxb4! 32 Wxb4 Wxd1+ 33 Se1
Wd4+ 34 ДеЗ Wxe4 35 Wb5 We7 36
Wc6 Wd8 37 Wd5+ <tf8 38 Wh5 Фд8
39 Wd5+ ФИ8 40 £f2 Hxe1+ 41
Jlxd We8 42 if 2 2>c5 43 g4 h6 44
g5 hxg5 45 fxg5 fxg5 46 Wxg5 Фд8
47 h4 5>e6 48 Wg4 Wf7 49 &e3 Wf6
50 We4 We5 51 Wa8+ *h7 52 Wf3
c5 53 if 2 ftd4 54 Wg4 Wf5 55 Wd1
2tf3+ 0-1
43
The Budapest Gambit
Summary
In this line Black must be aware of his opponent’s long-term aim of using the
bishop pair, and not allow it to be carried out unhindered. We have already seen
that 7...<£igxe5 8 4hxe5 41xe5 9 e3 JLxd2+ 10 Wxd2 d6 И Дс1 b6 12 c5 bxc5 13 b4
is one of the most dangerous move orders, but the talented Svidler demonstrates
the safest way through the minefield in Game 15, where he adopts the policy of
relinquishing the pawn in order to complete his development.
I am also drawn to Black’s strategy in Game 16, where he manages to subdue
the potential of his opponent’s bishop pair by means of blockading the position
with ...c7-c5 himself.
1 d4 2)f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 &g4 4 Д14 £ic6 5 2>f3 £.b4+ 6 £>bd2 Be7 7 a3
£igxe5 8 £lxe5 ^xe5 9 e3 £xd2+ 10 Wxd2
10...d6
10...0-0 - Game 11
11 Wc3
11 c5 - Game 14
11 2c 1 - Game 15
M.ke2(D)
11...0-0 12 0-0
12...b6 13 b4
13...2d8 - Game 16
13...^.b7 (D)
14 JLg3 - Game 17
14 c5 - Game 18
12...a5 - Game 19
ll...JLd7 - Game 20
11...0-0
ll...b6 - Game 13
12 Jte2 - Game 12
11 ke2
13...kb7
11...0-0
44
CHAPTER THREE
Main Line with 4 Af4: 4...^c6
5 ДЬ4+ 6 ^bd2 f6
1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ®g4 4 £f4
&c6 5 £tf3 £b4+ 6 ^bd2 f6?!
The gambit line 6...f6?! is a risky al-
ternative to the standard 6...We7.
Black goes all out for the initiative and
has no intention of regaining the eS-
pawn. Although unsound at the high-
est level, this line has every chance of
success as a surprise weapon at club
level because White must play actively
and accurately to secure the advantage.
After 7 exf6 Wxf6 8 e3, Black in-
variably captures the b2-pawn with
8...Wxb2, which is obviously time-
consuming. White’s lead in develop-
ment can then be used to full effect
with 9 Jle2 d6 10 0-0 0-0 11 <£>b3 Wf6
12 c5!, as in Game 23.
Game 21
Damljanovic-Touzane
Zaragossa Open 1995
1 d4 2rf6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £g4 4 2rf3
2)c6 5 l.f4 JLb4+ 6 ^bd2 f6 7 exf6
7 a3 is certainly less critical. Black
should play 7...fxe5 8 axb4 (on 8 JLg5,
Black has 8...jLe7, while 8 Jlg3 JLxd2+
9 Wxd2 We7 is also fine for him)
8...exf4, when White has some king-
side development problems.
7...Wxf6 8 e3
Against 8 g3, Black should opt for
8...Wxb2 9 JLg2 d6 10 0-0 Xf5!?
(instead of 10...0-0) with the intention
of 11 e4 jLd7 and castling queenside.
8 Лхс7?! looks highly dubious. Al-
though Vareille-Agnos, Paris-London
1994, ended in a relatively quick draw
after 8...Wxb2 9 e3 0-0 10 c5 £xd2+?
11 £lxd2 £ixf2 12 JLc4+ d5 13 JLxd5+
£e6 14 ±xe6+ Ф118 15 Bbl Wc3 16
45
The Budapest Gambit
0-0 Wxe3 17 41f3 Vi-Vi, Black would
have had the better prospects after
10...d5! 11 cxd6 JLe6, when his initia-
tive is worth more than the sacrificed
material.
8...Wxb2 9 &e2 d6 10 0-0 0-0 11
41e4	12^d3
White could instead have settled for
a draw by perpetual attack on the
black queen here with 12 fibl Wxa2
13 Sal Wb2 14 Bbl etc.
12...JLf5 13 £sxf6+ Wxf6 14 SM
£c5 15 £ig5
Note that 15 Sxb7? JLb6! would
have left the rook in a hazardous posi-
tion.
15...£lb4!
Black is making the most of his po-
sition, directing his knight towards the
juicy d3-square. Now proceedings take
on a complicated turn where, to be
quite honest, fortunes could have
turned either way.
16 £.xf5 Wxf5 17 Hb3 a5 18 a3 <йс2
19 g4 Wg6 20 h4 ®xa3 21 Sxa3 h6
22 h5 We8 23 Wd5+ ФК8 24 Saa1
c6!
The series of intermediate moves
continues and, as the natural response
25 We4? hxg5 26 Wxe8 Sfxe8 27 ^.xg5
Se4! nets a pawn, suddenly it becomes
obvious that it is White who is in deep
trouble.
25 Wd3 hxg5 26 £xg5 We6 27 f3
We5 28 JLh4 Wxe3+ 29 Wxe3 £xe3+
30 Фд2 a4?
At this point Black tarnishes a well
played game. The text move is unfor-
tunate as the continuation 30...d5 31
cxd5 cxd5 32 Sfbl b6 33 Sb5 JLc5 34
JLf2 d4 would have preserved excel-
lent winning chances.
31 i.e7 Bf4 32 Дд5 a3 33 £xf4
£xf4 34 Sfb1 JLe5 35 3a2 £b2 36
Bbxb2 axb2 37 3xb2 b5?
Even now 37...Bb8 retains some
drawing chances, but all in all it is a
sad finish for Black whose middlegame
play was a classic model for Budapest
players everywhere.
38 cxb5 Hb8 39 b6 c5 40 b7 c4 41
£f2 g6 42 hxg6 Фд7 43 Sb6 c3 44
ФеЗ c2 45 &d2 Фхдб 46 Bxd6+
Фд5 47 3b6 1-0
Game 22
Maduekwe-Agnos
London 1994
1 d4 6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 2sg4 4 ^f4
£b4+ 5 £d2 f6 6 £igf3 *21c6 7 exf6
®'xf6 8 e3 Wxb2 9 £e2 0-0 10 0-0
d6 11 2ib3
I believe this to be the move that
places the whole variation under the
closest scrutiny. Often the knight on
b3 will support the thematic pawn
advance to c5, thus undermining
Black’s centre. Furthermore, White is
always ready to exchange the knight
for the black bishop after the move a2-
a3.
46
Main Line with 4 £.f4: 4...^с6 5	S.b4+ 6 Q\bd2 f6
11,..Wf6 12£>bd4?l
Here White immediately goes
astray, as he embarks on a slow ma-
noeuvre. Instead 12 c5! and 12 ^g5!?
are more forceful and these are elabo-
rated upon in Game 23.
12...4jge5 13 Sb1 ^xf3+ 14 £ixf3
ФИ8 15 &g3 £.c5 16 Wd5 ib6 17
&d3 ^e7 18 Wh5 £f5 19 £xf5
There is not a great choice here as
19 Jlh4?! Wg6 20 Wxg6 £ixg6 21 £xf5
Bxf5 steers Black into a better ending
where the weak a- and c-pawns will be
White’s downfall.
19...^xf5 20 £f4 h6 21 Wg4 Eae8
22 h4? We6 23 2>d2 ^d4 24 Wxe6
£>e2+ 25 ФЫ Exe6 26 ±h2 <£c3 27
Hb2 ®e4 28 <Sf3 g5!
The consequences of White’s weak-
ening move 22 h4? are now beginning
to tell. To avoid the worst White is
now forced to shed a pawn, which
does not help his long-term cause.
29 £td4 ±xd4 30 exd4 gxh4 31 Фд1
b6 32 Ee2 £ig5 33 Efe1 Efe8 34
ФИ Фд7 35 Sxe6 Exe6 36 Exe6
?xe6 37 d5 &d4 38 &f4 Фдб 39
i.e3 £>c2 40 Фе2 ^хеЗ 41 ФхеЗ
*f5 42 £f3 h5 43 аЗ аб 44 a4 Фд5
45 Фе4 Фд4 46 f4 ФдЗ 47 f5 Фхд2
48 f6 h3 49 f7 h2 50 f8W hlW 51
Wg7+ Sfcf2+ 52 &f5 Wf3+ 53 Феб
Wg4+ 0-1
Game 23
Gleizerov-Bosch
Cappelle la Grande Open 1996
1 d4 2if6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £ig4 4 &f4
£c6 5 2rf3 £b4+ 6 £>bd2 f6 7 exf6
Wxf6 8 e3 Wxb2 9 Jle2 d6 10 0-0
0-0 11 4jb3 Wf6 12 c5!
12 ^g5!? also deserves attention. It
is not clear where Black went wrong
but he was still annihilated in Gy-
imesi-Prie, Paris Open 1995, which
went 12...?lge5 13 a3 jLc5 (what else?
13..JLc3 loses to 14 £}e4!) 14 ^хс5
dxc5 15 Wd5+ Ф118 16 2te4 We7 17
Wxc5 Wxc5 18 &xc5 b6 19 £)d3 <^xc4
20 &xc7 £e6 21 2)f4 £g8 22 fifdl
Eac8 23 JLd6 £>xd6 24 Exd6 £ie5 25
h4 Sc2 26 a4 fifc8 27 £h2 Sb2 28
^g3 Scc2 29 Sd8! Пхе2 30 ^3xe2 Exe2
31 Ecl £>f7 32 Exg8+ 1-0.
12...£c3
12...<^ge5 also offers Black no relief
after 13 cxd6 (13 a3! might well be
even more potent, as 13...£>xf3+ 14
Jlxf3 Jtxc5 15 ^xc5 dxc5 16 Wd5+
47
The Budapest Gambit
JLe6 17 Wxc5 leaves an unpleasant
taste in Black’s mouth as the white
bishop pair set out to dominate the
board) 13..JLxd6, when Roeder-
L’Henoret, Paris 1997, concluded 14
Jtg3 Jlg4 15 <?3xe5 JLxe2 16 Wxe2
Jlxe5 17 Sacl Jlxg3 18 hxg3 Wg5? 19
<51c5 £d8 20 Sfdl Wg6 21 &d7! Ш5
22 g4 Да5 23 fixc7 We6 24 Wd2 4k6
25 Дхсб 1-0. White is picking up the
rook on a5 without so much as a look
in for Black.
13 Sc1 i.e5 14 2sxe5 dxe5 15 £.g3
Wg6 16 Wc2 £f5 17 Wc3 3ae8 18
2>a5
Hitting Black at his most fragile
spot - the b7-square. Black is left with
no counterplay to compensate him for
the structural defects of his position
and Gleizerov is soon able to show off
his technical skills. The rest of the
game is a smooth performance.
18...ЗД6 19 2>xc6 bxc6 20 £xe5
®e4 21 ЙЬ2 £h3 22 £g3 2)xg3 23
hxg3 ±f5 24 £f3 h5 25 ®b4 £b8 26
Wd4 Sfd8 27 Wf4 jLg4 28 Дхд4
hxg4 29 Wxc7 Sbc8 30 Wf4 Sd5 31
Sc4 2g 5 32 2b4 Wh5 33 Sd1 Eg6
34 £b8 2xb8 35 Wxb8+ &h7 36
2d8 1-0
48
Main Line with 4 &J4: 4...foc6 5 bf3 £b4+ 6 &bd2 f6
Summary
Games 21 and 22 demonstrate the potential of Black’s position if White goes
astray. However, although the f-file can sometimes be used as a useful attacking
aid, Game 23 highlights the drawback of the missing f-pawn, with pressure along
the a2-g8 diagonal. I doubt if Black has a satisfactory answer to White’s play in
this game, although the positions reached are always going to rather random and
great fun, especially for the spectators!
1 d4 £if6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £>g4 4 ji.f4 £c6 5 ®f3 £b4+ 6 <?2bd2 f6 7 exf6 Wxf6 8
e3 Wxb2 9 Де2 0-010 0-0 d6
и ^ьз^>;
11 4ie4 - Game 21
11...Wf6/D;i2c5
12 |21bd4 - Game 22
12....&.C3 (D) - Game 23
49
CHAPTER FOUR
Main Line with 4	4...ЙС6
5 £rf3 _4_b4+ 6 ©c3
After
1 d4 6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ®g4 4 £f4
&c6 5 2>f3 Jcb4+
White sometimes diverges from the
standard 6 ^bd2 (Chapters 1-3) with
6^c3
when, after
6...&xc3+ 7 ЬхсЗ We 7 8 Wd5
Black’s counterplay for the pawn
will be based upon the weakness of
the white queenside pawns. Obviously
White is not seeking an ending, due to
his doubled c-pawns, but is instead
going to try and make use of his king-
side pawn majority for attacking pur-
poses. Black’s job lies in restricting
these footmen and this is best achieved
by keeping a firm control on the cen-
tre, and on the e4-square in particular.
Black must choose between 8...f6 9
exf6 £)xf6 (Games 24-27) and 8...Wa3
(Game 28).
Game 24
Pinter-Conquest
French Team Championship 1993
1 d4 <^f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ^g4 4 £f4
&c6 5 &f3 ±b4+ 6 &c3 Jtxc3+
The only decent practical move.
6...f6? at once is ineffective, since
White is able to effortlessly gain the
advantage with 7 exf6 Wxf6 8 Wd2
Ji.xc3 9 ЬхсЗ d6 10 c5! 0-0 11 e3 etc.
The main reason why 6...f6?! is prema-
ture is that here White does not have
to waste time with his queen to defend
his e-pawn, as he is forced to do in the
main line.
6...We7?! has also more or less dis-
appeared from tournament practice, as
White is not obliged to transpose to
50
Main Line with 4 £.f4: 4...Qhc6 5 QfS &.b4+ 6 ^c3
the main line with 7 Wd5. Instead
Korchnoi-Gomez Esteban, Pamplona
1990/91, revealed the strong continua-
tion 7 Bel! ^gxe5 8 ^xe5 £lxe5 9 a3
±xc3+ 10 йхсЗ 0-0 11 g3 d6 12 £g2
^g6 13 £cl Sb8 14 0-0 b6 15 e4 &b7
16 Sei f6 17 b3 Sfe8 18 Sce3 Wf7 19
JLb2 Se7 20 We2 a5 21 f4, when Black
was faced with a cramped position
without counterplay.
7 bxc3 We7 8 Wd5 f6
Game 27 features the sharp 8...Wa3.
9 exf6 £ixf6
10Wd3
Although this is the most popular
choice, there are three alternative
queen retreats here:
a)	The decentralisation of the queen
with 10 Wb5? feels wrong and was
shown to be suspect after 10...d6 11 e3
0-0 12 ±d3 ^.g4! 13 Wxb7 £>e5 14
£ke5 dxe5 15 JLg5 Wd6 16 Wbl Sad8
17 £.xh7+ £>xh7 18 i.xd8 Wxd8 19 0-0
Wg5 20 f4 exf4 21 Sxf4 Sxf4 22 exf4
Wc5+! 23 ФЫ 2>f6 24 Wd3 ±f5 25
Wd4 Wa5 26 h3 ±e4 27 We5 Wb6 28
Sdl Wf2 29 Wg5 ФЬ7 30 ФЬ2 £f3 31
Sd4 ^Sg4+ 0-1 in Karasev-A.Ivanov,
Leningrad 1988.
b)	10 Wd2?! is inaccurate since it al-
lows Black to play ...^3e4 with greater
force, i.e. 10...d6 11 e3 <§364 12 Wc2 g5
13 Jlg3 JLf5 14 JLd3 h5 and Black has
the initiative.
c)	10 Wdl is a respectable option,
against which I recommend 10...d6 11
e3 <?3e4 12 Scl 0-0 13 $Le2 ФЬ8 (a use-
ful prophylactic move, as Black re-
moves his king from any possible nui-
sance checks along the a2-g8 diagonal)
and if 14 0-0 Black is able to hit out
with 14...g5! 15 JLg3 h5 16 JLd3 4te5,
which leads to an interesting and un-
balanced position (but note that the
tempting 16...h4?! is not so good due
to 17 Лхе4 Wxe4 18 ^xg5!). The
game Treasurer-Gerlach, Aalborg
1987, saw White embark on a sacrifi-
cial attempt here with 17 £lh4 gxh4 18
Wxh5+ &g8 19 £xh4 Wg7 20 &Ы
^.g4, when the three shaky pawns
were in fact no match for Black’s extra
piece.
10...d6 11 e3
Also possible are 11 g3 (Game 25)
and 11 jLg5 (Game 26).
11. ..0-0 12£e2 b6
An interesting new idea. Black is in
no hurry to proceed with the standard
knight rally to e4 but instead first con-
centrates on deploying his light-
squared bishop to the long diagonal.
However, it is worth noting that there
is nothing wrong with 12...^3e4, when
13 0-0 £f5 14 Wd5+ s£?h8 15 fiacl £g6
16 ^d4 £3d8 leads to a sharp struggle.
Strangely enough, the encounter
Kishnev-Mollekens, Antwerp 1993,
lasted only five more moves after 17
Sfel a5 18 Wb5 &c5 19 &b3?? &e8!
(oops!) 20 Wxa5 Sxa5 21 ^xa5 JLg6
0-1.
51
The Budapest Gambit
13 0-0 ФИ8 14 ®c2 -Й.Ь7 15 £id4
£se5 16 2ae1 Йае8 17 i.g5 Wf7 18
&xf6 gxf6!
An original decision but an excel-
lent one. Black will use the g-file for
active operations on the kingside, hit-
ting White’s most vulnerable spot on
g2. The natural 18...Wxf6?! is defi-
nitely less comfortable for Black after
19 f4! etc.
19 e4 ^xc4 20 £d3 2ie5 21 £b5
^d7!
Black is wise to keep his queenside
pawn structure intact because 21...сб?!
will allow White to target the weak-
ened d6-pawn eventually.
22 Se3
Note that 22 Wa4 can be met by
22...1e5! 23 ±xd7 la5.
22...Kg8 23 f4 Sd8 24 5f2 a6 25
£e2 Sde8 26 if3 Wc4 27 Sfe2 b5
28 ±h5 Bef8 29 Sh3 ^c5 30 e5 f5!
Necessary and precise defence
against the threat of 31 Wxh7+! ФхЬ7
32 ^.e8+	33 ^fS mate! (3O...fxe5
31 &g6! is also extremely unpleasant
for Black.) The game now takes sev-
eral twists and turns, but the main
points behind the opening have been
dealt with and therefore I will leave
you to decipher the rest of the game
yourself. In case the last stage causes
some confusion, I agree that the out-
come should have been a draw!
31 £13 £xf3 32 fixf3 b4 33 g3 ^e4
34 £ixf5 £»xc3 35 Sef2 Wc5 36 Фд2
Sg6 37 £>h4 Ee6 38 Wd3 Wc6 39
Фд1 Фд8 40 2e3 dxe5 41 fxe5 3xf2
42 Фх12 Se8 43 £rf5 We6 44 Фд1
Wd5 45 Wf1 3xe5 46 3xe5 Wxe5 47
Wc4+ ФИ8 48 Wf7 Wc5+ 49 ФП
Wb5+ 50 Ф12 We2+ 51 Фд1 Wd1+
52 Ф12 We2+ 53 Фд1 Wd1+ 54 Ф12
Wc2+ 55 ФеЗ We4+ 0-1
Game 25
Gralka-Murdzia
Poland 1996
1 d4 6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ^g4 4 £f4
£b4+ 5 £>сЗ £xc3+ 6 ЬхсЗ £lc6 7
£>f3 ®e7 8 Wd5 f6 9 exf6 «xf 6 10
Wd3 d6 11 g3
see following diagram
11...0-0
The experimental ll...b6?! contains
the interesting idea of opposing
White’s fianchettoed bishop, but
Korchnoi-G.Mohr, Ptuj Zonal 1995,
52
Main Line with 4 &J4: 4...foc6 5 Qsf3 &.b4+ 6 ^c3
revealed a weakness in this strategy
after 12 ±g2 ±b7 13 0-0 £)a5 14
£xg2 15 &xg2 We6 16 ±g5! 21d7
(otherwise White exchanges on f6 and
pushes his kingside majority) 17 Wd5
Ф17 18 Wf3+ <A>g6?! 19 h4 Дае8 20 e4
etc. and White won in 30 moves.
11...41e4 is a sensible alternative to
11...0-0, but it is really not at all clear
whether Black should hurry to occupy
the e4-square with his knight.
12£g2 £g4!
This is the move that has made this
whole variation so successful for
Black. Previously theoreticians had
believed that Black had nothing better
than 12...£3e4, when he was invariably
struggling to equalise after 13 0-0 ^c5
14 We3 кев (or 14...±g4 15 Wxe7
£>xe7 16 2>d4 2)g6 17 &e3 &e5 18 f4!
^ed7 19 h3 Sae8 20 hxg4 йхеЗ 21 Sf3
and White kept his safe extra pawn in
Mohd-Spiller, Auckland 1997) 15
£>d4! Jtxc4 16 'йхсб Wxe3 17 JLxe3
bxc6 18 Лхсб Hab8 19 Sfbl JLxe2 20
^.d5+ Ф118 21 JLxc5 dxc5 22 Sxb8
Sxb8 23 Sei. Here White had
achieved a strategically won endgame
due to the weakness of Black’s pawn
structure in Seirawan-Wessman, New
York Open 1990.
13 0-0Hae8
Now the point behind 12...^.g4 is
obvious - rather than committing his
knight to e4, Black pinpoints his
forces against e2, thus preventing
White from carrying out the useful
manoeuvre <§3d4. Black’s strong con-
trol over the central squares and a
solid pawn structure (the same cannot
be said of the white pawn formation)
fully compensate for the pawn deficit.
14 Sfel *h8!
This useful waiting move has al-
ready been seen in this chapter. A fur-
ther option for Black lies in
14...^1d7!?, when Amura-A.Hoffman,
San Luis 1995, continued 15 <51d4
&ce5 16 Wbl W 17 a4 c5 18 &c2
JLf5 19 e4 JLe6 20 JLxe5 dxe5 21 £te3
£ixc4 22 £ld5 Wf7 with an extremely
solid position for Black.
15 ^d4?!
In hindsight, 15 h3 was probably a
wiser course of action, since if the
bishop retreats to h5 the possibility of
...£di5, which later occurred in the
game, would be excluded. However,
who can blame White for such an ap-
parently logical decision?
53
The Budapest Gambit
15..Ae5 16 Wb1 c6 17 Wb3 ^h5!
The outcome of the game is nothing
less than a slow death due to White’s
multiple pawn weaknesses.
18 i.e3 Wf7 19 c5 &c4 20 &f3
Unfortunately for White 20 cxd6?
Sxe3! 21 fxe3 Wf2+ 22 ФЫ £)xe3 23
Sgl £}xg3+! 24 hxg3 Wxg3 leads to
mate.
2O...	^xe3 21 Wxf7 Sxf7 22 fxe3
dxc5 23 e4 £f6 24 Sadi h6
Black carefully eliminates any back-
rank tricks, which would follow after
24...^xe4? 25 ^e5!
25 &d2 Hd7 26 £ib3 Sxd1 27 Sxd1
®xe4 28 £xe4 Sxe4 29 ®xc5 2xe2
30 ^xb7 Sxa2 31 fid4 ±h3 32 £)d8
Eg2+ 0-1
Game 26
Ward-Motwani
British Championship, Swansea 1987
1 d4 ®f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £>g4 4 £f4
£c6 5 2>f3 Ab4+ 6 £ic3 i.xc3+ 7
bxc3 We7 8 Wd5 f6 9 exf6 £ixf6 10
Wd3 d6 11 JLg5
White takes the decision to give up
the advantage of the bishop pair in
return for better control of the centre,
and specifically the e4-square. If he
survives to the ending, White’s central
pawn majority will very likely influ-
ence the game in his favour, so Black
should not dilly-dally.
11. ..0-0 12 e3 b6
Black hurries to occupy the impor-
tant a8-hl diagonal, which will in-
crease the pressure against the white
centre, using the fact that 13 JLxf6
Wxf6 14 Wd5+? кеб 15 Wxc6?? loses
to 15...Wxc3+. The text move is cer-
tainly preferable to the following tries:
a)	12...Wf7?! 13 ke2 #ig4 14 £f4
£f5 15 Wd5 кеб 16 Wb5 £c8 17 c5!
with a disastrous result from the open-
ing from Black’s point of view in Dy-
dyshko-Rajskij, Katowice Open 1991.
Not only is Black a pawn down but he
is also under pressure from the ener-
getic bishop pair - a truly depressing
position.
b)	12..JLe6?! 13 ke2 Wf7 14 £xf6
gxf6 15 0-0 Sad8 16 Sadi £)a5 17 4W
b6 18 e4 Sfe8 19 f4 <&h8 20 f5! ^.c8 21
Hf4 Sg8 22 2tfl £k6 23 Wh3 ^e5 24
<£le3 JLa6 25 Sh4, when Black was
completely tied up on the kingside in
Van der Sterren-Mollekens, Antwerp
Open 1994.
54
Main Line with 4 &J4: 4...^с6 5 Qhf3 £.b4+ 6 ^c3
13 &.e2 ДЬ7 14 0-0 £ae8 15 SaM
Wf7 16 Дх16 Wxf6 17 Sb5 £te5 18
£}xe5 dxe5 19 f4 c5
20 Sb2?
Watch how awkwardly placed this
rook turns out to be. 20 fibbl would
have retained some chances to hold
the game.
2O...Sd8 21 Wc2 We7 22 £f3 i.xf3
23 2xf3 exf4 24 exf4 We1+ 25 Hfl
We3+ 26 Wf2 Wxc3 27 2c2 Wd3
Since this is an encounter between
two competitors for the title of ‘Time-
Trouble Addict of the Century’, the
ensuing blunders should be put down
to a massive time scramble and all the
added pressures that this entails.
28 g3 2fe8 29 Sfcl Se4 30 Sc3
Wd2 31 Wxd2? 3xd2 32 Slc2?? Se1
mate 0-1
Game 27
Van Wely-Sorin
Buenos Aires 1995
1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £>g4 4 -Lf4
£ic6 5 &f3 _ib4+ 6 *5?ic3 _ixc3+ 7
ЬхсЗ We7 8 Wd5 Wa3
This sharp variation has almost dis-
appeared from the tournament scene
since the well-known game Gligoric-
Westerinen, Venice 1971, which prac-
tically refuted Black’s play with 9 Дс1
Wxa2?! (as we shall see, 9...f6 is the
only viable option, as the a2-pawn is
really not worth wasting time on) 10
h3 ?3h6 11 e4 <?3g8 12 c5!, when
Black’s poor development left him
struggling.
9 Scl f6 10 exf6 5^xf6 11 Wd3
Rubinstein-Vidmar (see the Intro-
duction) has already highlighted the
fact that 11 Wd2 allows Black excellent
counterplay, but 11 Wdl!? makes a lot
of sense if White wishes to avoid any
unpleasantness with ...£3e4 and ...JLf5.
11...0-0 12g3d6 13i.g2Wc5?
If it is necessary to suffer, why not
do it on an equal material footing?
13...Wxa2!? must be the critical reply
here. Yakovich-Coret, Seville 1992,
continued 14 c5 (on 14 ^gb g6 Black
is able to successfully defend) 14...dxc5
15 JLxc7, when Yakovich suggests that
15,..Де6 16 Wbl Wxbl 17 Ixbl b6
would have given Black a perfectly
reasonable game.
14 £>g5!
Life is now becoming difficult for
Black, as his better pawn structure
55
The Budapest Gambit
does not compensate for the sacrificed
pawn. The white bishop pair only
contributes to Black’s misery.
14.. .g6
14...^.f5 15 -&d5+ £ixd5 (15...Wxd5
16 Wxd5+ transposes) 16 Wxd5+ Wxd5
17 cxd5 is no better as White is a safe
pawn ahead.
15 0-0 Фд7 16 £ie4 £>xe4 17 Wxe4
±d7 18 Jte3 Wf5 19 Jld4+ Фд8 20
Wxf5 Sxf5 21 Sb1 b6 22 £.d5+ &f8
23 e4 Ef7
The result is now a foregone con-
clusion, although White’s technique
enabled his opponent to drag out the
game for considerably longer than he
deserved. The final analytical point
that is worth pointing out occurs after
23...Д115 24 g4! Hh4 25 f3 with JLf2 to
follow, trapping the black rook.
24 f4 5e8 25 £xf7 ®xf7 26 e5 Tsa5
27 exd6 cxd6 28 Sbel Sc8 29 Sf2
Sxc4 30 Sfe2 <£ic6 31 Фд2 b5 32
±xa7 Sxc3 33 £b6 d5 34 Sd2 &e6
35 Se3 Sc4 36 Sb3 b4 37 аЗ ЬхаЗ
38 ЕхаЗ i-f5 39 Ф12 i.e4 40 g4
Ec1 41 Sh3 Фд7 42 £d4+ ^xd4 43
Exd4 Sc2+ 44 Фе1 Sg2 45 g5 Eg1 +
46 &d2 Sg2+ 47 ФсЗ Ec2+ 48 ФЬ4
Ef2 49 Sh4 ФЧ7 50 Exh7+ Феб 51
Eh4 Ф15 52 Sd1 Sc2 53 Sa1 Sc4+
54 ФЬЗ Sc6 55 Sa8 i.c2+ 56 ФЬ2
Фе4 57 Sg4 Ф13 58 Sg1 d4 59 Sd8
&e4 60 Sxd4 Sc2+ 61 ФЬЗ Sxh2 62
Ee1 £-f5 63 Фс4 Sh8 64 Sed1 Se8
65 &d5 Ee7 66 Sf1+ Фе2 67 Sa1
ФТЗ 68 Sa3+ Фд4 69 Sb4 Se8 70
Sc3 &h4 71 Sc6 Se1 72 <&d6 Фд4
73 Sc5 Se6+ 74 Фс7 Se8 75 Se5
Sf8 76 &d6 Sf7 77 Se7 Sf8 78 Фе5
ФдЗ 79 Seb7 £c2 80 Sc7 Sf5+ 81
Феб 1-0
56
Main Line with 4 &J4: 4...&C6 5 &f3 &b4+ 6 l^c3
Summary
Games 24-26 clearly demonstrate Black’s ideal strategy of central control, but
note carefully that the energetic ...f7-f6 must be played only when the white
queen has travelled to d5 in order to defend the e5-pawn. Black is then assured of
active counterplay, gaining time against the queen, and the results speak for
themselves. The beauty of this variation from Black’s point of view is that he has
excellent long-term prospects against the shattered white queenside, while it is
difficult for White to make an impression in the middlegame.
In Game 27, Black experiments with 7...We7 8 Wd5 Wa3, which I do not be-
lieve warrants its dubious reputation. Some interesting alternatives are discussed
in the notes to this game.
1 d4 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £ig4 4 Jlf4 ib4+ 5 £>c3 ±xc3+ 6 ЬхсЗ 2ic6
7 &f3 We7 8 Wd5
8...f6 (D)
8...Wa3 - Game 27
9 exf6 <^xf6 10 Wd3 d6 (D) 11 e3
11 g3 - Game 25
11 JLg5 - Game 26
11 ...0-0 (D) - Game 24
8...f6	1O...d6	11.. .0-0
57
CHAPTER fIVE
Main Line with 4 JLf4:
4...±b4+ 5£id2 d6
1 d4 ^f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ^g4 4 £f4
Jtb4+ 5 £)d2 d6l?
Here we consider 4...JLb4+ 5 £3d2
d6!?, an ambitious variation with
which Black hopes to take over the
initiative at the cost of a pawn.
The critical line arises after 6 exd6
Wf6 7 £ih3 4hxf2, as in Game 29,
when the relatively new idea of Black
castling queenside breathes new life
into the position. If White were to
stumble into the variation by accident,
7...£3xf2 would be most difficult to
meet for the first time and with no
background knowledge.
Sadler opts out of the theoretical
discussion in Game 30, allowing Black
to equalise. However, I cannot blame
him for that decision as I did exactly
the same against Mohr since I was also
unacquainted with all the subtleties.
Game 28
Chevallier-G.Mohr
Cannes Open 1994
1 d4 £if6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 <?'g4 4 i.f4
ДБ4+ 5 £id2
This method of blocking the check
is well known to us now, as White
avoids the doubled pawns that would
occur after 5 £ic3 JLxc3+ 6 bxc3.
5...d6l?
A very sharp continuation. Black is
happy to shed his pawn in order to
obtain the initiative. Recently this line
has been analysed extensively by the
Slovenian grandmaster Mohr. It is of-
ten used as a surprise weapon as there
are many hidden menaces.
Note that 5...£3c6 6 4hf3 would
simply transpose to Chapters 1-3.
6 exd6
White takes up the challenge. Vari-
ous ways of declining the gambit are
discussed in Game 30.
6...Wf6 7e3
Although rarely played because the
text appears to be so logical, 7 Jlg3 is
actually a respectable alternative, as
White can later venture a direct e2-e4
with his bishop already safely settled
on g3. The main variation runs 7 Ji.g3
Wxb2 8 ^gf3 JLf5 (8..JLc3? may pick
58
Main Line with 4 &.f4: 4...&.b4+ 5 ^d2 d6
up the a2-pawn but this should not be
a priority over piece development, as
demonstrated by the game Donner-
Etmans, Leeuwarden 1969: 9 Bbl
Wxa2 10 e4 £k6 11 JLe2 cxd6 12 JLxd6
jle6 13 0-0 Bd8 14 c5, when White
was clearly better on several counts,
although the situation of the black
king would be enough) 9 a3 Jlxd6 10
Jlxd6 cxd6 11 еЗ 4кб 12 JLe2 4ige5 13
0-0 0-0 14 Wcl Wxcl 15 Baxcl 43d3 16
ВсЗ 4k5 with a comfortable ending
for Black in Rajkovic-Elquezabal, Ma-
drid 1994.
7...	g5!
Against less aggressive continua-
tions White has been able to squeeze
some advantage from the position, as
the following examples illustrate:
a)	7...jLxd6?l 8 JLe2! h5 (note that
8,..JLxf4 loses to 9 Jlxg4 ЛхеЗ 10 <§3e4!
[the point; naturally not 10 fxe3 Wh4+
when Black regains the piece with in-
terest] 10...Wxb2 11 JLxc8 Wb4+ 12
ФИ and White emerged a piece up in
Kiss-Galanov, Budapest Open 1990) 9
£h3 ±xf4 10 4W4 Wxb2 11 0-0 2tf6
12 43d5! with a clear positional advan-
tage for White due to the weak black
pawn on h5 in Lempert-Spirak, St Pe-
tersburg Open 1993.
b)	7...41xf2?! used to be popular, but
it is now recognised that White can
obtain a dangerous initiative after 8
<4>xf2 g5 and now:
bl) 9 4igf3 gxf4 10 43e4 Wxb2+ 11
$Le2 fxe3+ 12 ^хеЗ! Wa3+ 13 Ф12
JLc5+ 14 &fl cxd6 15 £if6+ ^?f8 16
43d5 43c6 17 Wd2 h6 18 Sbl Wa5 19
Wb2 Bg8 20 Wf6 Sg7 21 Wxh6 Wxa2
22 Bel Wc2 23 43f6 left Black buckling
under the attack in Dreyer-Levi,
Auckland 1992.
b2) 9 4k4 Wxb2+ 10 JLe2 gxf4 11
exf4 cxd6 12 Bbl Wa3 13 Wd4! ±c5 14
41xc5 Wxc5 15 Wxc5 dxc5 16 &f3,
when Black was faced with a most
unpleasant ending due to the strong
white pressure along the b-file and the
hl-a8 diagonal in Van der Sterren-
West, Canberra 1991.
8	ДдЗ h5
It is a good idea to harass the white
bishop as soon as possible, since there
is no time for 8....£xd6?! 9 43gf3 jLxg3
10 hxg3 4k6 11 Wc2, when White
kept his pawn advantage in a rather
lifeless position in Sonntag-Frick,
Germany 1995.
9	h4
59
The Budapest Gambit
9 dxc7?! is a natural enough looking
move which White may think can do
no harm, but in fact this is just the
ticket for Black to come out in full
force with 9...41c6 10 h3 h4! 11 hxg4
hxg3 12 flxh8+ Wxh8 13 ДЫ gxf2+ 14
<&xf2 Jld6 15 4te4 ^.xc7 16 c5 Wh4+
17 g3 Wxh2+ 18 JLg2 43e5 with a
promising position for Black in Ist-
vandi-G.Mohr, Pula 1996.
9...	Wxb2
Another example from the same
player shows that 9,..gxh4 is also play-
able: 10 &f4 Wxb2 11 £)gf3 £f5 12
$Le2 cxd6 13 0-0 4k6 14 4ih4 Ji.c2 15
Wcl Aa3 led to balanced chances in
the game Gallego-G.Mohr, Linares
Open 1996.
10£igf3.£f5 11 a3
The only way to meet the threat of
ll...JLc2 12 Wcl JLa3!, picking up the
exchange.
11...gxh4 12 fixh4 ±c3 13 Sc1
Wxa3
see following diagram
14®d4?
White begins to lose the thread. The
only way to guarantee counterplay lay
in 14 dxc7 4кб 15 JLe2, planning to
sacrifice the exchange after 15...JLb2
16 ДЬ1 etc.
14...£.xd4 15 exd4 cxd6 16 c5 d5
17 JLd6 4)c6 18 ke2 0-0-0 19 *f1
3de8 20 Sh3 Wb2 21 ±d3 ±xd3+
22 Sxd3 Wb5 23 Wf3 £Ъ4?
It is not too serious as Black gets the
full point anyway, but here he misses
the trivial 23...4ixd4 24 ®xf7 Wxd3+
25 4’gl Wh7!, defending the mate on
c7.
24 Wf5+ &d8 25 Scc3 4xd3 26
Sxd3 2e4 27 Wf3 Sxd4 28 £c7+
Фхс7 29 txf7+ 4>b8 0-1
Game 29
Sher-G.Mohr
Ljubljana 1995
1 d4 4if6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £g4 4 £f4
ДЬ4+ 5 4id2 d6!? 6 exd6 Wf6 7 4ih3
This is generally regarded as the
best move. White accelerates the de-
velopment of his kingside, while sup-
porting the bishop on f4 and the weak
point on f2. Black really needs to react
with dynamism here because if his
opponent is allowed to develop in
peace, Black will not have enough to
show for the pawn sacrifice.
60
Main Line with 4 JLf4: 4...£.b4+ 5 fod2 d6
7,..£>xf2
This is the way to stir things up!
The calmer approach 7...Wxb2? was
adopted in Gleizerov-Ritova, Berlin
1996, but this was unimpressive for
Black after 8 Sbl Wa3 9 ДЬЗ Wa5 10
dxc7 £ic6 11 a3! Jte7 (on ll...^.xa3
White has 12 Wai! followed by 13
Wxg7) 12 еЗ Ш 13 Wcl ^d7 14 Wc3
15 Wxa5 ^xa5 16 2b5, when
White was two pawns to the good.
8 *xf2 £xh3 9 g3 -&xf 1
Again Black is on a tightrope from
which it appears dangerous to stray, as
the alternatives tend to favour White:
а) 9...Дс5+ 10 еЗ g5 11 £k4 Wxb2+
12 We2! Wxal (12...Wxe2+ 13 £e2
gxf4 14 ^xc5 is no fun for Black)
13 JLxh3!! (13 £lxc5 looks tempting
but is not so clear after 13...cxd6!,
while 13 Jlxg5 allows the black king
to escape in style after 13...^3d7 14
Jlxh3 Wxhl 15 JLxd7+ l4’xd7 16
2)xc5+ with 16...Фс6) 13...Wxhl 14
Wb2 0-0 15 £)f6+ <4>h8 16 JLxg5 c6 17
^g4+ 1-0 Beikert-Chatalbashev, Sofia
1994.
b) 9...JLf5 10 e4 (on 10 W3, Black
should not go for 10...JLxd6 11 Jlxd6
cxd6, when 12 Wd4! gives White a
comfortable advantage, but rather
10...cxd6 when the option of ...Jlc5+
is left open and the position is unclear)
10...g5 11 exf5 gxf4 12 We2+ &f8 13
We7+ Wxe7 14 dxe7+ Фхе7 15 ^e4
£id7 16 a3 fxg3+ 17 hxg3 W6 18 axb4
£}xe4+ 19 ^g2 with a slight edge, as in
Jelen-Mikac, Ljubljana 1992.
10 Sxf1
A few days before this book was
due to be handed in to the publisher,
an important novelty occurred in
Dumitrache-Biti, Zagreb 1997: 10
dxc7!? £lc6 11 flxfl JLxd2? (losing by
force; if Black intends to enter this
variation I recommend 11...0-0 12 <^’g2
Sfe8, when he can hope to muddy the
waters) 12 Wxd2 g5 13 We3+! Qhe7 (if
13...^f8 14 Wc5+ is curtains) 14 We5
Wxe5 15 Jlxe5 Sg8 16 <&‘g2 Дс8 17
Sf6 £>c6 18 Jld6 <£id4 19 Safi Sg6 20
Bxf7 1-0.
1O...Wd4+
The most promising continuation.
Here we again see Mohr’s home
analysis at work. 10...Jlxd6? is well
met by 11 £te4, while 10..JLxd2? 11
Wxd2 g5 12 dxc7 £lc6 13 Wd6! leads to
a winning position for White, and fi-
nally 10...JLc5+ is best rejected as 11 e3
61
The Budapest Gambit
g5 12 £)e4 Wxb2+ 13 We2 Wxe2+ 14
Фхе2 gxf4 15 £ixc5 leaves Black un-
comfortably stuck in a prospectless
ending.
11 *f3
Summerscale-Szabolcsi, French
Team Championship 1996, deviated
with 11 <&g2 ±xd6 12 Wb3 £id7? 13
^.еЗ! We5 14 c5, when the f7-pawn is
destined to drop. However, in this line
Black should instead sacrifice a pawn
with 12...0-0! 13 Wxb7 £3d7, when he
has real chances of effective counter-
play.
11...£xd6 12 £e4 Wxd1 13 Saxdl
£xf4 14 gxf4 £d7 15 Sg1 0-0-0!?
Since 16 Hxg7? is bad on account of
16...£te5+! followed by 17...Hxdl,
Black takes this opportunity to im-
prove on the previously played
15...g6?!, which quickly ran into trou-
ble after the reply 16 h4! in the game
Yakovich-Sareen, Jamshedpur 1990:
16...Hd8 17 h5 Фе7 18 Sd5 b6 19
Hgdl c6 20 S5d3 gxh5 21 £)d6 ^c5 22
4if5+ <4>f6 23 Exd8 Hxd8 24 Sxd8
<£xf5 25 Sd6 1-0.
16 Sd5 g6 17 £g5 Sdf8 18 h4 £46 19
2e5 h6 20 £e4 £d7 21 Sd5 f5 22
£c3 2hg8 23 Sgd1 Sf7 24 b3 1/2-1/2
Game 30
Sadler-I. Rogers
Hastings 1993/94
1 d4 £46 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £g4 4 &f4
Jtb4+ 5 £d2 d6!? 6 £43
Sadler carefully declines the gambit.
Another solid way for White to
avoid the mass of complications is
with 6 a3 but this should pose no
problems for Black. For example,
6...dxe5 7 i.g3 JLxd2+ 8 Wxd2 Wxd2+
(it is also fine for Black to retain
queens with 8...We7!? 9 e3 0-0 10 £>f3
£lc6 which, perhaps totally irrele-
vantly, reminds me of a Nimzo-Indian
line) 9 Фх<12 £)c6 10 f3 £>h6 11 Hdl
i.e6 12 ФсЗ £45 13 &f2 £d6 14 e4
0-0-0 15 ke2 &xc4!? 16 Sxd6 (16
JLxc4 £xe4+ 17 fxe4 Sxdl is the same
as the game except that White would
be missing his f3-pawn) 16...Sxd6 17
jLxc4 fldl 18 ±xf7 Hhd8 19 &d5 £>d4
20 ±xd4 exd4+ 21 Фс2 Hal 22 ±e6+
ФЬ8 23 -&c4 a6 and the game was
eventually drawn in B.Lalic-G.Mohr,
Croatian Team Championship 1993.
6...dxe5 7 JLxeS
7 £xe5?! £xd2+ 8 Wxd2 Wxd2+ 9
Фхс12 £xf2 10 Sgl £e4+ would be a
pretty disastrous opening performance
from the white point of view, as Black
is at least slightly better due to his su-
perior pawn structure.
7...^.xd2+
Black should not be tempted to eye
up the c-pawn here with 7...£xe5 8
£xe5 Wd4 9 £d3 Wxc4, due to the
continuation 10 a3 JLxd2+ 11 ®xd2,
when the threat of 12 Йс1 is difficult
to meet.
62
Main Line with 4 &J4: 4...&.b4+ 5 fod2 d6
8 Wxd2 Wxd2+ 9 &xd2
Don’t forget that the knight on f3 is
tied down to the defence of the bishop
on e5.
9...£)xf2 10 Sg1 0-0 11 £xc7 2>a6
12 i.e5 ®e4+
The natural enough 12,..fid8+ actu-
ally allows White to gain some time
by regrouping his pieces and 13 JLd4!
£e4+ 14 Фс1 Sac8 15 b3 b5 16 ФЬ2
bxc4 17 Scl saw Black’s initiative dis-
appear and the white bishop pair be-
gin to make headway in Spassky-
Szabo, Beverwijk 1967.
13	ФеЗ?!
As the further course of the game
will show, White’s king is not as safe
as it first appears in the centre of the
board, and therefore 13 Фс1 £iac5 14
b3 is probably the most accurate, al-
though Black maintains reasonable
compensation for the pawn with
14...a5!
13...	±f5 14 g4
14	^h4 is no improvement after
14...	fife8! with tremendous chances
for Black.
14...	£g6 15 <£h4 Sfe8 16 <^xg6
£tac5!
Beautiful chess! White is temporar-
ily a piece and a pawn up, but the
dodgy situation of his king means that
Black is the one in the driving seat, as
his opponent fights for equality.
17£tf4Sxe5 18£g2!
It is never pleasant to allow a dis-
covered check, but White had accu-
rately worked out that it is not a dan-
ger as 18...£>d6+?! can be answered
with 19 lS?d4!
18...2ae8 19 £f3 2id6+
19..	.a5!?, with strong control over
the dark squares, holds more promise
for Black. As things stand it is not
long before the game peters out.
20 £d4 b6 21 2>d3 25e6 22 £d5
Exe2 23 ^xc5 bxc5+ 24 Фхс5
*йе4+ 25 JLxe4 S8xe4 26 b3 h5 27
gxh5 2e5+ 28 Феб Exh5 29 Egd1
!4-1Л
63
The Budapest Gambit
Summary
In order to fight for an advantage White should capture on d6 and enter the
complications of Games 28 and 29. It is then doubtful whether Black can hold
his own against best play, although Mohr’s home preparation well into the end-
ing paid off in Game 29.
All in all this variation is an interesting practical choice for Black.
1 d4 £if6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ^g4 4 ,ii.f4 £.b4+ 5 ^d2 d6
6	exd6 (D)
6 W3 - Game 30
6...	®f6 (D) 7 e3
7	£>h3 - Game 29
7...	£>xf2 (D) - Game 28
6 exd6
6..№f6
7..&xf2
CHAPTER SIX
Main Line with 4 JLf4:
4...g5
1 d4 ^f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 &g4 4 i.f4
g5?!
The energetic 4...g5?! was one of the
first reactions to 4 Jtf4, and even
though it is regarded as rather dubious
at the highest level, players have still
not totally given up on it more than
half a century later. Black gains some
time to develop his king’s bishop, but
the g-pawn will be vulnerable in many
variations. However, I am sure that
the offbeat English player Michael
Basman would relish the idea of his
opponent tempting him to make the
move ...g7-g5!
White can expect a safe advantage
from 5 JLd2 as in Game 31, but lately
the trend is for White to retreat the
bishop to g3, as seen in the rest of the
chapter. The strategy of trying to pun-
ish Black for his cheeky pawn advance
on move four by means of a quick h2-
h4 actually fails in Games 32, and the
most effective treatment therefore ap-
pears to be for White to strive for his
own activity on the queenside and in
the centre, as in Games 33-35 (the last
of which is in fact the best illustration
of this in action). Black should be
aware of the risks he is taking by play-
ing such a line.
Game 31
Kuraszkiewicz-Bartsch
Germany 1996
1 d4 2 c4 eS 3 dxe5 &g4 4 Jlf4
g5?!
4...JLc5 is inadvisable because 5 e3
leaves the knight loose on g4. This
obliges Black to continue with 5...d6,
when White is able to safely maintain
his extra pawn with 6 ^3f3 ^c6 7 exd6
Jlxd6 8 Jixd6 cxd6 9 4ic3 Леб 10 $Le2
0-0 11 0-0 Wb6 12 Wd2 &ce5 13 b3
Sad8 14 Sadi, as in Hjartarson-
Sigurjonsson, Westmann Islands 1994.
5 £d2
see following diagram
Theoreticians used to invariably
add an exclamation mark to this
move, but, as we shall see in later ex-
amples, 5 Ag3 is just as effective.
65
The Budapest Gambit
5...4jxe5
5...JLg7 does not promise equality
for Black after 6 Jlc3 £k6 7 e3 £>cxe5?
(7...<2}gxe5 is the best method of cap-
turing on e5, but 8 h4 or 8 Wh5 still
favours White) 8 h3 £ih6 9 Wh5 0-0 10
h4, and Black was already in a critical
situation in Petraki-Botsari, Athens
Open 1992.
Black may also try 5...<£jc6, which
was successful in the game Ziiger-
Lendwai, Graz Zonal 1993: 6 4^f3 JLc5
7 e3 £jgxe5 8 <£k3 d6 9 <Sid5 a5 10 a3
g4! (suddenly 4...g5 turns out to be a
useful attacking aid) 11 <§3xe5 ^хе5 12
ЛсЗ -&.f5 13 b4 JLa7 14 JLe2 h5 with a
good position for Black. However,
instead of 6 ^f3, the more critical 6
JLc3 deserves attention.
6 2tf3
This seems better than the older
treatment of 6 JLc3, when 6...We7 7 e3
Hg8! (Black carefully avoids 7„JLg7?!,
when 8 h4! leaves Black faced with the
dilemma of whether to play 8...g4,
after which the white knight will have
the excellent square f4 at its disposal,
or the unpleasant 8...h6 9 hxg5 hxg5
10 Zxh8+ ^.xh8, when 11 Wh5 leaves
White clearly on top) 8 €if3 ^3bc6 9
Jle2 d6 10 ^3d4 $Ld7 11 b4 g4 enabled
Black to set up serious counterplay on
the kingside in Elbilia-Bartsch, Cannes
Open 1995.
6...£ixf3+
Black can avoid the opening of the
e-file with 6...JLg7, but then the simple
7 ^xe5 ^.xe5 8 JLc3 ensures White a
lasting advantage.
7 exf3 d6
7...h5? 8 We2+ We7 8 JLxg5 was
clearly bad for Black in Jasnikowski-
Bartsch, Germany 1996, while 7...JLg7
was no real improvement after 8 We2+
^f8 9 <5^c3 £ic6 10 JLe3!, planning 11
Wd2, when White stood better in
Blazquez-Carbonell, Alicante 1989.
8 We 2+ Деб 9 ,£c3 Eg8 10 We4
$>c6 11 Wxh7 Eg6 12 £.d3 Sh6 13
We4 We 7 14 £id2 0-0-0 15 We3 f5
16 0-0-0 4>b8 17 f4? gxf4 18 Wxf4
fte5 19 We3 £g7 20 £e2 f4!
Black has achieved more than ade-
quate compensation for the sacrificed
pawn, as White’s lag in development is
beginning to tell.
21 We4
21 Wxf4? Sh4! followed by
22...JLh6 is also extremely dangerous
for White.
66
Main Line with 4 &.f4: 4...g5
21...d5 22 cxd5 ±xd5 23 Wxf4 Sc6
24 We3 Лха2 25	*f8 26 g3
Wf7 27 Bd2 ЛЬЗ 28 Sei Se6 29
Wd4 Sd6 30 Wf4 Wxf4 31 gxf4 Sxf4
32 Sg1
31...Sf7??
An incredible blunder that totally
turns the tables. After the correct
32...Л.16, of course Black has the better
endgame.
33 Лхе5 Sxd2
The point of the whole combina-
tion is that ЗЗ...Лхе5 falls foul to 34
Sg8 mate.
34 ?>xd2 1-0
Game 32
Amura-Paglilla
Buenos Aires Open 1995
1 d4 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £jg4 4 JLf4
g5?l 5 ЛдЗ Лд7 6 2tf3 £)c6 7 h4
Immediately putting pressure on
the black kingside. The more prudent
7 £jc3 £3gxe5 8 ^3xe5 £)xe5 9 e3 is
considered in Games 33-35.
7...	^gxe5 8 ®xe5 £>xe5 9 e3 g4!
Black should really try to avoid the
opening of the h-file at all costs. 9...d6?
is therefore weaker, when after 10
hxg5 Wxg5 И 4кЗ Леб White has a
pleasant choice between:
a)	12 Wa4+ £ic6 13 Hcl 0-0-0 14
Л114 Wh6 15 2>b5 £f6 16 c5 dxc5 17
“?3xc7! with favourable complications
for White in Bareev-Teske, Voronezh
1987.
b)	12 ^d5 Wd8 (if 12...0-0-0? 13 Sh5
Wg4 14 JLe2 We4 15 f3 and the black
queen is trapped) 13 ЛЬ4 f6 14 Wh5+
<4’d7 15 Ле2 with a clear edge to
White in Gavin-Diaz Fernandez,
Oropesa 1996.
10 h5 d6 11 £sc3
11 h6!? also comes into considera-
tion, but the sharp position reached
after И...Л1б 12 ^3c3 JLf5 13 #3d5 c6
14 £lxf6+ Wxf6 offers equal chances
due to the fact that the perfectly
placed black knight on e5 compensates
for White’s bishop pair.
11...h6 12 c5 0-0 13 cxd6 cxd6 14
Ле2 Wb6 15 2Ы Леб 16 Лхе5?
An error in judgement as White
falls seriously behind in development
to grab a worthless pawn. 16 0-0 is the
most logical course of action, when
play might continue 16...Sac8 17 <?ld5
Jtxd5 18 Wxd5 Дс2 19 Л.хе5 dxe5 20
JLxg2 Sxb2 with White trying to ex-
57
The Budapest Gambit
ploit the weakened light squares
around Black’s king.
16...dxe5 17 Дхд4 Pad8 18 Wa4?
Objectively the losing move. The
only way to prolong the battle was
with 18 We2, although after 18...f5 19
JLh3 Sc8!, planning ...Jlc4, White’s
position is certainly not an enviable
one.
18. ..e4!
White must have overlooked this
one before entering into 16 JLxe5, as
now there is now no way to save the
piece.
19 Фхеб ±xc3+ 20 &f1 fxe6 21
Wxe4 Hd2?
Now it is Black’s turn to go astray,
as he unnecessarily complicates the
issue. Instead the simple 21...^.g7
would have coasted to victory.
22 bxc3 Efxf2+ 23 Фд1 Exg2+ 24
Wxg2+ Exg2+ 25 Фхд2 Wxe3 26
Ebf1 Wg5+ 27 Ф13 *f7 28 Ef2 Фе7
29 Hhh2 Wf6+ 30 Фе4 Wxc3 31 Ec2
Wb4+ 32 Фе5 ®d6+ 33 Фе4 Wd5+
34 ФеЗ We5+ 35 &d3 b5 36 Ece2
Wd5+ 37 ФсЗ aS 38 Eeg2 Wc4+ 39
ФЬ2 Wd4+ 40 Фс2 b4 41 ФЬЗ Wc3+
42 Фа4 We5 43 Se2 Wc5 44 Sc2
Wb6 45 Bc4 We3 46 Ehc2 'A-'A
Game 33
Malaniuk-Shevchenko
Yurmala 1982
1 d4 <53f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £ig4 4 ±f4
g5?! 5 ФдЗ Фд7 6 2>f3 ®c6 7 £>c3
£3gxe5 8 4hxe5 <53xe5 9 e3 d6 10
Фе2
With 10 JLe2 White decides to
calmly complete his development on
the kingside and hopes to be able to
exploit the weakness created by
4...g5?! at a later date. As a general rule
Black will aim to castle queenside here
for obvious reasons. White will in
turn strive to open the queenside with
a c4-c5 breakthrough, while Black
seeks counterplay on the kingside
with ...h7-h5-h4. Just to be helpful to
me the game continuation follows
quite a different course, however!
Note that 10 h4 g4 11 h5 transposes
to the previous game, while 10 Дс1
and 10 c5 are considered in the next
two games.
10...Феб 11 Й'с2
И Же 1 is a perfectly playable alter-
native which is similar to the 10 Дс1
of Game 34, while against 11 h4 Black
68
Main Line with 4 S.f4: 4...g5
should continue ll...^xc4 (ll...g4?!
ran into difficulties after 12 Дс1 Wd7
13 £ld5 h5 14 Wd2 0-0-0 15 ±f4 ФЬ8
16 JLg5 in Kostin-Gazarian, Moscow
1996, and the variation illustrates one
important drawback of the committal
4,..g5: White is often able to weaken
and then make use of the f4-square) 12
Jlxc4 Дхс4 (of course not
12...jLxc3+?? 13 ЬхсЗ JLxc4, when
White nets a piece with 14 Wd4! 1-0
Gaffney-T.Clarke, Lyngby 1990) 13
Wa4+ b5 14 ^xb5 ixb5 15 Wxb5+
Wd7 16 Wxg5 Axb2 17 2Ы ЯсЗ+ 18
Фе2 with sharp play where White
may be able to claim a slight edge due
to his superior development.
On the contrary 11 Wb3?l is harm-
less due to Il...flb8! (threatening
12...b5! 13 ?3xb5 a6 winning material)
12 Wa4+ Wd7 13 Wxa7 0-0 14 ±xe5
Axe5 15 e4 (White must free the e3-
square for his retreating queen)
15...J.xc3+ 16 ЬхсЗ b6 17 Wa3 Wc6 18
Wcl f6 19 We3 JLxc4, when Black re-
gained his sacrificed pawn with an ob-
vious positional advantage due to
White’s weak a- and c-pawns in
Hrubant-Choleva, Czech Republic
Team Championship 1996.
11...Wd7 12£>b5?!
see following diagram
Intending to centralise with 13 l?3d4,
but this move actually turns out to be
a precious loss of time, as Black is
ready to throw a spanner in the
works.
12...£ic6 13 fid1 a6 14 Cid4
After this Black is guaranteed excel-
lent play down the e-file, and there-
fore 14 <7k3 should come into serious
consideration.
14...£ixd4 15 exd4 .i:f5 16 Wd2 h6
17 0-0 0-0 18 h4?
This incredibly optimistic attempt
at attacking is best described as a
boomerang that comes back to hit
White in the face!
18...£46 19 hxg5 hxg5 20 Ь4 Фд7
21 c5 Eae8 22 d5 Sh8 23 Sfe1 Se4
24 a3 fid4 25 Wc1 £e4
With the deadly threat of 26...fihl+
27 ФхЫ ®h3+ 28 &gl Wxg2 mate.
26 £f1 Wg4 27 cxd6 cxd6 28 fid2
Wh5 29 f3 i.xf3! 30 £42
Desperation but 30 gxf3 Wxf3 31
JLh2 ttg4+ cleans up mercilessly.
3O..JLxd5 31 Wd1 fixd2+ 32 Wxd2
Wg4 0-1
After 33 Wxd5 Ad4+ it is all over.
Game 34
Michenka-Plachetka
Tmava 1989
1 d4 2rf6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 Cg4 4 ±f4
g5?! 5 ДдЗ Ag7 6 4^f3 ^c6 7 &c3
41gxe5 8 <£>xe5 £}xe5 9 e3 d6 10
2d
Although not recognised to be the
acid test (that is found next in Game
69
The Budapest Gambit
35) this dual-purpose move makes a
lot of sense. White clears the al-h8
diagonal against any potential threats
from the black bishop on g7, and the
bishop is ready to pounce into action
if Black castles queenside and the c-file
opens up.
1O...	£.e6 11 b3 h5l?
The natural ll...Wd7 was seen in
Tatai-Bartsch, Zurich 1987, but Black
had to work hard to expand on the
kingside after 12 $Le2 0-0-0 13 <§l)b5
ФЬ8 14 2>d4 f5 15 0-0 h5 16 f4 h4 17
JLf2 gxf4 18 exf4 £3g4? 19 Jlxg4 fxg4
20 f5 JLf7 21 Wxg4, when Black failed
to find enough compensation for the
pawn deficit.
12 h4 £jg6 13hxg5Wxg5
This is about the best position that
Black can conjure up. His queen exerts
pressure against the enemy kingside,
but still White must be fractionally
better due to the potential weakness of
Black’s h-pawn.
14 £>d5 0-0-0 15 Wd2 c6 16 ®f4 h4
17 ^xe6 fxe6 18 i.xd6 £e5 19 c5
jLxd6 20 cxd6 ®d5 21 Wxd5 exd5
22 ld3 Sxd6
As a result of the multiple ex-
changes an ending has been reached
that is drawish in character. White
tries to make progress for some time
but to no avail against the experienced
Slovakian grandmaster.
23 Фе2 Фс7 24 2h2 ^e5 25 g3
<5'xd3 26 &xd3 h3 27 Schl Sdh6 28
g4 &d6 29 f4 Sh4 30 Sgl Sg8 31
g5 *e6 32 3g3 Sgh8 33 Фе2 d4 34
&f3 dxe3 35 g6 <fcf5 36 5g5+ &f6
37 ФхеЗ 3g8 38 £f3 Sxg6 39Hxg6+
*xg6 40 ФдЗ &h5 41 Sxh3 Sxh3+
42 4>xh3 c5 43 a4 b6 44 &g3 Фдб
45 Фд4 a6 46 f5+ &f6 47 £f4 b5
48 a5 c4 49 bxc4 bxc4 50 Фе4 c3
’/2-H
Game 35
Fraschini-Fuentes
Cuba 1995
1 d4 6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 <^g4 4 £f4
g5?l 5 &g3 i.g7 6 2if3 £ic6 7 2ic3
£igxe5 8 2)xe5 ®xe5 9 e3 d6 10 c5!
A dynamic and resolute response
that deals a serious blow to the whole
system with 4...g5?! White is offering
the temporary sacrifice of a pawn in
order to achieve one of two goals:
a)	To soften the barricade against
his bishop on g3.
70
Main Line with 4 kf4: 4...g5
b)	In the case of the gambit being
accepted, the black king will be ex-
posed and White’s lead in develop-
ment becomes more apparent. It is not
even as if Black will be able to hang on
to his extra pawn and it is certainly
not in the Budapest player’s style to be
the one on the defensive!
10. ..0-0
10...dxc5?! is really risky as can be
seen from Zakharevich-Zakharov,
Novgorod Open 1995, which con-
cluded 11 Wxd8+ &xd8 12 0-0-0+ -ld7
13 £>e4 Фе7 14 £)xg5 ±c6 15 f3 a5 16
Jlxe5! ±xe5 17 ±c4 £e8 18 f4 &g7 19
i.d5 c6 20 &f3 f5 21 g4 h6 22 <£h3
JLf7? (now there is no stopping
White’s central pawn avalanche from
sweeping away everything in its path)
23 gxf5 JLxa2 24 Shgl JLf6 25 e4 Ji.d4
26 Sxd4! exd4 27 Hg7+ £f7 28 £.h5
3af8 29 e5 Shg8 30 f6+ Феб 31 ±xf7+
1-0.
11 cxd6 cxd6 12Фе2 Wb6
Or 12...^.e6 13 0-0 Sc8 14 Hcl f5 15
Wd2 a6 16 ЬЗ?! (16 Kfdl at once is
more accurate, in order to lessen the
likelihood of Black putting his isolated
d6-pawn to better use by reaching the
d5-square) 16...£lg6! 17 f3 f4 18 JLf2 d5
with counterplay for Black, as in
Prieto-Gomez, Spain 1993.
13 Wd2 кеб 14 0-0 d5!?
Facing some difficulties, Black de-
cides to embark on complications in
order to muddy the waters. If he does
nothing, White will be able simply to
pile up against the weak d-pawn and
use the d5-square for his own pieces,
so this must be the best practical deci-
sion.
15 £jxd5 ixd5 16 *xd5 Sfd8 17
We4 Wxb2 18 £h5 ^g6 19 a4
19 fiabl Wxa2 20 ДхЬ7 is also better
for White due to the vulnerability of
the black kingside, but White refuses
to even allow his opponent any
counter-chances associated with a
black passed a-pawn.
19...b6 20 Sadi Wf6 21 Wb7 We7
22 £f3 3ac8 23 Wxe7 £)xe7 24
5xd8+
The start of some sloppy technique
by White. For example, 24 JLb7! Hxdl
25 Hxdl maintains a greater initiative
as the bishop pair would then domi-
nate the board.
24...Sxd8 25 ficl ld7 26 Hc7 2xc7
27 £xc7 <^g6 28 £b8 £e5!
Precision technique. Black sacrifices
a pawn in order to shut out the white
dark-squared bishop. The game now
fizzles out.
29 Дха7 £.c7 30 ФИ ^e7 31 a5
bxa5 32 £c5 2>f5 33 ±e4 <^d6 34
£c2 ^c4 35 h3 id6 36 i.d3 £xc5
37 £xc4 a4 38 Фе2 a3 39 &f3 h5
40 g4 h4 41 Фе4 Фд7 42 &f5 f6 43
Феб JLb4 44 f4 gxf4 45 exf4 ФсЗ
46 &f5 Уг-Уг
71
The Budapest Gambit
Summary
The strategy of trying to punish Black for his cheeky pawn advance on move
four by means of a quick h2-h4 is shown to be ineffective in Game 32. White
should therefore strive for his own activity on the queenside and in the centre, as
in Game 35.
In conclusion, Black should only play 4...g5?! if he is fully aware of the risks
that it entails.
1 d4 ^f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £>g4 4 £f4 g5?!
5 jLg3 (D)
5 Ad2 - Game 31
5...£g7 6 £if3 £>c6 (D) 7 £>c3
7 h4 - Game 32
7...&gxe5 8 ®xe5 <&xe5 9 e3 d6 (D) 10 c5
10 $Le2 - Game 33
10 Sc 1 - Game 34
10...0-0 - Game35
5&g3	6...&C6	9...d6
72

atrsio*! oust SffNRb tuots
.-z?.
BUDAPEST
GAMBIT
1.1;	h<!» uaMf.UH fll i liJilfuraiC QrniWt
CHAPTER SEVEN
Main Line with 4 4bf3:
4... JLc5 5 еЗ ^сб
1 d4 ®f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £ig4 4 W
JLc5 5 еЗ £ic6
In this chapter we shall consider 4
W3 (White’s most common fourth
move apart from 4 JLf4) which is usu-
ally met by 4...JLc5 5 еЗ ^сб (4...£lc6
is dealt with in Chapter 8). A common
theme running through this chapter is
the unusual method whereby Black
develops his queen’s rook via a6; this
modern treatment is illustrated in
Games 36-39. Having studied these
games, you will know exactly what
the ‘Budapest rook’ means. However,
if you want to put this idea into prac-
tice, you must remember not to play
an automatic ...b7-b6 or ...d7-d6 be-
cause the sixth rank must be kept clear
to swing the rook across from a6 to
the kingside.
A critical decision for Black must be
made after the move order 6 JLe2 0-0 7
0-0 £)gxe5 (7...^cxe5?! is less accurate,
as we shall see in Game 42) 8 <5^xe5
^xe5 9 4кЗ Де8 10 b3 a5 11 ^e4 as
the dark-squared bishop must settle
somewhere. It is always tempting to
maintain the bishop on the a7-gl di-
agonal from where it eyes up sacrifices
on e3, but 11...^.a7 blocks in the
‘Budapest rook’ and, perhaps more
vitally, leaves the g7-square vulnerable
in some lines. I personally prefer the
alternative option of ll...JLf8, which
also avoids the bishop being shut out
of the game with c4-c5.
Apart from the main line, White
has several other ways to play, of
which 10 ФЬ1 is a particularly cheeky
option. In Game 40 White uses this
move to prepare a kingside attack us-
ing his f-pawn, but it only seems to
pose a real danger if Black allows his
dark-squared bishop to be cut off from
the action, as occurred in Spassky-
Illescas (see the notes to Game 40).
White’s other alternatives are dis-
cussed in Games 42-45.
Game 36
Farago-G.Mohr
Austrian Team Championship 1994
1 d4 «f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 vg4 4
73
The Budapest Gambit
kc5 5 e3 inc6 6 ^c3 0-0
15...<?3c6 (15...^3d7 allowed White a
huge assault commencing with 16 JLf3
Hb8 17 £d5! ЛхеЗ 18 Wh5 We7 19
icl g6 20 Wh6 2e2 21 f5 in Arnason-
Johnsen, Gausdal 1988) 16 JLf3 Jlb7
17 e4 a5 18 e5! dxe5 19 fxe5 Se7 20
JLd5 Wc8 21 Wf3 &d8 22 e6 (White’s
initiative down the f-file develops by
itself) 22...Jlxd5 23 cxd5 c6 24 Wg3
fxe6 25 d6 Sd7 26 fif4 Saa7 27 Safi
£3b7 28 Sf7! 1-0 Peralta-Gunnarsson,
Duisburg 1992.
Black must be aware of the nuances
of move order here, as White has
opted for an early 43c3 instead of the
routine 6 JLe2. Razuvaev-Bardel, Ge-
neva 1995, highlighted the difference
after the inaccurate 6...'?3gxe5?!
(6...*?3cxe5?! leads to the same) 7 <<hxe5
&xe5 8 f4! Ш 9 J.d3 0-0? 10 Wh5 f5
(there is a loose bishop on c5) 11 Jlxf5
when Black can already resign.
7 £e2 3e8 8 b3 £gxe5 9 ДЬ2
9 <?3xe5 47jxe5 10 JLb2 reaches the
same position, but with each side hav-
ing made one move fewer!
9...	-Sxf3+ 10 ±xf3 ^e5 11 £e2 a5!
This unusual method of developing
the queen’s rook is probably necessary
here. In fact, this move was largely
responsible for revitalising faith in this
line of the Budapest. Previously, Black
was finding it increasingly difficult to
equalise in the variation ll...d6 12 0-0
see following diagram
and now:
a)	12...Неб 13 £>e4 b6 (but not
13.. JLb6? due to 14 c5!) 14 <§3хс5 bxc5
15 f4! (this helps to nip any ideas of a
black kingside attack in the bud)
b)	12,..a5 13 £3a4! b6 (if Black main-
tains his dark-squared bishop with
13...^.a7?!, it will be shut out of the
game by 14 c5!) 14 £ixc5 bxc5 15 f4
&d7 16 £f3 Sb8 17 Wd3 a4 18 Sael
gave better practical chances for White
in Restifa-Aguila, Mar del Plata 1988.
c)	12...Wh4? is in fact a misguided
act of aggression, as witnessed in
H.Olafsson-Sigurjonsson, Westmann
Islands 1994, which continued 13 <?3d5
4ig4 14 h3 4ixf2 15 Sxf2 ПхеЗ 16
4ixe3 ЛхеЗ 17 Wei! JLxh3, when
Black’s attack was carefully repulsed
by 18 £13! as 18...£.xf2+ 19 Wxf2
Wxf2+ 20 Фх12 left him in a lost end-
ing.
d)	Simple queenside development
74
Main Line with 4 Q\f3: 4...&.C5 5 еЗ <йсб
with 12. ,JLd7 is probably the best
option for Black out of this particular
bunch, but White can expect some
advantage with 13 <?3d5! a5 14 аЗ Деб
15 Ь4 Ла7 16 ±d4 ДЬб 17 g3 ±xd4 18
exd4 &g6 19 Wd2 c6 20 £k3 ±f5 21
Hfel, as in Fahnenschmidt-Scherer,
Baden-Baden 1991.
12 0-0 Sa6 13 ^a4
A dual-purpose move. White seeks
to harass the bishop on c5 and open
the diagonal for his own dark-squared
bishop. 13 Wd5 is considered in the
next game and 13 <?3e4 in Game 38
(both by transposition with each side
having made one move fewer).
13... £f8
The safest retreat, since the natural
13...JLa7 is met by the simple but ef-
fective idea of 14 JLd4! JLxd4 15 exd4
^g6 16 Wd2 Hf6 17 Hfel b6 18 2k3,
when the weakness of the bishop on
c8 guaranteed White an edge in Din-
stuhl-Schoengart, Berlin 1996.
Meanwhile, the incredibly optimis-
tic 13...Wh4?? totally failed after 14
£lxc5 Sh6 15 h3 d6 16 f4 Axh3 17
Well, parrying all the threats, in
C.Flear-Bardel, Vai Thorens Open
1989.
14 Wd5
White wants to force his opponent
into playing ...d7-d6, in order to make
the development of the black rook to
a6 redundant. The rook certainly be-
comes active if White plays 14 f4. For
example, in Zsu.Polgar-De la Villa,
New York Open 1989, 14...Hd6! 15
Wc2 2k6 16 ШЗ Hh6 17 Idl d6 18
41c3 Wh4 19 h3 Sg6 permitted Black a
tremendous initiative.
14...We 7 15Ead1 Sh6
It is interesting to note that on a
later occasion, Mohr (the same player
as in the text game and a well-known
theoretician) preferred the solid
15...Hg6 16 Wxe5 Wxe5 17 JLxe5 Sxe5
18 Sd5 d6 19 Йхе5 dxe5 20 Edl Sd6
21 Sxd6 ±xd6 22 c5 £e7 23 JLf3 £f8
24 ‘A’fl JLd7 with equality in Buhacek-
G.Mohr, Austrian Team Champion-
ship 1995.
16 Wxe5 Wxe5 17 £xe5 2xe5 18
Jlg4 f5 19 f4 ЗхеЗ 20 £xf5 3d6 21
c5 Exd1 22 Sxd1 3e7
The question is now whether White
can take advantage of the slightly con-
gested light-squared bishop on c8. In
fact Black is able to liberate his pieces
within a few moves, after which it is
75
The Budapest Gambit
White who has to tread carefully.
23 £h3 <£f7 24 Ec1 <£e8 25 £>f2
Ф68 26 £№2 g6 27 ®d3 &g7 28
Ee1 JLd4+ 29 &f1 b6 30 cxb6 ДхЬб
31 Exe7 *xe7 32 <^e5 £a6+ 33
*e1 d6 34 <§3c4 £c5 35 £g4 a4 36
f5 d5 37 £)d2 axb3 38 ахЬЗ %-%
Game 37
Polovodin-Miezis
Moscow 1992
1 d4 ®f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £sg4 4
Дс5 5 еЗ ^сб 6 b3 0-0 7 ±b2 Ee8
8 JLe2 £>cxe5 9 £>xe5 £lxe5 10 0-0
a5 11 £)c3 Ea6 12 Wd51?
Again White’s intention is to tempt
Black to play 12...d6, which leaves the
rook on a6 looking rather awkward,
or to ‘harass’ the bishop into giving
ground. The obvious drawback of
White’s strategy is that the queen will
be a target in the centre of the board.
12..JLa7
In fact 12...We7! is probably more
accurate. The game Akesson-Tagnon,
Berlin 1984, ended in a quick victory
for Black after 13 <?Je4 JLa7 14 c5 fig6
15 Had Jib 8 (it is true that the bishop
pair look a bit pathetic lined up on the
back rank just now, but there is no
way to stop them breaking out later)
16 f4 ^g4 17 jlxg4 Sxg4 18 4ig5
Wxe3+ 19 ФЫ Bxf4 20 ^xf7 c6!
(Black has accurately calculated that
the discovered double check is not
loaded with its traditional strength) 21
W++ ФЬ8 22 Wh5 Hef8 23 Bxf4
Wxf4 24 Ugl d5 25 cxd6 Axd6 0-1.
13 c5
13 £>e4 is discussed in the next
game.
13...Sh6 14«je4?
This the critical point, where it is
easy for White to go astray. It is advis-
able to meet Black’s kingside attack
head on with 14 f4!, when 14...^сб 15
£ib5! is the key move. White frees the
al-h8 diagonal for the relatively small
price of the еЗ-pawn. The game
B.Lalic-Mukic, Yugoslavian Champi-
onship 1988, continued 15...Wh4 16 h3
йхеЗ 17 JLc4 Де7 18 £fxa7 £ixa7 19
Sael! Ф18 (the only defence to the
threat of 20 Wxf7+! Exf7 21 Де8 mate)
20 Wg5 Wxg5 21 fxg5 Hxel 22 Axg7+!
^g8 23 Sxel Деб 24 Лхеб fxe6 25
JLh6 <&f7 26 Hfl+ <&g6 27 g4 1-0.
14...c6 15 Wd4
15...d5!
76
Main Line with 4 Qhf3: 4...&.C5 5 e3 ®c6
The patient bishop on c8 is now
able to spring into life. The rest of the
game is rather one-sided.
16 £>g3 b6 17 cxb6 ±xb6 18 Wc3
Wh4 19 h3 ^xh3 20 gxh3 Wxh3 21
Sfd1 Wh2+ 22 <4>f1 Sf6 0-1
Game 38
Whiteley-Agnos
London 1994
1 d4 6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £>g4 4 2>f3
i.c5 5 e3 ®c6 6 Jie2 0-0 7 0-0
£lcxe5?! 8 £lxe5
As we shall see in Game 42, 8 <?3d4
is certainly more testing. Black does
best to delay the immediate 7...£icxe5
in favour of the tricky 7...He8.
8.. Axe5 9 ^c3 Se8 10 b3 aS 11
fi_b2
White can also play the immediate
11 <53e4 here (see the next game).
11..Лаб 12te4
12...JLa7
A perfectly viable alternative is
12..JLf8, strengthening the kingside,
and it is worth noting a couple of ex-
amples if you prefer this solid option
(which is admittedly not all that likely
if you are studying a book on the Bu-
dapest!):
a) 13 Wd5 йаеб 14 <?3g3 b6 15 f4 (or
15 Hadi d6 16 fifel JLd7 17 Wd2 Hh6
18 f4 £ig4 19 2>fl £)f6 20 Jlf3 <?k4,
which led to an extremely pleasant
position for Black in Bischoff-Hort,
Dortmund 1989) 15...^c6 16 f5 Sd6
17 Wf3 £te5 18 Wf4 ^d3 19 i.xd3
Hxd3 20 f6 g6 21 W5 Неб! and Black
successfully defended before taking
over the initiative in Borne-G.Mohr,
Cannes 1995.
b) 13 f4 £>g4! 14 JLxg4 Hxe4 15 Wd3
He8 16 Hf3 Hh6 17 Hg3 Wh4 18 Ah3
Hg6 19 Hxg6 hxg6, when Black stood
excellently due to the pressure on the
backward еЗ-pawn in Tourneur-
Plesec, Paris 1993.
13 Wd5
White aims to gain some material
on the queenside in order to obtain
compensation for his opponent’s ini-
tiative on the kingside. However, this
is a dangerous option as the white
queen heads further from the scene of
the action. Other moves that have
been tried in the past include:
a) 13 c5 Hh6 14 f4 (or 14 g3?! d5! 15
cxd6 cxd6 16 &d4 Wd7! 17 f4 [17
JLxa7?? is not too hot after 17...Wh3
and Black wins] 17...JLxd4 18 Wxd4
<Йс6 19 ®a4 d5 20 £}f2 Hxe3 21 Hfel
We7 22 &fl Hhe6 0-1 A.Hoffman-
Aguila, Argentina 1987, while 14
Wd4? Wh4 15 f4 Wxh2+ 16 &f2 Hg6!
17 ^g5 Wh4+ 18 'i’gl d6 is clearly
depressing for White, as in Klinger-
Lendwai, Vienna 1991) 14...^3c6
(14...£>g4? is obviously bad on account
of 15 Wd4, defending the loose knight
on e4, as in this line there is no bishop
on f8 to defend against the mate on g7)
77
The Budapest Gambit
15 ^3g5 We7 (15...Axc5? was shown to
be misguided in Fogarasi-Anka, Hun-
gary 1989, after 16 Ac4! Axe3+ 17
ФЫ Hf8 18 Axf7+! Sxf7 19 Wd5 Wf8
20 Sael Деб 21 Wd3! Ш5 22 4ixe6
dxe6 23 Wxe3 with a winning position
for White) 16 Ac4 <^d8 17 ФЙ1 Jlxc5
18 e4 d6 19 ®f3 <?3e6 20 Дае1 c6 with
an extremely sharp position where
White had sufficient compensation for
the pawn, but no more in J.Horvath-
Lendwai, Borsodtavho 1991.
b) 13 £ig3?! is rather passive. Black
was able to take over the initiative in
Yurko-Moreira, Argentina 1988, with
13...Sh6 14 £lf5 fig6 15 e4 d6 16 Ad4
Wg5 17 g3 Axd4 18 £ixd4 ^g4! 19
JLxg4 Axg4 20 f3? Дхе4!! 21 Wd3 (the
point is that 21 fxg4 allows Black to
retrieve the piece under excellent cir-
cumstances with 21...We3+ etc.) 21...
ДеЗ 22 Wd2 Ad7 23 f4 Sxg3+ 0-1.
13...Sae6
Black’s pieces are co-ordinating well
after this move. However, the unusual
13...2h6!? is also possible, when the
forced sequence of moves 14 Axe5 c6
15 Af6 gxf6
see following diagram
leads to a situation where Black’s
pair of strong bishops fully compen-
sate for his ruined pawn structure. For
example:
a)	16 Wd3 f5 17 ^d2 f4 18 exf4 Bh4
19 2tf3 Wxf4 20 g3 Wg4 21 flael d6 22
Adi Sd8 23 Де7 Wg6! 24 Wxg6+ flxg6
25 fifel Ф18 with promising prospects
for Black in Legky-Gusev, Leningrad
1989.
b)	16 Wf5 Ab8 (16...d5?! is weaker
due to the retort 17 Wf4!) 17 ^3g3 d5
18 Wf3 f5 19 h3 Wg5 20 cxd5 Axg3 21
®xg3 Wxg3 22 fxg3 c5!? and Black
managed to draw the ending com-
fortably, despite being a pawn down
in Cervenka-Kantarik, Slovakian
Team Championship 1995.
14Wxa5 Ab6 15 Wc3
Theory suggests that 15 Wb4!? is the
critical test of this line, in order to
meet 15...Wh4 with 16 c5 ДЬб 17
£if6+! Wxf6 18 cxb6, when White has
an indisputable advantage. However,
instead of 15...Wh4, 15...^c6 16 Wc3
£)d4 needs further analysis. Nothing
can change the fact that it is a danger-
ous and double-edged option for both
sides.
15...Wh4 16 f4?!
78
Main Line with 4 Ghf3: 4...4lc5 5 e3 &>c6
It is never easy to find the best de-
fence under such mounting pressure,
but 16 <53g3 offers more resistance than
the text.
16...ПК6 17 h3 d5! 18 £ig5
Both 18 cxd5 and 18 fxe5 are met by
18...JLxh3.
18...Wg3 19 c5 i.xh3 20 £ixh3
Sxh3 21 We1 Wh2+ 22 <Xf2 i.xc5
0-1
Game 39
Naumkin-Zakharov
Moscow 1994
1 d4 £if6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 C;g4 4 £rf3
Jkc5 5 еЗ ^сб 6 JLe2 £sgxe5 7 <?3xe5
Cxe5 8 0-0 0-0 9 -lc3 Se8 10 b3 a5
11 £>e4
It is decision time for Black, who
must now choose whether to retreat
the bishop to a7 and abandon the idea
of ...Даб or to keep this manoeuvre in
mind and continue ll..JLf8.
As the latter is played in our exam-
ple, let us first consider ll...^.a7,
which I actually believe holds the
most chances for Black out of the two
options, as the a7-gl diagonal is so im-
portant:
a)	12 JLb2 d6 13 &d2 &f5 14 £lf3
JLe4 was assessed as equal in Gior-
gadze-Epishin, Tbilisi 1989.
b)	12 c5, hoping to restrict the
power of his opponent’s dark-squared
bishop, is more ambitious but ex-
tremely double-edged after 12,..Wh4
13 Wd5?l (13 f4 <21g4 14 Jtxg4 Sxe4 15
JLxd7 Jlxd7 16 Wxd7 We7! is safer but
no more than equal, as White cannot
hang onto his extra pawn) 13...d6 14
g3 Wh6 15 cxd6 c6! 16 Wxa5? (it is not
surprising that such greed is quickly
punished) 16...Jlg4! 17 d7 (or 17 Wei
Wh5! with many threats) 17...JLxe2! 18
dxe8W+ Hxe8 19 h4 Wh5! 20 Wa4
£)f3+ 21 ФЫ (if 21 &g2, then
21...^xh4+! 22 gxh4 JLf3+ leads to
mate) 21...^,d4! and Black won in
Blokh-Gottardi, Correspondence
1995.
11...±f8
12£>g3
White has no obvious path to even
a minute advantage, despite the fact
that he has experimented with several
moves here. For example, Salov-
Illescas, Barcelona 1989, continued 12
f4 ^3g4 13 Jlxg4 Sxe4 14 Wd3 Se8 15
JLb2 We7 16 Sf3 d5! 17 JLxc8 dxc4 18
79
The Budapest Gambit
Wxc4 fiaxc8 and now the smoke has
cleared, it is evident that Black is fine.
Alternatively, 12 c5 is again play-
able here, when a useful reply is
12...Wh4. Jelen-G.Mohr, Slovenian
Championship 1993, continued: 13 f4
l§3g4! (13...£lc6?! 14 £ig5 £>d8 oc-
curred in Bator-Svidler, Copenhagen
Open 1991, when White is able to
keep a strong grip on the position
with 15 Wc2! As it happened, White
went for a premature attack with 15
ШЗ?! and the complications after
15...±xc5 16 ±d3 d6! 17 ^.xh7+ <£f8
favoured Black) 14 JLxg4 Sxe4 with
balanced chances.
12..Лаб
The ‘Budapest rook’ has become
almost as notorious as the ‘Dragon
bishop’!
13 e4
After 13 f4, 13...Sd6! 14 Wei £ic6
ensures that Black’s pieces are well co-
ordinated, but I expect that sacrificing
the a-pawn with 14...4id3!? would be
equally appealing to initiative-seeking
Budapest fans.
13....&C5 14 &h1 Wh4 15 f4 Sd6 16
lid2
White’s queen is seriously over-
worked on dl and neither 16 Wc2?
Eh6 (but not 16...Wxg3? 17 fxe5 Wxe5
18 JLf4) nor 16 ^f5 Exdl 17 £ixh4
2xfl+ 18 Jtxfl £ig4! leave White with
a decent reply.
16...&d3 17 £xd3
17...Wxg3!
Both beautiful and effective. How
pleasing to get in a flashy move that
actually works! Since 18 hxg3? Eh6
leads to mate, White must face the
mounting pressure as best he can.
18 Hf3 Wg4 19 e5 Sh6 20 f5 Sh4
21 We2 b6!
Here comes another black piece to
join in the action on the kingside.
Now that the queen’s rook has cheek-
ily utilised the sixth rank, Black is free
to release his bishop to the potent a8-
hl diagonal.
22 Se1 i.b7 23 Sf4 Wh3 24 Sxh4
Wxh4 25 3f1 i.d6 26 £f4 f6 27
exd6 Sxe2 28 &xe2 Wh3 29 Sf2
Wc3 30 &g1 c5 31 h3 a4 32 ФИ2
axb3 33 axb3 Wxb3 34 £g3 Де4 35
£f1 Wb1 36 Ее 2 &f8 37 Se1 Wc2
38 ±e2 -a_xf5 39 £f3 Феб 40 Se4
®f7 41 h4 Wd3 42 Hf4 Фхс4 43
Фе4 Wxd6 44 ФхЬ7 Wd5 45 Фе4
Wd1 0-1
80
Main Line with 4 Q}f3: 4...&.C5 5 e3 Qhc6
Game 40
Alekseev-Bliumberg
Minsk 1993
1 d4 2>f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £ig4 4	3
i.c5 5 еЗ ^сб 6 J*e2 0-0 7 0-0 He8
8 £)c3 £>gxe5 9 £)xe5 £lxe5 10 ФИ1
Here we see a totally different strat-
egy from White. He carefully removes
his king from the a7-gl diagonal as a
prelude to launching an attack on the
kingside himself.
10...d6
10...a5 allows Black to retain his
dark-squared bishop, but this time-
consuming move was dealt a serious
blow in the well-known game
Spassky-Illescas, Linares 1990, which
concluded 11 f4 £lc6 12 JLd3 d6 13
Wh5! h6 14 Sf3 £ib4 15 &e4 c6 16
Sg3 Wf6 17 Ji.d2 <^a6 18 a3 £f8 19
i.d3 ^.a7 20 &e2 £>c5 21 ±c3 Wxc3
22 <2ixc3 £)xd3 23 Ш1 ^.хеЗ 24 We2
£)xf4 25 Wdl 1-0.
11 f4
For 11 £)a4, see the notes to the
game Vaisser-Epishin in the Introduc-
tion.
11...^d7!
This unusual retreat allows Black’s
position to remain harmonised. The
knight is destined for the f6-square,
from where it will exert pressure on
the vital e4-square. 11 ...<§3c6?! is clearly
inferior after 12 JLd3! (12 e4 ^d4 13
jLd3 f5 14 exf5 £xf5 15 <^e4 Wh4 16
Wf3 ®d4 was not so clear in Andre-
sen-Seyb, German Bundesliga 1992)
12...JLxe3 13 £xh7+ ФхЬ7 14 Wd3+
Ф^8 15 ЛхеЗ, when the exposed posi-
tion of the black monarch gave White
a lasting advantage in Ganesan-
Sharma, Calcutta 1992.
12 £d3
Quite rightly White decided to take
his opportunity to get in 12 e4 in Sade-
Lodhi, Teheran 1991, when the game
held equal chances for both sides after
12...£tf6 13 £f3 Sb8 14 h3 JLd7 15
Wd3 &c6 16 a3 a5.
12...£if6 13 Wf3 £ig4 14 £>d1 f5!
A strong positional decision. Black
is content to slightly loosen his king-
side in exchange for seriously restrict-
ing White’s intended expansion in the
centre with e3-e4.
15l.d2 £d7 16Wxb7?
This is clearly a dangerous option,
since Black is given the green light to
81
The Budapest Gambit
launch his pieces at his opponent’s
king. However, the alternative choice
of sitting and waiting for Black to
build up with ...JLc6, ...Wf6, and dou-
bling his rooks along the e-file, is also
unappealing.
16...C6 17 Wb3 Wh4 18 h3 Wg3!
Excellently calculated, and well
worth remembering, as this was not
the first occasion that this theme had
been successful in the Budapest. Black
will regain his piece with interest.
19 hxg4 ih4+ 20 &g1 fxg4 21 i.e1
g3 22 £xg3 Wxg3 23 Ef3 We1+ 24
Sf1 Wh4 25 &e2
The threat was 25...ДхеЗ 26 ^хеЗ
JLxe3+ winning, but the force of
Black’s initiative can only be held up
for so long.
25...Se6! 26 Wc3 Eh6 27 Sf3 Wh2+
28 &f2 £g6 29 £f1 J.g4 30 b4
£xf3 31 &xf3 ДЬ6 32 c5 dxc5 33
bxc5 Wh5+ 0-1
Game 41
Elera-Abanto
Peru 1994
1 d4 6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ₽'g4 4 2>f3
Xc5 5 e3 £>c6 6 ke2 0-0 7 0-0 Ee8
8 a3
It was not so long ago that 8 a3,
with the obvious intention of expand-
ing with b2-b4, was the standard move
here. However, after Black responds
with the logical 8...a5, it became ap-
parent in tournament practice that the
inclusion of these moves is in fact in
Black’s favour, as it gives his queen’s
rook access into play via the a6-square.
8 £ibd2 instead proved only enough
for equality after 8...4igxe5 9 <2ixe5
^xe5 10 W3 Wf6 11 &xe5 Wxe5 12
Sbl a5 (confirming that Black would
like to play this move of his own ac-
cord anyway!) 13 £td2 2a6 14 JLc3
We7 15 JLd3 Wh4 16 Wf3 Sh6 17 Wg3
Wxg3 18 hxg3 16in Yusupov-Piket,
Amsterdam 1994.
8...a5 9 b3 4jgxe5 10 ^xe5 46xe5 11
£>d2?!
Now that Black is ready to break in
the centre with ...d6-d5, White should
try to keep a grip on the position with
ll£3c3.
11...d5! 12 cxd5 Wxd5 13 £)c4
Wxd1 14 Exd1 2»xc4 15 £xc4 c6 16
£b2?
It must be more prudent to enable
the white bishop to remain on its use-
82
Main Line with 4 QM3: 4...&.C5 5 e3 Qhc6
ful diagonal and prevent ...b7-b5 with
16 a4, which will also hold up the
white pawn majority on the queen-
side.
16...^.g4 17 Sd2 £ed8 18 £c3?!
Contrary to ‘normal’ procedure,
White is better off relinquishing the d-
file here with 18 Hxd8+ Sxd8 and
then 19 JLc3, as on this occasion the
black rook is actually more useful on
the а-file, where it defends the a-pawn.
18...Sxd2 19 £xd2 b5 20 £f1 Деб
21 Sc1 &xa3 22 Sxc6 a4 23 bxa4
bxa4 24 £c4 Ji.b2!
The a-pawn is unstoppable and
White is forced to adopt desperate
measures.
25 Sxe6 fxe6 26 £xe6+ ФИ8 27
±f1 a3 28 Ji. a 2 Ec8 29 £b1 Jlc3 30
Фе2 £xd2 31 &xd2 Sb8 32 Фс1
Sb2 33 Ji.c2 g6 34 f4 Фд7 35 g4 h6
36 h4 Eb4 37 £b1 3b3 38 h5 Exe3
39 J.a2 gxh5 40 gxh5 *f6 41 Sb1
*f 5 0-1
Game 42
Boedicker-Van Schaardenburg
Dutch Championship 1994
1 d4 ®f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £ig4 4 £>f3
Ji.c5 5 e3 -сб 6 £e2 0-0 7 0-0
<йсхе5?!
Since White’s next move is difficult
for Black to meet in a satisfactory
manner, we must conclude that
7...fie8 is more accurate, as we have
seen in Games 36-41.
8 4bd4!
White gains time by attacking the
knight on g4 and centralising his own
piece. It is true that Black is able to
launch a superficial attack with
8...W114, but this should have no real
chance of success if White is precise.
However, the fact that Black wins this
game in 20 moves does suggest that it
is not such a disaster for Black to slip
into such a line.
8...Wh4
If the knight retreats with 8...W6,
White is able to continue with free
and easy development and can expect
an opening advantage after 9 £кЗ Se8
10 ЬЗ b6 11 JLb2 &b7 12 Wc2 d5 13
Sadi Wc8 14 cxd5 41xd5 15 ^3xd5
JLxd5 16 e4 JLb7 17 <?lf5 (confirming
the strength of the original 8 <?ld4)
17.. JLf8 18 f4 etc., as in Lovass-Husari,
Kecskemet 1991.
9h3 fth6 10 2ic3 d6 11 e4?
83
The Budapest Gambit
This is the critical point of the
game. Here 11 <2id5! holds the key to
White’s promising position. In
F.Portisch-Ivan, Zalakaros 1994, there
followed 11...C6 (now the sacrifice
ll...JLxh3? fails to 12 gxh3 Wxh3 13
<?3f4 Wh4 14 W3 and Black’s attack is
rejected) 12 ?3f4 <£)g6 13 <5}f3 We7 14
^d3 JLb6 15 b3 £if5 16 JLa3 with an
obvious positional advantage for
White.
11...£xh3!
This is one to remember in the Bu-
dapest!
12 gxh3 Wxh3 13 :«.f4 Tae8 14 '?d5
<5}g6
White is unable to counter Black’s
iron squeeze on the kingside and in
desperation White tried...
15	£>xf5 16 £g4 &h4 17 exf5
^xf4 18 5jxT4 Wg3+ 19 £>g2 Se4 20
Й43 Wxg4 0-1
Game 43
Alexandria-Schnepp
Biel Open 1994
1 d4 <at6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £ig4 4 ®f3
JLc5 5 e3 £>c6 6 b3
White hurries to place his bishop on
the useful al-h8 diagonal, but the main
drawback to this plan is the obvious
delay in the development of his king-
side.
6...0-0
It perhaps looks more natural to
capture on e5 with either knight, but
actually Black does better to strive for
piece activity. 6...£igxe5 (6...£3cxe5 7
£^xe5 ^xe5 is the same thing) 7 <?3xe5
£3xe5 is discussed in the next game.
7 ДЬ2 Ke8 8 _4Ld3?!
Rather over-optimistic. It will soon
become clear why White should keep
the e-file closed with 8 JLe2 instead,
transposing to the standard system of
Games 36-39 after 8...^gxe5 9 4ixe5
<5ixe5 10 0-0 a5 11 <?ЗсЗ Даб. It is
nearly always a safe idea to steer into
recommended territory if the move
order has been slightly unusual.
8...d6!
8...£igxe5? is downright naive here,
as simple calculation reveals that 9
£3xe5 £ixe5 10 JLxh7+! ФхЬ7 11
Wh5+ <S’g8 12 JLxe5 leaves Black a
pawn down for nothing, while 8...We7
9 0-0 £)gxe5 10 ^3xe5 £ixe5 11 ^3c3
£>xd3 12 Wxd3 Wd8 13 e4 &f8 14 f4
84
Main Line with 4 Qsf3: 4...kc5 5 еЗ ^сб
d6 15 f5! enabled White to maintain
the advantage due to the passivity of
Black’s light-squared bishop in the
game Lputian-A.Panchenko, Sochi
1987.
9 exd6?
It was not too late to admit the er-
ror on move eight by continuing with
9 0-0.
9../?Jxf2!
9...Jlxe3 does not have the same ef-
fect, as White is then able to escape the
worst thanks to 10 0-0!
10A>xf2Sxe3 11 ФП J.g4
Black’s attack plays itself. The lack
of co-ordination between the white
rooks and the poor situation of
White’s king makes his position prac-
tically hopeless after just 11 moves!
12 JLe2 £xf3 13 Juxf3 Wh4 14 -£d2
There is nothing better. For exam-
ple, 14 g3? Wh3+ 15 JLg2 Wf5+ loses at
once.
14...Паев 15 g3 ®h3+ 16 &д2 Wf5+
17 &f3
Or 17 <?3f3 fid3! and Black wins.
17...Wd3+ 18 Фд2 Se2+ 19 Дхе2
2xe2+ 20 ФЬЗ ®f5+ 21 ФИ4 g5+ 22
ФК5 Wh3+ 23 Фхд5 ФеЗ+ 24 Ф16
We6 mate 0-1
Game 44
Brankov-Peev
Bulgarian Team Championship 1992
1 d4 £if6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £>g4 4 £)f3
ДсБ 5 еЗ £>c6 6 ЬЗ £>gxe5 7 ФЬ2
A natural enough move, but White
may be better off playing 7 21xe5
*21x65 8 JLb2 d6 (8...We7? led to a
nasty accident for Black in G.Flear-
N.Kostic, Biel 1991, after 9 23c3 0-0 10
2M5 Wd6 11 Wd2 a5 12 Wc3 f6 13
0-0-0 Де8 14 Jle2 ±a3? 15 2Ы6+
Wxf6 16 Axa3 Wxf2 17 fihfl 1-0, be-
cause 17...®xe2 fails to 18 Wxe5! with
back-rank mate to follow) 9 23c3 (the
encounter Anastasian-Yermolinsky,
USSR 1987, deviated with 9 JLe2?!,
when Black was able to obtain excel-
lent counterplay by immediately at-
tacking the undefended g2-pawn with
9..>g5 10 0-0 Ah3 11 ±f3 0-0-0 12
21c3 h5!, when I certainly would not
like to be in White’s shoes) 9..JLg4 10
Wd2 Wh4 11 £id5 0-0-0 12 Wa5!, when
White held a strong initiative in
G.Flear-Legky, Fourmies 1991.
7...d6 8 £e2 0-0 9 0-0 a5 10 £ic3
®xf3+ 11 i.xf3 ^e5 12
85
The Budapest Gambit
12 &.e2 would lead back to the
standard line of Games 36-39.
12...i.a7 13 £ig3 Wh4
A positional sacrifice that is based
on the strength of the bishop pair,
made all the more interesting as White
is game and accepts the challenge!
14 Дхе5 dxe5 15 Wd5 We7 16
Wxa5 f5 17 ФЫ?!
We have reached an extremely criti-
cal stage as the players wrestle for the
initiative. At this point it may have
been prudent for White to retreat his
queen at once with 17 Wd2, as now
Black is able to increase the pressure
with every move.
17...e4 18 JLe2 £e6 19 We5 ic5 20
Sfd1 ±d6 21 Wc3 Jtc8 22 Wc2 Де5
23 НаЫ Sa6!
Here comes that ‘Budapest rook’!
24 5jf1 3h6 25 дЗ сб 26 Ь4 g5 27
f4?
It would have been wiser for White
to keep the position closed, and there-
fore 27 c5 is more to the point. Now
we can appreciate the meaning of the
phrase ‘raking bishops’.
27...exf3 28 £xf3 f4 29 exf4 gxf4
30 g4 Sh3 31 Wg2 Wh4 32 fib3 2?h8
33 fibd3
33...Sxf3 34 Wxf3 £xg4 35 We4 £g7
36 We1 Wh5 37 Sld2 &f3+ 38 Sxf3
Wxf3+ 39 fig2 Ji.c3 40 We2 Wxe2 41
Sxe2 £xb4 42 Eb2 JLc5 43 £id2 f3 44
Sb3 f2 45 Фд2 Se8 46 Exb7 5g8+ 47
&h3 Sg1 48 Sc7 0-1
Not waiting for the potent reply
48...Udi.
Game 45
Thorfinnsson-Tonning
Gausdal 1993
1 d4 ®f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 <йд4 4 £if3
ji.c5 5 еЗ ^сб 6 Jed 2
With this move White intends to
place his bishop on c3, but it is a
rather longwinded manoeuvre and
White’s pieces become slightly con-
gested.
6...0-0
G.-.'SlgxeS is also perfectly playable,
although Black must be careful to
meet 7 4ixe5 <?3xe5 8 JLc3 with
8...We7!, as the natural 8...d6? loses a
piece to 9 b4 JLb6 10 c5! After 8...We7!
the game Inkiov-Cubas, Palma de Mal-
lorca 1989, continued 9 Wd5 d6 10 b4
c6 11 Wd2 ±b6 12 £e2 0-0 13 0-0 ^g4
14 JLxg4 JLxg4 15 ^аЗ Sad8 with ex-
86
Main Line with 4 G}f3: 4...&.c5 5 еЗ ^сб
cellent play for Black.
7	&c3 We7
7...	Де8 is also effective, when the
routine 8 JLd3?I can be met by the
unexpected 8...d6! If White pockets
the pawn with 9 exd6, 9...£lxf2! 10
^xf2 ДхеЗ И ФИ JLg4 launches a
ferocious attack against White’s
stranded king. An almost identical
theme was witnessed in Game 43.
8	Wd5?
Ambitious but misguided. Now the
white queen will prove to be exposed
to attack by his opponent’s minor
pieces. Moskalenko-Budnikov, Beijing
1991, saw White retain a small edge
with 8 JLd4 ‘SlgxeS 9 <?3xe5 ?3xe5 10
-5k3 ±b4 11 £e2 d6 12 0-0 £xc3 13
ЛхсЗ due to the useful bishop pair,
but there is an interesting pawn sacri-
fice worth investigating after 8 JLd4,
i.e. 8...‘£)xd4 9 exd4 JLb4+ 10 £3bd2 d6
11 h3, which can lead to a highly in-
triguing piece sacrifice after ll...dxe5!?
12 hxg4 JLxg4 with fantastic complica-
tions.
8...	Se8 9 a3 a5 10£d4 b6!
A multipurpose move which high-
lights the error of White’s eighth
move. 10...b6 is designed to defend his
bishop on c5 and prepare to fianchetto
his light-squared bishop, from where it
will embarrass the queen on d5.
11 h3 2ih6 12 £ic3 JLb7 13 £xc5
bxc5 14 £e2 Eab8
Black will be able to exert strong
pressure against the pawn on b2.
15 Wd2 £xe5 16 ^b5 -i.xf3 17 gxf3
d5!
Black is alert to the tactical possi-
bilities. This thematic and central
breakthrough is possible since 18
Wxd5? drops a piece to 18...c6.
18 cxd5?
It is amazing just how quickly
White’s position has gone downhill.
18 ^c3 is clearly preferable, but still
18...d4! 19 £ld5 Wh4 is unpleasant.
18...Hxb5 19 f4
Note that 19 JLxb5? is impossible
due to 19...<§3xf3+.
19...Eeb8 20 Sb1 ®g6 21 £xb5
Hxb5 22 Wd3 Eb6 23 Wc4 ®f5 24
£>d2 £jd6 25 Wc2 £>e4+ 26 &c1 c4
27 h4 h5 28 <£>d1 c3 29 Фе1 «jxf4
30 ЬхсЗ Sxb1+ 31 Wxb1 ^g2+ 0-1
87
The Budapest Gambit
Summary
The games in this chapter are particularly energetic and there are no hard and
fast rules. Black must therefore be quick to adapt to his opponent’s various
methods of development. The ‘Budapest rook’ sortie is one that Black must be-
come familiar with in this line. Game 38 is a classic illustration of this theme in
action.
The announcement of White’s forthcoming attack with 10 ФЬ1 in Game 40
should not be underestimated and needs to be calmly and concisely met with a
timely ...f7-f5.
1 d4 6 2 c4 e5 3 dxeS £>g4 4 £>f3 ^.cS 5 e3 £ic6
6.i:e2
6b3(DJ
6...0-0 - Game 43
6...£igxe5 - Game 44
6 JLd2 - Game 45
6...0-0 7 0-0 Ee8
7...£kxe5 - Game 42
8£>c3
8 a3 - Game 41
8...&gxe5 9 ®xe5 &xe5 (D)<\ 0 b3
10	ФЫ - Game 40
10...	aS 11 ilb2
11	£>e4 - Game 39
11...	Ha6£);i2&a4
12	Wd5 - Game 37
12	£te4 - Game 38
12...8 -Game36
6b3	9..&xe5	11..Лаб
88
CHAPTER EIGHT
Main Line with 4 4^f3:
4...^c6
1 d4 2Л6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 <Ag4 4 &f3
C;c6
Although 4..Лс5 5 e3 is far and
away the most popular sequence after
4 2>f3, 4...£)c6, keeping open the
king’s bishop’s options, is occasionally
played. If White chooses to play 5 e3,
play will usually transpose to the pre-
vious chapter after 5...Ac5. However,
in Game 46 we consider a promising
alternative for Black that involves a
kingside fianchetto. Black was able to
generate tricks along the h8-al diago-
nal once White had committed him-
self to b2-b3, but how else can White
develop his queen’s bishop once 5 e3
blocks the other diagonal?
5 <£)c3 is also likely to transpose to
the previous chapter after 5...JLc5 6 e3,
but an offbeat idea is shown in Game
47, a classic Budapest game by the at-
tack-minded English grandmaster Jul-
ian Hodgson.
5 JLg5, as witnessed in Games 48-50,
is a far more ambitious line, aiming to
gain a tempo against the black queen
with <2k3-d5 once the bishop on e7
has been recaptured. Polugayevsky
provides a good demonstration of this
theme in Game 48, although I would
say that Black was equal from the
opening.
Game 46
Maurer-Nurkic
Imperia 1990
1 d4 2>f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 Cig4 4 2tf3
£>c6 5 e3 <£igxe5
5...JLc5 is a direct transposition to
Chapter 7.
6 £e2 g6!?
89
The Budapest Gambit
The dark-squared bishop will be ac-
tively placed along the h8-al diagonal.
The position now takes on some simi-
larities to the King’s Indian Defence.
7 0-0 £g7 8 £>c3 0-0 9 Wd2
White is preparing b2-b3 in order to
complete his queenside development.
If White first exchanges knights with 9
<?}xe5 £lxe5 and then continues 10
Wd2, Black is able to take advantage of
the weakened diagonal by 10...a5! 11
b3 a4, when both 12 ^3xa4?! £tf3+ 13
^.xf3 JLxal and 12 JLb2 a3! are in his
favour.
9...d6 10 h3?
Preventing 10..JLg4 but creating a
fresh weakness on the kingside. How-
ever, it is not so easy for White as 10
4ixe5 dxe5! allows Black comfortable
equality. Note that 10...£lxe5 is posi-
tionally less pleasant for Black, as he
must either concede the d5-square or
suffer with a vulnerable d-pawn if he
chooses to cover it with ...c7-c6.
10...a5!
Black anticipates his opponent’s
next move and begins an interesting
tactical battle.
11 b3 a4 12 £a3
Forced, since 12 JLb2 is met by the
strong 12...a3! 13 JLcl ^xf3+ 14 JLxf3
Wf6 and the knight on c3 is loose.
12...£>xf3+ 13 JLxf3 ±xh3?
A hasty decision as Black gets a lit-
tle carried away. It is true that Black is
doing very well, but the simple
13...axb3 14 axb3 4Ъ5 15 Wc2 JLf5! (it
is useful to oblige White to shut the
a8-hl diagonal and at the same time
Black takes control of the d4-square)
16 e4 JLxh3! 17 gxh3 Wf6 is more ef-
fective as Black regains his sacrificed
material with interest. Note that 18
Ji.b4 is met by 18...£k:6!
14 gxh3 Wf6 15 Дхсб Ьхсб 16 чЛе4!
The knight is able to head towards
the kingside to help with the defence.
Again 16 JLb2? is bad on account of
16...a3!, while on 16 Hfcl Sa5! allows
Black to transfer powerful back up for
his attack.
16...We6 17 Wc2 Wxh3 18 £b2
Wg4+ 19 £>g3 i.xb2 20 ®xb2 f5
Black clearly has compensation for
the piece but I would not like to haz-
ard a guess at whom is better in this
rather random situation! However,
the rest is fun.
21 We2 Wh3 22 Sfel &h8 23 Sadi
axb3 24 axb3 h5 25 Sa1 Sab8 26
Sa 7 Sf7 27 Seal £h7 28 Sla3 Se8
29 Sa8 Ее 5 30 Wf1 Wg4 31 Wg2 f4
32 exf4 Wxf4 33 S3a5 c5 34 Sc8 h4
35 Saa8 Wc1+ 36 Wf1
Or 36 &fl Sg5.
36...Se1 0-1
Game 47
Hebden-Hodgson
Guernsey 1985
1 d4 £if6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ^g4 4 &f3
90
Main Line with 4 fof3: 4...^c6
£jc6 5 £)c3 £}gxe5
After 5..JLc5 6 e3, play transposes
into Chapter 7 (4 £sf3 Ac5 5 еЗ ^сб 6
4?ic3) while 5...JLb4?! is inaccurate be-
cause 6 JLg5! is extremely awkward to
meet.
6 йхеб £ixe5
7Wc2
White keeps his options open as to
which side to castle, but there was
nothing wrong with the mundane 7 e4
followed by 8 0-0.
7...^.b4 8 еЗ?!
This further indecision allows Black
a clear and aggressive plan that Hodg-
son is not one to pass over. The fact
that White chooses to push his e-pawn
again in a couple of moves suggests
that 8 e4 would have been to the
point. The game Alberola-Adsuara,
Valencia 1992, continued 8...b6 9 JLe3
&b7 10 f3 We7 11 0-0-0 ^.хсЗ 12 Wxc3
d6 13 f4 ^g6 14 ±d3 0-0-0 15 Wa3
ФЬ8 (critical is 15...JLxe4! 16 Wxa7
Jlxd3 17 Sxd3 We4 with chances for
both sides) 16 Shel, when White kept
a certain amount of pressure.
8..JLxc3+
At first sight this capture appears to
be premature, but there is a logical
reason behind the immediate ex-
change. Black wishes to avoid the line
8...0-0 9 £d2, when 10 аЗ &хсЗ И
JLxc3 guarantees the white bishop a
powerful post on c3.
9 Wxc3 Wf6 10 e4 d6 11 ДеЗ b6 12
i.e2 £b7 13 f3 0-0-0 14 0-0
Given the fierce attack that follows,
it might well have been sounder for
White to also castle long.
14...g5!
It is well known that, when faced
with an opposite castled position, one
must embark on a pawn storm toward
the enemy king. The difficulty can be
in choosing which pawn to push, but
here it is clear that the g-pawn both
secures the post of the black knight on
e5 and threatens to interfere with
White’s pawn structure with a timely
...g5-g4 in due course. The ‘advantage
of the bishop pair’ is certainly not
worth much here!
15 Sac1
15 a4 is the move that springs to
mind, but Black can then hold up any
attack by means of 15...a5, when 16
b4?? fails to 16...‘?3xf3+! followed by
17...Wxc3. As White’s counterplay on
the queenside is non-existent, the last
91
The Budapest Gambit
chance to stay firmly in the game was
15 Jlxg5 Wxg5 16 f4.
15...c5!
A necessary precaution as White
was threatening 16 c5! himself, when
either pawn capture on c5 is met by 17
b4 with a dangerous initiative down
the c-file.
16 b4 Shg8 17 4h1 Wg6 18 bxc5
g4 19Hg1
What else? If 19 fxg4 Wxe4 20 JLf3
£W3 21 gxf3 Wxg4! or 19 f4 Wxe4 20
Hf2 g3 21 hxg3 fixg3 is crushing.
19...gxf3 20 gxf3 ®xe41!
My favourite combination of the
whole book. There is absolutely no
defence to the power of the black fi-
anchettoed bishop on b7.
21 Sxg8 Sxg8 0-1
Game 48
Polugayevsky-Nunn
Biel 1986
1 d4 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £)g4 4 £rf3
ftc6 5 Jig 5 £е7 6 £xe7 Wxe7 7
£ic3 0-0
7...Wb4?! is a dubious experiment
that is only justified if White allows
Black to grab the pawn. 8 a3? actually
occurred in I.Farago-Forintos, Hun-
garian Championship 1987, when af-
ter 8...Wxc4 9 e3 Wc5, the position
quickly went downhill for White as he
failed to find the testing, although de-
cidedly unclear, line 10 ^bb Wb6 11
h3 a6! (avoiding the trap 11...43gxe5 12
<?3xe5 <53xe5 13 Wd4! which results in
material loss for Black) 12 <?3xc7+
Wxc7 13 hxg4 43xe5. However, I be-
lieve that Black cannot be worse here.
The real reason for mistrusting
7...Wb4 is the solid reply 8 Wb3 Wxb3
9 axb3 'Sfr’dS (Black is not spoilt for
choice here, as 9...£3gxe5 10 *53хе5
4ixe5 11 £3b5! allows White to remain
a clear pawn up) 10 g3! He8 11 Jlg2
4Jgxe5 12 4Jxe5 Hxe5 13 f4 Неб 14
&f2 b6 15 A.d5 He7 16 b4 £b7 17 b5
<?3a5 18 b4 JLxd5 19 41xd5 ,$3xc4 20
^Зхе7 Фхе7 21 Had, when this time
Farago got it right and was rewarded
with a technically winning ending in
I.Farago-Wechmeier, Lippstadt 1994.
The immediate 7...£}gxe5 is seen in
Games 49 and 50.
8 Tid5 Wd8
8...Wc5 is not really the ticket as 9
e3 <53gxe5 10 £3xe5 £)xe5 11 b4! Wd6
12 c5 leads to the loss of the c7-pawn
92
Main Line with 4 Qf3: 4...^c6
without any real compensation for
Black.
9 e3 ^gxe5 10 4hxe5 <2>xe5 11 jle2
d6 12 0-0 c6
A double-edged decision that can-
not be taken lightly, as the vulnerabil-
ity of the d-pawn must always be at
the back of Black’s mind.
13 ?Jc3 Деб
I have serious reservations about
whether this bishop belongs on e6,
since there is always a possibility of it
being hit by the f-pawn at a later stage.
Therefore I recommend 13...We7 14
Wd4 f5 15 f4 ^d7 16 Sfel ^kf6 17
Sadi 2d8 18 JLf3 Wf7 when Black
was fine in the game Ziiger-Abdel,
Dubai Olympiad 1986.
14b3 Wa5 15Wd2
It is clear that things are not going
well for Black. Polugayevsky also had
the option of 15 Wd4!, when the
threat of the ‘charge of the f-pawn’ is
difficult to face.
15...Sad8 16f4jLg4
A sneaky tactical shot since 17 fxe5
allows Black to regain the piece with
17...JLxe2. However, it is not enough
to rescue Black’s position.
17 ±d1 -a.xd1 18 Saxdl £>g4 19 h3
-h6
I would flinch at having to make
such an ugly retreat, but the alterna-
tive 19...£lf6 20 £kl5! Wxd2 21 l21xf6-i-
gxf6 22 Sxd2 leaves Black in an ex-
tremely unpleasant rook and pawn
ending due to his poor structure.
20 e4 f5 21 Sfel Sfe8 22 ФИ2 fxe4
23 Sxe4 Sxe4 24 £txe4 Wh5 25
£g5 £rf7 26 £if3 d5?
This freeing attempt actually has-
tens the end, as the d-pawn rapidly
becomes ripe for picking. However,
the more resilient 26...Ж5 was hardly
fun for Black.
27 We3 Wf5 28 cxd5 cxd5 29 g4
Wc2+ 30 Sd2 Wc7 31 Sxd5!
A tactical finesse that spells the end;
and the rest is grandmaster technique.
Of course 31...Hxd5 allows mate in
one.
31...Sf8 32 ФдЗ ftdS 33 We5 Wc8
34 We7 Wc1 35 5f5 2tf7 36 Wxb7
дб 37 Sf6 Wb2 38 We7 Wxa2 39
We6 Wa1 40 h4 Фд7 41 д5 a5 42 f5
gxf5 43 h5 Wc3 44 2xf5 Wc7+ 45
ФИЗ Wc3 46 h6+ Фд8 47 дб hxg6
48 Wxg6+ ФИ8 49 Exf7 1-0
Game 49
Liardet-Bartsch
Germany 1996
1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 <^g4 4 2rf3
£>c6 5 ±g5 JLe7 6 £xe7 Wxe7 7
<£>c3 £)gxe5
see following diagram
8<$jxe5
An enterprising alternative is 8
£)d5!? Wd8 (it may look tempting to
opt for 8...£jxf3+ 9 gxf3, but in fact
93
The Budapest Gambit
the opening of the g-file only helps
White, as shown by 9...®d8 10 Hgl!
0-0 11 Wd2, threatening 12 Wh6) 9
£ixe5 £>xe5 10 ®d4 f6 (notice that the
natural 10...d6? drops the pawn on g7
after 11 f4!) 11 f4 (Semkov-Corsa,
Rome 1990, also showed that 11 e3
was not without venom: 11...d6 12
ke2 0-0 13 Sdl b6? succumbed to 14
£)xb6! axb6 15 Wd5+ JLe6 16 Wxe6+
Ф118 17 a3 etc., but it is not difficult to
find an improvement to Black’s 13th
move here) ll...£)g6 12 We4+ Ф17 13
g3 Se8 14 Wd3 d6 15 £g2 kd7 16
0-0-0 Ac6 17 Sd2, when White ob-
tained a significant edge due his excel-
lent piece co-ordination in Laketic-
Gavric, Yugoslavian Team Champi-
onship 1994.
8...Wxe5 9e3 0-0 10£d3
10 JLe2 is the subject of the next
game.
10...d6 11 0-0 ±e6 12 Wd2 f5 13 f4
Wc5 14 a3
On 14 4^a4?l, 14...Wb4 is embarrass-
ing for White, while the text move
indirectly defends the c4-pawn since
14...^.xc4?? drops a piece to 15 b4.
14...a5 15 £sa4 Wa7 16 £h1 Sae8
17 b4 £d7 18 c5 £)b8!
A multipurpose move which solves
all of Black’s problems in one go. The
main point is that the bishop on d7 is
now defended in various tactical lines.
19 J.,c4+ £h8 20 b5 dxc5 21 Sf3
ic8
Black would be able to make his life
even simpler if he could exchange
bishops with 21...Jte6, but at the mo-
ment this runs into 22 JLxe6 Дхеб 23
Wd5, when White regains his pawn in
favourable circumstances. However,
for this reason, 21...b6!? must come
into serious consideration in order to
defend the c5-pawn and prepare
22...кеб.
22 b6?
This second pawn sacrifice smacks
of desperation. As long as Black keeps
a cool head and is prepared to return
the odd pawn, if necessary, to seize the
initiative, victory is in the bag. As it
happens, White continues to force the
pace and soon finds himself running
out of steam.
22...cxb6 23 Sd1 £c6 24 Sh3 кеб
25 кхеб Дхеб 26 Wd7 Де7 27 Wd6
h6 28 2xh6+ gxh6 29 Wxh6+ £g8
30 Sd6 Sg7 31 We6+ Sff7 32 We8+
ФИ7 33 We6 Wa6 34 Wh6+ Фд8 0-1
94
Main Line with 4 Gf3: 4...&C6
Game 50
Marin-Kaposztas
Budapest 1990
1 d4 6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £>g4 4 £>f3
£ic6 5 £g5 kel 6 £xe7 ®xe7 7
ЬсЗ >5'jgxe5 8 ®xe5 Wxe5 9 e3 0-0
10£e2 d6 11 0-0 £e6?!
Instead, the immediate ll...f5, in-
tending ...f5-f4, deserved attention.
Black can meet 12 Wd5+ with 12...Ш7
followed by 13....sLe6, when Black’s
easy development guarantees him a
promising position.
12 Wd2 аб?! 13 Sac1 Sac8 14 Sfd1
f5 15f4Wf6 16b3 3?h8?
A second pointless move that does
nothing to prevent White from in-
creasing his positional advantage.
Black really needs to be more ener-
getic in the early stages or there is this
danger of becoming cramped.
17 £f3 Sfe8 18 2)d5 &xd5 19 Jtxd5
Se7 20 Sc3 Sce8 21 Sd3 ?Jd8 22
Ь4 c6 23 &f3 £sf7 24 a4 Йе 6 25
Й'сЗ Фд8 26 b5 Wc8
26...axb5 makes more sense in order
to avoid the weakness at a6, but it is a
little late to worry about the most ac-
curate continuation now. The depress-
ing ending that arises is a direct result
of Black’s lazy approach in the early
stages of the middlegame.
27 Ьхсб bxc6 28 Sb1 ЙЬ7 29 Wc2
a5 30 Sxb7 Wxb7 31 Sb3 Wa7 32
Wd3 Wc5 33 Wd4 Wxd4 34 exd4 c5
35 dxc5 dxc5 36 Sb5 5jd6 37 ±d5+
4>f8 38 Sxc5 Se1+ 39 4>f2 Ic1 40
Sxa5 <jxc4 41 Sc5 Sc2+ 42 ФдЗ
2te3 43 Йхс2 £>xc2 44 a5 £>d4 45
аб ЙВ5 46 &f3 Фе7 47 ±д8 h6 48
ФеЗ Sd7 49 £c4 ^a7 50 *d4 дб
51 &c5 1-0
95
The Budapest Gambit
Summary
After 4...^c6, neither 5 4k3 nor 5 e3 can be considered to be a thorn in the side
of Budapest players - in fact Black can simply transpose to the previous chapter
or adopt one of the aggressive possibilities of Games 46 and Game 47.
A slightly more active option for White is the development the dark-squared
bishop with 5 JLg5 before closing the position with e2-e3. However, the resul-
tant exchange of bishops after 5...Ji.e7 should aid Black’s position as he is slightly
cramped.
1 d4 £if6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 &g4 4 £)f3 ^c6 (D)
5&g5
5 e3 - Game 46
5 £k3 - Game 47
5...£.e7 6 i.xe7 Wxe7 7 £>c3 (D) 2igxe5
7...0-0 - Game 48
8 «xe5 Wxe5 9 e3 0-0 (D) 10 jie2
10 JLd3 - Game 49
1O...d6 - Game 50
96
CHAPTER NINE
4 еЗ ^xe5:
White Plays ^h3
1 d4 ЗД6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £>g4 4 e3
£ixe5
Although 4 e3 can hardly be con-
sidered to be the most critical response
to the Budapest, it promises White a
safe and solid opening. Certainly 4 e3
is a good way to avoid the accidents
that sometimes befall White on f2.
Once Black has continued 4...4ixe5,
it is not particularly appetising for
White to follow up with 5 ?3f3 £}xf3+
6 Wxf3, and therefore all the examples
in this chapter cover the king’s knight
developing via the square h3, from
where it intends to settle on f4 and
cover the important d5-square.
In the first three games of this chap-
ter Black counters his opponent with a
kingside fianchetto, while in Games 54
and 55 we see him directly cutting
across White’s £)h3-f4 with ...£ig6.
Game 51
Zwikowski-Gurieli
Genting Highlands 1990
1 d4 £sf6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 &g4 4 e3
£>xe5 5 £>h3
An unusual knight manoeuvre that
will become familiar by the end of the
chapter. White intends to place his
knight on f4 in order to control the
d5-square. In any case, it is certainly
illogical to opt for 5 £tf3 now, when
5...^3xf3+ 6 Wxf3 £k6 leaves Black at
least equal. If White wishes to develop
his knight to f3, it is necessary to em-
ploy the move order 1 d4 <2if6 2 c4 e5
3 dxe5 <5^bg4 4 <^f3, which was covered
in Chapters 7 and 8.
5...g6 6 ^f4
A safer continuation for White is 6
97
The Budapest Gambit
JLd2, aiming to neutralise his oppo-
nent’s fianchettoed bishop. Aleksan-
drov-Pavlenko, Ashkhabad 1990, con-
tinued 6...d6 7 £if4 Jlg7 8 JLc3 0-0 9
ke2 £>bd7 10 <^d2 b6 11 0-0 £b7 12
£3d5 c6 13 &f4	14 Wc2 We7 15
Hadi Had8 16 <?3e4 ^3xe4 17 Wxe4
Sfe8 18 Wc2 f5 19 Wa4 Wc7 20 Sd2
with a minimal edge for White.
6...£g7 7 Фе2 0-0 8 0-0 d6 9 ^c3
£>bd7
The immediate 9...a5, reserving the
option of developing the knight on a6,
is discussed in Game 53.
10 Wd2
The alternative 10 Wc2 is consid-
ered in the next game.
10.. .aS
A typical positional consideration
that enables Black to secure a knight
on c5.
11 b3 £>c5 12 ФаЗ £d7 13 Sadi b6
14 Wc1 3e8 15 £tfd5 f5 16 £ib5
prove more useful than a rook and
two pawns.
16...C6 17 £lxd6 cxd5 18 £ixe8
Wxe8 19 £xc5 bxc5 20 cxd5
20 Sxd5 is not as strong as it first
appears, because 20.. JLc6 forces White
to retreat on account of the tactical
variation 21 Sxc5? JLf8, trapping the
rook.
2O...£b5 21 Sfel Sc8 22 £c4 jLxc4
23 bxc4 Wa4 24 e4 Wxc4 25 Wxc4
Ф1хс4 26 exf5 gxf5 27 d6 Sd8 28 d7
£te5 29 Sd5 i>f7 30 Sed1 c4 31
Sxa5 Sxd7 32 Sxd7+ ^xd7 33 Sa7
Феб 34 Ф11 c3 35 Фе2 £d4 36 Sc7
Ф>с5 37 f3 &d5 38 &d1 Фе5 0-1
39 Sxh7 i21d3 40 a3 (to prevent
40...4Л4) 4О...Фс4 is an easy win, be-
cause Black can shepherd his pawn
home.
White must have been hoping for
the continuation 16...Sc8 17 <2id4,
when his knight settles on a more cen-
tral square. Black’s decision to enter
the complications must be correct as
two well placed minor pieces in the
middlegame should nearly always
Game 52
M.Gurevich-Tisdall
Akureyri 1988
1 d4 £}f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £sg4 4 e3
£>xe5 5 ^h3 g6 6 &f4 &g7 7 i.e2
0-0 8 0-0 d6 9 ФсЗ £sbd7 10 Wc2
a5 11 id2 &c5 12Sad1 f5!
Black seizes the opportunity to cre-
98
4 еЗ £ixe5: White Plays foh3
ate a set-up that has many similarities
to the Leningrad variation of the
Dutch Defence. His pawn structure is
extremely flexible and this enables
him to control the important e4-
square. Moreover, White must worry
about the break ...g6-g5 which will
ensure Black plenty of counterplay,
while it is worth noting that the ap-
parent weakening of the g8-a2 diago-
nal, and specifically the e6-square, is
not particularly relevant here as White
is unable to utilise this.
13 2te4?
A waste of time that White tries to
rectify the following move. More to
the point was 13 b3, planning the
thematic 14 a3 and b3-b4 in order to
oust the knight from the c5-square,
when the position is roughly balanced.
13...b6 14 £>c3 &b7 15 £>cd5 Sf7
16 £c1 Wh4 17 b3 Se8 18 ±b2
±c8 19 f3 g5 20 £>d3 ^cxd3 21
Jcxd3 f4
Securing a dominant post for the
knight on e5. It is completely clear
that Black has succeeded in taking
over the initiative.
22 £e4 -й-еб 23 Wf2 Wh5 24 £c1
«ef8 25 2fe1 fxe3 26 £ixe3 h6 27
We2 £h8 28 Sf1 £ig6 29 £b2
Of course 29 g4? fails to 29...W4!
29...Jtxb2 30 Wxb2+ ^e5 31 £d3
g4 32 fxg4 &xg4 33 Sxf7 Sxf7 34
Sf1 Wg5!
see following diagram
Black strengthens his pressure with
the aid of a tactical resource, for if 35
Hxf7? Wxe3+ is too strong.
35 Wd2 36 £c2 i.xg2 37 Hxf7
±c64- 38 &f1 £>xf7 0-1
Game 53
Zayats-Malaniuk
Minsk 1988
1 d4 £tf6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 2>g4 4 e3
£xe5 5 <^h3 g6 6 JLe2 &g7 7 &f4
d6 8 ^c3 a5 9 0-0 0-0 10 £d2 2>a6
11 2te4 5e8 12 f3 f5 13 &f2 £ic5
14Sc1 b6 15 ЬЗ
The reason that Black has no diffi-
culties in meeting this system is that
his development is so fluid. My trainer
often used to say ‘The pawns tell the
pieces where to go,’ and I didn’t really
have a clue what he was on about at
the time! However, this a prime ex-
ample of his insight in action, as
99
The Budapest Gambit
Black’s pieces take up their ideal posts
in harmony with the surrounding
pawns.
16 fie1 Wd7 17 Wc2 Wf7 18 Scd1
Xh8
This is not strictly necessary, and
therefore 18,..£k6 immediately is
preferable. However, I must admit
that it is always comforting when
there are no possibilities of a sudden
check along an open diagonal.
19 ic1 £>c6 20 ^d5 ^d8 21 ±f1
5'ide6 22 JLb2 ^.xb2 23 ®xb2+ Wg7
24 Wxg7+
Perhaps White thought that she was
heading for a draw, but it is unwise to
exchange queens here, because Black’s
king can achieve rapid centralisation
for the ending. Instead, the natural 24
Wc2 would have left White on an
equal footing.
24...Фхд7 25 e4 fxe4 26 ^xe4
^xe4 27 Sxe4 Jtxd5 28 cxd5
Now that the position has clarified
itself, the error of White’s strategy is
plain to see. She spent a lot of time
exchanging the dark-squared bishops,
which slightly loosened the black
monarch, but the further exchange of
queens made this weakness totally ir-
relevant and only served to leave
White with a potentially bad bishop
(one which is expected to manoeuvre
on the same colour as her fixed
pawns). A classic situation of good
knight against bad bishop has been
reached with an unpleasant defensive
task in store for White.
28...2ic5 29 Hc4 Se3 30 &f2 3ae8
31 Bc2 S8e5 32 Se2 Sxe2+
Black is careful not to fall for the
trap 32...£id3+? 33 Sxd3! Sxd3 34
Дхе5, when the tables turn against
him.
33 ±xe2 5h5 34 h3 Sh4 35 £c4
<£f6 36 Se1? Exc4!
Leading to a simple king and pawn
ending where White is only able to
watch as his pawns bite the dust.
37 bxc4 ®d3+ 38 <4>e2 ®xe1 39
Фхе1 Фе5 0-1
Game 54
Calvo-lllescas
Spanish Championship 1989
1 d4 ^if6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ^ g4 4 e3
«,хе5 5 <?Jc3 &bc6 6 £h3 £>g6
Two rather strange looking knight
moves in a row! With 6...£ig6 Black is
100
4 еЗ £>хе5: White Plays Qhh3
attempting to put a spanner in the
works by preventing the white knight
continuing with its intended course of
action via the £4-square.
7 Ji.e2?!
A rather ‘wet’ approach. 7 Wh5 is
more dangerous, transposing to Game
55. Meanwhile, 7 4id5 a5 8 b3 Ab4+ 9
^хЬ4 axb4 10 JLb2 0-0 11 g3 d6 12
JLg2 JLf5 13 £3 We7 14 £>f2 Да5 15
<§3f4 ^xf4 16 exf4 d5!, intending
17...WC5+, gave Black plenty of activ-
ity in Lutz-A.Fernandez, Groningen
1987.
7...^.b4 8 ld2 d6 9 &xf4 10
exf4
As a consequence of disrupting the
co-ordination of his pieces with 7 JLe2,
White has left himself with a poor
pawn structure. If the knight had been
left on h3 it would have been vulner-
able to .. JLxh3.
10...0-0 11 £id5 &xd2+ 12 Wxd2
&e7 13 Sd1 £>f5 14 0-0 c6 15 &c3
Ee8 16l.d3 Wa5 17Wc2
17 JLxf5? Jlxf5 18 Wxd6 Zad8 19
Wa3 Wxa3 20 bxa3 JLd3 leaves White
struggling in a particularly grotty end-
ing, while 17 Sfel Жхе1+ 18 Sxel
Jce6 allows Black a comfortable game.
17...h6 18^51?!
The queen decentralisation allows
Black to embark on an interesting
kingside assault.
18.. £'h4 19 2ie4 Wh5 20 ®g3
20 4ixd6? must be considered but
unfortunately 2O...4ixg2! 21 £)xe8
^xf4 22 Jte4 Jlh3 leaves White facing
a vicious attack.
20..>g4 21 Efe1 Де6 22 Wc1 ±f5
Meeting the threat of 23 f3.
23 Se3 Jixd3 24 Sexd3 ;7 g6 25 f5
2rf4 26 Ef3 Ee4!
Setting the nasty tactical trap of
27...Дхс4! 28 Wxc4 £lh3+ and
29...Wxc4. Of course 27 4ixe4 is out of
the question due to mate on g2.
27 £f1 Eae8 28 Wc3 d5 29 h3 Wg5
30 cxd5 *5'ixd5 31 ®a3 Wd2 0-1
Game 55
Marin-De la Villa
Szirak Interzonal 1987
1 d4 2rf6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 2)g4 4 e3
^xe5 5 ®h3 2)g6 6 Wh5
The main point behind this ex-
travagant looking move is to prevent
Black’s set-up with ...Лс5. However, a
viable alternative was witnessed in the
game Drasko-Chatalbashev, Cacak
1991, which deviated with 6 £3c3 Ac5
(6...^3c6 transposes to Game 54) 7
Wh5 d6 8 <S^g5! (on the contrary, 8
JLd2 &d7 9 Wg5 2lf6 10 2>f4 h6 11
Wg3 &xf4 12 Wxf4 0-0 13 ^d5 <^g4 14
h3 <Sie5 15 b4 ±b6 16 ±c3 le6 17
£lc2 JLxd5 18 cxd5 a5! 19 b5 £3g6 led
to a more comfortable position for
Black in lonescu-Agnos) 8...£kl7 9
&ge4 0-0 10 Jle2 £)f6 11 W6+ Wxf6
12 £M5 Wd8 13 b4 £b6 14 ±b2 c6 15
101
The Budapest Gambit
£}xb6 Wxb6 16 ЛсЗ Леб 17 c5! Wd8
18 0-0 d5 19 f4, when White’s strong
bishop pair guaranteed him an indis-
putable advantage. It is therefore not
at all clear if it is in White’s interest to
prevent his opponent from playing
with ...Лс5.
6 g3 is another interesting plan.
White intends to restrict the scope of
the knight on g6, whilst developing
the white-squared bishop to the useful
diagonal hl-a8. For example, 6...^3c6
(the incredibly greedy 6...ЛЬ4+ 7 Лс12
Лхс12+ 8 Wxd2 d6 9 f4! We7 10 5^c3
ЛхЬЗ? 11 ЛхЬЗ £3xf4?? is justly pun-
ished by 12 Лс8! £3c6 13 ЛхЬ7 £3a5
14 Лха8 £)xc4 15 Wd4 £>xe3 16 Фс12
1-0 Nikolaidis-A.Ivanov, St Petersburg
1993) 7 a3 d6 8 f4 h5 9 &f2 Леб 10
&c3 Wd7 И Ле2 ^ge7 12 £)d5 h4 13
g4 f5 14 g5 0-0-0 with tactical possibili-
ties for both sides in Bogdanovski-
Szabolcsi, Bytom 1988.
6,..£)C6
6...ЛЬ4+ is well worth investigating
judging by the excellent play that
Black obtained due to his superior
pawn structure after 7 ^d2 Wf6! 8
Sbl d6 9 a3 Wf5 10 fxf5 Axd2+ 11
Лх<12 Лх15 12 Scl ЛхкЗ 13 gxh3
&d7 14 ЛсЗ 0-0 15 Hgl 2ae8 16 b4
£de5 17 Ле2 f5 18 f4 2>d7 19 &f2 &f6
in Maister-Bartsch, Germany 1994.
7 ^сЗ ЛЬ4 8 Л62 d6 9 Ле2 a5
9...Wf6, intending to exchange the
active queen on h5 by means of ...Wf5,
is also playabje. In the encounter
Shabalov-Getz, Philadelphia 1992, af-
ter 10 аЗ Ла5 11 b4 ЛЬб 12 0-0 Wf5 13
Wxf5 Лх15 14 ^g5 0-0 15 £)d5 Sfe8
16 2tf3 ^ce7 17 2)c3 Sad8 18 fifdl c6
19 Ле1 ^e5 20 &d4 Лс8 21 a4 Лс7 22
a5 d5? 23 cxd5 £lxd5 24 £jxd5 Sxd5
25 a6! Black was suddenly faced with
immense problems, but instead of the
hasty 22...d5?, 22,..a6 would have
maintained the equilibrium.
10 0-0 £ice5 11 f4 £k«7 12 2tf2 2sf6
13 Wg5 0-0 14 Sadi Be8 15 Л13
Леб 16 ЬЗ сб 17 Sfel d5 18 cxd5
cxd5 19 &Ь5 Ле7!
Black must rely on the dynamic po-
tential of his pieces and therefore
avoids the exchange of dark-squared
bishops, as the d-pawn would prove to
be too much of a liability in an end-
ing.
20 Wg3 ^e4 21 Лхе4 dxe4 22 2id4
White must already tread carefully,
as 22 <5^xe4? ЛЬ4 nets the exchange.
22...ЛК4 23 £sxe6 Sxe6 24 Wg4
□Lxf2+ 25 *xf2 Wb6 26 Фд1 h5 27
Wg5
27 Wxh5 ^3xf4 is the trick.
27...Sd6 28 f5 £ie5 29 f6 £)g6 30
fxg7 Wd8 31 Wxd8+ Saxd8 32 Se2
<Se5 33 &f1 Фхд7 34 Фе1 4id3+ 35
ФН 36 Фе1 ^d3+ 37 <£f1
38 <£e1 £jd3+ 39 *ff 1 ^e5 40 £e1
<£d3+ 1/2-’/2
102
4 еЗ Qixe5: White Plays Qsh3
Summary
Although the plan of meeting £>h3 with ...<?3g6 is interesting, Black has been
scoring well with the natural development of Games 51-53, so it is not really
necessary for Black to seek such alternative methods. I would especially like to
draw your attention to Tisdall’s concept of 12...f5! in Game 52, which offers an
excellent antidote to the white set-up.
1 d4 £f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 <?Ag4 4 еЗ £>xe5 5 <£h3
5...g6
5...^g6 (D)
6 ^c3 <?3c6 - Game 54
6 Wh5 - Game 55
6 £if4 ±g7 7 £e2 0-0 8 0-0 d6 9 £c3 (D) 2)bd7
9...a5 - Game 53
10 Wd2 (D)
10 Wc2 - Game 52
10Wd2
103
CHAPTER TEN
4 e4: Main Line with
4... ^xe5 5 f4 £tec6
In this chapter we shall consider the
main alternatives for both sides after
1 d4 £)f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ^g4 4 e4
53xe5 5 f4 <5jec6
4 e4 is one of White’s most aggres-
sive options and sharp positions are
likely to arise, where Black must fight
actively against his opponent’s strong
pawn centre. Although White pos-
sesses a spatial advantage, it is not easy
to convert this into something tangi-
ble and White must be careful not to
overstretch himself.
Although 5...4^ec6 takes away the
traditional developing square from the
queen’s knight, this piece will often
find a route into the game via a6
which, in combination with ...a7-a5,
sets up a battle for control over the
dark squares. (Other possibilities for
both sides on moves four and five after
4 e4 are considered in the next chap-
ter.)
White’s two most popular responses
to 5...<?3ес6 are 6 W3 (Games 56-59)
and 6 Ae3 (Games 60-62). Other pos-
sibilities for White are discussed in
Games 63 and 64.
The drawback of 6 W3 is that it al-
lows 6...JLc5, when White can no
longer castle kingside and will usually
have to go the other way. However,
this is rather slow and gives Black time
to try and undermine the white cen-
tre. To this end ...Jlg4 often comes in
handy, in order to pin the knight on
f3 against the white queen. Note that
Black should wait until his opponent
has ‘wasted’ a tempo with We2, as ex-
plained in detail in the notes to Game
57.
Black needs to play actively in this
line, otherwise his opponent’s pawn
centre may enable him to launch a
dangerous kingside attack.
Game 56
Cuartas-O’Kelly
Havana Olympiad 1966
1 d4 ^f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ®g4 4 e4
£ixe5 5 f4 £tec6 6 2rf3
see following diagram
104
4 e4: Main Line with 4...faxe5 5 f4 ^есб
6...±c5
The most frequent response, seizing
the active a7-gl diagonal. White can
expect an opening advantage after
6..JLb4+ 7 4k3 (White does not have
to worry about the doubling of his c-
pawns here, as it is far more relevant
that his centre is healthy and can be
used in combination with the useful
bishop pair. On the contrary, 7 JLd2
We7 allows Black excellent play) 7...d6
(7...We7?! did not work well in Castro-
Drimer, Lugano 1968, after 8 JLd3
&a6 9 0-0 ±xc3 10 bxc3 <5hc5 11 ±a3
b6 12 £3d4 -fi.b7 13 £)f5 Wf8 14 <Se3
£ia5 15 Sbl c6 16 e5 when White
plans a knight intrusion to d6) 8 Jtd3
JLg4 9 0-0 JLxc3 10 bxc3 <?3d7 11 h3
JLxf3 12 Wxf3, when Beyen-Simon,
Skopje Olympiad 1972, concluded
12...&C5 13 Jlc2 Wd7 14 ^.еЗ 0-0 15
e5! We6 16 exd6 cxd6 17 f5 Wf6 18
Wg3! h6 19 £f4 fiad8 20 Sadi 4te5 21
Sxd6! 1-0.
7 £ic3 d6 8 f5!?
Here White embarks on the sharp-
est course of action. Positionally it is
somewhat suspect to relinquish con-
trol over the e5-square, but here White
intends to follow up with ,&g5, in or-
der to oblige his opponent to respond
with ...f7-f6. The bishop will then re-
treat, followed by the thematic push
of the g-pawn, putting Black under
pressure on the kingside.
The solid 8 Jld3 is the subject of
Games 57-59.
8...£id7
Another valid response is 8...h6 to
prevent the annoying 9 Jlg5. Then
play might continue 9 Af4 <$3d7 10
Wd2 Jtb4! 11 J.d3 Wf6 12 Дс1 £)de5,
when Black stood well in Kramer-
Rubinow, New York 1946.
9 i.g5 f6 10 -Lf4 -Lb4!
The key move. Black must ex-
change his bishop for the knight in
order to prevent it reaching the pow-
erful d5-square.
11 Wc2 ®c5 12 0-0-0 ДхсЗ 13
Wxc3 a5!
Another important decision. Black
prepares to castle queenside where his
king will in fact be relatively safe.
13...0-0? turned out to be a serious er-
ror in Stajcic-Biro, Budapest 1990,
when 14 JLd3 a5 15 a3 We8 16 Shel
&.d7 17 Jlc2 a4 18 g4 ^3a5 19 g5 gave
White a lethal initiative on the king-
side.
705
The Budapest Gambit
14 £d3 b6 15 &Ы We7 16 Ehe1
Wf7 17 £d4 2>xd4 18 Exd4 £b7 19
b3 0-0-0 20 i.c2 &d7 21 Sed1 We7
22 a3 £ie5
With the ‘huge’ knight on e5 Black
has nothing to fear, as his opponent’s
bishop pair are never going to be a
threat in such a blocked position.
23 &Ь2 ^c6 24 b4 axb4 25 axb4
ФЬ7 26 b5 ^Ld7 27 £b3 Sa8 28
Wb4 JZe8 29 Wd2 £f7 30 Wb4 5a5
31 Sal Ex al 32 Фха1 Sa8+ 33 *b2
&c8 34 h3 £)d7 35 ic2 ®c5 36
Sdl d5!
Threatening the deadly ...^d3+.
37 &Ы dxc4 38 He1 Sa1+ 0-1
After 39 Фха1 ^Ь3+ is unfortu-
nately curtains.
Game 57
Novikov-Contin
A man tea 1991
1 d4 £)f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 <йд4 4 e4
2ixe5 5 f4 2tec6 6 £>f3 £c5 7 йсЗ
d6 8 Jcd3
8...0-0
Black can also delay castling in or-
der to mobilise his queenside with
8...a5 followed by ...^аб, as in Game
59. However, 8...JLg4 allows White to
‘gain a move’ by omitting We2 with 9
h3 lxf3 10 Wxf3 (10...Wh4+ 11
g3 <?3d4 12 Wg4! Wxg4 13 hxg4 is no
better thanks to White’s strong bishop
pair and impressive centre) 11 Wg3 0-0
12 Jld2 аб 13 0-0-0, when the initiative
was firmly in White’s court in
Novikov-Moroz, Kherson 1989.
9 We2
If White delays this queen manoeu-
vre with 9 JLd2, Black should again
not become impatient and hit out
with 9...JLg4 as White is then able to
gain time with 10 h3 JLxf3 11 Wxf3
(the point is that the queen arrives
here in one go, rather than via e2)
when Haik-Kappler, Rouen 1987, con-
106
4 e4: Main Line with 4...^xe5 5 f4 ^,ec6
tinned ll...Wh4+ 12 g3 ^d4 13 Wg4!
(13 Wg2?! is inaccurate as Black can
follow up with 13...Wh5! and the un-
pleasant threat of 14...£}f3+) 13...Wd8
(White is quite happy to exchange
queens with 13...Wxg4 14 hxg4 as the
pressure down the h-file should not be
underestimated) 14 0-0-0 ^d7 15
Sdel! c6 16 e5 f5 17 exf6 2>xf6 18 Wdl
d5 19 g4 with an obvious advantage to
White.
Note that it is risky to prevent
...Jlg4 with 9 h3?l here (see the next
game).
9...£g4!
Perfect timing.
10 ДеЗ £ia6
1О...£к14 11 Wf2 jlxf3 12 gxf3 &e6
13 f5 £tf4 14 0-0-0! is double-edged,
but I prefer White’s chances due to his
potential operations along the half-
open g-file.
11 0-0-0 f6 12 h3 ДхеЗ+ 13 Wxe3
Jlxf3 14 Wxf3
It is also playable to recapture with
the g-pawn in order to use the g-file
for an attack, but White instead opts
to retain his g-pawn as a possible bat-
tering ram.
14...-ЙС5 15^.c2 We7?!
A critical moment has been
reached. Instead of this passive move,
Black must immediately commence
his queenside activity with 15...a5!?
16 2)d5 Wf7 17 g4 a5 18 b3 a4?
Preparing a desperate piece sacrifice
that does not even come close to
working against precise defence. In
fact there was no need for such drastic
measures, as Black would still have
been very much in the game after
18...^3b4 19 JLbl ^3xd5 20 exd5 Sae8
etc.
19 b4 ^xb4 20 £>xb4 Wxc4 21 a3
£jb3+ 22 ФЬ2 c5 23 &d5 Ea5 24
Wd3 Wd4+ 25 Wxd4 2)xd4 26 2xd4
cxd4 27 Hd1 &f7 28 Exd4 b5 29
£Ъ4 3aa8 30 £d3 2ab8 31 £ic6
3b6 32 Sxd6 *e8 33 e5 1-0
Game 58
Gelpke-Piket
Netherlands 1994
1 d4 <£if6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 <£>g4 4 e4
£)xe5 5 f4 <£)ec6 6 £>c3 &c5 7 £)f3
0-0 8 £d3 d6 9 КЗ?!
This is a luxury that White can ill
afford. The text game is a fine example
of the dangers that White can find
107
The Budapest Gambit
himself confronted with as his king is
caught in the middle of the board.
9...Se8
10*f1?
As a consequence of his erroneous
ninth move, White is already experi-
encing problems, but 10 We2 would
have been the lesser of two evils as
10...^d4 11 £ixd4 ixd4 12 &e3
Wh4+ can be met by 13 Wf2.
10...£>d4 11 £ixd4 &xd4 12 &d2
&a6 13 Wf3 &c5 14 JZc2 a.d7 15
Se1 a5 16 g4 £c6 17 Sh2 a4 18
She2Wd7!
White has made the best of a bad
job by managing to mobilise his king’s
rook. However, Black is now prepar-
ing to apply more force with the ...b7-
b5 breakthrough and White’s position
soon begins to crack under the pres-
sure.
19 b4 axb3 20 ахЬЗ Ь5 21 Ь4 ЛхсЗ
22 й'хсЗ 2>а4 23 £.ха4
Unfortunately for White he must
concede the bishop pair, as otherwise
the important c4-pawn will drop. For
example, 23 Wb3 bxc4 24 Wxc4 JLb5
nets the exchange. The opposite-
coloured bishop position actually
makes White’s task even harder due to
his massive weaknesses on the king-
side.
23...Sxa4 24 c5 dxc5 25 Wxc5 Sa3
26 £c3 h5 27 He3 Kxe4 28 &xg7
Sxf4+ 29 &g1 2xg4+ 0-1
Game 59
Baltus-Van Haastert
Dieren 1991
1 d4 £f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ftg4 4 e4
<§3xe5 5 f4 £>ec6 6 £>f3 £c5 7 «ЮЗ
a5 8 Ji.d3 d6 9 ®e2
Just as in the previous game, 9 h3?!
is too slow. The game Vaganian-
Wedberg, Buenos Aires Olympiad
1978, continued 9...^аб 10 <21d5 JLe6
11 a3 0-0 12 f5 Jlxd5 13 cxd5 &e5,
when Black had a slight edge thanks to
his huge knight on e5.
Э.-.^аб
Here Black delays castling kingside,
as we have seen how dangerous it can
be if the g-file is suddenly opened with
...Ji.g4 and ...JLxf3 g2xf3. However,
Black still needs to play carefully. For
example, 9..JLg4 10 JLe3 Sld4?!
(10...Sla6 transposes to the text) 11
Wf2 <Slxf3+ (now ll...JLxf3? is not
possible on account of 12 JLxd4!, mak-
108
4 e4: Main Line with 4...Ghxe5 5 f4 Ghec6
ing use of the fact that the g7-pawn is
unprotected) 12 gxf3 JLxe3 13 Wxe3
Wh4+ 14 &d2! ±e6 15 f5 &d7 16 ^d5
ФИ8 17 fiagl led to an extremely diffi-
cult position for Black in Savchenko-
A.Ivanov, Vienna 1991.
10 i.e3 £g4 11 0-0-0 «d4 12 Wf2
Of course Black would be more
than content if White were to surren-
der his dark-squared bishop with 12
JLxd4. After the game move White is
significantly ahead in development,
and careful play from the black side is
necessary.
12...&xf3 13 gxf3 £>e6 14 T'd5 c6
15 f5 cxd5 16 fxe6 fxe6 17 exd5?
At first sight this appears to be the
correct way to capture; it opens the
diagonal pointing towards the king-
side for the white bishop on d3 while
keeping the c-pawn to act as protec-
tion for the king on cl. However, on
positional grounds, it is actually more
important to retain the centre pawns
here, as they control more key
squares, and therefore 17 cxd5! Wb6 18
JLxc5 41xc5 19 ФЬ1 e5 20 f4 would
have maintained the equilibrium.
17...e5 18 ФЫ Wf6 19 Shf1 0-0
Black has achieved a dream posi-
tion, the like of which will be familiar
to fans of the King’s Indian Defence.
The good knight against a bad bishop,
the weakness of the white f3-pawn and
the stronghold on f4 for Black’s pieces
all add up to a pleasant advantage.
20 Wd2 ДхеЗ 21 Wxe3 £>c5 22 Дс2
a4 23 Wc3 Wh4 24 b4 axb3 25 ахЬЗ
Sf4 26 Sg1 Wf6
The careless 26...Uaf8 allows White
to generate some counterplay with 27
2g3 Wxh2? 28 Sdgl followed by 29
b4! Basically, Black must be ready to
meet b3-b4 with ...О\эА.
27 £дЗ дб 28 Sdg1 Фд7
Black is easily able to parry his op-
ponent’s threats down the g-file for if
29 ±xg6? hxg6 30 fixg6+ Wxg6 31
Hxg6+ <4“xg6, the white queen and
two worthless pawns would be no
match for the knight and two rooks.
29 Й1д2 Sd4 30 ФЬ2 b5 31 cxb5
Sb8 32 b6 Sxb6
see following diagram
A picturesque study. Black’s pieces
seize all the best posts in a complete
triumph of his thematic dark-squared
strategy.
33 Wa5 e4 34 ®xb6 5b4+ 0-1
109
The Budapest Gambit
Game 60
Cvitan-I. Rogers
Vrsac 1987
1 d4 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 <йд4 4 e4
£sxe5 5 f4 £tec6 6 Jke3
At the time of writing this move,
immediately seizing the gl-a7 diago-
nal, is considered to be the best way
for White to meet 5...<?3ec6.
6...	£b4+
An important alternative is 6...£ja6,
intending to exchange the dark-
squared bishops with ..Лс5. It is
worth discussing a couple of examples
of this in action in order to illustrate
some typical themes. As you will see,
castling queenside is a serious option
for White, as he tries to aggressively
make use of his extra development:
a)	7 £k3 ±c5 8 Wd2 d6 9 £.d3 0-0
10 ^f3 £xe3 11 Wxe3 &c5 12 £c2 (12
0-0-0 £lb4 13 JsLb 1 leaves White better
co-ordinated) 12...£>b4 13 ЛЫ a5 14
0-0 A.e6 15 £)d5 Se8 16 Wd4 c6 17
^e3 We7 occurred in Apkhaidze-
Danielian, Duisburg 1992, when Black
held the upper hand due to the excel-
lently placed knights on b4 and c5.
b)	7 £f3 i.c5 8 Wd2 0-0 9 ^c3 d6
10 0-0-0 Se8 11 JLd3 ±xe3 12 Wxe3
£)c5 13 Shel ^b4 14 ibl £e6 15
^d5 JLxd5 16 cxd5 c6 17 Wc3 a5 18 a3
cxd5 19 axb4 axb4 20 Wxb4 Sa4 21
Wb5! 2a5 22 Wb4 gave Black sufficient
compensation for the sacrificed piece
in Merriman-Agnos, Isle of Man 1994,
but probably not more.
7£>c3
7 ^d2! is more accurate - see
Games 61 and 62.
7...&XC3+ 8 bxc3 We 7 9 £d3
If instead 9 <§3f3, Black should not
be tempted to grab the pawn with
9...Wxe4?, since 10 Ф12 followed by 11
JLd3 leaves him precariously behind in
development. Instead, 9 £tf3 should be
met by 9...d6, when 10 Wd2 £ld7 11
JLd3 4k5 12 ixc5 dxc5 13 Sbl b6 14
0-0 Jta6 15 £c2 Sd8 16 Wf2 0-0 left
Black very comfortable thanks to the
white pawn weaknesses on the queen-
side in Jakobsen-Pederson, Vejle 1967.
9...^a6 10<53e2
As the course of the game shows,
the future of this knight is far from
clear. The natural 10 W3 may be
therefore be more to the point, after
which 10...b6!? allows Black to pre-
110
4 e4: Main Line with 4...^xe5 5 f4 ^ec6
pare the path for ...0-0-0.
10...^c5 11 0-0 b6 12 £ig3 g6 13
JLd4 Hg8 14 e5 ДЬ7 15 ®e4 ®xe4
16 £xe4 0-0-0
White has managed to trade off his
troublesome knight but still has no
clear plan due largely to his rigid pawn
structure.
17 Wa4 ФЬ8 18Sae1!
A prophylactic consideration, pre-
venting the dangerous opening of the
g-file that would occur after the un-
suspecting 18 c5?! g5!
18...^xd4 19 cxd4 Дхе4 20 Йхе4
d5 21 ПеЗ dxc4 22 Wxc4 We6
The chances are equally balanced:
White’s spatial advantage is counter-
balanced by Black’s pressure against
the backward d-pawn.
23 Sc3 3d7 24 Wxe6 fxe6 25 Ec6
fie8 26 Sfc1 3ee7 27 E6c4 ld5 28
*f2 b5!
Black cannot just sit idly and hope
to draw because if 28...ФЬ7?! 29 ФеЗ
and White is preparing 29 Фе4, g2-g4
and f4-f5 with a powerful initiative.
29 Йс5 Bxd4 30 йхЬ5+ Фс8 31 ФеЗ
fied7 32 Ec2 Ea4 33 дЗ Йа3+ 34
Sb3 Sxb3+ 35 ахЬЗ Ed1 36 h4 ЗЫ
37 ЗсЗ h5 38 &d4 ФЬ7 39 Фс5 2d1
40 Ь4 аб 41 д4 Sf1 42 gxh5 gxh5
43 ЖдЗ Sxf4 44 йдб Sxh4 45 Бхеб
Shi 46 Sh6 h4 47 еб h3 'h-'h.
Game 61
Dautov-Blatny
Bad Worishofen 1991
1 d4 £)f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 2>g4 4 e4
£>xe5 5 f4 £iec6 6 ФеЗ ФЬ4+ 7
^d2!
White avoids the doubled c-pawns
that are likely to occur after 7 4ic3,
and this knight can later be deployed
via the ЬЗ-square. The Russian grand-
master Rustem Dautov, who now re-
sides in Germany, is the ‘maestro’ of
this variation with many impressive
victories under his belt.
7... We 7
Dautov-Haas, Buehl 1992, saw the
unusual manoeuvre 7...®h4+ 8 g3
We7, in order to oblige White to de-
velop his king’s bishop to g2 rather
than d3, but in fact this worked out
well for White after 9 Jlg2 £3a6 10 a3
Jlc5 11 Фхс5 £ixc5 12 b4 £ie6 13 £ie2
<?3cd4 14 0-0 <§3x62+ 15 Wxe2 a5 16 c5!,
when it was Black who was struggling
to solve the problem of his light-
111
The Budapest Gambit
squared bishop.
The natural 7...d6 is the subject of
the next game.
8 a3!
White offers a timely pawn sacrifice
and forces Black to declare his inten-
tions. The real point is that the quieter
approach with a natural move such as
8 jLd3 allows Black to equalise with
8...f5 9 Wf3 fxe4 10 Wxe4 Wxe4 11
Jlxe4 0-0, as in Thier-Gross, Hamburg
1993.
8...£c5
It is probably wise to decline the
gambit, as the following example illus-
trates: 8...Wxe4 9 &f2 £xd2 10 Wxd2
0-0 11 Stf3 d6 12 Sei Wf5 13 £d3 Wa5
14 b4 Wh5 15 h3 f6 16 Wc2 f5 17 g4
Wf7 18 c5! d5 19 b5 ^e7 20 £d4 fxg4
21 ±xh7+ ФЬ8 22 hxg4 Wxf4 23 ±f5+
Ф^8	24 Sxe7 1-0 Potocnik-
G.Hofmann, Bled 1996. In any case,
since Blatny is a highly respected theo-
retical expert, if he doesn’t risk snatch-
ing the pawn I would also advise
against it.
9 i.xc5 Wxc5 10 Wf3 2)d4?
The knight is never going to be sta-
ble in the centre and for this reason I
recommend the immediate 10...a5 in-
stead.
11 W’c3 a5 12 2idf3 2>xf3+ 13 £>xf3
0-0 14 0-0-0 2>c6 15 2d5 We7 16
e5 d6 17 exd6 cxd6 18 &d3 We3+
19 W'd2 Wxd2+ 20 &xd2 Ed8 21
Se1
Taking stock, we can see that the
weakness of the d6-pawn and the
more active white pieces are causing
serious problems in the black camp.
21...Ф18 22 2)g5?
White unnecessarily complicates the
issue, when 22 ФсЗ! is both simple and
effective. However, he manages to
keep some control and the resultant
ending of superior bishop against
knight (due to pawns on both flanks)
is instructive.
22...h6 23 £>e4 Феб 24 Exd6 Дхс4
25 Фхс4 Exd6+ 26 ^xd6 Ed8 27
Ee8+ Exe8 28 ftxe8 Фхе8 29 *d3
Фе7 30 Фе4 ^d8 31 Фе5 ^d7 32
Ф.Ь5+ Фс7 33 Фе8 ®c6+ 34 Фе4
5jd8 35 &d5 £e6 36 g3 ^d8 37
Фе5 £ic6+ 38 Фе4 SdS 39 &d5 Ь6
40 a4 f6 41 ФЬ5 ^.b7 42 Феб ?'d6
43 f5 h5 44 b3 ®e4 45 Ф17 Xd6 46
Фхд7 Фе5 47 Фдб £>d2 48 Фс4 £tf3
49 h4 ^d4 50 Феб £te2 51 ФхЬ5
£ixg3+ 52 Фдб £>е2 53 h5 2rf4+ 54
112
4 e4: Main Line with 4...^xe5 5 f4 0>ec6
4-h6 Фе4 55 &f7 &xf5 56 £g7 £'ih3
57 h6 £ig5 58 h7 &xh7 59 &xh7
<±>g5 60 j*.c4 1-0
Game 62
Restas-Panchenko
Budapest 1990
1 d4 £if6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ®g4 4 e4
&xe5 5 f4 £tec6 6 ±еЗ £b4+ 7
£id2! d6	>
The soundest way to meet 7 ^d2.
Black abandons his plans of an imme-
diate assault on the e-pawn (which
backfired in Game 61) and is always
ready to meet a2-a3 with ...JLc5.
8 id3?!
In order to exclude Black’s irritating
check, 8 W3 is perhaps the most accu-
rate. Wiedenkeller-Ekland, Stockholm
1990, continued 8...0-0 9 JLd3 £3a6?!
(9...a5 and then 10...£}a6 deserves at-
tention, when White’s movements on
the queenside are more restricted and
the black knight will be able to settle
on the c5-square without being kicked
by the thematic b2-b4. It may appear
that we have reached the same posi-
tion elaborated in previous games a
tempo down for Black, since he has
committed his bishop to b4 and will
later drop back to the c5-square in-
stead of heading there at once. How-
ever, the white knight is less actively
placed on d2 and in fact this fully
compensates Black for the slight loss
of time) 10 We2 Se8 11 a3 &c5 12 b4
£xe3 13 Wxe3 £ab8 14 0-0 2>d7 15
Sfel f5 16 b5 £a5 17 Wd4 £k5 18
exf5 Sf8 19 g4 ^ab3 20 ^3xb3 £)xb3
21 Wd5+ £>h8 22 Sadi h6 23 ±c2 <?k5
24 2>e5! c6 25 &g6+ 1-0.
8..Ж4+ 9 дЗ Wf6
Black continues to disrupt his op-
ponent’s development by harassing
the b2-pawn. With the white knight
on d2 instead of c3, Black does not
have to worry about the possibility of
Ш5.
10 Wc2 4Aa6 11 2ie2 ±c5 12 e5
With the permanent threat of
...<5bb4 hanging over his head, White
attempts to obtain counterplay by
activating his light-squared bishop.
12...dxe5 13te4 Wei
Black opts for safety, when the al-
ternative 13...^.b4+!? is far sharper.
14 £xc5 £xc5 15 £>xc5 Wxc5 16
£xh7 ±e6 17 £e4 exf4 18 &xf4
Ji.xc4 19 ji.xc6+
113
The Budapest Gambit
Practically forced since 19 0-0-0 runs
into 19...<2ib4. Now the smoke has
cleared a little, we can assess the situa-
tion as preferable for Black, as White’s
lead in development in no way com-
pensates for the material deficit.
19...Wxc6 20 0-0-0 JLxa2 21 fihe1+
*f8 22 Wxc6 bxc6 23 h4 Se8 24
Sf1 Sh6 25 Sf3 ic4 26 Sd7 Sc8 27
Se3 2d6 28 2de7 ДЬЗ!
29 ?d3 5cd8 30 £d2 5xd3+ 0-1
Game 63
Mester-Bogar
Hungary 1991
1 d4 -nf6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 -Лд4 4 e4
^xe5 5 f4 йесб 6 a3
This older move prevents ...JLb4,
but it is all rather slow.
6...a5
Since the immediate 6...JLc5 is well
met by the logical 7 b4! JLxgl 8 2xgl
Wh4+ 9 g3 Wxh2 10 2g2, when White
has more than enough compensation
for the pawn, this move is an essential
preparation if Black wishes to place
his bishop on the a7-gl diagonal.
However, I am not attracted to this
continuation and believe that Black
should now opt for the plan of fi-
anchettoing his dark-squared bishop.
The black bishop will be excellently
posted on g7 and Black’s kingside will
also be more robust against White’s
eventual kingside attack. Psychologi-
cally, if White has ‘all the time in the
world’ for such moves as 6 a3, it
makes sense to divert the bishop to
another diagonal instead of ‘respect-
ing’ White’s move with 6...a5.
Black’s alternatives are:
a)	6...g6!? 7 £)f3 £g7 8 £d3 d6 9 0-0
0-0 10 £k3 ±g4 11 Wei a5 12 Wg3
&xf3 13 Wxf3 ^d4 14 Wdl &d7 15
2b 1 £lc5 16 b4 axb4 17 axb4 £}xd3 18
Wxd3 f5, which led to a balanced posi-
tion in Rudolph-Schnepp, Esslingen
1996.
b)	6...d6 7 <?hc3 (disaster struck
White after the careless 7 b4?! Jle7 8
Ab2 0-0 9 £>c3 f5! 10 Wd5+?! ФЬ8 11
e5? dxe5 12 fxe5 ^xe5!, when White
was lost in Vajda-Steiner, Budapest
1926, due to 13 Wxe5 JLh4+! followed
by 14...2e8) 7...g6 8 £e3 ±g7 9 £d3
2>d4 10 £xd4 -&xd4 11 ^e2 £g7 12
0-0 <^d7 13 2cl 0-0 14 ДЫ a5! 15 h3
£lb6 16 Wd3 a4 17 ±a2 £id7 18 Scdl
£к5 19 Wc2 2e8 20 Sf3 c6, when
114
4 e4: Main Line with 4...foxe5 5 f4 ^есб
Black has managed to fix White’s
queenside, the pawn on c4 is weak and
Black’s dark-squared bishop is without
an opponent. Considering that this
example took place three quarters of a
century ago between Sterk and Steiner
in Budapest 1926, it is remarkably
relevant today.
7 i.e3
White is quick to seize a further di-
agonal from the black bishop. 7 £lf3 is
not so precise as the following minia-
ture demonstrates: 7..JLc5 8 <?3c3 d6 9
<23d5?! (9 JLd3 is better) 9...£)e7! 10
Jld2 сб 11 &e3 Wb6 12 Wcl 0-0 13
JLd3 f5 14 0-0 fxe4 15 &xe4 if5 16
&xf5 &xf5 17 Sei Se8 18 &f2 £>d7 19
g4 ФЗхеЗ 20 Jtxe3 Sxe3! 21 ЖхеЗ Se8
0-1 Duesterwald-Sandmann, Germany
1990.
7...&a6 8 JLd3 £c5 9 Bd2 0-0 10
2tf3 fie8 11 <^c3 d6 12 0-0 £xe3+
It may be useful to have the white
queen exposed on the e-file. 12.. Jlg4?!
was certainly not as effective in
Dobosz-Kamaras, Naestved 1988, as
White was able to secure his position
with 13 Sael!
13 Wxe3 Cjc5 14 ic2 Jlf5 15 Sad 1
Wc8
Black would like to play the posi-
tionally binding 15...a4, which isolates
the white pawn on c4, but unfortu-
nately this fails tactically to 16 Wxc5!
dxc5 17 Kxd8 followed by e4xf5.
16 £ih4 l.g4 17 Sd2 i.e6 18 b3 f5
Now the problem with 18...a4 is 19
f5!, when White’s attack is lethal. As it
is, Black is still struggling to cope with
the mounting pressure, so I believe
that White is well on his way to vic-
tory against any defence.
19 Wh3
19...	a4
A pretty variation arises after
19...fxe4 20 f5 e3 (2O...£.f7 21 Wg3 also
maintains a strong initiative) 21 fxe6!
exd2 22 JLxh7+! ФхЬ7 23 ^Sg6+! (the
point) 23...<^’xg6 24 Sf5!! Sh8 (the
only defence against 25 Wh5 mate) 25
Wg4+ ФЬ7 26 Wh5+ &g8 27 Wf7+
ФЬ7 28 Hh5 mate.
20 exf5 axb3 21 fxe6 bxc2 22 f5
Sxa3 23 Sxc2 2ie4 24 Wg4 ?jf6 25
Wg5 £ib4 26 Sf3 £ixc2 27 Sg3 Ее 7
28 Wxf6 Wf8 29 Wg5??
Whoops! White now misses the
chance to put the boot in with 29
^d5!, when the analysis runs:
a)	29....Sxg3?? 30 ^xe7+ winning.
115
The Budapest Gambit
b)	29...flal+ 30 &f2 Wxf6 31 4W6+
ФГ8 (31...<£h8 32 £lg6+ hxg6 33 Sh3 is
mate) 32 <23x117+ Фе8 33 f6! Sxe6
(33...gxf6? 34 Sg8 mate) 34 fxg7.
c)	29...Wxf6 30 <23xf6+ ФЬ8 31 ДхаЗ
<53xa3 32 £>d5 Де8 33 £3xc7 Де7 34
£)d5 and White’s strong passed e-pawn
is decisive.
29...Sxe6!
A simple cheapo that White must
have overlooked. Since 30 £xe6? leads
to mate after ЗО...Да1+, the key e-
pawn has dropped and the tables have
completely turned in Black’s favour.
30 Wd2 3,a1+ 31 &f2 Seel 32 Wxc2
We7 33 Sh3 Hf1 + 34 ФдЗ Wg5 mate
Game 64
Maksimenko-Nielsen
Aalborg 1993
1 d4 £)f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 <?3g4 4 e4
Qjxe5 5 f4 Sec6 6 5jc3 J.c5 7 Wh5
see following diagram
White tries to use the fact that the
black knight has abandoned the king-
side to immediately launch an attack.
The standard 7 <23f3 would have trans-
posed to Games 56-59.
7...d6 8£d3
8 ^.d2!? also proved effective in
Neverov-Legky, Kiev 1986, after
8...<23d7 9 0-0-0 $3f6 10 Wg5 0-0 11 Wg3
аб 12 £d3 b5 13 £3ge2 £)b4 14 £bl
bxc4 15 f5! when White held a useful
initiative.
8...<2>d7 9 £if3 £>f6 10 Ш <?3g4?
Although it is not immediately ob-
vious how, White is now able to force
a superior ending. Black should have
played the patient 10...0-0.
11 Wxd8+ &xd8 12 £'ia4 £.f2+ 13
Фе2 £)d4+ 14 ФИ!
You have heard of hanging pawns,
well this is a definite case of hanging
pieces!
14...£e3 15 h3 <£xf3 16 hxg4 ixc1
17Sxc1 Cid4 18 g5!
Conclusively fixing Black’s pawn
on h7, which factor alone is enough to
class Black’s situation as desperate.
18...b6 19 £ic3 ФЬ7 20 Ф42 £d7 21
Sh4 ^e6 22 Sch1 h5 23 ФеЗ дб 24
д4 4ig7 25 <23d5 ±xd5 26 cxd5 аб
27 gxh5 gxh5 28 £e2 She8 29 &d3
2e7 30 f5 Ee5 31 f6 ^f5 32 Exh5
<£g3 33 £g4+ &d8 34 Sh8+ He8 35
Sxe8+ Фхе8 1-0
Not waiting for 36 ДЬ8 mate.
116
4 e4: Main Line with 4...Qhxe5 5 f4 $Sec6
Summary
If Black can solve the problem of the congestion of his knights on the queenside
after 5...£lec6 he should be fine. Game 58 demonstrates the typical method of
developing them to the best effect.
It is easy enough for Black to remember on which square to develop his dark-
squared bishop because, if permitted, it belongs on c5. However, after 6 ^.еЗ,
Black should divert his attentions to the equally effective 6...JLb4+. Then 7 <2id2!
(see Games 61 and 62) is most critical, avoiding the possibility of having his c-
pawns doubled after 7 £ic3 JLxc3+ 8 bxc3. After 6 a3 Black should switch to a
kingside fianchetto with 6...g6. Finally, Neverov-Legky (see the notes to Game
64) is of particular interest. White executes an extremely unusual theme in this
game and I wonder if the idea will catch on.
1 d4 <5'46 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £>g4 4 e4 ?Jxe5 5 f4 &ec6
6£if3
6	^.еЗ Jlb4+ (D)
7	£k3 - Game 60
7^d2
7..№	e7 - Game 61
7...	d6 - Game 62
6 a3 - Game 63
6 £3c3 - Game 64
6...£.c5 7 £>c3 (D) d6
7...a5 8 JLd3 d6 - Game 59
8f5
8 £d3 0-0 (D)
9 We2 - Game 57
9 h3 - Game 58
8...£}d7 - Game 56
6...kb4+	7^c3	8... 0-0
117
CHAPTER ELEVEN
4 e4: Fourth and Fifth
Move Alternatives
1 d4 £f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £>g4 4 e4
<йхе5 5 f4
Although 5...^3ec6 is the most
popular replay to 5 f4, Black does have
other ways to play, and it is on these
that we shall focus in this chapter.
5...£ig6 (Games 65-68) is second in
popularity to 5...4tec6. The drawback
of 5...^g6 is that Black must always
watch out for the advance f4-f5, but
on the plus side, it does at least leave
the сб-square available for the queen’s
knight.
The piece sacrifice 5...£Л>с6?! of
Game 69 is fun, although it would be
more fun for Black than his opponent
if the sacrifice is accepted.
Game 65
Hess-Roeder
Germany 1981
1 d4 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ^g4 4 e4
£ixe5
The alternatives are clearly weaker:
a)	4...jLb4+?! 5 JLd2 JLxd2 6 Wxd2
£)xe5 7 f4 ^ec6 8 ^f3 We7 9 4k3 0-0
10 ^.d3 and Black has nothing to
show for his opponent’s great pawn
centre. The game Sahovic-Kresoja,
Belgrade 1993, concluded 10...£lb4 11
JLe2 f5 12 exf5 Sxf5 13 аЗ £Иа6 14 0-0
d6 15 &d3.Sh5 16 &d5 Wf8 17 Sael
£id7 18 £ig5 &f6 19 <?3e7+ <i?h8 20
i.g6! 1-0.
b)	4...d6?! leaves Black with inade-
quate compensation for the pawn after
5 exd6 JLxd6 6 JLe2! f5 7 exf5 We7.
The interesting, albeit rather aged
game, Egli-Bauer, Correspondence
1931, continued 8 c5! JLxc5 9 Wa4+
Ш 10 Wxg4 &d4 11 Wh5+ &d7 (or
ll...&f8 12 f6!) 12 Jlg5 We5 13 £)c3!
4k2+ 14 Ф11 £>xal 15 Wf7+ with a
winning attack for White. However, if
White wishes to avoid such complica-
tions, 4...d6 can be met by the more
sedate 5 JLe2 £lxe5 6 f4 4tec6 7 £>f3
£g4 8 0-0 ke7 9 4k3	10 h3 &xf3
11 Jlxf3 0-0 12 JLe3 with a pleasant
edge for White due to his extra space
and the bishop pair.
c)	The extravagant 4...h5? has not
been seen much in tournament prac-
118
4 e4: Fourth and Fifth Move Alternatives
tice (for obvious reasons!) since it re-
ceived its first surprise outing during
the old encounter Euwe-Mieses, Hast-
ings 1923: 5 £k3 1x5 6 ^h3 &c6 7
£ld5 ^gxe5 8 £g5! f6 9 £e3 d6 10
£И4 left White with an indisputable
advantage due to the weakness of the
black kingside. Fortunately, there are
no more obscure experiments to re-
port at this stage!
5 f4 £>g6 6 £>f3
The most natural developing move.
6 JLe3 is considered in Games 66 and
67 and 6 a3 in Game 68.
6...ДЬ4+
The best reply. Black seeks speedy
development of his kingside. The
long-held view is that 6...JLc5?! runs
into difficulties after 7 f5! and now:
a)	7...^h4 8 ^g5! We7 9 Wg4 f6 10
Wh5+! (10 Wxh4 is also obviously
good, as 10...fxg5 11 Jlxg5 We5 12
4k3 JLd4 13 JLd2 leaves White a clear
pawn up) 10...g6 11 Wxh4 fxg5 12
±xg5 Wf7 13 £e2 0-0 14 Sfl &c6 15
£lc3 l21d4 16 fxg6 Wxg6 17 Sxf8+
£xf8 18 M5 Wb6 19 0-0-0 &g7 20
Sfl £le6 21 JLf7+ Ф118 22 JLxe6 Wxe6
23 JsLf6 1-0 occurred in Alekhine-
Rabinovich, Baden-Baden 1925.
b)	7...£le7 is rather passive. For ex-
ample, Ivanov-Bendana, Boston 1988,
saw White able to build up an enor-
mous spatial advantage, practically
unhindered, with 8 ^c3 d6 9 £la4
jLb4+ 10 *f2 ^d7 11 a3 £c5+ 12
£}xc5 41xc5 13 JLd3 <21xd3+ 14 Wxd3
0-0 15 Ь4 Ш 16 JLb2 We7 17 Sadi
etc.
7&c3
7 JLd2? would be a mistake due to
7...We7!, when the white pawns at e4
and f4 come under fire.
7...d6
Here 7...We7? is ineffective. White
can simply defend the e-pawn with 8
JLd3, when Black went on to experi-
ence serious development problems
after 8...JLxc3+ 9 ЬхсЗ d6 10 0-0 Qsd7
11 &d4! ^c5 12 2>f5 Wf8 13 £e3 ±d7
14 JLxc5 dxc5 15 e5 &e7 16 2te3 0-0-0
17 Ле4 f5 18 JLd5 b6 19 a4 in Shish-
kin-Murdzia, Polanica Zdroj 1996.
8^d2?
It is really not necessary to avoid
the c-pawns being doubled by a cap-
ture on c3; piece activity is far more
relevant. A superior response was
witnessed in Novikov-Budnikov, Bei-
jing 1991, which deviated with 8 JLd3
119
The Budapest Gambit
&xc3+ 9 bxc3 £id7 10 0-0 £k5 11 ^.c2
0-0 12 ЛеЗ b6 13 f5 £>e5 14 £ixe5 dxe5
15 Wh5 h6 16 JLxc5 bxc5 17 Sadi We7
18 .£.a4 Sb8! (just in time to exchange
rooks down the d-file) 19 Sd2 Sb6 20
Sfdl Sd6 21 Sxd6 cxd6 22 We2 £b7
23 ®d3
8...^xc3 9 jLxc3 £xf4 10 £xg7 Sg8
11 JLc3 We 7!
This is even more potent than
11...4}xg2+ 12 JLxg2 Sxg2 13 Wd4!
when White can fight on. It is too
early to say that White is now lost,
but he certainly doesn’t get a look in
after his inaccuracy on move eight.
12 Wd2 Wxe4+ 13 &f2 ^.еб 14 c5
£c6 15 дЗ £д6 16 Wg5 £ge7 17
ih6 £f5 18 W'd2 0-0-0 19 cxd6
Exd6 20 We2 Wd5 21 Wb5 We4 22
We2 Wg4 23 £e5 Wg5 24 £g2 £fd4
25 £xd4 £xd4 26 We4 Wd2+ 27
Фд1 J.d5 28 £h3+ £b8 29 Vxh7
We3+ O-1
Game 66
Lorscheid-Dunnington
Ostend 1992
White prevents the black bishop
settling on the a7-gl diagonal, but we
already know that the bishop can have
an equally effective role on the b4-
square, from where it will undermine
the defence of White’s centre.
6...£.b4+
It is essential to utilise this opportu-
nity now as 6...£k6 allows White to
hinder Black’s natural development
with 7 a3!, when 7...b6 8 £c3 JLc5 9
Wd3 0-0 10 £if3 ^a6 11 g3 ±xc4 12
Wxc4 Jlxe3 13 £id5 b5 14 Wc3 Ab6
15 jlxb5 gave White the easier game
in Mikhalchishin-Lendwai, Kecskemet
1991.
7 £d2
See the next game for 7 £lc3.
7...We7 8 £.d3?
Dunnington refutes this out of
hand. White should therefore consider
8 &f2!? JLxd2 9 Wxd2 Wxe4 10 ^.d3,
which at least gains some compensa-
tion in the form of piece activity for
the pawn deficit.
8...Wd6!
1 d4 £f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £g4 4 e4
£xe5 5 f4 £g6 6 Jte3
Simultaneously hitting the bishop
on d3 and the f4-pawn.
9 &c2
A sad retreat but 9 Wb3 fares no
120
4 e4: Fourth and Fifth Move Alternatives
better after 9...JLxd2+ 10 Jlxd2 ^3xf4
11 JLfl 0-0, when White has nothing
to show for his material loss. How-
ever, Black should avoid ll...We5?
here due to 12 0-0-0 0-0 13 £)f3 Wxe4
14 Sei Wf5 15 Se5 Wf6 16 g4!, when
White obtained a useful initiative for
the sacrificed pawns in Fant-
Bogdanov, Copenhagen 1995.
9...^xf4 10 Wg4 £ig6 11 0-0-0 £ic6
12 ®gf3 We 7 13 h4 h5 14 Wg3 ^d6
15 Wf2 b6
Black carefully takes control of the
important c5-square and prepares to
castle kingside. Realising just how bad
the situation has become, White de-
cides to launch an attack in an attempt
to muddy the waters and bring some
randomness into the equation. How-
ever, the experienced Englishman is
not in the habit of letting a strategi-
cally won game slip through his fin-
gers and a little precise calculation is
all that is required.
16 e5 £kpce5 17 4be4 ДЬ7 18
&xd6+ cxd6 19 -£g5 £>b4 20 &f4
Sc8 21 b3 Wf6 22 Sxd6 Cixa2+
White was hoping for 22,..Wxd6? 23
JLxe5 Wxe5 24 Sei. We can all dream!
23 ФЫ £)c3+ 24 Фс1 Wxf4+! 0-1
Game 67
Curran-G.Mohr
Lyon 1993
1 d4 ?Jf6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ®g4 4 e4
<Sxe5 5 f4 £g6 6 £еЗ &b4+ 7 £ic3
We 7
This is undoubtedly the most criti-
cal continuation, as Black immediately
exerts pressure on the white centre.
Alternatives include:
a)	7...Wh4+? 8 g3 We7 9 Wf3 b6 10
£ige2 Ji.b7 11 0-0-0 c6 (necessary to
prevent £3d5) 12 h4! h5 13 JLh3, when
Black was unpleasantly cramped in
Ksieski-Strobel, Schwabisch Gmund
1994.
b)	7...JLxc3+ will often transpose to
the text, but can also have independ-
ent status. For example, Pinter-
Horvath, Hungary 1987, continued 8
bxc3 We7 9 Wd5!? &c6 10 &f3 b6 11
&d3 ^h4 12 0-0 £)xf3+ 13 gxf3 M7
14 c5 ^d8 15 Wh5, when White had
got away with his cheeky queen sortie
and held a small edge due to the
bishop pair.
8£d3
Black was able to quickly seize the
121
The Budapest Gambit
initiative after the careless 8 Wd3?! in
Morariu-Jagstaidt, Geneva 1994, fol-
lowing 8...0-0 9 £lge2 Se8 10 Ф12
£>a6! (the awkward position of the
white queen on d3 is beginning to tell)
11 g3 4ic5 12 Jlxc5 Jlxc5+ 13 (4’g2 b6
etc. Not a great situation for White to
reach straight out of the opening
phase!
8...JLxc3+
Black correctly hurries to double
White’s c-pawns before he can rein-
force his knight on c3 with £)ge2.
8,..f5 was therefore less effective in
Stojnic-Petek, Bled 1995, due to 9
£)ge2! fxe4 10 ±c2 c6 11 0-0 i.xc3 12
£lxc3 0-0 13 Wd4, when White was
able to regain the pawn with posi-
tional pressure.
9	ЬхсЗ 0-0
The quiet approach. For those seek-
ing the sharpest variation at every op-
portunity, then 9...f5!? is for you. Play
may continue 10 Wc2 fxe4 11 Jlxe4
£lxf4 12 Jtxf4 d5 13 cxd5 JLf5 14
Wa4+ b5! 15 Wxb5+ c6 with great
complications. This line really needs
serious testing in tournament practice
before a firm conclusion can be
reached.
10	Wd2 d6
I think a word should be said for
10...f5!? here too. It is not so easy for
White to meet as the two main re-
sponses, 11 e5 and 11 exf5, allow Black
promising chances with ll...d6 and
ll...£lxf4 respectively. After 10...d6
the game enters a manoeuvring strug-
gle where Black concentrates on ce-
menting his position before launching
an instructive attack. Especially watch
out for Black’s 27...g5!, a theme which
crops up regularly, and is designed to
strengthen control over the vital e5-
square. Enjoy the rest of the game
(from Black’s point of view anyway!)
without any more of my interrup-
tions.
11 £e2 b6 12 0-0 £id7 13 £g3 £46
14 h3 Jib7 15 Sae1 3ae8 16 £d4
Wd8 17 &h1 <£d7 18 £45 f6 19 Wc2
£c5 20 £xc5 bxc5 21 £h2 Sf7 22
g4 £48 23 Se2 ФИ8 24 £g3 Wd7 25
ЙЫ jLc6 26 Se3 £e6 27 Efl g5 28
£e2 We7 29 3ff3 gxf4 30 £xf4
£xf4 31 Sxf4 We5 32 Sef3 f5 33
<4>g1 fxe4 34 Exf7 exf3 35 Sxh7+
Фд8 36 Wf2 Wxc3 37 Sxc7 Wxd3
38 Sxc6 Wd1+ 0-1
Game 68
Wittke-Leski
Saint Martin 1991
1 d4 £46 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £g4 4 e4
£xe5 5 f4 £g6 6 аЗ?!
White is intent on preventing the
slightly irritating ...JLb4(+), but this is
a high price to pay as his development
is neglected. Black now finds an active
response, putting the extra time to
good use.
122
4 e4: Fourth and Fifth Move Alternatives
6...±c5!
move the dangerous bishop in order
to secure his king safety, but it is still
not plain sailing.
10...	^.g4! 11 £)xc5 dxc5 12 &e3?
12 0-0 was the last chance for White
to salvage a playable position, al-
though it is still slightly awkward with
the hole on d4 under his opponent’s
control. However, after the text
White’s situation is destined to rapidly
go downhill.
Black has another useful diagonal
on which to settle.
7^f3
7 b4?! is perhaps the most logical
continuation, but 7...JLxgl! 8 fixgl
0-0! (8...Wh4+?! 9 g3 Wxh2 10 Sg2 is a
rather risky pawn to grab) 9 Wf3 d6 10
g4 a5 11 b5 ^d7 12 Sa2 gave
Black a clear advantage due to his su-
perior pawn structure, in combination
with the strong knight on c5, in
Mechkarov-Atanasov, Correspon-
dence 1955.
7...d6 8^c3
The example Horvath-Lukacs,
Zalakaros 1994, is worth mentioning:
8 g3 JLg4 9 h3 ±xf3 10 Wxf3 c6 11 b4
JLd4 12 Ha2 0-0 13 &c3 Wf6?! 14 4k2
2>e5 15 Wb3 £b6 16 JLb2 (16 fxe5
Wf2+ followed by ...dxe5 justifies the
piece sacrifice, as Black obtains un-
pleasant threats along the d-file)
16...Wg6 17 f5! Wg5 18 c5 kc7 19
Jlxe5 dxe5 20 Jkg2 saw White gain the
upper hand. However, instead of
13...Wf6?!, the natural 13...He8 is
promising for Black.
8...£ic6 9 £d3 0-0 10 &a4
At last White is in a position to re-
12...&xf3 13 gxf3 Wh4+ 14 ±f2 Wxf4
15 £g3 Wf6 16 Jle2 3ad8 17 Wc1
*5jd4 18 Wc3 ^h4 19 £f2 Hfe8 20 e5
Wh6 21 Sadi Ш 22 f4 2)xe2 23
Фхе2 Wh5+ 0-1
Game 69
Nordstrom-Evertsson
Sweden 1992
1 d4 2if6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £>g4 4 e4
2ixe5 5 f4 £>bc6?!
At first sight you might assume that
I have made a typing error (that is if
you have not already played the
automatic 5...^ec6) but in fact this
attacking response is highly regarded
and leaves an extremely hot piece
hanging on e5.
123
The Budapest Gambit
6 £>c3!
A wise decision, as 6 fxe5?! allows
Black oodles of counterplay after
6...Wh4+ 7 Фс12 (or 7 g3? Wxe4+ 8
We2 Wxhl 9 2tf3 ±c5 10 ±e3 ±xe3
11 Wxe3 0-0 12 &bd2 d6 13 0-0-0
^xe5 14 JLh3 Wxdl+ 15 ^xdl JLxh3
and Black has too much material for
the queen) 7...Wf4+ 8 Фе2 (8 Фс2 is
even worse after 8...1йгхе4+ 9 ФЬЗ
^d4+ 10 ФсЗ a5! with a huge attack
for Black, since 11 Wxd4?? loses in-
stantly to ll...^.b4+) 8...Wxe4+ 9 JLe3
Jtc5 10 Wd3, and now 10...Wxe5! in-
creases the pressure.
6...&b4 7 Jle3 d6?
The piece sacrifice does not have the
same bite now that White’s queenside
is developed. Black should therefore
opt for the logical and perfectly play-
able 7...^g6 instead.
8 fxe5 Wh4+ 9 &d2 Wxe4 10 «М3
iM5 11 Фе2 ЛхсЗ 12 ЬхсЗ ®xe5 13
®xe5 WxeS 14 Wd4!
With his powerful centralisation
White’s win is only a matter of tech-
nique.
14...£e4 15 Wxe5+ dxe5 16 &f2
0-0 17 JLe2 Sad8 18 Shd1 b6 19 c5
h6 20 Exd8 Sxd8 21 Sd1 Sxdl 22
£xd1 ^d5 23 cxb6 axb6 24 ДЬЗ
£xb3 25 axb3 £>f8 26 g4!
The final blow, fixing Black’s
pawns.
26...f6 27 Ф13 Фе7 28 Фе4 Феб 29
c4 c5 30 £d2 дб 31 £xh6 f5+ 32
gxf5+ gxf5+ 33 ФеЗ Ф16 34 h4 Феб
35 £g5 &d7 36 h5 Фе8 37 h6 1-0
124
4 e4: Fourth and Fifth Move Alternatives
Summary
After 4 e4 4ixe5 5 f4, Black has a pleasant choice between 5...<?3bc6 (an interest-
ing concept discussed in Game 69, although Black left the knight there for one
move too many), 5...£ig6 or the main line with 5...^ec6 (Chapter 10).
1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ®g4 4 e4 £jxe5 5 f4
5...^g6 (D)
5...^3bc6 - Game 69
6 3 (D)
6 ^.еЗ ±b4+ (D)
7 ^3d2 - Game 66
7 £k3 - Game 67
6 a3 - Game 68
6...Jkb4+ - Game 65
5..&g6	6^f3	6...kb4+
125
CHAPTER TWELVE
Odds and Ends
after 3...^g4
1 d4 4 f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £ig4
Although 4 JLf4, 4	4 e3 and 4
e4 are far and away White’s most
popular responses to the Budapest, it
is worth being aware of more irregular
possibilities, as their distinct lack of
success will bring a greater under-
standing of why the main lines are
preferred. 4 e6, as in Games 70 and 71,
is an interesting attempt to decline the
gambit and disrupt Black’s pawn for-
mation, but Black’s lead in develop-
ment is a far more relevant factor.
4 f4 is logical in the sense that it de-
fends the e5-pawn, but Game 72 illus-
trates what a high price White must
pay for confining himself to six pawn
moves in a row during the opening
stages.
I cannot say whether Beliavsky had
prepared the obscure 4 Wd4 in Game
73 or if he was just experimenting, but
again the Budapest shows that it can
catch out the best of us. It is through
rapid piece play, the motto for the
whole Budapest Defence, that Black
applies the maximum pressure.
Game 70
Henriksson-Wiander
Helsingborg 1991
1 d4 -7if6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ^g4 4 e6
This move attempts to highlight the
fact that both pawn captures have
their drawbacks. Black does not wish
to lose the right to castle after 4...dxe6
5 Wxd8+ and 4...fxe6 weakens the pro-
tection of his monarch later. How-
ever, Black can throw in a useful
check before deciding which way to
recapture.
4 £k3 is a sensible developing move
that is worthy of further investigation.
For example, after 4...<?3xe5 5 Jtf4, the
boot is on the other foot and Black
must decide if he should accept the
gambit with 5...£lxc4. I actually think
that it is better to decline the offer as 6
e4 7 Wc2 ±b4 8 0-0-0 c6 9 £tf3
0-0 10 &d6 JLxd6 11 Ixd6 We7 12 e5
<?3a6 13 JLxa6 bxa6 14 <Sie4 £id5 15
fidl gave White a comfortable initia-
tive, due to the bad state of the re-
126
Odds and Ends after 3...Ghg4
maining bishop, in Weber-Winkler,
Correspondence 1988. In fact, 4 <?3c3
<53xe5 5 JLf4 can be satisfactorily met
by 5...^3bc6, when 6 e3 Ab4 7 £3f3 d6
8 Ecl JLg4 9 JLe2 43xf3+ 10 JLxf3
±xf3 11 Wxf3 0-0 12 0-0 ±xc3 13
ДхсЗ We7 14 Edl a5 was about equal
in Markarov-Minibaev, Kazan 1997,
which concluded 15 Wg3 b6 16 Hd5
£)b4 17 Sd4 £ixa2 18 Sa3 &b4 19
Мб f5 20 JLg5 We6 21 fih4 Wg6 22
Ec3? f4! 0-1, due to the back-rank
threats which cannot be countered.
4...M4+ 5 £jc3
5 JLd2 is considered in the following
game, while 5 <?3d2 suddenly makes
5...dxe6 an attractive proposition.
5...^.xc3+ 6 bxc3 dxe6
Having ruptured the white pawn
structure ready for the ending, Black is
now prepared to offer an exchange of
queens, as he would have real compen-
sation for the fact that his king is
slightly inconvenienced in the centre.
7 Wd4 e5
Certainly the most effective way to
defend the knight on g4.
8 We4 f5 9 Wc2 0-0 10 &a3 Se8 11
5d1 Wf6 12 e3 e4 13 ?3h3 g5!
A key decision. White was clearly
intending to play 14 <?3f4 and 13...g5
does an excellent job of restricting the
knight, but just as important is the fact
that Black can embarrass the enemy
king by pushing on with ...f5-f4. Since
White is a long way off from any
dream of co-ordinating an attack
against the enemy king, the aggressive
text move must be correct.
14 1с5 £ю6 15 &d4 ^xd4 16 cxd4
f4 17 c5 *h8 18 Wd2 if5 19 -lb5
Note that the knight on g4 is a defi-
nite asset here as 19 exf4 runs into the
potent 19...e3! Black’s attack now
largely plays itself, because his oppo-
nent’s king is caught in the centre.
19...C6 20 £c4 5ad8 21 We2 &c8
22 Wd2 f3 23 £f1 fxg2 24 ixg2
Wh6 25 Wc3 Ed 5 26 Sd2 Wh5 27
Wb3 ^h6 28 £>g1 2rf5 29 Wc2 Wh4
30 Wc3 Wh6 31 Wc2 Wh4 32 Wc3
^3g7 33 <Se2 £h3 34 £xh3 Wxh3 35
£3g3 h5 36 Eb2 Wg2 37 Sfl h4 38
<£>e2 Ее 7 39 Wa5 a6 40 £>c3 Edd7
41 d5 cxd5 42 сб bxc6 43 Wxa6
Wxh2 44 Wxc6 We5 45 Wa8+ &h7
46 Wa5 Sa7 47 Wb4 Eeb7 0-1
Game 71
Rasin-lvanov
USSR 1990
1 d4 £)f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 43g4 4 e6
±b4+ 5 id2 Wf6
It is really instructive how the
pieces come rushing out with such
immediate effect. The combination of
this move and the check with
4...jLb4+ leaves the b2-pawn hanging
in the key variation.
see following diagram
127
The Budapest Gambit
6 exf7+ *xf7 7 2>f3 Wxb2 8 £xb4
Wxb4+
Grabbing material with 8...Wxal
goes against the spirit of Budapest and
deservedly runs into serious problems
after 10 ЛсЗ Wxa2 11 Wd5+ etc.
9 5 ibd2
Instead, 9 Wd2 Wxd2+ 10 <£ibxd2
Se8 И еЗ £к6 12 fibl d6 13 £e2 Sb8
14 0-0 ^g8 15 h3 <£ige5 16 <£lxe5 <?2xe5
17 £tf3 JLf5 occurred in De Veen-Ten,
Soest 1996, when Black’s fewer pawn
islands guaranteed him at least a small
edge. The main point to realise after 9
Wd2 is that the obvious response
9...Wxc4 fails to 10 h3 with the nasty
threat of 11 £}e5+ when the knight
retreats.
9...2e8 10 e3 We7 11 h3 £te5?
It is here that Black goes astray.
Il...£lf6! was the preferable retreat
square for two main reasons. First,
White is able to gain a tempo in the
game when 13 JLd3 hits the pawn on
h7 and generally the knight would
serve as a useful defender on f6. Sec-
ond, the white pieces are slightly con-
gested, so it is in Black’s favour to
maintain the maximum number of
men. Therefore, a natural sequence of
events after ll...<?}f6! could run 12
JLd3 d6 13 0-0 <?2bd7, when the as-
sessment is at least a little better for
Black due to the very pleasant outpost
on c5. The second half of the game
speaks for itself.
12 <5''xe5+ Wxe5 13 £d3 g6 14 0-0
&c6 15 *h1 Фд7 16 2Ы <Sje7 17
Eb5 d5 18 cxd5 £xd5 19 f4 Wd6 20
5,e4 Wd8 21 Wa1+ ftf6 22 Sd1 5f8
23 g4 Jtd7 24 Sd5 &g8 25 £>xf6+
Exf6 26 Sxd7 1-0
Game 72
Akhundov-Simonenko
Ashkhabad 1990
1 d4 2rf6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 <^g4 4 f4?
128
Odds and Ends after 3...chg4
Very greedy.
4...Ac5 5 e3
The only other way to cover the
sensitive f2-square is with 5 <53113, but
this enables Black to enjoy a strong
initiative after 5...d6 6 exd6 0-0 7 dxc7
Wxc7 8 <53c3 Ab4. Black is already
hitting the c-pawn and the natural 9 e4
can be met by the straightforward
manoeuvre of 9...‘?3c6, 10...Hd8 and
ll...<?3d4, which embarrasses the white
queen.
5...d6
If you would prefer to regain your
pawn here with 5...<?3xe3, then the
Budapest is not for you! It is funda-
mental to activate your pieces as
quickly as possible, especially when
White has wasted time in clinging on
to his extra pawn.
6 exd6 0-0 7 ^c3 Axe3 8 Ad3
Axg1?
Black misses an excellent opportu-
nity to take an open file here with
8...йе8, when it is impossible for
White to meet the threat of 9...Axel+
and a minor piece landing on f2 with
severe consequences. Instead, Si-
monenko was tempted into a series of
moves that allowed the white king to
run to the hills, thus prolonging the
game.
9 fixgl ®h4+ 10 sfcd2 «f2+ 11 0*2
2>c6 12 dxc7 4bd4 13 Ac3 2ixe2+
14 Axe2 Ee8 15 Ad3 Wc5 16 Se1
Ef8 17 f5 £f6 18 Ag5 £id5+ 19
Ad 2 Wa5+ 20 <&c1 Wxc7 21 Wg4 f6
22 Ad2 Ah8 23 AM £b6 24 Ab4
2g8 25 Se7 Ad7 26 Ac2 ^d5 27
Aa5 Wxa5 28 cxd5 Wc5+ 29 Ac4
Wxe7 30 Sd1 Wd6 31 Hd3 g6 32
Eh3 Axf5+ 0-1
Game 73
Beliavsky-Epishin
Reggio Emilia 1991
1 d4 ^46 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £g4 4 Ш4
The problem for White in the Bu-
dapest is that natural moves often lead
to disaster. I think that perhaps 4 Wd4
is the move I would choose on meet-
ing the opening for the first time, as it
is not at all obvious what Black is up
to: he is a pawn down and the knight
on g4 appears to be lacking a decent
retreat square. However, by now the
reader will be familiar with the the-
matic continuation:
4...d6! 5 exd6 Axd6 6 We4+
Note that 6 Wxg7 loses the queen to
6...Ae5! This should come as no sur-
prise, however, as White is breaking a
rather elementary opening rule by
running around the board with a lone
queen.
6 S3f3 is the subject of the next
game.
6...Ae6
I love the symmetry; this time
Black offers the b7-pawn.
7<?'c3
129
The Budapest Gambit
7 Wxb7 <?2>d7 is obviously suicidal,
as White will have to waste more time
ensuring that his queen does not be-
come trapped. As things stand White
is unable to catch up on his inferior
development and his position soon
cracks under the strain.
7...0-0 8 £)f3 Wd7 9 £id4 &xc4 10
£>f5 £e6 11 £ixd6 cxd6 12 g3 d5 13
Wf4 d4 14 £ie4 ^.d5 15 f3 f5 16
£ic5 We 7 17 &d3 <£c6 18 h3 £>ge5
19 ^xe5 -£xe5 20 £f2 d3 21 £d2
dxe2 22 £xe2 Jtxf3 23 £b4 We6 24
She1 £xe2 25 We3 f4 0-1
Game 74
Amura-Radu
Santiago 1990
1 d4 '^f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £>g4 4 Wd4
d6 5 exd6 ±xd6 6	0-0 7 ^g5
It is worth noting how quickly
White’s position collapsed after the
inaccurate 7 h3? in Wharton-Megbary,
Malta Olympiad 1980. It is easy to
overlook 7...^3e5!, when the obvi-
ous 8 4?ixe5 drastically fails to
8...JLb4+, picking up the loose queen.
That game continued 8 £)bd2 ^bc6 9
Wc3 JLb4 10 Wc2 4W3+ 11 gxf3 2)d4
12 Wd3 Wf6 13 ^.g2 Se8 14 e4 ^e6 15
0-0 Had8 16 £ib3 JLxh3!, when it was
the white queen on the receiving end
of the unpleasant tactics again, since 17
Jlxh3? loses to 17...<?3xf3+.
7...We8 8 c5 <5 ic6 9 Wc3 Jte7 10 £xe7
Wxe7 11 e3 12 £b5 3fd8 13
2>bd2 ^ce514^d4?!
Amura must have underestimated
the strength of the following dynamic
exchange sacrifice.
14...Sxd4! 15 Wxd4 Sd8 16 Wb4
Jtd3 17 J_a4 £a6 18 &c2 £d3 19
£d1 i.a6 20 £.e2?
Despite the fact that Black has a
dangerous initiative, it is not clear
how to increase the pressure if White
were to repeat the position with 20
Jlc2. However, instead of a logical
draw at this point, the game livens up
with a typical assault on the f2-square
that catches the white king in the cen-
tre.
2O...JLxe2 21 Фхе2 ^)xf2 22 Shfl
Of course the capture 22 &xf2? is
out of the question on account of
22...£id3+.
22...*йед4 23 Wf4 g5 24 Wf3 Wd7
25 £)b3 Wd3+ 26 Фе1 3e8 27 Sxf2
fixe3+ 28 Se2 Exf3 29 gxf3 Wxf3
30 Sd1 <£еЗ 0-1
Black coasts to victory after, for ex-
ample, 31 Sd3 Wfl+ 32 Фс12 £te4+
followed by 33...Wxe2.
130
Odds and Ends after 3...GSg4
Summary
There are no obscure fourth moves here that should cause any problems to
Black if he is well prepared and does not have to work out the finer details over
the board. There is absolutely nothing here worth recommending for White. As
with all surprise weapons, they lose their point if the opponent is ready to meet
them!
1 d4 ^f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £>g4
4e6fD;
4 f4 - Game 72
4 Wd4 d6 5 exd6 JLxd6 (D)
6 We4+ - Game 73
6 £}f3 - Game 74
4...Jkb4+ (D) 5 2ic3
5 £d2 - Game 71
5...JLxc3+ - Game 70
4e6	5...kd6	4..±b4+
131
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
Fajarowicz Gambit: 4 a3
Having finished our discussion of the
Budapest gambit with 3...41g4, we
now turn our attention to the Fa-
jarowicz Gambit:
1 d4 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £je4
Here
4 a3
is undoubtedly the most critical line
(4 4if3, 4 Wc2 and 4 <§3d2 are consid-
ered in Chapters 14, 15 and 16 respec-
tively).
The main line after 4 a3 runs
4...£)c6 5 £)f3 d6
but then the strong
6 Wc2!
seems to leave Black in dire straits
(Game 77). On the contrary, 6 exd6?!
ensures Black excellent compensation
due to his superior development in
Games 75 and 76.
Dissatisfied with the positions
reached in the main line after 6 Wc2!
in the diagrammed position, Black has
recently been turning his attention to
new ideas such as 4...Wh4 in Game 78
and the 4...b6 of Game 79.
Game 75
Fronczek-Hoffmann
German Bundesliga 1996
1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 Cie4 4 a3
As usual the early development of
the queen should be avoided. 4 Wd5?!
is well met by 4...£ic5 (4...^.b4+ is also
playable, since 5 ^3d2 41c5 6 a3 JLxd2+
7 ^.xd2 b6 8 Wxa8? ±b7 9 Wxa7 4V6
10 Wxb7 £lxb7 is no fun for White) 5
b4 £le6 6 a3 a5 7 b5 d6, when Black
obtained a strong initiative in Ullrich-
Richter, Bad Elster 1937 (obviously it
is not played very often!) on account
132
Fajarowicz Gambit: 4 a3
of the weakened white queenside.
Instead 4 g3 turned out to be an
ugly looking but nonetheless satisfac-
tory experiment in Schandorff-
Conquest, Torsharn 1997: 4...Лс5 5
e3 £>сб 6 l.g2 ЛЬ4+ 7 £>d2 &c5 8
2>gf3 ^d3+ 9 Фе2 £>xcl+ 10 Hxcl 0-0
И аЗ Ле7 12 Wc2 We8 13 ^e4 £d8 14
£teg5 g6 15 h4 £lxe5 16 4ixe5 ®xe5 17
f4 Wg7 18 ФГ2 d6 and Black was un-
able to make headway.
4...£>c6
Apart from 4,..Wh4 and 4...b6
(Games 78 and 79 respectively) Black
has two other possibilities:
a)	4,..d6 could transpose to the text
after 5 2if3 £k:6, but Black should be
aware that White can also proceed
with 5 Wc2, when M.Roeder-
Stefanova, Groningen 1997, continued
5..JLf5 6 €lc3 d5 (6...£ig3? is rebuffed
with 7 e4!) 7 cxd5 4^xc3 8 Wxf5 £>xd5
9 e6 f6 10 e4 <£Ьб И Ле2 g6 12 Wb5+
£3c6 13 2tf3 Wd6 14 kel 0-0-0 15 Sdl
with an unpleasant position for Black.
b)	4...a5?! enjoyed a certain amount
of popularity in the past, but nowa-
days it is generally felt that Black does
not have time for such a move here.
Play might then continue 5 <§3f3 £ic6 6
Wc2 (Black was able to quickly take
over the initiative after the ineffective
6 b3 with 6...g6! 7 Wd5? £ic5 8 £ibd2
We7 9 Sbl ^.g7 10 ЛЬ2 b6 11 b4 axb4
12 axb4 ^a4 in G.Finegold-Weemaes,
Belgium 1991) 6...d5 7 e3 (there are
plenty of ways for White to slip up: 7
exd6 permits the strong 7...Л15!, while
7 cxd5?! Wxd5 8 ^c3 *£ixc3 9 bxc3
^xe5 10 47>xe5 Wxe5 11 e4 f5! also
gave Black excellent chances in
Sandek-Leisebein, Correspondence
1989) 7...Леб 8 Ле2 f6 9 exf6 Wxf6 10
0-0 £k5 11 cxd5 JLxd5 12 l5^bd2 0-0-0
13 Лс4 a4 14 2Ы £ia5 15 Jlxd5 Bxd5
16 4k 4 4>ab3 17 Л<12 4ixd2 18 4ixd2
jLd6 19 b4!, as in Yrjola-Bellon Lopez,
Helsinki 1991. Here it is clear that
White has contained his opponent’s
activity and can now begin to strike
back. In fact White went on to claim
victory in 27 moves.
5W
The actual move order of the game
was 4 4tf3 4k6 5 a3.
5...d6 6 exd6?!
It cannot be best to accelerate
Black’s development in this manner. I
believe 6 Wc2 to be most accurate (see
Game 77).
6 Л£4 should be answered by
6...Леб! (6...Jtg4?! 7 Wd5! 4k5 8 exd6
cxd6 9 4кЗ Леб 10 Wdl Лхс4 11 4id2
Леб 12 еЗ Hc8 13 b4 £hd7 14 £ide4
4ide5 15 41d5 ensured White of the
advantage thanks to his domination
over the d5-square in Barsov-
Reinderman, Purmerend 1993) 7
Wc2?! dxe5 8 4)xe5 4>d4! 9 Wxe4? Лf5
10 4кб+ Лхе4 11 5hd8 41c2+ 12 &d2
Sxd8+ 13 Фс1 4ixal and White could
and should have resigned in Fraser-
133
The Budapest Gambit
T.Clarke, Blackpool 1988.
6..Jcxd6 7 e3
For 7 £lbd2 see Game 76, while the
encounter Marinelli-Osmanbegovic,
Cannes 1995, which lasted only two
more moves, serves as a curiosity: 7
g3?? £3xf2! (an old trap catches an IM
scalp!) 8 Фх£2 JLxg3+ 0- 1, as the white
queen bites the dust.
7...^.f5
7...Wf6 is also playable and enabled
Black to score an impressive win in
Juarez-Fernandez, Buenos Aires 1993,
which continued 8 JLd3 JLf5 8 Jlxe4
JLxe4 10 £k3 JLxf3 11 gxf3? (this
move, leaving the king in the centre
for the sake of a pawn, is the cause of
White’s downfall. 11 Wxf3 was neces-
sary, when White can hope for a draw
in the ending after ll...Wxf3 12 gxf3
£te5 13 Фе2 £ixc4 14 b3 etc.) 11...0-0-0
12 f4 She8 13 Wg4+ ФЬ8 14 2>d5
Wd4! (a powerful display of centralisa-
tion) 15 We2 We4 16 f3 Wg6 17 &f2
£d4 18 Wdl £>f5 19 Wc2 c6 20 Sgl
Wh5 21 4k3 Wxh2+ 22 Hg2 Wh4+ 23
&gl £3xe3 24 JLxe3 Sxe3 25 Wf2 We7
26 £te4? Sxe4! 0-1, due to the varia-
tion 27 fxe4 JLc5 winning the queen.
8 JLe2 Wf6 9 0-0 0-0-0 10 Wb3 g5!
The signal for a kingside attack that
has every chance of success due to
White’s dormant queenside.
11 £ic3 g4 12£jxe4
Or 12 <2id4 <£)xd4 13 exd4 Wh4 14
g3 <§3xg3! 15 fxg3 ^.xg3 16 hxg3
Wxg3+ 17 'A’hl Wh3+ 18 &gl g3 and
Black wins.
12...£xe4 13 &d2
13...£xh2+!
A decisive and thematic sacrifice
that leaves the white king open to the
elements.
14*xh2 Wh4+ 15*g1
15...Cxd2?
What a pity that Black did not find
the ruthless 15...Jtxg2! 16 <&xg2 Wh3+
17 &gl g3 18 £f3 Shg8, when his op-
734
Fajarowicz Gambit: 4 a3
ponent cannot prevent mate. Okay,
he still has an attack, but the game
now becomes very random.
16 £.xd2 &e5 17 Wc3 f6 18 Wd4
Фхд2 19 £xg4+ £sxg4 20 Фхд2 Sg8
21 Wf4?
The final mistake under pressure.
Things are not so clear after the cold-
blooded 21 Ф43!
21...^e5+ 22 Wg3 Exg3+ 23 fxg3
We4+ 24 ФИЗ 2if3
Despite the material balance, White
is lost due to the vulnerability of the
light squares in his camp.
25 £c3 £ig5+ 26 ФЬ2 Wc2+ 27 Фд 1
®h3+ 28 ФМ 2tf2+ 29 Фд2
Or 29 Ф^1 when 29...^g4! wraps
things up.
29...£»g4+ 30 ФИЗ h5 31 Hh1 &f2+
32 Фд2 ftxh1+ 33 ФхМ Wf2 34
Sg1 Wxe3 35 ФИ2 b6 36 Sf1 We2+
37 Фд1 We3+ 38 Фд2 We4+ 39 Фд1
f5 40 Hf4 Wb1+ 41 Фд2 Wd3 42
ФИЗ We2 43 Hd4 c5 44 Sf4 Фй7 45
&g7 Феб 46 £сЗ аб 47 £g7 Ф17 48
£.c3 Фдб 49 Sh4 Wf2 50 Hf4 Wgl
0-1
Game 76
Olsen-Conquest
Reykjavik 1996
1 d4 <£f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £te4 4 a3
&c6 5 <^f3 d6 6 exd6?! &xd6 7
ftbd2 J_f5 8 g3?l
This move is craftily exploited by
Conquest. At this stage it is better for
White to proceed 8 4Sxe4 JLxe4 9 e3,
although Black has two promising
ways forward:
а) 9...Ш 10 &d3 &g6 11 Wc2 0-0-0
12 JLxg6 hxg6 13 JLd2 ^e5 14 ^3xe5
±xe5 15 f4 (15 0-0-0 Wxf2 16 Shfl
Wxg2 17 Sxf7 Bxh2 is no improve-
ment over the text) 15...JLxb2 16 Ea2
Wc6! occurred in Schandorff-
Hvenekilde, Copenhagen 1988, when
Black scored a forceful victory in 32
moves.
b) 9...We7 10 £e2 0-0-0 11 Wb3 g5
(notice the identical theme as the at-
tack got underway in Game 75) 12 0-0
g4 13 4^d2 JLxh2+! 14 <£xh2 Wh4+ 15
'A’gl JLxg2! 16 ti)xg2 Wh3+ 17 ^gl g3
18 ^.g4+ Wxg4 19 €te4 gxf2+ 20 Фх12
Wxe4 21 Фе1 Shg8 0-1. This splendid
attacking encounter took place in a
correspondence game between
Crompton and Taylor in 1996.
8...£c5! 9e3
9 ^3xe4? does not help, as 9...Wxdl+
10 &xdl JLxe4 leaves Black with a
decisive advantage due to his oppo-
nent’s undeveloped situation.
9...Wf6 10 Дд2 0-0-0 11 0-0 h5!
Whilst White is engaged in trying to
solve the problem of the pin on the d-
file, Black initiates a potent kingside
attack, intending to open the h-file and
exploit the weakness created by 8 g3.
12£d4 2>xd2 13.fi.xd2
White is correct in avoiding the
135
The Budapest Gambit
forcing variation 13 <£)xc6 ^xfl 14
£ixd8 Hxd8 15 Wxfl JLc2!, when
Black threatens 16...2dl.
13...£ixd4 14 exd4 &xd4 15 Wf3 c6
16 ±e3 ±xb2 17 Sa2 ±d4
Black has emerged a safe pawn
ahead and the extra bonus of his op-
ponent’s shattered queenside pawns
means that any ending will be easily
winning.
18 Sd2 JLxe3 19 Sxd8+ Sxd8 20
fxe3 £g6 21 ih3+ Фс7 22 Wxf6
gxf6 23 3xf6 Sd3
23...fld6 at once is more accurate.
24 e4 Ed 6!
Back on the right track. On the
contrary, 24...2xa3?! allows White
some undeserved counterplay with 25
e5! intending e5-e6.
25 Sf4 Ed1+ 26 Ф12 Ed2+ 27 Фд1
£d6 28 £c8 b6 29 Ef6+ Фс7 30
£f5 2d6!
Forcing a won king and pawn end-
ing.
31 Exd6 ixd6 32 £xg6 fxg6 33
Ф12 Фе 5 34 ФеЗ g5 35 &d3 b5 36
c5 a5 37 ФеЗ b4 38 axb4 axb4 39
ФdЗ g4 40 Фс4 Фхе4 41 ФхЬ4 Фd4
0-1
Game 77
Yrjola-Hamdouchi
Manila Olympiad 1992
1 d4 4jf6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ®e4 4 a3
d6 5 2rf3 2>c6 6 Wc2!
see following diagram
The most ambitious move and one
that is highly annoying from Black’s
point of view, as the knight on e4 is
forced to declare itself.
6...d5
6...JLf5?l disappeared from the scene
after the game Reshevsky-Bisguier,
New York 1955, in which after 7 <2ic3!
^xf2 (on 7...^g3, 8 e4! is a strong re-
sponse) 8 Wxf5 £>xhl 9 e6! fxe6 10
Wxe6+ We7 И Wd5 h6 12 g3 g5 13
JLg2 <Sixg3 14 hxg3 White went on to
demonstrate that the two pieces were
far more useful than Black’s combina-
tion of rook and pawn.
7 e3
7 cxd5?! only serves to activate
Black’s pieces: 7...®xd5 8 4k3 4^xc3 9
Wxc3 ^.g4 10 £f4 0-0-0 11 h3 We4!
left White facing the nasty threat of
12...£3b4 in Gallaher-Gibson, Corre-
spondence 1985.
7...£e6?!
7...jLf5?! is of course answered by 8
JLd3, putting an end to Black’s tempo-
rary threats.
However, 7...JLg4!? is an interesting
possibility which leads to an ex-
tremely hairy position after 8 cxd5
Wxd5 9 Jlc4 Wa5+ 10 b4 Jlxb4+ (but
not 10...^3xb4? which simply loses to
11 Wxe4! £k2+ 12 Фе2) 11 axb4 Wxal
12 Wxe4. Here it is worth pointing
out that 12....&115?! suffers a crushing
736
Fajarowicz Gambit: 4 a3
blow after 13 e6!, although Black may
be able to revitalise this line with
12..JLxf3 13 gxf3 Wxe5.
8 _^e2 We7 9 0-0 0-0-0 10 Sd1 f5
Black had to meet the threat of 11
cxd5. Now life gets more and more
difficult for him and he never really
has a chance after his poor opening.
11 b4 dxc4 12 £bd2 £d5 13 £>xc4
g5 14 b5 jLxc4 15 bxc6 Jld5 16
cxb7+ iixb7 17 Sxd8+ Wxd8 18
£b2 i-g7 19 Sd1 We 7 20 &d4 Sf8
21 f3 ixe5 22 <jc6 ±xc6 23 Wxc6
?>d6 24 JLxe5 Wxe5 25 Wa8+ &d7
26 Wxf8 Wxe3+ 27 ФН We5 28 a4
Феб 29 Wa8+ *d7 30 Wd5 Wxh2 31
Wxf5+ Феб 32 ДЬ5+ ФЬ6 33 Wd3
Wh1 + 34 Ф12 Wh4+ 35 Фд1 g4 36
Wd4+ ФЬ7 37 Wxg4 Wh6 38 Wd4 a6
39 Wd5+ Фс8 40 £xa6+ &d7 41
^.b5+ 1-0
Game 78
Van Wely-Alburt
New York 1994
1 d4 ?Jf6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £ie4 4 a3
Wh4?!
Aided by the primitive threat of
mate on f2, Black transfers his queen
to h5 in the hope of regain the sacri-
ficed e-pawn. The obvious drawback
of such a strategy is that he will fall
seriously behind in development.
5 дЗ
5 JsLe3?l looks rather artificial and
indeed Black was able to secure excel-
lent compensation for the pawn with
5...JLc5 6 Jlxc5 £>xc5 7 еЗ ^Зсб 8 £tf3
Wh5 9 b4 33e6 10 Wd5 a5 11 b5 £>e7
followed by ...£1c5, ...b7-b6 and ...JLb7
in Ward-G.Flear, Oakham 1994.
5...Wh5 6 £g2
6 Wd5, trying to hang on to the ex-
tra pawn, leads to mass complications.
Khenkin-D.Olafsson, Reykjavik 1994,
was of particular interest after 6...<?3c5
7 ^id2 a5?! (preventing b2-b4, but this
is not really necessary, since if White
expands on the queenside Black will
be able to undermine the pawn chain
later. For example, 7...<?3c6 8 b4 4ie6 9
JLe2 a5! 10 b5 ^e7 with good pros-
pects for Black) 8 <?3gf3 ®g6
(unfortunately for Black he must lose
an important tempo, since the natural
8...^3c6 runs into 9 e6! Wxd5 10 exd5)
9 JLh3! (a deep concept that holds the
key to the position. White must pre-
vent his opponent’s freeing move ...d7-
d6 at any price, after which the white
queen would feel insecure on d5)
9...&c6 10 £ih4 Wh5 11 £)df3 d6 12
JLxc8 <?3e7 (equally hopeless is
12...йхс8 13 exd6) 13 Wd4 £ixc8 14 g4
dxe5 15 Wxc5! JLxc5 16 gxh5 when
White successfully emerged a piece
ahead.
6...Wxe5 7 Wc2 8 £if3 Wh5 9
&c3 -&e7 10 h3 c6 11 e4 d6 12 b4
2tfd7 13<?e2!
White has gradually been restricting
137
The Budapest Gambit
the scope of the black queen on h5
and now threatens the deadly 14 «3f4.
Nor is there any relief to be had with
13...«3e5, because 14 «3fd4! leaves
Black facing all sorts of awkward
problems.
13...f6 14 «3fd4 «ЗЬб 15 «if 5 £xf5
16 exf5 Wf7 17 c5 dxc5 18 bxc5
«36d7
It might appear that 18...Wc4 lets
Black off the hook, but in fact 19
Wxc4 «3xc4 20 Sbl or 20 «3d4, intend-
ing 21 «Зеб, maintains promising pres-
sure.
19 ДеЗ «Заб 20 «3f4 «Захс5 21 0-0
0-0 22 Hfd1 £fc8
Black intends to free himself with
...b7-b6, but White’s active pieces in
combination with the domination
over the еб-square are worth much
more than the pawn deficit.
23 «Зеб b6 24 a4 g6 25 «3d4 *h8
26 «Зхсб
White has regained the pawn and is
able to press home his advantage with
little resistance.
26...£f8 27 £d5 Wg7 28 Wb2 gxf5
29 «3d4 Sab8 30 £f4 «3e5 31 «3xf5
Wc7 32 £g2 Se8 33 «ЗеЗ «3cd3 34
Wd4 £c5 35 #xd3 1-0
Game 79
G.Timoschenko-Welling
Ostend 1991
1 d4 «3f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 «3e4 4 a3
Ь6!?
Black is obviously planning to de-
velop his bishop to b7. The main
point is that the tempting 5 Wd5?!
does not win material, and in fact
gives Black the pleasant choice be-
tween the solid 5...«3c5 6 Wxa8? JLb7
7 Wxa7 «Зеб 8 Wxb7 «3xb7 or the to-
tally wild 5...JLb7 6 Wxb7 «Зеб 7 b4 аб
8 b5, which I can only assess helpfully
as ‘unclear’.
5«3d2
5 «3f3 is also popular. For example,
5 «3f3 £b7 6 «3bd2 a5 7 «3xe4 £xe4 8
g3! «Зеб 9 JLg2 «3xe5 10 Wd4! «3xf3+
11 exf3 i.c6 12 0-0 We7 13 i-h6 0-0-0
14 £xg7 Axg7 15 Wxg7 h5 16 h4
Wc5? 17 Wc3 d5 18 b4 Wxc4 19 Wf6
ФЬ7? 20 Sfcl 1-0 Ricardi-P.Perez,
Olivos 1993. Black should not be put
off by this, however, because there are
plenty of ways to improve around
move 15.
5...£b7 6 Wc2?<
138
Fajarowicz Gambit: 4 a3
This is hardly the most efficient
square for the queen. 6 ^gf3, transpos-
ing to the Ricardi-Perez game in the
notes above, is more precise.
6...&xd2 7 ±xd2 a5!
Who said Budapest players could
not be positional too? It is often useful
to take control of the b4-square in or-
der to enable a piece to settle on c5
and now we can see that Black’s activ-
ity fully compensates him for the
pawn.
8f3
White sensibly takes control of the
e4-square, since 8 ^f3 £ia6! 9 e3 4bc5
would be a dream position for Black.
8...i.c5 9 e4 2ic6 10 ФеЗ We7 11
£>e2 ®xe5 12 ®d4 f6 13 £)f5 Wf7
14 Wd2 a4 15 £.d4 £>c6 16 £xc5
bxc5 17 i.d3 g6 18 ФеЗ ®d4 19
Wc3 0-0 20 0-0 Sfe8 21 £>c2
Understandably White can no
longer tolerate Black’s centralised
knight and seeks to exchange the of-
fending piece. Black is slightly better
due to his superior pawn structure,
but with careful play White should be
able to hold the position.
21...£ucc2 22 £xc2 Jtc6 23 b4 axb3
24 ixb3 We6 25 a4 We5 26 Wxe5
fxe5 27 aS Seb8 28 £a4 Дха4 29
&xa4 2a6 30 Sdl d6 31 2a2 if 7 32
if2 Феб 33 ФеЗ Sba8 34 Sda1 c6
35 &d3 d5 36 cxd5+ cxd5 37 exd5+
ixd5 38 ФеЗ Феб 39 h4 S8a7 40
Sei Sxa5 41 Sxa5 Sxa5 42 Sxe5
Sa3+ 43 ФЬ2 Sd3 44 Фс2 Sa3 45
ФЬ2 Sd3 46 Фс2 Sa3 47 ФЬ2 ’A-A
139
The Budapest Gambit
Summary
Although 4 a3 4ic6 5 <2if3 d6 6 exd6 can be great fun for players of the black
pieces, 6 Wc2! (Game 77) is currently leaving Black floundering. I therefore rec-
ommend 4...b6!? (Game 79) as the best way to meet 4 a3. Credited to the Dutch
IM Gerard Welling, who specialises in offbeat openings, the crazy variation that
can occur after 5 Wd5 seems to offer dangerous opportunities for Black and
White’s quieter lines are not very terrifying.
1 d4 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ^e4 4 a3 (D)
4...^c6
4...	Wh4 - Game 78
4...	b6 - Game 79
5	ЗДЗ d6 6 Wc2
6	exd6 Jlxd6 (D)
7	e3 - Game 75
7 ^3bd2 - Game 76
6...d5 (D) - Game 77
4a3	6...kxd6	6...d5
140
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
Fajarowicz Gambit: 4
In this chapter we shall discuss the
natural
1 d4 £sf6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £ie4 4 £rf3
Here play typically continues:
4...£b4+ 5 &d2
5 <?3bd2 usually transposes after
5...^c6 6 a3 jLxd2+ 7 ixd2 ^xd2 8
Wxd2.
5...<£xd2
5...We7 leads to the same thing after
6 a3 JLxd2+ 7 £ixd2 4hxd2 8 Wxd2
4ic6.
6 ^bxd2 £>c6 7 a3 i_xd2+ 8 Wxd2
We 7 9 Wc3
Here the battle revolves around the
front white e-pawn. If White can suc-
ceed in maintaining the extra pawn
without compromising his structure,
he can expect an overwhelming advan-
tage, while Black can solve all his
opening problems if he is able to
round up the pawn freely.
Note that the restrictive white
pawn on e5 prevents ...d7-d6, so Black
inevitably develops his queen’s bishop
to b7, after which he can castle either
short or long. The plan of castling
queenside enables Black to play for
...g7-g5, intending to undermine the
defence of the e-pawn by kicking a
knight on f3 or simply to launch an
attack if White has still had the cour-
age to castle kingside.
Black must watch out for the possi-
bility of White sacrificing the ex-
change on d5 in this line. For example,
it is not best to capture on d5 after
9...0-0 10 Sdl He8 11 Hd5 b6 12 e3
$Lb7 13 flad8 14 0-0 &b8 15 lei,
when White’s pawn centre will be
rather formidable (see the notes to
Game 82).
141
The Budapest Gambit
Game 80
Spacek-Wach
Prague 1988
1 d4 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £te4 4 £3f3
±b4+
4...£)c6 may transpose to Games 75-
77 after 5 a3 or to Games 88-90 after 5
<23bd2.
5 JLd2 ®e7 6 a3 £xd2 7 A>bxd2
±xd2+ 8 Wxd2 чисб 9 Wc3
Using a slightly different move or-
der we have arrived at the standard
position of this chapter. The game
Ptaschinski-Sinka, Eger 1991, is an
illustration of what can happen if
White plays without a plan: 9 еЗ?! b6
(ambitious; of course it is possible to
settle for 9...£3xe5 with equal play) 10
£e2 JLb7 11 Edl 0-0-0 12 0-0 g5! 13
*5hd4 <?3xe5 14 b4 g4 15 c5 Ehg8! (Black
is preparing to sacrifice on f3 in order
to open the g-file; it is obvious that his
attack is quicker than that of his oppo-
site number) 16 cxb6 ?3f3+ 17 JLxf3
gxf3 18 g3 axb6 19 Ф111 We5 20 Egl
Eg5 21 Wd3 Eh5 22 h4 Wg5 0-1.
9...b6
Here Black leaves his opponent
guessing about which side he will cas-
tle. The routine 9...0-0 is covered in
Games 82 and 83.
10 e3
See the next game for 10 g3.
1O...i.b7 11 ke2
In Ludden-Spoel, Correspondence
1992, White obtained a huge advan-
tage after 11 c5 Wxc5? (Il...bxc5? 12
Ecl leads to much the same) 12 Wxc5
bxc5 13 Ecl d6 14 exd6 cxd6 15 b4!
cxb4 16 Jtb5 Фс17 17 <53d4, but if
Black ignores the c-pawn and contin-
ues with the resolute 11...0-0!? and
12...Efe8, he is guaranteed a comfort-
able middlegame.
11...0-0-0 12Sd1
White intends to defend his e-pawn
with the rather unusual idea of Ed5.
12 Ecl is less critical as Black can
concentrate on regaining the pawn
with 12...Ehe8 13 c5 ФЬ8 14 cxb6
cxb6, followed by 15...flc8 and
16...<23x65, leading to a balanced game.
12...fide8!?
A key manoeuvre. Black keeps the
other rook free for action along the g-
file, while the weakened d7-square can
always be defended by ...^3b8.
13Sd5 Shg8
142
Fajarowicz Gambit: 4 Qf3
13...g5?! is definitely premature on
account of 14 e6!
14 h4 f6!
The culmination of Black’s strategy.
His rook on g8 and bishop on b7 now
spring to life.
15 exf6 gxf6 16 fif5 fixg2 17 Wxf6
We4 18 Sg5 Wb1+ 19 ±d1 fixg5 20
hxg5 ₽ie5 21 £»d2 ^d3+
The situation is certainly dangerous
for White, but there is no clear way
forward. For example, 21...Wxb2
might permit the white g-pawn to be-
come too dangerous after 23 2xh7.
22 Фе2 £ю1+ 23 £>e1 -2)d3+ 24 Фе2
<£>c1+ 25 Фе1	%-%
Game 81
lonescu-Bellon Lopez
Berne 1992
1 d4 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £te4 4
ЛЬ4+ 5 «ibd2
Although this deviates from the
standard 5 JLd2, it often comes to the
same thing in the end, as we shall see.
5...&C6 6 a3 <£>xd2
Black should be aware that it does
matter how he captures on d2. To cut
out the option in the notes to move
seven, he should stick to the safer
6...ixd2+ 7 JLxd2 £>xd2 8 Wxd2 We7.
7 JLxd2
The unusual move order opens up
the possibility of 7 axb4! <?3xf3+
(7...<?lxfl and 7...^xc4 both allow 8
JLg5! with the inevitable destruction
of the black kingside pawn formation)
8 gxf3 £)xe5 9 figl We7 10 ДаЗ!, when
White obtained a strong initiative
thanks to his extremely active pieces
in Kullamaa-Starke, Correspondence
1991. Note that in the case of Black
capturing the hot pawns here with
10...Wxb4 11 JLd2 Wxb2, he ends up
dropping a piece to 12 ДеЗ!
7...ixd2+ 8 Wxd2 We 7 9 Wc3
The white queen proved to be vul-
nerable after 9 Wf4 in Biro-
Rabovszky, Budapest 1995, which en-
abled Black to equalise comfortably
with 9...b6 10 еЗ ±b7 11 Ad3 0-0-0 12
±e4 Sde8 13 fidl g5! 14 Wxg5 Wxg5
15 <^xg5 ^xe5 16 Axb7+ ФхЬ7 17 b3
Shg8 18 £}f3 fixg2 19 £)xe5 Дхе5 20
Sxd7 flf5 21 Дс12 Д115 22 f3 fihg5 23
fif2 figl+ 24 fixgl fixgl+ 25 fifl fig2
and a draw was agreed.
9...b6 10 g3 ФЬ7 11 ±h3 0-0-0
Of course 11...41xe5? is no fun after
12 0-0-0!
12 0-0-0 fihe8 13 Sd5 ^b8 14 Sd3
£.xf3 15 Sxf3 Wc5 16 Sxf7?
Falling for a nasty trap when the
simple 16 ДеЗ! would have maintained
a clear edge after 16...£lc6 17 f4 etc.
16...Wc6!
There is no defence to 17...Wh6+,
picking up the bishop on h3.
17 fid 1 Wh6+ 18 f4 Wxh3 19 Sxg7
W’xh2 20 Wd3 fixe5!
The same tactical motif strikes
143
The Budapest Gambit
again; this time 21 fxe5? Wh6+ nets the
rook on g7.
21 Sxh7 Sh5 22 fig7 Sc5 23 ФЫ
®h8 24 Eh7 Wg8 25 3d Sc6 26
Sc3 Sd6 27 Wc2 ₽>c6 28 Sh5 Se8
29 Sg5 We6 30 e3 Eg8 31 Hxg8+
Wxg8 32 e4 ЙЪ7 33 g4 Wh1+ 34
Фа2 Sdl 35 Sd3 Да1+ 36 ФЬЗ 0-1
Game 82
Hoeksma-Vanheste
Netherlands 1987
1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £se4 4 2rf3
ДЬ4+ 5 Ad2 ®xd2 6 ®bxd2 2>c6 7
a3
With this move order it is worth
mentioning that if White deviates with
the harmless 7 e3, Black is able to re-
gain the pawn immediately with
7...We7 8 $Le2 £ixe5. In Ziiger-
Romero-Holmes, Manila Olympiad
1992, he was even able to even claim
an edge after 9 a3 £3xf3+ 10 JLxf3 Ad6
11 Wc2 ±e5 12 0-0 0-0 13 c5 c6 14
fifdl d5 15 cxd6 Wxd6 16 £}fl Wf6 17
ДаЫ a5! thanks to his bishop pair.
7...^.xd2+ 8 Wxd2 We7 9 Wc3 0-0
Black prepares 10...Se8 in the hope
of regaining the sacrificed pawn.
10 Sd1
With this move White intends to
make life as difficult as possible for his
opponent by hanging on to the e-
pawn with Hd5. 10 0-0-0 is the subject
of the next game.
1O...Se8 11 Hd5 b6 12 еЗ £.b7 13
£e2 a5!?
An interesting attempt to improve
on the old main line, which runs
13...Sad8 14 0-0 2>b8 15 Sell (White
can also expect a slight advantage after
15 Sd4 4k6 16 Sd5 &b8 17 fld2 ±xf3
18 Jtxf3 Wxe5 19 Wc2 d6 20 b4, when
Black had to give up his useful light-
squared bishop to recapture the e-
pawn in Silman-Wolski, Anaheim
1989, but 15 Bel! is a real blow to
Black’s system) and now the stem
game Smyslov-Steiner, Groningen
1946, which saw the exchange sacrifice
in action for the first time, continued
15..JLxd5 16 cxd5 d6 17 &b5 Sf8 18
e4 аб 19 JLd3 dxe5 20 £bce5, when
Black was suffering in a strategic bind
cemented by the permanent weakness
on c7.
After 15 Hcl! Black does no better
to decline the sacrifice with 15...c5.
After 16 Sd2 Jlxf3 17 JLxf3 Wxe5 18
Wd3 Деб 19 Scdl Wc7 20 h3 Ф18
Black’s prospects were depressing in
Vogt-Schaffarth, Germany 1990.
14 0-0 <£ib8
The purpose of 13...a5 is revealed:
Black is ready to accept the exchange
sacrifice and then later to defend the
c7-pawn by means of ...Да7. It is true
that Black’s position appears passive,
but it is not at all easy for White to
make use of his extra pawn on e5.
15 3d4a4!
144
Fajarowicz Gambit: 4 G\f3
A dual-purpose move that blocks
White’s queenside pawns and prepares
the active manoeuvre ...Да5.
16 Hfd1 Ha5 17 e4 £c6 18 £d3
£>a6 19 £c2 £ic5
d7 with a combination of his rooks
and light-squared bishop. He has cor-
rectly judged that his king will be saf-
est on the queenside.
Black has achieved everything that
he set out to do. The huge knight on
c5 keeps an eye on the d7-pawn and
the white pawn structure is static and
lifeless.
20 Se1 &e6 21 Hdd1 £f8 22 Wb4
Wc5 У2-У2
Given that Black has the manoeuvre
...^g6 and then ...^xe5 in mind, I
think that White should be very satis-
fied with a draw here.
Game 83
Zviaginsev-Schaffarth
Berlin 1993
1 d4 £if6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ®e4 4 ®f3
£b4+ 5 JLd2 £xd2 6 £>bxd2 ^c6 7
a3 ^xd2+ 8 ®xd2 ®e7 9 Wc3 0-0
10 0-0-0!
The beginning of an effective plan
whereby White intends to pressurise
1O...2e8 11 Sd5 b6 12 дЗ &b7 13
±h3 Sad8 14 Shd1 ^b8 15 S5d3 a5
Incredibly Black is almost in
zugzwang. He can neither round up
the pawn on e5 nor improve his posi-
tion, so he is left with the choice of
which weakening move to make. It is
rare to witness Black going down with
no counterplay at all in the Budapest!
Note that 15...Axf3 16 exf3! Wxe5
(or 16...Wg5+ 17 f4) 17 Wxe5 Sxe5 18
JLxd7 leads Black into a lost ending.
16 Se3 Wc5 17 Wd4 Wf8 18 Wf4
_ta6 19 Sd4 b5 20 ±f5 дб 21 cxb5
£xb5 22 £c2 h6?
It is difficult to avoid bad moves in
a bad position.
23 h4 c5 24 Sd6 Неб 25 Зхеб fxe6 26
Wg4 Wg7 27 Wxg6 Wxg6 28 £xg6
Sf8 29 £d3 c4 30 £e4 £c6 31 Xd2
JLa6 32 JLxc6 dxc6 33 ФсЗ c5 34 Se4
Фд7 35 Hg4+ £h7 36 h5 Id8 37 £sd2
Sd5 38^e41-0
145
The Budapest Gambit
Summary
Although Black has found a useful antidote to the potential exchange sacrifice in
Game 82 that was previously causing difficulties, it is doubtful whether he can
find a way to meet the simple plan of castling queenside, Jlh3 and doubling up
on the d-file, which left him struggling in Game 83.
However, there are some positive indications that 9...b6 followed by ...JLb7
and ...0-0-0 may offer Black sufficient chances (as in Games 80 and 81). The Span-
ish grandmaster Bellon Lopez is the man to watch for novelties in this line, de-
spite the fact that his example here is not 100% convincing.
1 d4 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ®e4 4 £tf3 ДЬ4+ 5 £d2 £xd2 6 ®bxd2 <?3c6 7 a3
4xd2+ 8 Wxd2 We7 9 Wc3 (D)
9...b6
9...0-0 (D)
10 Sdl - Game 82
10 0-0-0 - Game 83
10e3(DJ
10 g3 - Game 81
1O...^.b7 - Game 80
9Vc3	9...0-0	10 еЗ
146
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
Fajarowicz Gambit: 4 Wc2
1 d4 W6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 2>e4 4 Wc2
Although 4 a3 and 4 4if3 are
White’s soundest and most popular
ways of meeting the Fajarowicz, the
sharp 4 Wc2, trying to evict the knight
from e4 straightaway, is also seen oc-
casionally. Black has two main replies:
4...^.b4+ and 4...d5.
4...JLb4+ guarantees Black a suffi-
cient initiative, regardless of whether
White blocks the check with 5 £k3
(Game 84) or 5 ^d2 (Game 85).
Although 4...d5?! (Kurt Richter’s
pet line) proved effective in Game 86,
I feel that its days are numbered, and a
possible refutation is revealed in Game
87.
This chapter contains many impor-
tant tactical motifs with Black striving
for activity against early white queen
sortie.
Game 84
Cruz Lopez-Bellon Lopez
Lertda 1991
1 d4 £if6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 &e4 4 Wc2
£b4+ 5 £>c3
White carefully avoids the tempo-
rary congestion of his pieces that arises
after 5 £}d2 (see Game 85).
5...d5
5...JLxc3+ 6 bxc3 £3c5, intending to
follow up with ...£>c6, ...b7-b6, ...JLb7,
,.№e7 and ...0-0-0, has been recom-
mended by the Czech IM Trapl.
However, 7 £}f3 (threatening 8 JLg5)
guarantees White the advantage. For
example, Papp-Graf, Balatonbereny
1993, continued 7...£)e6 8 JLa3 c5 9 e3
0-0 10 Jld3 g6 11 h4! and White was
on top.
147
The Budapest Gambit
6 cxd5?!
Although natural enough, 6 cxd5?!
actually allows Black a favourable end-
ing. In fact, 6 exd6 JLf5 7 JLd2 <5i)xd6 8
e-4! is the safest option, when White
should be happy to return the pawn in
exchange for catching up on his devel-
opment. Instead of 8 e3 Black cer-
tainly should have been extremely
satisfied after 8 Wb3 2ic6 9 e3 We7 10
2>f3 0-0-0 11 £id5 JLxd2+ 12 <^xd2
We6 13 Wf6 14 ±e2 g5 15 &d5
We6 in Ackermann-Meyer, Corre-
spondence 1957.
6...Wxd5 7 ±d2 Wxd2+ 8 Wxd2
£ixd2 9 &xd2 £>c6 10 £rf3?!
10 a3 is more resilient, although
Black can still claim an edge after
10...1Lc5 11 e3 ^xe5 12 ^3e4 Jle7 due
to the power of his bishop pair.
1O...JLg4 11 еЗ 0-0-0+ 12 Фс2
±f5+ 13 e4 £xc3 14 exf5 Дхе5 15
&c4 £>d4+ 16 £ixd4 5xd4 17 £xf7
Shd8 18 £e6+ ФЬ8 19 Sad 1 Sxd1
20 2xd1 Hxdl 21 &xd1 £xb2
This opposite-coloured bishop
promises Black excellent winning
chances due to his three vs. one queen-
side pawn majority.
22 g4 h6 23 Фс2 _ie5 24 h3 c6 25
£d3 Фс7 26 Фе4 &d6 27 f4 Jkf6 28
ФТЗ b5 29 ФдЗ g5!
Utilising the fact that White cannot
capture on g6 ‘en passant’, Black suc-
cessfully blockades the kingside and
can now concentrate on the other
30 Ф13 a5 31 fxg5 hxg5 32 Фе2 a4
33 JLf7 Фс5 34 -1е8 ФЬ6 35 ФdЗ c5
36 _+d7 Фа5 37 Фс2 c4 38 i.c6
ФЬ4 39 s>.d7 a3 40 Де8 Фс5 41 ±f7
Ь4 42 ФЬ1 Sd4 43 £.д8
Look at the amazing win that oc-
curs after 43 Фс2: 49... b3+! 44 axb3 a2
45 ФЬ2 c3+ 46 Фха2 c2 47 ФЬ2 Фс13+
48 Фс1 JLe5 49 Лс4+ ФсЗ with
50... Jlf4 mate to follow.
43...ФсЗ 44 Феб ЬЗ 45 £f7 ФdЗ 46
Феб bxa2+ 47 Фха2 сЗ 48 ФЬЗ с2
49 Фхс2+ Фхс2 50 ФхаЗ ФdЗ 51
ФЬ4 Фе4 52 Фс5 Ф14 53 Фd6 ФдЗ
54 Феб ФсЗ 0-1
Game 85
B.Finegold-Volke
Groningen 1990
1 d4 ^f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £>e4 4 Wc2
ФЬ4+ 5 2)d2
The only drawback of this move is
that it shuts in the bishop on cl, thus
delaying the development of White’s
queenside. As it is not entirely clear
whether White should mind receiving
doubled pawns after 5 £k3 ФхсЗ+
etc., the reader can expect 5 £)d2 to be
played by opponents who are not fa-
miliar with this opening.
5...d5 6 &gf3
There is an abundance of games
where White suffered rapid disaster
after the casual 6 exd6? JLf5! and I will
entertain you with three of the best
examples:
7 Wa4+ 4кб and now:
al) 8 a3 4k5 9 dxc7 We7! 10 Wdl
4id3 mate Lagha-Contedini, Leipzig
Olympiad 1960.
a2) 8 43gf3 Wxd6 9 a3 2ic5 10 Wdl
0-0-0! 11 g3 She8 12 ±g2 43d3+ 13
Ф11 43xcl 14 axb4 4ixe2 15 Wb3 ФЬ8
16 b5 Jld3 17 Wa3 43xg3+ 18 Фё1
£he2+ 19 ФИ 43f4+ 20 Фё1 Wg6 21
4ih4 <§3h3 mate Krasenkov-Lerner,
148
Fajarowicz Gambit: 4 №с2
USSR 1967.
c) 7 dxc7 Wxc7 8 Wa4+ <5jc6 9 <?3gf3
0-0-0 10 аЗ £ic5 11 Wdl fihe8! 12 e3
<53d3+ 13 &xd3 ixd3 14 Wa4 Wb6+
15 axb4 Sxe3+ 16 Фс11 Jte2+ 17 Фс2
<?3xb4+ 18 Wxb4 Wg6+! 0-1 Plesse-
Wolf, Berlin 1966.
6...<^c6
6...JU5? appears tempting, but this
time it does not work well on account
of 7 Wb3! JLxd2+ 8 <?3xd2 ^d7 9 cxd5
0-0 10 <S3xe4 £.xe4 11 f3 ^.g6 12 &f4
We7 13 Wc3 <2ib6 14 e4 c6 15 d6, when
White’s advantage was decisive in
Hertneck-Trapl, Germany 1991.
7 e3 JLg4 8 cxd5 JLxf3 9 dxc6 Wh4
10 g3 £>xg3 11 fxg3
11 cxb7? must be of course be con-
sidered, but it can be dismissed due to
ll...<21xhl! 12 bxa8W+ JLxa8, when
White cannot defend his f2-pawn ade-
quately.
11..Ж6
What a picturesque position! So
many pieces are hanging and there is
the lethal threat of ...Wxe3+.
12 Wb3
In the original game in this sacrifi-
cial line, White was actually crushed
following 12 JsLb5? Wxe3+ 13 sfrfl 0-0
14 <§3xf3 Wxf3+ 15 <i>gl JLa5! 16 h3
Wxg3+ 17 ®g2 Wel+ 18 Wfl Wg3+ 19
Wg2 Wxe5 20 We2 &b6+ 21 <i>g2
Wd5+ 22 Ф112 Hae8 23 Wc4 We5+ 24
<4?g2 Деб 25 Sdl Hg6+ 26 ФЫ ®h5
27 Wd3 2d6 0-1 Stohl-Trapl,
Namestovo 1987.
12...0-0 13 Пд1 Sixd2+
At this critical stage Black allows his
initiative to disappear into thin air.
Instead, 13...IIad8!? maintains full
compensation for the material deficit.
14 &xd2 ®xh2 15 e4 ®xg1 16 Wxf3
®b6 17 Wc3 Ead8 18 £e3 Wxc6 19
Wxc6 bxc6 20 Sc1 Efe8 21 Hc5
The result of the game is virtually
decided. The rook and pawn are no
match for White’s strong pair of bish-
ops.
21...Неб 22 £h3 See8 23 e6 fxe6
24 Пхсб Hd6 25 Exc7 Eb8 26 £f4
Паб 27 ±e5 Hb4 28 £c3 Hxe4+ 29
&f2 g5 30 &f3 Hea4 31 £g4 Hd6
32 £e5 h5 33 £xh5 Hd3+ 34 £f2
Hd8 35 £f7+ &f8 36 Дхеб Hd2+ 37
<ЙеЗ Hd1 38 £c3 Hg1 39 &f2 1-0
Game 86
Molina-G.Gomez
Argentina 1993
1 d4 <W6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 <£ie4 4 Wc2
d5?!
Although objectively not entirely
sound, this sharp continuation has
brought Black many resounding vic-
tories since it was introduced by the
well-known tactician Richter in the
1920s. Black is intent on commencing
a central battle and hopes to prove
that the white queen is misplaced on
c2.
749
The Budapest Gambit
5 cxd5?
Falling straight into Black’s plans.
The correct reply 5 exd6 is seen in
Game 87.
5...^f5!
There are very few openings in
which Black experiences the pleasure
of creating a decisive threat as early as
move six, but here 6...JLb4+ will be
murderous, if permitted.
6 Wa4+ c6 7 dxc6?
7 d6 is the only way to stay in the
game, when White may hope to sur-
vive after 7...Wb6 8 еЗ <£ld7 etc. It is
not premature to state that White is
lost after 7 dxc6?
7...£>xc6 8 2>f3 Wb6 9 e3 0-0-0 10
±e2 i-b4+ 11 ^bd2
Or 11 £fl £k5 12 Wb5 Wxb5 13
JLxb5 Sdl-t- and it is all over for
White.
11...д5
ll...£lxd2 12 Ji.xd2 JLxd2+ 13 £lxd2
Sxd2 14 &xd2 Wxb2+ leads to an even
simpler victory.
12 Wb5 g4 13 Wxb6 axb6 14 £h4
JLe6 15 f4 £xd2+ 16 £xd2 2xd2 17
f5 Hxe2+! 18 Фхе2 Дс4+ 19 <£e1
®xe5 20 b3 Aa6 21 Hg1 Sd8 22 g3
Sd2 23 Sc1+ *b8 24 Ec3 Де2+ 0-1
Game 87
Molo-Angulo
Correspondence 1992
1 d4 4jf6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 2ie4 4 Wc2
d5 5 exd6 &f5 6 ®c3!
This critical move has been around
since 1946. Let us remind ourselves
what can happen if White sticks to the
‘materialistic’ policy:
a) 6 Wb3? &xd6 7 2>d2 0-0 8 Wxb7
JLc5 9 e3 (but not 9 (£)xe4? JLxe4 10
Wxe4? jLb4+ and White is mated)
9...We7! (threatening 10...^xf2!) 10
£>df3 jLb4+ 11 Jld2 £lxd2 12 £ixd2
£e4 13 Wb5 Sd8 14 0-0-0 Wd6 and
White’s knight on d2 is lost due to the
stubborn pin along the d-file, Gilfer-
K.Richter, Munich Olympiad 1936.
b) 6 Wa4+? Sk6 7 2tf3 (7 dxc7?
Wxc7 8 2tf3 0-0-0 9 kd2 Wf6 is un-
pleasant for White as his b- and f-pawn
come under fire) 7...JLxd6 8 a3 (White
suffered heavy material losses after 8
g3 JLc5 9 JLe3 Wf6 10 JLxc5 <?ixc5 11
Wa3 We7! 12 e3 &xbl 13 Sxbl We4 in
Van Doesburgh-K.Richter, Munich
Olympiad 1936) 8...Wf6 9 g3 0-0-0
(9...Jlc5! is even stronger) 10 ^bd2
150
Fajarowicz Gambit: 4 ^02
£3c5 11 Wdl Ehe8 12 £g2 £d3 13 e3
Ле 5 14 ^xe5 <£ixe5 15 f4 Лхс4 16 &f2
and now in the game Steiner-
Fajarowicz, Wiesbaden 1928, the in-
ventor himself could have landed the
simple 16...£)ed3+ with an over-
whelming position.
6...<53xd6!
Forced because 6...<53g3? fails to 7
Wa4+ JLd7 8 dxc7 Wxc7 9 <?3b5!
7 e4 4}xe4
Again Black is not spoilt for choice.
7...We7? 8 JLd3 followed by 9 £jge2
leaves him a pawn down with pre-
cious little development to show for it
and 7...^.g6? was also no fun for Black
after 8 c5! £te8 9 ЛеЗ c6 10 Edl in
F.Portisch-Brandics, Hungary 1990.
8 £d3
8 £3xe4 relieves the pressure from
Black’s position. For example,
8...ЛЬ4+ 9 Лс12 £xd2+ 10 Wxd2
Лхе4 11 Wxd8+ &xd8 12 0-0-0+ Фс8
13 ,§3e2 Ed8 14 Exd8+ ^xd8 15 £k3
JLg6 led to equality in Alber-Trapl,
Litomerice 1990.
8...£ixf2 9 £xf5
9 We2+!? Ле7 10 ±xf5 £>xhl 11
JLg5! may well be more potent, as
Black was left without any defence
against the killing 12 Edl in the game
Janosi-Hunerfauth, Correspondence
1990.
9...2>xh1 1О£ЗТЗЛс5
Black must try and rescue the
stranded knight on hl. Notice that
10...g6? is met by the forceful 11 ^.g5!,
when 11...Ле7 runs into 12 Edl and
11...f6 12 We4+ also leaves White on
top.
11 £ie4
11...ЛВ4+
In the stem game in which 6 £ic3!
made its debut, Kottnauer-Martin,
Czechoslovakia-France 1946, Black
chose ll...We7 but ended up in a de-
pressing position after 12 JLg5 f6 13
0-0-0! *53а6 (13,..fxg5 14 43xc5 Wxc5 15
We4+ We7 16 Wxb7 is disastrous for
Black) 14 Ed7 Wxd7 15 i.xd7+ &xd7
16 ^xc5+ 2ixc5 17 Wf5+ £k6 18 £id4
Eae8 19 Wd5+ Фс8 20 £3xe6.
However, the text move can hardly
be considered to be a dramatic im-
provement, since the imminent fall of
the knight on hl will leave two white
minor pieces outweighing the black
rook.
12 Фе2 h6 13 ЛеЗ 0-0 14 Exh1 Se8
15&f2 We7 16 Ad2?!
The reader should not be misled by
the fact that Black escaped with a
draw in this game, because after the
energetic 16 a3! ^.d6 (on 16...g6 White
has 17 JLd4!) 17 Edl White would
have been well on the way to victory.
16...£xd2 17 Wxd2 ®c6 18 Ee1
Ead8 19 We3 2>e5 20 £>дЗ ®c6 21
Wxe7 Exe7 22 Exe7 <Sxe7 23 Ле4
дб 24 ЬЗ сб 25 Фе2 f5 %-7г
151
The Budapest Gambit
Summary
Although 4...d5?! has achieved numerous victories over the years, it must be
considered dubious after 5 exd6 JLf5 6 4k3!, as in Game 87. However, 4,..Jlb4+,
the topic of Games 84 and 85, followed by ...d7-d5 ensures Black rapid develop-
ment and plenty of counterplay. It is for this reason that 4 Wc2 is not on the
danger list.
1 d4 ^f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ®e4 4 Wc2
4...i.b4+
4...d5 (D)
5 cxd5 - Game 86
5 exd6 - Game 87
5 <£c3 (D)
5 4id2 - Game 85
5...d5 (D) - Game 84
4...d5	5&c3	5...d5
152
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
Fajarowicz Gambit: 4 £k!2
In this chapter we shall consider a final
try for White
1 d4 £f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ®e4 4 £id2
which is often met by
4...£)c5!? 5&gf3 £)c6
The eccentric French grandmaster
Saviely Tartakower was always full of
ideas and this is one that has certainly
stood the test of time. Although it is
normally disastrous to play the same
piece three times in the first four
moves, in this unusual position it can
be justified by the fact that White has
congested his own pieces with 4 4^d2.
There are a number of ways that
White might choose to continue, al-
though none has clearly established
itself as the main line. Here we shall
discuss 6 g3 in Game 88, 6 ^ЬЗ in
Game 89 and 6 a3 in the final example
of the chapter.
This unique line combines compli-
cated tactics, which are a trademark of
the Budapest, with deep positional
considerations as the players fight to
obtain the best possible squares for
their pieces.
Game 88
Comas Fabrego-Vega Holm
Antwerp 1992
1 d4 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 '^e4 4 2>d2
&c5 5 ®gf3 2>c6
It is also common to reach the same
position from the move order 4 ЗДЗ
^)c6 5 £ibd2 £3c5.
6g3
White reinforces his kingside by fi-
anchettoing his bishop, leaving Black
to justify his pawn sacrifice. The move
is very natural and was given its first
153
The Budapest Gambit
stamp of approval by the great Alek-
hine.
6 e3 is a perfectly respectable alter-
native, against which I would recom-
mend 6...d6 when 7 exd6 Jlxd6 8 $Le2
Wf6! (8...0-0 is clearly weaker, when 9
0-0 Se8 10 &b3 &e4 11 <^bd4 ^e5 12
£}b5 4ixf3+ 13 Jlxf3 Se6 14 Axe4
Sxe4 15 €lxd6 left Black facing an up-
hill struggle for a draw in Wahls-
Kawaciukov, Prague 1989) 9 £ib3 0-0
10 0-0 Sd8 provides Black with suffi-
cient activity to compensate for his
material deficit.
6...d6
In Alekhine-Tartakower, London
1932, Black reacted with 6...We7. That
game continued 7 JLg2 g6 8 ^3bl! (the
knight is heading towards d5. Kohl-
weyer-Dohmes, Baden-Baden 1987,
deviated with 8 Sbl a5 9 b3 JLg7 10
0-0 0-0 11 £b2 &xe5 12 £)d4 d6 13
Wc2 f5 14 аЗ сб 15 b4 axb4 16 axb4
£le6 17 e3 Jld7 18 Wb3 h6, when
Black obtained a perfectly playable
position akin to the Leningrad Dutch.
This example may have occurred
more recently, but I prefer Alekhine’s
continuation - we should not forget
that old games are still worth study-
ing!) 8...4ixe5 9 0-0 £)xf3+ (opening
the e-file will leave the queen exposed
on e7, and therefore 9...d6 would have
been more prudent) 10 exf3 JLg7 11
Sei &e6 12 £)c3 0-0 13 2>d5 Wd8 14
f4 when White held a clear positional
advantage.
6...g6 was also lacking in bite for
Black in Nedobora-Granados,
Zaragoza 1995, as White was able to
develop freely with 7 JLg2 Jlg7 8 £ЪЗ
<2k6 9 0-0 a5 10 Wd5! a4 11 &c5 Sa5
(unfortunately for Black 11...4ixc5? is
strongly met by the intermediate 12
JLg5!) 12 £ixe6 fxe6 13 Wd2 b6 14 Wc2
^3xe5 15 £ixe5 Sxe5 16 Sbl 0-0 17 b4
axb3 18 axb3 Sa5 19 b4 Sa7 20 c5 etc.
7 exd6 JLxd6 8 Jig 2
8 ^b3 is less logical as White should
first concentrate on getting his king-
side developed. Indeed 8...Wf6 9 JLe3?
&a4 10 c5 £ixb2 11 Wcl &d3+ 12
exd3 Wxf3 13 Sgl Ле5 turned out to
be unattractive for White in Zwikker-
Spoel, Correspondence 1993.
8...0-0 9 0-0 Wf6 10 2Ы
White would have liked to re-route
his knight to the d5-square, but Black
is able to spoil this plan after 10 <£)bl?!
with 10.. .Леб!
After 10 Sbl Black has some com-
pensation for the sacrificed pawn,
since the white knight on d2 is awk-
wardly placed and Black has a definite
lead in development, although this
will be useless if White is allowed to
consolidate his position, as he has no
weaknesses.
10. ..a5
The careless 10..JLf5? allows the
potent 11 b4! with devastating effect.
11 2>e1 Se8 12 e4 Wg6! 13 b3 f5
154
Fajarowicz Gambit: 4 Gsd2
Black’s piece activity has enabled
him to seize the initiative, and now
White ventures into complications in
order to seek counterplay.
14 £a3 fxe4 15 £xc5 Jlxc5 16
£>xe4 Hxe4 17 Wd5+ Se6 18 £id3
2>b4
Black carefully avoids 18..JLd6?,
which is met by 19 c5 followed by
2tf4.
19 Wxc5 <&xd3 20 Wxc7 Se8 21
Hbd1 i-g4 22 f3 i-f5 23 g4 i.e6 24
h3 3ad8?
White can breathe a sigh of relief as
he is let off the hook. Instead, 24...h5!
keeps White under pressure and nips
his hopes of breaking out with 25 f4 in
the bud.
25 f4 Wf6 26 Wxa5 ®xf4 27 Hxd8
£>e2+ 28 &h2 Wxd8 29 Wxd8 2xd8
30 2f2 Ed 2 31 a4 Sb2?
Whoops. After 31...b6 32 c5 bxc5 33
a5 Йа2 Black will eventually emerge a
pawn ahead, but now it is Black who
must fight for the draw.
32 ±f1 Sxb3 33 Exe2 &f7 34 £g2
ixc4 35 Ec2 i.e6 36 Ec7+ *f6 37
Exb7 ЕаЗ 38 ЕЬ6 Фе7 39 £с6 Кб
40 Hb4 *d6 41 £Ь5 £d5 42 Eb2 д5
'А-'А
Game 89
Kozul-G.Mohr
Ljubljana 1989
1 d4 <?Jf6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £>e4 4 ^d2
2fc5 5 ®gf3 £ic6 6 £ib3
6...^ie4
If you are fed up with shunting this
knight around, an equally viable pos-
sibility is 6...^xb3 7 axb3 ЛЬ4+ 8
Jld2 We7, when the game Moska-
lenko-G.Mohr, Belgorod 1990, con-
cluded peacefully with 9 e3 0-0 10 &.e2
21xe5 11 ^xe5 £xd2+ 12 Wxd2 Wxe5
13 0-0 d6 14 Af3 a6 15 b4 Sb8 16 flfcl
fid8 17 Sa3 £e6 18 Sd3 b6 19 ±d5
a5! and a draw was agreed on move 30.
On the contrary, the rarely seen
6...f6? brings Black no success after 7
exf6 Wxf6 8 g3 £te4 9 a3 ^e5 10 JLg2
^xc4 11 0-0 c6 12 2tfd4 d5 13 Wc2
£ted6 14 JLf4 JLe7 15 e4!, when White
is able to use his lead in development
to open the centre based on the point
that 15...dxe4 is answered by 16 £kc6!
bxc6 17 JLxd6 netting a pawn.
7 a3
Preventing ...ЛЬ4+ and menacing 8
Wd5. 7 £)bd2 £k5 8 £lb3 would have
755
The Budapest Gambit
been a repetition of moves.
7...d6 8 Wd5 Af5 9 exd6 £ixd6 10
&c5 Wf6
There is no better way to defend
against the threat of 11 41xb7.
11 e4 0-0-0 12 exf5 £ie8 13 £)e4
We 7 14 f6!
Accurate play from both players.
The tempting 14 Jlg5? actually back-
fires after 14...4hf6! 15 Jlxf6 gxf6 16
Wb5 Wxe4+ with a strong attack
against the uncastled white king.
14...2ixf6 15 Wf5+ Sd7 16 £e3
There is no way for White to keep
his extra piece. Both 16 £3fg5? h6 and
16 £lfd2 4id4 are out of the question,
while 16 JLd3?l fails to 16...4h<e4 17
Jlxe4 g6 followed by 18...f5.
16...Wxe4 17 Wxe4 -?'.xe4 18 g3 f5
19 Sd1 Sxd1+ 20 &xd1 £.c5 21
Дхс5 £>xc5 22 Фс2 £>e4?
If Black had realised the conse-
quences of this plan, I am sure that he
would have continued with the natu-
ral 22...a5 instead, with a level situa-
tion.
23 _£.d3! Sf8 24 Sf 1 aS
It is necessary to prevent White ex-
panding with 25 b4, after which the
black knight on c6 would be badly
placed. Now we can see the defect of
Black’s 22nd move as the exchange on
e4 will saddle Black with an extremely
weak pawn that is destined to soon
drop.
25 &xe4 fxe4 26 ftd2 4jd4+ 27 Фс1
£if3 28 &xe4 Se8 29 ^d2 £>d4 30
b3 Ee2 31 h4?
White now misses a golden oppor-
tunity with 31 b4!, which simultane-
ously prevents 31...c5 and intends to
expel Black’s rook from the second
rank by means of '4’dl and ^b3/f3 if
the rook stubbornly refuses to shift.
The ending now takes some twists and
turns but basically the chances are
about even, as Black’s activity is diffi-
cult to contain.
31...c5 32 h5 *d7 33 f4 Феб 34
&d1 Ф16 35 g4 b6 36 Se1 5g2 37
£ie4+ Фе7 38 £>xc5+ *d6 39 £te4+
&d7 40 g5 3a2 41 Se3 Феб 42 Kd3
2rf5 43 a4 Sh2 44 Фс1 Sxh5 45
fid5 2h1+ 46 Фd2 дб 47 £tf6 £h2+
48 Фе1 Sh4 49 Фd2 2x14 50 £txh7
Sd4+ 51 3xd4 ^xd4 52 ФсЗ
53 b4 axb4+ 54 ФхЬ4 ФЬ7 55 c5
Феб %-%
Game 90
Adler-Reinderman
Antwerp 1992
1 d4 ^f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 ®e4 4 ^d2
2ic5 5 £igf3 £>c6 6 a3
see following diagram
This move makes a lot of sense as
White prevents a potential ...jLb4+
and prepares a later b2-b4. He also
keeps his options open of whether to
develop with e2-e3 or g2-g3.
156
Fajarowicz Gambit: 4 Ghd2
6... We 7
6...a5?! is too slow. White can justly
expect to hang onto his extra pawn
with no ill effects after 7 43b3 4k6 8
JLd2! a4 9 4k 1 d6 10 Jlc3 etc.
7 Wc2?!
7 b4? does not bring the desired re-
sult after 7...43xe5!, when 8 bxc5??
leads to the well-known smothered
mate 8...41d3.
However, 7 e3 is critical. After
7...43xe5 8 43xe5 Wxe5 9 43f3 Wf6 10
JLe2 b6 11 0-0 JLb7 an interesting
struggle lies ahead.
The drawback of the text move 7
Wc2?! is that it wastes precious time
and this allows Black to quickly whip
up an attack on the kingside.
7...4)xe5 8 4>xe5 Wxe5 9 4>f3 Wh5
10 4bd4 &.e7 11 i.e3 d6 12 g3 0-0
13£д2 a5 14 h3?
White overestimates his position,
planning to target the queen on h5
with a kingside pawn storm when the
normal course of action would have
been 14 b3 and 15 0-0. However,
Black should be satisfied with which-
ever direction the game takes as his
pieces are well poised for action.
14...a4 15 Sd1 ±f6 16 Sd2 c6 17
g4 We5 18 £M3 We 7 19 g5 ke5 20
h4 f5!
By opening the f-file Black will ob-
tain strong central pressure. White’s
king is caught helplessly in the middle.
21 gxf6 J.xf6 22 4>g5 g6 23 £h3
4ib3 24 Sd1 kxh3 25 5xh3 Sae8 26
3 We4!
This impressive display of centrali-
sation emphasises Black’s initiative.
The exchange of queens would bring
no relief to the white position due to
the weakness of the a3- and b2-pawns.
27 Sd3 &h8 28 &d1 d5 29 h5 g5 30
JLxg5 £xg5 31 ®xg5 Wg2 32 Wc3+
d4 33 Sxd4 Wf1+ 34 <£c2 4la1+ 0-1
157
The Budapest Gambit
Summary
It is not easy for White to prove an advantage after 4 <?hd2 because the knight on
d2 hinders his queenside development. Black often applies pressure with a real
pawn sacrifice by means of an early ...d7-d6, as in Game 88, where he is able to
utilise the d- and e-files for the activity of his rooks. This is especially effective
against 6 g3.
However, the strategy of regaining the e-pawn with ...We7 and ...£ixe5 is also
playable and most appropriate against 6 a3, when Black comfortably equalised in
Game 90.
1 d4 £>f6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 £>e4 4 £>d2 йс5 5 ^gf3 £ic6 (D)
6g3p;
6 £ib3 - Game 89
6 a3 - Game 90
6...d6 (D) - Game 88
5...^\c6
6g3
6...d6
158
INDEX OF GAMES
Adler-Reinderman, Antwerp 1992...........................................156
Akhundov-Simonenko, Ashkhabad 1990.......................................128
Alekseev-Bliumberg, Minsk 1993............................................81
Alexandria-Schnepp, Biel Open 1994........................................84
Amura-Paglilla, Buenos Aires Open 1995....................................67
Amura-Radu, Santiago 1990................................................130
Arlandi-Marchand, Turin 1996..............................................20
Baltus-Van Haastert, Dieren 1991.........................................108
Beliavsky-Epishin, Reggio Emilia 1991....................................129
Boedicker-Van Schaardenburg, Dutch Championship 1994......................83
Brankov-Peev, Bulgarian Team Championship 1992............................85
Calvo-Illescas, Spanish Championships 1989...............................100
Chemin-Blatny, Brno 1993..................................................19
Chevallier-Mohr.G, Cannes Open 1994.......................................58
Comas Fabrego-Vega Holm, Antwerp 1992....................................153
Cosma-Kaposztas, Hungary 1996.............................................28
Cruz Lopez-Bellon Lopez, Lerida 1991.....................................147
Cuartas-O’Kelly, Havana Olympiad 1966....................................104
Curran-Mohr.G, Lyon 1993.................................................121
Cvitan-Rogers.I, Vrsacl987...............................................110
Damljanovic-Touzane, Zaragossa Open 1995..................................45
Dautov-Blatny, Bad Worishofen 1991.......................................Ill
Elera-Abanto, Peru 1994...................................................82
Farago-Mohr.G, Austrian Team Championship 1994........................... 73
Finegold.B-Volke, Groningen 1990.........................................148
Flear.G-Blatny, Andorra 1993..............................................18
Fraschini-Fuentes, Cuba 1995..............................................70
Fronczek-Hoffmann, German Bundesliga 1996................................132
Funke-Kamp, German Bundesliga 1990....................................... 42
Gausel-Reite, Norwegian Team Ch. 1991.....................................16
Gelpke-Piket, Netherlands 1994...........................................107
Gleizerov-Bosch, Cappelle la Grande Open 1996.............................47
Grabarczyk-Nadanian, Czestochowa 1992.....................................39
Gralka-Murdzia, Poland 1996...............................................52
Grunberg-Tamm, German Bundesliga 1987.....................................36
Gurevich.M-Miezis, Bad Godesburg 1996.....................................31
159
The Budapest Gambit
Gurevich.M-Tisdall, Akureyri 1988...........................................98
Hebden-Hodgson, Guernsey 1985...............................................90
Henriksson-Wiander, Helsingborg 1991.......................................126
Hess-Roeder, Germany 1981..................................................118
Hoeksma-Vanheste, Netherlands 1987.........................................144
lonescu-Bellon Lopez, Berne 1992...........................................143
Karpov-Short, Linares (1st matchgame) 1992..................................23
Koepcke-Yermolinsky, Los Angeles 1991.......................................38
Kozul-Mohr.G, Ljubljana 1989...............................................155
Kuraszkiewicz-Bartsch, Germany 1996.........................................65
Lahlum-Madsen, Gausdal 1995.................................................33
Lavrov-Kaposztas, Eger Open 1993............................................41
Lesiege-Svidler, Oakham 1992 ...............................................37
Liardet-Bartsch, Germany 1996...............................................93
Lorscheid-Dunnington, Ostend 1992..........................................120
Maduekwe-Agnos, London 1994.................................................46
Maksimenko-Nielsen, Aalborg 1993...........................................116
Malaniuk-Shevchenko, Yurmala 1982...........................................68
Marin-De la Villa, Szirak Interzonal 1987..................................101
Marin-Kaposztas, Budapest 1990............................................. 95
Maurer-Nurkic, Imperia 1990................................................ 89
Mester-Bogar, Hungary 1991.................................................114
Michenka-Plachetka, Tmava 1989..............................................69
Mikhalevski-Chabanon, Bad Endbach 1995......................................26
Molina-Gomez.G, A rgentina 1993............................................149
Molo-Angulo, Correspondence 1992...........................................150
Mozetic-Novoselski, Tivat 1995..............................................25
Naumkin-Zakharov, Moscow 1994...............................................79
Nordstrom-Evertsson, Sweden 1992...........................................123
Novikov-Contin, Amantea 1991...............................................106
Olsen-Conquest, Reykjavik 1996.............................................135
Pikula-Legky, Novi Becej 1991...............................................34
Pinter-Conquest, French Team Championship 1993..............................50
Polovodin-Miezis, Moscow 1992...............................................76
Polugayevsky-Nunn, Biel 1986................................................92
Rasin-Ivanov, USSR 1990....................................................127
Reefschlager-Kebbekus, German Bundesliga 1988...............................22
Restas-Panchenko, Budapest 1990............................................113
Sadler-Rogers.I, Hastings 1993/94...........................................62
Sher-Mohr.G, Ljubljana 1995................................................ 60
Spacek-Wach, Prague 1988...................................................142
Stohl-Blatny, Prague 1996.................................................. 21
Thorfinnsson-Tonning, Gausdal 1993..........................................86
Timoschenko.G-Welling, Ostend 1991.........................................138
Twardon-Pandavos.E, Nalenczow 1989..........................................40
Van Wely-Alburt, New York 1994.............................................137
Naa Wely-Sorin, Buenos Aires 1995...........................................55
Ward-Motwani, British Championship, Swansea 1987............................54
Whiteley-Agnos, London 1994................................................ 77
Wittke-Leski, Saint Martin 1991............................................122
Yrjola-Hamdouchi, Manila Olympiad 1992.....................................136
Zayats-Malaniuk, Minsk 1988.................................................99
Zviaginsev-Schaffarth, Berlin 1993.........................................145
Zwikowski-Gurieli, Genting Highlands 1990...................................97
160
A guide to a sharp opening with surprise value
The Budapest Gambit is a provocative but sound attempt by Black to disrupt White's
smooth development. The Budapest is always popular in club chess and this is the
first book to cover the opening for many years. It also provides a surprise weapon at
any level, and this book provides vital knowledge for the player of both the Black
and White side.
•	Expert guidance from a top International Grandmaster
•	A surprise weapon for players of all levels
•	Part of the Batsford Chess Opening Guides series, which provide a rapid
understanding of fashionable openings through the use of model games and clear
explanations
Grandmaster Bogdan Lalic is the Croatian No.1 who now lives
in England, and is married to the English Ladies No 1, Susan
Lalic. Lalic has won many international tournaments and is the
author of The Griinfeld for the Attacking Player, published by
Batsford.
OTHER 3ATSF0RD CHESS OPENING GUIDES: |
THE KING'S GAMBIT
Neil McDonald
A modern view of a swashbuckling opening.
0 7134 8451 9	£14.99
THE FRENCH TARRASCH
John Emms
Improve your knowledge of a key modern
opening.
0 7134 8461 6	£14 99
THE SCOTCH GAME
Peter Wells
A classical opening back in vogue thanks to
Garry Kasparov
0 7134 8466 7	£14.99
THE SPANISH EXCHANGE
Andrew Kinsman
An instructive survey of a Bobby Fischer
favourite.
0 7134 8471 3	£14.99
For further information about Batsford
chess books, please write to:
Batsford Chess Books.
583 Fulham Road.
London SW6 5BY
Batsford Chess Online: www.batsford.com
ISBN 0-7134-8456-X.