Chess Opening Theory/1. d4/1...Nf6/2. c4/2...e5/3. dxe5/3...Ng4/4. Nf3/4...Nc6
Budapest Gambit | |
---|---|
Position in Forsyth-Edwards Notation (FEN) | |
Moves: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Nc6 | |
ECO code: A51-A52 | |
Parent: Indian Defence |
The 4...Nc6 line
[edit | edit source]1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Nc6
Black plays this when he wants to postpone the placement of its dark-squared bishop. Now White has a wide choice:
- 5.Bf4 transposes in the 4.Bf4 variation explained hereafter.
- 5.Qd5 transposes in the minor line 4.Qd5 explained hereafter.
- 5.Nc3 will transpose into the 4...Bc5 line if Black plays 5...Bc5, but Black can also wait a bit to see what White is up to, e.g. 5...Ngxe5 6.Nxe5 Nxe5 7.Qc2 Bb4 when both players are still hesitating to castle long or short.[1]
5.e3 Bb4+
[edit | edit source]1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.e3 Bb4+
After 5.e3 the check 5...Bb4+ is not that good because White can react with the simple 6.Bd2 that does not concede anything and keeps the possibility for his Nb1 to reach the important d5-square. A game continued 6...Bxd2+ 7.Qxd2 O-O 8.Be2 Ncxe5 9.Nxe5 Nxe5 10.O-O d6 11.Nc3 Bg4 12.f3 Be6 13.b3 Qh4 and here Borik advises 14.Nd5 with the more comfortable game.[2]
The other reply 6.Nc3 is good only if Black makes the errors of not doubling White's pawns with the immediate 6...Bxc3+. For example in a game after 6...Ngxe5 7.Bd2 O-O 8.a3! Bxc3 9.Bxc3 d6 Black had no compensation for the loss of the bishop pair.[3] After the correct 6...Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Qe7! (important to prevent both c4–c5 and Bc1–a3) 8.a4 Ngxe5 9.Ba3 d6 10.c5 Nxf3+ 11.gxf3 Qe5! 12.Qd2 dxc5 and White had not sufficient compensation for the pawn.[4]
5.e3 Ngxe5
[edit | edit source]1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.e3 Ngxe5
Better for Black is 5...Ngxe5 when Black can go into a kind of King's Indian Defence setup with g7–g6 and Bf8–g7.[5] Then the pressure along the a1–h8 diagonal can be enhanced via the quick advance a7–a5–a4–a3. For example after 5.e3 Ngxe5 6.Be2 g6 ("!?" Lalic) 7.O-O Bg7 8.Nc3 O-O 9.Qd2 d6 10.h3 ("?" Lalic) 10...a5 ("!" Lalic) 11.b3 a4 and now 12.Bb2 would have been followed by 12.a3! 13.Bc1 Nxf3+ 14.Bxf3 Qf6 winning the Nc3.[6]
5.Bg5
[edit | edit source]1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Bg5
5.Bg5 Be7 6.Bxe7 (6.Bf4 Bb4+ transposes in the 4.Bf4 variation) 6...Qxe7 7.Nc3 with the dangerous positional threat Nc3–d5. Here Borik advocates 7...Qc5 8.e3 Ngxe5, when he can react to Qd1–d5 with Qc5–e7 (and the d5-square is no more available to the Nc3), and to Nc3–d5 with Nc6–e7 (to exchange the annoying knight).[5] Black can also delay the recapture of the e5-pawn with 7...O-O 8.Nd5 Qd8 9.e3 Ngxe5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5.[7] Meanwhile, the natural 7...Ngxe5 falls into White's positional trap and after 8.Nd5 ("!?" Lalic) 8...Qd8 9.Nxe5 Nxe5 10.Qd4 f6 11.f4 Ng6 12.Qe4+ Kf7 White got an edge.[8]
Theory table
[edit | edit source]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Nc6
5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
References
[edit | edit source]- ↑ Lalic 1998, p.91
Hebden – Hodgson, Guernsey 1985 - ↑ Borik 1986, p.2
Gutman – Shvidler, Beersheva 1982 - ↑ Borik 1986, p.3
Thomas – Reti, Baden-Baden 1925 - ↑ Borik 1986, p.6
Kamishov – Selyinsky, USSR 1973 - ↑ a b Borik 1986, p.11
- ↑ Lalic 1998, p.90
Maurer – Nurkic, Imperia 1990 - ↑ Lalic 1998, p.92
Polugaevsky – Nunn - ↑ Lalic 1998, p.94
Laketic – Gavric, Yugoslavian team championship 1994