Talk:Budapest Gambit/Archive 1

Requested move (old)

All the external references and the authoritative works on this subject refer to it as the "Budapest Gambit" and not as the "Budapest Defence". I have not been able to find any serious reference calling it the "Budapest Defence". Hence my suggestion to change the name. SyG 08:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've heard "Budapest Gambit", but I think "Budapest Defence" is the original and more common name. In my library, it seems to be 3/3 in favour of "Budapest Defence": 1. Batsford's Modern Chess Openings (Nick de Firmian) (i.e. MCO-14) calls it "Budapest Defence". 2. Batsford Chess Openings (Kasparov + Keene, 1982) calls it "Budapest Defence". 3. I've also got an old book by Israel Horowitz that calls it Budapest Defence. Peter Ballard 08:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Batsford Chess Openings (Kasparov + Keene, 1989) calls it Budapest Gambit. ChessCreator (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think either name is correct, but "Budapest Defence/Defense" seems more common. In addition to the examples given above, other authors that use the defense terminology are Hooper & Whyld (The Oxford Companion to Chess) Fine (Ideas Behind the Chess Openings), and Burgess (The Mammoth Book of Chess). It seems that Soltis (Grandmaster Secrets: Openings) also uses "Defense", but I don't have that book. The two references that I have that use Budapest Gambit are Kasparov & Keene 1992 (BCO-2) and Nunn (NCO). I searched amazon.com for book titles, and the results are very close with about 20 titles each way. Many of the "Budapest Defense" titles are out-of-print Chess Digest pamphlets, so "Budapest Gambit" does seem to be more used more in recent publishing. Most or all of that is from a single publisher (Batsford), so it may simply be a publishing house style decision. Two factors in favor of "Gambit" is that it's clear that it refers to a chess opening rather than defense of the city Budapest, and "Gambit" avoids "Defense" vs. "Defence" disputes. Despite this I think the page is best left where it is. Quale 09:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I personally don't care. I just wanted to point out that there are reliable sources calling it "Budapest Defence". Peter Ballard 12:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

OK then, let's call that a consensus and don't change the name. SyG 14:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Seirawan also calls it Gambit. However, it is probably significant that MCO went from Gambit to Defense with the 14th edition, that may be the trend. Personally, back in my day we always called it Budapest Gambit, but I don't have a strong opinion about what is best. Bubba73 (talk), 14:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SyG that the "Budapest Gambit" is generally better known and commonly used than the "Budapest Defence/Defense". It is the same in other languages (German "Budapester Gambit", Dutch "Boedapestgambiet", French "Gambit de Budapest", Polish "Gambit Budapesztański", Russian "Будапештский гамбит", and last but not least Hungarian "Budapesti védelem"). So, we ought to move it. Mibelz 17:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick summary of opinions so far: we have 2 Support (SyG, Mibelz), 1 Oppose (Quale) and 2 Don't care (Peter Ballard, Bubba73). That is far from a consensus, so I will let it as it is until more persons express their views. SyG 17:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Results from a quick survey of my chess literature:

• Tim Harding (64 Great Chess Games, Chess Mail, p. 252) calls it the Budapest Defence.
• John Nunn (Understanding Chess Move by Move, Gambit, p. 165) calls it the Budapest Gambit. (But as one of the editors of Gambit Books, he's obviously biased.)
• John Watson (Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy, Gambit) calls it the Budapest Gambit on p. 78, and the Budapest Defence on p. 155.

Then a search on chesspublishing.com returns 50 hits for "Budapest Gambit", 58 hits for "Budapest Defence", and 25 hits for "Budapest Defense."

In short: most people are just as confused as we are. I propose a half-correspondence, half-OTB match between Tim and John; winner gets to name the article as they see fit! youngvalter 00:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm slightly partial to Gambit, since that is what it was called back in my day. However, MCO 14 is Defense rather than Gambit (as in MCO 13), and that may be the trend. I don't see any consensus to change it to Gambit. Bubba73 (talk), 01:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Two new arguments in the discussion:

• In the titles of the specialised works (i.e. books dealing only with the Budapest, see the "References" and "Further reading") there are 5 books calling it Budapest Gambit (Oleinikov, Lalic, Borik, Moskalenko, Zavodny), 1 book calling it Budapest Defense (Staker) and 1 book wisely avoids the problem by just calling it Budapest (Tseitlin). Moreover the book by Staker is the oldest of all this list, and the book by Tseitlin calls it Budapest Gambit in the Preface ("This is how the opening that was afterwards named the Budapest Gambit received its baptism of fire", page 7). So the specialised works clearly favor Budapest Gambit.
• In the Wikipedias of other languages, 7 use Budapest Gambit (Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Nederlands, Norsk, Polski, Русский) while 4 use Budapest Defense (Español, Magyar, Português, Puolustus). It seems especially important to me that the russians and the germans use Budapest Gambit given their special weight in chess.

SyG (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that Budapest Gambit is a more accurate title than Budapest Defence. Black is giving up a pawn-- that's what a gambit is! "Defence" implies a response to something that White is doing, which is not really the case here Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak support of using Budapest Gambit. Technically it's a gambit so using that name makes logical sense. Chess literature seems to use both, but my subjective browsing of chess literature indicates modern preference is moving towards 'Gambit' over 'Defence' ChessCreator (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Budapest Gambit because of references used in article, WP:PROVEIT can then be cited in support of this name. I always knew it as Budapest Defense myself, but maybe because when I play as white I do not try too hard to keep the extra pawn so do not see it as a gambit opening. Callmederek (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support of using Budapest Gambit. Don't care. Given that Black sacrifices a pawn, calling it a gambit rather than a defense seems more accurate. I also think "Gambit" is a little more common. As SyG notes, books on the opening predominantly call it that (maybe if you're selling a book "gambit" sounds cooler than "defense"?). btw, the Tseitlin/Glaskov book he cites is actually pro-"Gambit," not neutral. Although the title is the neutral "The Budapest for the Tournament Player," inside the book they consistently call it "Budapest Gambit," using that term five times in their preface (pp. 7-10). They do, however, mention Schlechter's posthumously published 1919 monograph The Budapest Defence to the Queen's Gambit [sic]. So my preference is for "Budapest Gambit," but I can't say that "Budapest Defence" is "wrong." Krakatoa (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I should have read SyG's comment more carefully. He already noted that Tseitlin/Glaskov use "Gambit" in their preface. Krakatoa (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Eric Schiller in Standard Chess Openings (p. 655) calls it "Budapest Defense." Using the presumption that Schiller is always wrong, that supports using "Budapest Gambit." :-) Krakatoa (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Another reference: Seirawan in his Winning Chess Openings (p. 157) calls it the Budapest Gambit. My recollection was that Yermolinsky in The Road to Chess Improvement had (like Seirawan) referred to his youthful fondness for the Budapest, but I can't find it. Krakatoa (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Iakov Neishtadt in his books Winning Quickly with White (pp. 130, 139) and Winning Quickly with Black (pp. 125, 133) uses "Defence." As Quale suggested, Soltis indeed uses "Defense" in "Grandmaster Secrets: Openings" (p. 63). So given that both terms are widely used, we should probably just leave the name alone. Given that my personal preference is for Gambit, I'm changing my vote to "Don't Care." Krakatoa (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding my voice as a "don't care" since both terms are used in chess literature. I think that in practice, White usually returns the pawn, so I'm not convinced that it is truly a "gambit", but the same is true, and even more so, for the Queen's Gambit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Summary of opinions so far (in my understanding of the discussion):

• For the change: SyG, Mibelz, Pawnkingthree, ChessCreator, Callmederek
• Against the change: Quale
• Neutral: Peter Ballard, Bubba73, youngvalter, Krakatoa, Sjakkalle

SyG (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been closed as "no consensus" by User:JPG-GR,[1] who as far as I can tell from Wikipedia:List of administrators/G-O#J is not an admin. I have posted on his talk page to request that he reconsider.[2] Callmederek (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Move order after 5...Bb4+ 6.Nc3

The current article text indicates that White doesn't have an advantage after

4. Bf4 Nc6

5. Nf3 Bb4+

6. Nc3 Qe7

7. Qd5!?

which seems reasonable. But why wouldn't White play

7. Qb3!

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

Certainly that seems better than the supposed mainline

6. Nbd2 Qe7

7. a3 Ngxe5

8. Bxe5 Nxe5

9, e3

because after

9, ... Bxd2+

10. Qxd2 Nxf3+

11. gxf3

things seem pretty even

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

AmericanJeffBowden 08:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. After 6.Nc3 the best for Black is to play immediately 6...BxNc3+, otherwise White gets the opportunity to avoid the doubling of its pawns with 7.Qb3 or 7.Qc2. I would suggest to replace 6...Qe7 by 6...BxNc3+, what do you think ? SyG 19:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh, that is very interesting. Somehow I have never seen 7.Qb3, and I own and have looked through two books on the Budapest. ECO likes 7.Qb3 and says it favors White. ECO also likes the similarly intentioned 7.Rc1, as does MCO-14 (which doesn't mention 7.Qb3). Both ECO and MCO-14 recommend 6..Bxc3+ immediately (as SyG suggests) so as not to allow White to keep his pawns intact. I will modify the article accordingly. Krakatoa December 2006?

7 Qb3 is an mistake as 7... Na5 and the c4 pawn is lost. 8 Qc2 Nxc4 = ChessCreator (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

AmericanJeffBowden, in the Nbd2 line, White never plays Bxe5. He plays Nxe5, keeping the bishop pair and not allowing Black to double White's f-pawns, as in the line you gave. Krakatoa 06:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed 4. Bf4 Nc6 5. Nf3 Bb4+ 6. Nbd2 Qe7 7. a3 Ngxe5 when now 8. Bxe5 is a mistake as it gives up the bishop pair for no reason. ChessCreator (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Kieninger trap

After the moves 5...Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3 Nxe5 some people call "7.axBb4?? Nd3#" the Kieninger trap, but I have not been able to find good references for that. All I found in Google were sites taking this information from Wikipedia (a classic case of circular reference), and in my books there is no Kieninger anywhere. So unless someone has a valid source for that, I am considering deleting this affirmation. SyG 09:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this claim should be verified by a good reference. When I google, I find two brief mentions not originally from WikiPedia:

• http://members.aol.com/ELCC90/chess1/elcc_games/elccgames2.txt quotes Otto Borik, Budpest Gambit (1986): "The late German master Georg Kieninger once used it in an offhand game against Godai at Vienna 1925...". I don't have this book so I can't check that reference.
• http://www.correspondencechess.com/marconi/534.htm has a mention from 1999, predating the WikiPedia Budapest Defence page by about 5 years.

There is no mention of Kieninger in The Oxford Companion to Chess, and I don't have any specialty literature on the Budapest with which to make a more thorough check. Quale 09:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Quale, I ordered the Otto Borik book and there is the reference to the Kieninger trap indeed! Problem solved! SyG 19:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ossip Bernstein?

Is the Bernstein line named after Ossip Bernstein? --Wfaxon 15:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, I have searched hard for a clue about the surname, but I have not been able to find any factual proof. It could be Ossip Bernstein, but there are also a Jacob Bernstein and a Joseph Bernstein that have played in the same period, so unfortunately I am not sure of anything. Also, for the moment I have only one source that calls this line the "Bernstein line", so nothing clear-cut.

I should receive more sources by the end of the Fall, maybe this mystery will be solved by then. SyG 17:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at home, so I can't check ChessBase's Mega 2007 database, which might perhaps shed some light on this. I looked on chessgames.com's smaller database, and the only Budapest I could find in which a Bernstein was involved was a simul game Capablanca-Sidney Bernstein (an American master, now deceased I believe) that went 4.e4 h5?!. [3] That doesn't help solve the mystery. Krakatoa (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

4.Bf4 variation - Rubinstein line move order

Current text within the Rubinstein line 6.Nc3 is not valid as same move is repeated. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6. Nc3 7...Nc6 7.Nf3 Qe7 In above line Nc6 is played twice! ChessCreator (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed! I will correct that. SyG (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Searching for a tempo with 7.e3 line

"1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.e3 Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Be2 d6 10.O-O it is Black's last chance to exchange the Bb4 for the Nd2. Thus Black had better avoiding the exchange and continues with a normal move like 10...d6. Then White can try two ideas:"

Same issue here, can't play 9...d6 and 10...d6 ChessCreator (talk) 12:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well seen. I have replaced 10...d6 by 10...O-O SyG (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Change rating

I think this article is better than "start", so I changed it to "B". Bubba73 (talk), 18:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite agree. For a (relatively) minor opening it's very impressive. I looked it up just now expecting only a stub!Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is pretty complete for that size of opening. Bubba73 (talk), 17:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

He he, surprise, surprise! And it can still go a lot further, I think. Especially I would love to see a "History" section, I intend to work on that in a few months. By the way, maybe we could built some kind of general guidelines about how an opening article should be structured ? SyG (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everyone above. Nice job. Krakatoa (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed the article is great, although from a Chess point of view reading the article you would think it 's all fine for Black, however I know from experience in the 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.e3 Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Be2 line White has a clear plus and as Black you are fighting an uphill battle. ChessCreator (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of how good the article is, I think that Moskalenko's The Fabulous Budapest Gambit is perhaps the best book on a single opening that I have seen. Bubba73 (talk), 03:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

References

Although there are a lot of references in the article, sections such as "The advantages of ...Bb4+" have none, and they need them. Bubba73 (talk), 04:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Animated positions

I don't know how these are done or what's involved, but it would be nice if the board colors matched the standard chess diagram. ChessCreator (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Budapest Defence → Budapest Gambit — per the strong consensus on this page (see above), and the wealth of references supporting the title —Callmederek (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support mostly for the following reasons:

1. All the works listed in the section "References" use the name "Budapest Gambit".
2. The most recent authoritative work on the subject (Moskalenko published in December 2007) uses the name "Budapest Gambit".
3. When the name "Budapest Defence" is used (which is rare), it is in general books on chess openings, while all the specialised books on the subject use "Budapest Gambit" (once again, see section "References").
4. It would avoid the complications over Defense/Defence.
5. The russian and german Wikipedias both use "Budapest Gambit", and these nations are the two strongest ones in chess (especially Russia, of course).
6. The opening corresponds exactly to the definition of a gambit.

SyG (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• mild support. I was one of the "don't cares" a few months ago. Since then I've gotten two more books, Moskalenko's The Fabulous Budapest Gambit (probably the most recent book on the opening), and Understanding the Chess Openings, by Collins, which (briefly) calls it "Gambit". So because of this and the fact that I've never heard a person call it "defense" (only gambit), that tilts me in favor of "gambit". Bubba73 (talk), 01:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Increasing amount of sources brought forward in above posts confirm my feeling that 'Budapest Gambit' is the more accepted naming. ChessCreator (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support as per nom. Iamaleopard (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• I will support move based on SyG's point 2 and 3. I am a bit skeptical to the last point about this being a true gambit (after 3...Ng4 White usually returns the pawn), but that is a very mild objection and does not outweigh the fact that the most authoritative references use "gambit". Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Mild support. Given the large number of sources that call it "Budapest Defense," I can't say that that name is "wrong." That said, "Gambit" is more logical (no one calls 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 the "Latvian Defense"), I've always called it that myself, that's what I hear other people call it, and the reasons SyG gave. Btw, I do consider it a true gambit (as opposed to, say, the Queen's Gambit, which allows White to immediately regain the pawn with 3.Qa4+ or 3.e3 b5?! 4.a4), since White can hold onto the pawn with 3...Ng4 4.Qd4!? d6 5.exd6 Bxd6 6.Nf3 0-0 7.Bg5!, as I've often played successfully in blitz. Alas, 5...Nc6! is much harder to deal with IMO. Krakatoa (talk) 06:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Move request was created on 1 March 2008, which included opinions from previous discussion. Opinions offered over the following weeks included four supporting the move, two "not caring", and no opposiion. Sources used in the article almost entirely use "Gambit". A non-admin counted all opinions going back to last year, despite the huge changes in the article since then and closed as no consensus and refuses to reconsider.[4] Relisting for "further consideration". Callmederek (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

In the future, you'll get a lot further if you follow the steps as stated at WP:RM in the first place, rather than complain that your (incomplete) move request doesn't go your way. When the discussion "linked" shows the topic being discussed for over a year and doesn't show a consensus for either side, there is no reason to make the move. It's also wise to assume good faith and not assume someone "refuses to reconsider" when very little time has passed since a comment has been posted to someone's talk page, especially when someone had already responded to said comment. JPG-GR (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Just a reminder that If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic WP:Manual_of_Style#Retaining_the_existing_variety

One day ago it was called 'Budapest Defence' and already attempts have been made to change it to an American spelling 'Budapest Defense' article.

The existing English variety was clearly established by it's Defence name. Not only that but the article for years [5] [6] [7] has been in established as British English and the introduction in error of one occurance of the spelling of 'defense' on March 9th 2008 by SyG does not invalid that protocol, nor is it a reason to change this article from English to American.

Changes to this article to make it 'America' could look as if the rename was only a ploy to change it's flavour of English, rather then a genuine approval to call it the Budapest Gambit. ChessCreator (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Guideline WP:Manual_of_Style#Retaining_the_existing_variety that you rightly cite states that If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety. Whereas I had tried to uniformise all the spelling, your last reverts reinstalled a situation where both varieties cohabit, which is not compliant with this Guideline. Please fix that. SyG (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. The article did confirm until this was added recently. Have now corrected article, at least so far as I can tell. ChessCreator (talk)

Suggested wording change, and queries over 3...Ne4 4 a3 Qh4

In general, an impressive article. However, in the discussions on "The rook lift to attack White's castle", I think "castle" should be replaced with "castled king" as "castle" isn't widely used to refer to a castled king position among chessplayers.

In addition, while the section on 3...Ne4 4 a3 Qh4 is well sourced, it's sourced from a 1986 article, and Tim Harding, in particular, suggests in his article that 4...Qh4 is now considered to be far from being a simple equaliser, with White often gaining a strong initiative by gaining time on the queen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tws45 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello and welcome, feel free to edit yourself, this is wiki. SunCreator (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, the wording about "White's castle" has been changed. For the 3...Ne4 4.a3 Qh4 variation, I agree the reference may be a bit outdated, I will try to find something more recent. However I have some doubts about Tim Harding; he has written an impressive number of books but I am not sure he is strong enough to be considered as an authoritative source. SyG (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the 3...Ne4 4.a3 Qh4 variation is unsound and the given variations from O'Kelly-Bisguier is something like a chess zombie, given in many books. The refutation is 5.g3 Qh5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Qc2! Qf5(given as "threatening" Nxg3 by Borik) 8.Nbd2 Nxg3 9.e4! and white wins. 14:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliver-hh (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately as I don't have any books on the Budapest I can't add any sourced material to the 3...Ne4 4.a3 line. But I suggest expanding it (in particular some coverage of 4.a3 d6), adding it to the list of critical (rather than misc. variations) and modifying the bit saying that Black can equalise after 4.a3 Qh4, as this is clearly wide of the mark with 4...b6 and 4...d6 the main focus in recent years. From what I've seen, a large majority of theoreticians actually consider 4.a3 to be White's best and most critical response to the Fajarowicz as it prevents 4...Bb4+, which is Black's main response in most other lines. Tws45 (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oliver-hh and Tws45 are right. First, 4.a3 is an important variation - de Firmian in MCO-15 (2008, p. 504) gives it "!" and says it leads to a large advantage for White. He gives two alternatives to 4.a3, both of which he considers weaker - 4.Nf3 (leading to a small advantage for W) and 4.Qc2 (leading to equality). 4.a3 should be given as a main line in our article, not an obscure, inferior sideline. Second, 4...Qh4 is by no means a simple equalizer, as our article claims. The line Oliver-hh gave looks extremely strong, and destroys Borik's recommended (Borik, p. 86) 7...Qf5. Wiegel-Fiebig, corr. 1984 followed the line given by Oliver-hh; after 9.e4! Black resigned. What are Black's alternatives to 7...Qf5? Apart from 7...f5 8.exf6 keeping the extra pawn, there seems to be only 7...Nc5 8.b4 Ne6 9.Bb2, holding on to the extra pawn, with a huge space advantage for White, and Black's queen out on a limb. Note, incidentally, that ChessGames.com has eight games with 4.a3 Qh4 5.g3 Qh5. White scored a rather respectable seven wins and one draw (93.75%). That casts further doubt on the claim that 4...Qh4 simply equalizes. Krakatoa (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've broken out 4.a3 into a separate subsection, so it's no longer lumped in with inferior 4th moves for White. Krakatoa (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a great improvement, thanks ! SyG (talk) 07:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Good to see 4.a3 (which may well merit a "!") get the credit that it deserves. Just coming to Black's rescue after 4.a3 d6 5.Qc2, Fritz 10's openings book gives 5...Nc5 as best, and as such Black may not need to waste a tempo with 5...d5.Tws45 (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the text accordingly. SyG (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Rarely played in top level?

Two things, who says this? You'd better have some big names to back up this claim. Second, even if this is true, what good does saying this have to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyadam (talk • contribs) 16:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This statement is said by Viktor Moskalenko in his book on the Budapest Gambit. It is informative because it helps the reader to understand the notability of the opening. SyG (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

POV in Reference section

The reference section contains unreferenced statements such as some assessments are outdated. I think they are inappropriate for an encyclopaedia (even if they were referenced). But now surely they violate at least WP:POV. Voorlandt (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Unable to locate "outdated" on the page now or on version of the date of the above post. Can you be more specific of the POV statement(s) you refer to? 17:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

References have show-option. Open them and youll see. Lab-oratory (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Animated images

Can they be restructured so as not to look like the rook is moving one square at a time? 91.107.131.23 (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Fajarowicz, 4.Nf3 Bb4+ 5.Nbd2

It says in the article that Tseitlin sees sufficient compensation for the pawn in all lines after 5...d5, but this is another line that I'm dubious about: what happens if White plays 6.Qb3 here? Best then seems to be 6...Nc6 7.cxd5 Nc5 8.Qc4 b5 9.Qxb5 Qxd5, or 6...Nxd2 7.Nxd2 Ba5 8.cxd5, and in both cases White ends up with two extra pawns, probably for about one pawn's worth of compensation. Or 6...Bxd2+ 7.Nxd2 dxc4 8.Qb5+ c6 9.Qxc4 and although Black is only one pawn down here, the compensation seems pretty scant.

I'm quite a fan of the Fajarowicz and have played it myself with good results, but I think the section on the "Faj" seems a little biased towards Black, particularly in the critical 4.a3 line as well as 4.Nf3 Bb4+ 5.Nbd2. It gives the impression that Black equalises easily in all lines, whereas in reality almost all authorities concede that White should have an edge with accurate play. In addition, since 4.a3 Qh4 leaves White better, it would be worth some discussion of the normal 4...d6 (someone correctly mentioned 4...b6 as an alternative also). Unfortunately I don't have any sources on the Fajarowicz other than Tim Harding's internet article from 1997 where he suggests 4...d6 with the follow-up 5.Nf3 Bf5. Tws45 (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the article is currently biased towards Black, the main problem being that most sources on the Budapest Gambit are directed to the Black player. Maybe it would be possible to find more objective assessments in books on 1.d4, but unfortunately I do not have any. SyG (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

6.Qb3 is a good move. IMO White easily has a plus. I think 5...d5 is not good enough, but as GM Tseitlin is the source it would seems appropriate to use it. SunCreator (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Split this article in several

According to this analysis of readability, the article is much too long. I consider the possibility to split it into several different articles, along the different variations. Any comment ? SyG (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the Budapest is a large enough opening to be subdivided. Bubba73 (talk), 15:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Great idea. When I open this article, it loads so slowly, that disappears any desire to make this again in the future. --MrsHudson (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

With me it loads within 3 seconds, which is a lot better than some articles. Bubba73 (talk), 16:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Bubba73. It seems weird to split the Budapest into multiple articles when we don't split articles about much more common openings. The Budapest constitutes a walloping 0.17% of the games in ChessGames.com's database. Krakatoa (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

← All right, no consensus for split, sorry MrsHudson you will have to remain a victim of the connection-speed armor race. But then, how do I comply with WP:SIZE ? Shall I remove half of the article to be under 50 kB ? SyG (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So, no one has an idea on how I could reduce the size of this article ? SyG (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:SIZE a guideline not a policy. I seem to recall this question arose on a previous article and it was discovered that FA quality articles upto 250Kb exist, so I figure it's not a big deal. SunCreator (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is actually very short - only 135 Kb! Note that the much less important Bobby Fischer is 116 Kb. More relevantly, Sicilian Defense, an unimportant opening that is played over 100 times as often as the Budapest, is 66 Kb. :-) Of course, Sicilian Defense has a lot of spun-off variations. Krakatoa (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree the article is too short, but this is just because it is not finished yet. All the lines after the 22th move are still missing, as well as the typical endings, the statistics back to 1916 month per month, and a detailed description of every player having experienced the Budapest Gambit in history. Don't worry, I plan to add that under short notice. SyG (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

SyG, Krakatoa's immediately piece above yours is written with sarcasm. I point this out because I know your first language is not english and so it would be easy to confuse. He's not saying it's very short but long and not saying Bobby Fischer is less important but more. Yes the english language is complex sometimes! SunCreator (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

SunCreator, I think SyG understood that and was responding in kind - at least I hope so. P.S. SyG, If you're not being sarcastic, be sure to mention that once when I was a 1400 I played the Budapest in a tournament game, and drew, but only after my opponent missed the win of a piece. As White, I once played against the 4.Bf4 g5!? line and got a big advantage, but blew it and ended up having to scrounge a draw from the bad side of a R, RP, and BP versus R ending. I once gave a simul where one of my opponents played the Budapest - once again I played badly and ended up with two bishops as compensation for my lost queen. That was the only draw I gave up in the simul. In blitz games, I have often played 4.Qd4?!, usually with success, but I really don't like to see 4...d6 5.exd6 Nc6! Krakatoa (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, in the Norwegian chess championship last week, I saw a White player in my section (rating 1250-1499) horribly smothered mated after eight moves against the Budapest. OK, we might need to work trimming down the move by move analysis before we consider splitting the article in two. Wikipedia's mission is to inform, and some light analysis illustrating general ideas and strategies is part of that; but it's perhaps best if people who want detailed and deep analysis buy an opening book instead. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, I think a separate article on an opening variation is a serious option if the variation has an opening monograph devoted to it. In the case of the Budapest, this makes the 3...Ne4 line a possible candidate for splitting, which in fact has two books devoted to it, T. D. Harding in 1996 and Gutman in 2004. This is not essential, and I would prioritize separate articles for the Nimzo-Indian 4.Qc2, 4.e3, or 4.Nf3 lines higher, but if a split of the article is desirable, I think spinning out the Fajorowicz is the best option. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your input. Now I have 3 persons (including myself) in favour of a split, 2 persons against a split, and 1 person who thinks the size is not a big deal after all. My next move has to be cautious ;-) SyG (talk) 08:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a completely contrarian opinion: the article is far too long and contains too much irrelevant detail. Wikipedia is both a general and a specialist encyclopedia, but the detailed discussion of lines most of which have never been tested in any important games is out of place here. There is a place for that level of detail, but it isn't here. Wikibooks chess would be a possibility. As an example, take nearly any of the notes in the article. Here is (currently) the last one:

6.exd6 is considered an error by Lalic but after 6...Bf5! he only looks at 7.Qa4+ and fails to consider Borik's recommendation 7.a3 Bxd2+ 8.Bxd2 Qxd6, when Black has enough compensation for the pawn with his active Ne4 and Bf5. (Lalic 1998, p.148). (Borik 1986, p.81–82, citing the games Antainen – Nieminen, Finnish Correspondence Championship 1973, Bascau – Meewes, correspondence 1971, and Laghkva – Contendini, Leipzig Olympiad 1960).

Sorry to be blunt, but why would a reader of this article care? An appropriate level of detail is to cover the major lines and assessments and direct the reader to the specialist opening literature for detail. See WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTHOW. I think this article currently steps over this line. Quale (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Quale has hit the nail on the head. The article is practically a treatise on the Budapest. Krakatoa (talk) 02:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It is great stuff and a great job has been done on it, with a lot of dedicated work. But I think it goes into too much detail for an encyclopedia article, especially on one that is rarely played. Back in my day we used to get booklets on openings from Chess Digest, and this article probably has at least as much information as one of those booklets. In fact, I think I have the one on the Budapest. Bubba73 (talk), 03:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's a very good quality article but also too detailed. It certainly reads more like a treatise on the opening rather than an overview. I'm not sure about how to set about trimming it down though.

Further edit: I think much of the "Notes" section in particular may be overkill.Tws45 (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

About the Notes you are right, I recently tried to move there everything that could (in my opinion) be eventually wiped out. I will also try to trim down the article, but I want to be careful as I would like this article to be also useful for the expert players, not just a simple introduction. SyG (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

anymore?

I noticed that "anymore" was changed to "any more". I think "anymore" is correct. Bubba73 (talk), 16:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am also in favor of replacing the two "!" at the end of sentences with periods. Bubba73 (talk), 17:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

For "anymore", I changed it to "any more" because the automatic peer review told me that "anymore" was American and "any more" was British, and I had to be consistent with one single language. I chose the British one because "defence" is British so if I had chosen American I would have had to change all the "defence" for "defense".

In all this I trusted blindedly this tool, so if you tell me it is incorrect I have no problem to change. SyG (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

For your second point, I have done the replacement. SyG (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

OK about "any more". Bubba73 (talk), 19:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Review of Budapest Gambit

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Budapest Gambit. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nomination by SyG

I would like to know how far this article is from A-class, or at least get constructive feedback on how to improve it. As this is the first opening article that tries to get above B-class, it is especially important to know if the structure of the article is fine or if it should be organised in a totally different way. SyG (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Budapest Gambit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! This is the first time I've seen a chess article at GAN, so I jumped at the chance to review it. I used to play this opening as my main weapon early in my "chess career" (now I play the boring but solid Nimzoindian), and I have most of the print sources that are cited. I will give it a thorough read-through over the weekend and have the review up early next week. Sasata (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that's great to have an expert as a reviewer ! Too bad you are not a member of the WP:WikiProject Chess (at least not yet) :-) SyG (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay... both Wiki-life and real-life got busy... Ok let's get this started! I'll make (what I feel to be) non-controversial copyedits as I read the article, but feel free to revert or discuss here if I've changed the meaning.

History

• Carl Schlechter published an optimistic analysis of the gambit in the "Deutsche Schachzeitung" (1917, page 242) volume#?

I found out it was volume 72. I added it in the reference. SyG (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Schlechter wrote the monograph "The Budapest Defence to the Queen's Gambit", published in 1919 after his death, which can be considered the first book on this opening. " As is an important event in the development of literature of this opening, perhaps it would be wortwhile to use a sentence to explain the circumstances under which his book was published posthumously?

I have ordered a biography on Schlechter to look for more information on that. I should receive it by the end of next week. SyG (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems Schlechter's book was published in 1918, not in 1919. Probably only the english translation was published in 1919. I changed the text accordingly. SyG (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• "The gambit reached its popularity peak (around five Budapest gambits for every thousand games played) in this period,..." How is "this period" defined?

I changed "this period" for "around 1920". SyG (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Hence the reputation of the e4-line became something like "not bad"." Suggest recasting latter part of sentence, sounds awkward

I rephrased the sentence, see what you think. SyG (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• "The master Kaposztas showed that even when White succeeded in his positional plan, it only meant an endgame with four white pawns against three black ones on the kingside, with very drawish tendencies." How did he show that? Was there a specific game, or a publication?

I added a lenghty note explaining the point. SyG (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Meanwhile, the players with a positional style were developing other ideas for White." ? Sounds like dubious OR to me... is the implication that the players with an "attacking style" weren't developing ideas?

I rephrased the sentence. SyG (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Two ideas of gambit were also invented..." Needs recasting, construction awkward

I recasted, changing for "two sacrifices of pawn" instead of gambits. SyG (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• I was surprised to see no mention of Short's use of this opening in an extremely important candidates match against Karpov

N/m, I see it in the next section. Sasata (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Last paragraph needs citations, perhaps the informant itself for the first sentence, maybe that SOS article for the 5.Nh3 line. Last sentence definitely needs a source.

I added a source for each sentence. SyG (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Performance

• Looks good... I made some copyedits, check to make sure I didn't mess anything up. Sasata (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me too :-) SyG (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Strategic and tactical themes

• "In the Alekhine variation White does not try to defend the gambited pawn," Although I have heard this expression before, I think it's imprecise to say this, because technically, the gambited pawn has left the board.

I have rephrased the sentence. SyG (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Moreover there are several motives of sacrifice on e3." Somewhat awkward, needs rephrasing.

I have removed the sentence, as it was not sourced, and not that important in my opinion. SyG (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• "The "Budapest rook" was an invigorating innovation of the 1980s, and gave the gambit new life." It would be cool to have a mention (and perhaps give in a footnote) the first game where this rook lift was played at the master level.

In the first sentence of the section, I added a mention of it being introduced by Drimer in 1968. SyG (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• The second and third paragraphs of the "Budapest rook" section need citations.

I added a few footnotes. SyG (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• the second paragraph of the ...Bb4+ section needs a citation, and it is a bit repetitive ("makes it harder for this knight to reach its ideal square d5", "this knight is slightly misplaced to reach its best square d5"

I added a reference, and I rephrased the incriminated sentence. SyG (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• "7.Qxd2?! Nxf3+ 8.gxf3 would ruin White's kingside pawn structure" Personally, I would disagree with that, and think that the assessment should be 7... Nxf3?! 8.gf3 with better chances for white due to his increased central control and potential use of the g-file (e.g. ideas of Rg1, Qd4, O-O-O, etc), but of course here on WIkipedia we can not speculate like that (even if it's true) and must use what's published instead.

I reduced the size of the explanations, keeping only the part about 6.Nbd2 SyG (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Paragraphs in the "Pressure against the e4-square and the e3-pawn" section need citations

I have added a reference at the two sentences for which I found one. Tell me if that is enough or not. SyG (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ditto in the 1st para of "Breakthrough with the c4–c5 push"

This still needs a ref. Also, most of the second paragraph is unreferenced. Sasata (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Now I have added a few references. SyG (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• In the "Kieninger trap" section, "miniature" needs linking or defining.

I added a wikilink to the definition. SyG (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• The section "Line 4...Bc5 with a2–a3" needs to be checked for move errors (following "...After the topical moves"), as there's a line with Black playing Ra8-h6 after he's already played ...d6.

Indeed, a very reckless trimming. I corrected the move-order. SyG (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• "To avoid such nightmares..." unencyclopedic prose

I changed for "such an unfavourable development" SyG (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• just noticed both Am. and Brit variations of center/centre, this should be consistent throughout. Also check ize/ize endings, favorable/favourable etc.

I changed everything to "centre", "-ise" and "favourable". Is there a list of all terms to check somewhere on WP, so that I can check all of them ? SyG (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

American and British English spelling differences

• "Lalic still thinks 11...Ba7 is the right move after 11.Ne4 due to the importance of the a7–g1 diagonal,[49] but Black can also reroute the bishop with 11...Bf8 and "White has no obvious path to even a minute advantage".[49]"I don't think this sentence needs to have 2 identical citations.

I removed the first one. SyG (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• "When Black goes for it with 10...Bxd2 ..." unencyclopaedic prose

I changed to "Black opts for" SyG (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Alekhine variation

• Avoid wikilinking terms in quotes and blockquotes

I found one such case and I removed it. Please tell me if there are others that I missed. SyG (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• "After 7.Nd2 the pressure on the e4-pawn with 7...Qe7 is temporary after 8.a3 Bc5 9.Bxc5 Qxc5 10.Qf3" Maybe a word needs to be said about what's wrong with 8...Qxe4, or 8...Bxd2+ 9.Qxd2 Qxe4 (if there's something in the sources)

I added an explanation that 8...Qxe4 is a gambit. SyG (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• "...and achieved equality after 9.Bg2 a5 10.Ne2 Na6 11.O-O d6 12.Nb3 Bg4 13.h3 Bxe2 14.Qxe2 a4." I would definitely prefer the White side of this "equal game" after 15.a3, but maybe that's just me :)

I checked the sources, and both Borik and Moskalenko think Black has a fine game, "with good development". I guess the knights can be really good against the weakness in b3 ?! I added the reference about Moskalenko, that was not there before. SyG (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• "The Knight on g6 puts the f4-pawn under pressure, but may be embarrassed and lose a tempo if White pushes f4–f5." Does it really lose a tempo if white has to move a pawn to win the tempo? Perhaps it better to just say "but may be embarrassed by having to move again if..."

The point about the tempo is that Ne5–g6–e5 achieves nothing for Black, while f4–f5–f6 is part of their natural plan to attack on the kingside. Anyway, I changed the sentence. SyG (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Now 6.a3, an attempt to deny squares from the Bf8 by continuing with b2–b4 or Bc1–e3, does not achieve its goal after 6...Bc5! 7.b4?! Bxg1! 8.Rxg1 O-O! 9.Qf3 d6 10.g4 a5 11.b5 Nd7 12.Ra2 Nc5 when Black's superior pawn structure and well-positioned Nc5 gives him the advantage." For this and several other cases, I think it's important to give the game reference in the sentence itself, rather than a footnote. Eg. instead of "does not achieve its goal", something like "did not achieve its goal in the game Mechkarov – Atanasov, correspondence 1955, which continued..." That way the reader sees immediately that its just an example game from that position, and not someone's analysis. Feel free to disagree, I'm just used to things being presented this way in chess books, but that might not necessarily be the optimal way to do thing on Wikipedia.

I get your point, but I am afraid it may weight up the text with heavy sentences. Also, in the present case it is Lalic who cites this game and follow the 12th move by "gave Black a clear advantage due to his superior pawn structure, in combination with the strong knight on c5, in Mechkarov-Atanasov, Correspondence 1955". So this is an example through a game, but it also contains author's analysis on the final position. Idea ? SyG (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, thinking about it more, you're right, it would clutter up the article more, and you've done a great job of including the reference games in the footnotes. Sasata (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• "After the mandatory 6...Bb4+ White can opt for 7.Nd2 to avoid having doubled pawns, but he must be prepared to sacrifice a pawn after 7...Qe7 8.Kf2!? Bxd2 9.Qxd2 Qxe4 10.Bd3" This is true, but what if Black doesn't take the pawn, instead just castles and retreats ...Bc5, basing his play on the exposed king? (You don't need to answer this, it's just me thinking out loud...)

I don't know, my books do not mention this possibility. Actually, Moskalenko thinks Black has a good game after all 8th white move, be it 8.Bd3, 8.f5 or 8.Qf3. SyG (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Instead of 8...b6 a more adventurous black player could choose 8...Qe7 9.Bd3 f5!? 10.Qc2 fxe4 11.Bxe4 when Black can free his play with the pseudo-sacrifice 11...Nxf4 12.Bxf4 d5 13.cxd5 Bf5 regaining the piece, Lalic continuing the line by 14.Qa4+ b5! 15.Qxb5+ c6 "with great complications"." Yikes! Great complications that all favor White... an example of the inherent disadvantage of chess books written prior to the birth of Rybka :)

Is Rybka a reliable source ? ;-)

I changed the sentence completely, as the most up-to-date book (Moskalenko) does not like this move. SyG (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

4th move alternatives

• "...the only significant other fourth move is 4.e3" Might want to mention that 4.Nh3 first is also played, transposing to the lines discussed

I mention it now. SyG (talk) 09:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Black has tried to prevent White's idea by the suitably strange move 5...Ng6" Doesn't seem that strange if it inhibits White's plan...

I changed "strange" to "strange-looking". SyG (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• "The cowardly 4.e6 avoids complications and heads for a draw with 4...dxe6 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8 and an equal position" The use of "cowardly" seems POV, as avoiding complications is a perfectly valid game strategy that is appropriate in some situations. Also, I don't think it's proper to say that the purpose of this lines is to "go for a draw"; I use many sidelines like this (considered by theory to be dull, ceding immediate equality, or "drawish") with the intention of capitalizing on better technique by grinding out a long endgame win. Also, why is there no mention of 4...fxe6?

I changed the sentence to "The cooling 4.e6 avoids complications and heads for an equal endgame with 4...dxe6 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8". For 4...fxe6, I was thinking that 4.e6 is not important enough to be worth subvariations, but if you think otherwise tell me and I will add something on it. SyG (talk) 10:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Nah, good enough. BTW, I like the use of word "cooling", it's a good adjective for 4.e6. Sasata (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• The alternative 7.Qd4 e5 8.Qe4 f5 9.Qc2 O-O gives a lively game "7.Qd4 e5 8.Qe4 f5 9.Qc2 O-O" Why on earth would White move his queen three times in a row just to improve Black's pawn center?

Well, that's a real game. Maybe White just wanted to avoid the threat 7...Qxd1+ ? Anyway, this is not that important, so I removed the sentence alltogether. SyG (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• "...and later will gambit another pawn with the push d7–d6 to open the centre, e.g. 5.Nh3 O-O 6.Nc3 d6 7.exd6 cxd6" there is no pawn gambit in the example line given

You are right. I changed the sentence accordingly. SyG (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Another natural move is 4.Qd4..." IMO, 4.Qd4 is not "natural" (i.e. bringing out the queen to an open board on move 4); suggest finding a different adjective ("Crappy" would work if it weren't so inelegant), or surrounding the word with quotes if it's the word the source uses. Note that a couple of sentences later, I put "Natural" in front of 7.Nf3(??), as I think this is a better example of a "natural" move.

The term "natural" was because 4.Qd4 protects the e5-pawn and attacks the Ng4 that has no decent square to retreat to. I guess your dynamic understanding is too developed to feel that as "natural" :-) I changed the sentence for "reasonable-looking". SyG (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Final comments

• "Thus, the typical move-order became 7.b3 O-O 8.Nc3 Re8 9.Be2 Ngxe5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.O-O when 11...Ra6 would be met with 12.Nd5 Rh6 13.e4 immediately attacking the maverick rook (as recommended by ECO)." This should have a page number, ECO edition, and volume# in a regular footnote.

I do not have this ECO, so I removed the mention about ECO instead. SyG (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if you want to put that back in and I'll add the ref for you, I've got all the most recent ECOs. Sasata (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Suggest trimming the "Further Reading" section, especially the non-specific opening books like MCO and BCO... I don't think it helps a reader to tell them that they can find coverage of this opening in a general opening book :)

I have removed two thirds of the references in this section. SyG (talk) 08:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• note 6 needs a page #

As note 6 already have a page number, I suppose you were talking about note 7 (Schlechter's book) ?! I added the page number as requested. SyG (talk) 08:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Note 6 (after "(see Lalic 1998)."), not Footnote 6. Sasata (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for the confusion. I added the page number now. SyG (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Article is close enough or passes all GA criteria, so I'm happy to promote at this time. Thanks for an interesting read, it was enjoyable to review of some of those lines I haven't seen for 20 years now :) Now that I see its possible to write a introductory-level theoretical chess article in Wikipedia style, I may just try one myself later! Sasata (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

Prose is well-written; article complies with MOS. Suggest trimming the Further reading section.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):

   Well-referenced, sources are reliable (in the chess world). A couple of minor cite issues remain. I randomly spot-checked many of the references and other than some minor adjustment to the quotes, didn't see problems.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers the history, mentions key games, all the important lines.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No obvious color bias throughout the article.

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Only one applicable image, and its PD.

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Fajarowicz 3...Ne4

Is this called Fajarowicz variation or Fajarowicz gambit? SunCreator (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Either name may be used. 91.107.160.243 (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

rubinstein variation, immidiate check

According to databases, the second most popular move is 4. ... Bb4+, which is not even mentioned here. It's likely to transpose of course, but why not say it to the people? 83.27.92.203 (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)