- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

How to attack?

#11

Yes, you are correct Rd1 just hangs the exchange. But the point is that if white just piles pressure on the d5 pawn, there is no need to react defensively. Even if Bxd1 is not an option, there is no threat.

..Bg4 is not a mistake of course, it's also acceptable alongside ..e6. But it requires black know what they're doing. Perhaps it's harder to play. But in my experience such an active developing move is not a mistake, because even if black comes under fire, even loses material, their activity will give them counterplay. Against a human opponent the real mistake is giving up the active bishop, then retreating Be6. This is an admission of defeat, where black drops everything they want because of a threat from that white made.

Yes, you are correct Rd1 just hangs the exchange. But the point is that if white just piles pressure on the d5 pawn, there is no need to react defensively. Even if Bxd1 is not an option, there is no threat. ..Bg4 is not a mistake of course, it's also acceptable alongside ..e6. But it requires black know what they're doing. Perhaps it's harder to play. But in my experience such an active developing move is not a mistake, because even if black comes under fire, even loses material, their activity will give them counterplay. Against a human opponent the real mistake is giving up the active bishop, then retreating Be6. This is an admission of defeat, where black drops everything they want because of a threat from that white made.
#12

@crtex said in #11:

... the point is that if white just piles pressure on the d5 pawn, there is no need to react defensively. Even if Bxd1 is not an option, there is no threat.
I am not sure what "piles pressure on the d5 pawn" means, what "react defensively" means, or even what position is under consideration. After 1 Nf3 Nf6 2 g3 c5 3 Bg2 Nc6 4 O-O d5 5 d4 cxd4 6 Nxd4 Bg4 7 Nxc6 bxc6 8 c4 e6 9 Nc3 Bd6 10 Qa4 Qd7 11 Bg5 Be5 12 Bxf6 Bxf6 13 cxd5 exd5, 14 e4 does seem to me to be appropriately described as piling pressure on the d5 pawn. As far as I can tell, 14...Bxc3 did indeed give teachmewell a weaker position, but it also appears to me that the only better choice was 14...O-O. Under the circumstances, it does not seem completely inappropriate to me to say that, after 14 e4, teachmewell was obliged to react defensively.
@crtex said in #11:
[6...Bg4] is not a mistake of course, it's also acceptable alongside ..e6. But it requires black know what they're doing. Perhaps it's harder to play.
That seems to me to be the sort of situation where I would wonder if the resulting position might be appropriately described with the

=
notation ("white stands slightly better") even if it does not qualify for the +- notation ("white has a decisive advantage").
@crtex said in #11:

But in my experience such an active developing move is not a mistake, because even if black comes under fire, even loses material, their activity will give them counterplay.
The machine seems to be pretty satisfied with the position for White that would have resulted from 6 Nxd4 Bg4 7 c4 - much better than the position after 6 Nxd4 e5. In the 2021 https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2049587 game, Fabiano Caruana (2820) chose 6...e5. In the 2016 https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1815618 game, Viswanathan Anand (2784) also chose 6...e5. I found a 2005 game (https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1375588) where Varuzhan Eduardovich Akobian (2556) chose 6...Bg4, but there do not seem to be many examples where players felt moved to follow his example.
@crtex said in #11:
Against a human opponent the real mistake is giving up the active bishop, then retreating Be6. ...
I have no quarrel with that, but it seems to me that earlier teachmewell choices might reasonably be reconsidered.

@crtex said in #11: > ... the point is that if white just piles pressure on the d5 pawn, there is no need to react defensively. Even if Bxd1 is not an option, there is no threat. I am not sure what "piles pressure on the d5 pawn" means, what "react defensively" means, or even what position is under consideration. After 1 Nf3 Nf6 2 g3 c5 3 Bg2 Nc6 4 O-O d5 5 d4 cxd4 6 Nxd4 Bg4 7 Nxc6 bxc6 8 c4 e6 9 Nc3 Bd6 10 Qa4 Qd7 11 Bg5 Be5 12 Bxf6 Bxf6 13 cxd5 exd5, 14 e4 does seem to me to be appropriately described as piling pressure on the d5 pawn. As far as I can tell, 14...Bxc3 did indeed give teachmewell a weaker position, but it also appears to me that the only better choice was 14...O-O. Under the circumstances, it does not seem completely inappropriate to me to say that, after 14 e4, teachmewell was obliged to react defensively. @crtex said in #11: > [6...Bg4] is not a mistake of course, it's also acceptable alongside ..e6. But it requires black know what they're doing. Perhaps it's harder to play. That seems to me to be the sort of situation where I would wonder if the resulting position might be appropriately described with the + = notation ("white stands slightly better") even if it does not qualify for the +- notation ("white has a decisive advantage"). @crtex said in #11: > But in my experience such an active developing move is not a mistake, because even if black comes under fire, even loses material, their activity will give them counterplay. The machine seems to be pretty satisfied with the position for White that would have resulted from 6 Nxd4 Bg4 7 c4 - much better than the position after 6 Nxd4 e5. In the 2021 https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2049587 game, Fabiano Caruana (2820) chose 6...e5. In the 2016 https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1815618 game, Viswanathan Anand (2784) also chose 6...e5. I found a 2005 game (https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1375588) where Varuzhan Eduardovich Akobian (2556) chose 6...Bg4, but there do not seem to be many examples where players felt moved to follow his example. @crtex said in #11: > Against a human opponent the real mistake is giving up the active bishop, then retreating Be6. ... I have no quarrel with that, but it seems to me that earlier teachmewell choices might reasonably be reconsidered.
#13

Rd1 is if black instead of playing Bxc3, plays 0-0. So if white plays Rd1 pressuring the d pawn again, they hang the exchange. But I didn't look at the board, just played it in my memory so I missed that.

The reason I'm harsh against Bxc3 is because black obviously wants to castle and complete their development. But they didn't, not because they didn't have the positional understanding that castling is good, but because they were afraid of white's threats, felt like they "had to defend", and that's why they played that move. This is different from playing moves like ..e6 and ..Qd7 which defend but also develop, which is what black wants to do as well. I believe black can improve quite a bit by breaking this mindset of being "obliged" to react a certain way when under threat. This is basically covered in Chapter 4 of Silman's Reassess your chess.

Also of course there are many non top engine moves made throughout the game by both players. I just wanted to highlight the key mistakes. Analyzing the differences between ...e5 ....e6 and ...Bg4 is more something you would do at high level level opening prep - the engine only says 0.2 difference, not what I would even consider an inaccuracy at this level of play.

Rd1 is if black instead of playing Bxc3, plays 0-0. So if white plays Rd1 pressuring the d pawn again, they hang the exchange. But I didn't look at the board, just played it in my memory so I missed that. The reason I'm harsh against Bxc3 is because black obviously wants to castle and complete their development. But they didn't, not because they didn't have the positional understanding that castling is good, but because they were afraid of white's threats, felt like they "had to defend", and that's why they played that move. This is different from playing moves like ..e6 and ..Qd7 which defend but also develop, which is what black wants to do as well. I believe black can improve quite a bit by breaking this mindset of being "obliged" to react a certain way when under threat. This is basically covered in Chapter 4 of Silman's Reassess your chess. Also of course there are many non top engine moves made throughout the game by both players. I just wanted to highlight the key mistakes. Analyzing the differences between ...e5 ....e6 and ...Bg4 is more something you would do at high level level opening prep - the engine only says 0.2 difference, not what I would even consider an inaccuracy at this level of play.
#14

@crtex said in #13:

... Analyzing the differences between ...e5 ....e6 and ...Bg4 is more something you would do at high level level opening prep - the engine only says 0.2 difference, not what I would even consider an inaccuracy at this level of play.
When I try it, the difference in evaluation between 6...e5 and 6...Bg4 (after 1 Nf3 Nf6 2 g3 c5 3 Bg2 Nc6 4 O-O d5 5 d4 cxd4 6 Nxd4) is ~.6, whereas the difference in evaluation between 14...O-O and 14...Bxc3 (after 6 Nxd4 Bg4 7 Nxc6 bxc6 8 c4 e6 9 Nc3 Bd6 10 Qa4 Qd7 11 Bg5 Be5 12 Bxf6 Bxf6 13 cxd5 exd5 14 e4) is ~.4.

@crtex said in #13: > ... Analyzing the differences between ...e5 ....e6 and ...Bg4 is more something you would do at high level level opening prep - the engine only says 0.2 difference, not what I would even consider an inaccuracy at this level of play. When I try it, the difference in evaluation between 6...e5 and 6...Bg4 (after 1 Nf3 Nf6 2 g3 c5 3 Bg2 Nc6 4 O-O d5 5 d4 cxd4 6 Nxd4) is ~.6, whereas the difference in evaluation between 14...O-O and 14...Bxc3 (after 6 Nxd4 Bg4 7 Nxc6 bxc6 8 c4 e6 9 Nc3 Bd6 10 Qa4 Qd7 11 Bg5 Be5 12 Bxf6 Bxf6 13 cxd5 exd5 14 e4) is ~.4.
#15

@crtex said in #13:

Rd1 is if black instead of playing Bxc3, plays 0-0. So if white plays Rd1 pressuring the d pawn again, they hang the exchange. But I didn't look at the board, just played it in my memory so I missed that.
I did not see that either. Given that case, white winning the pawn still means I need to fight for a draw? Given your rating, I assume you play at a level with few errors from opponents. Is the pawn less not still a worse position?

The reason I'm harsh against Bxc3 is because black obviously wants to castle and complete their development. But they didn't, not because they didn't have the positional understanding that castling is good, but because they were afraid of white's threats, felt like they "had to defend", and that's why they played that move.
Yes, that was my thought. My idea was that I would lose anyway if I have less material. Therefore better fight to the end than fight for a draw.

This is different from playing moves like ..e6 and ..Qd7 which defend but also develop, which is what black wants to do as well. I believe black can improve quite a bit by breaking this mindset of being "obliged" to react a certain way when under threat. This is basically covered in Chapter 4 of Silman's Reassess your chess.
My motivation was primarily to defend, not develop... I have a book named 'My system' by Aaron Nimzowitsch. It is said to be good, but words are vague and it tells us to "act somehow to a certain degree" (I did not learn anything from it...)

Also of course there are many non top engine moves made throughout the game by both players. I just wanted to highlight the key mistakes. Analyzing the differences between ...e5 ....e6 and ...Bg4 is more something you would do at high level level opening prep - the engine only says 0.2 difference, not what I would even consider an inaccuracy at this level of play.
The reason for these opening inaccuracies is because I lack opening knowledge. I have no idea what to do if the opponent does nothing (same with if the opponent actually attacks).
In short: I do not know any "plans" one might want to persue in an opening. I know how to react to the opponent, yet am rarely active.

@kindaspongey, There may be these slight differences, but I want to know what good (ideas) moves like 6. ... e5 would have done. Is there an idea to persue in pushing the pawn, or would I be forced to 'hold' my position?

@crtex said in #13: > Rd1 is if black instead of playing Bxc3, plays 0-0. So if white plays Rd1 pressuring the d pawn again, they hang the exchange. But I didn't look at the board, just played it in my memory so I missed that. I did not see that either. Given that case, white winning the pawn still means I need to fight for a draw? Given your rating, I assume you play at a level with few errors from opponents. Is the pawn less not still a worse position? > The reason I'm harsh against Bxc3 is because black obviously wants to castle and complete their development. But they didn't, not because they didn't have the positional understanding that castling is good, but because they were afraid of white's threats, felt like they "had to defend", and that's why they played that move. Yes, that was my thought. My idea was that I would lose anyway if I have less material. Therefore better fight to the end than fight for a draw. >This is different from playing moves like ..e6 and ..Qd7 which defend but also develop, which is what black wants to do as well. I believe black can improve quite a bit by breaking this mindset of being "obliged" to react a certain way when under threat. This is basically covered in Chapter 4 of Silman's Reassess your chess. My motivation was primarily to defend, not develop... I have a book named 'My system' by Aaron Nimzowitsch. It is said to be good, but words are vague and it tells us to "act somehow to a certain degree" (I did not learn anything from it...) > Also of course there are many non top engine moves made throughout the game by both players. I just wanted to highlight the key mistakes. Analyzing the differences between ...e5 ....e6 and ...Bg4 is more something you would do at high level level opening prep - the engine only says 0.2 difference, not what I would even consider an inaccuracy at this level of play. The reason for these opening inaccuracies is because I lack opening knowledge. I have no idea what to do if the opponent does nothing (same with if the opponent actually attacks). In short: I do not know any "plans" one might want to persue in an opening. I know how to react to the opponent, yet am rarely active. @kindaspongey, There may be these slight differences, but I want to know what good (ideas) moves like 6. ... e5 would have done. Is there an idea to persue in pushing the pawn, or would I be forced to 'hold' my position?
#16

Referring to the position after 1 Nf3 Nf6 2 g3 c5 3 Bg2 Nc6 4 O-O d5 5 d4 cxd4 6 Nxd4 Bg4 7 Nxc6 bxc6 8 c4 e6 9 Nc3 Bd6 10 Qa4 Qd7 11 Bg5 Be5 12 Bxf6 Bxf6 13 cxd5 exd5 14 e4,
@crtex said in #6:

... [14...O-O], even if white wins the pawn, you have a lot of compensation and activity in the endgame with the bishop pair - this is actually a common idea in some openings and black is fine and actually it's pretty easy to hold a draw, and white can easily make a mistake under the threat of the bishops.
@crtex said in #8:
... The point is that you didn't have to give up your very strong bishop pair [(by playing 14...Bxc3)] just to try and defend a weak pawn.
@teachmewell said in #15:
... white winning the pawn still means I need to fight for a draw? Given your rating, I assume you play at a level with few errors from opponents. Is the pawn less not still a worse position? ...
After 14...O-O, I would think that sensible play might have been 15 exd5 cxd5 16 Qxd7 Bxd7 17 Rac1 Rad8 18 Nxd5 Bxb2 19 Rc7 a6 and the machine seems to think that the position would have been pretty close to level.
@crtex said in #13:
... [teachmewell was] afraid of white's threats, felt like they "had to defend", and that's why they played [14...Bxc3]. ...
@teachmewell said in #15:
... Yes, that was my thought. My idea was that I would lose anyway if I have less material. Therefore better fight to the end than fight for a draw. ...
Did you consider what would have happened after 14...Bxc3 15 bxc3 Be6 16 f4 ?

Referring to the position after 1 Nf3 Nf6 2 g3 c5 3 Bg2 Nc6 4 O-O d5 5 d4 cxd4 6 Nxd4 Bg4 7 Nxc6 bxc6 8 c4 e6 9 Nc3 Bd6 10 Qa4 Qd7 11 Bg5 Be5 12 Bxf6 Bxf6 13 cxd5 exd5 14 e4, @crtex said in #6: > ... [14...O-O], even if white wins the pawn, you have a lot of compensation and activity in the endgame with the bishop pair - this is actually a common idea in some openings and black is fine and actually it's pretty easy to hold a draw, and white can easily make a mistake under the threat of the bishops. @crtex said in #8: > ... The point is that you didn't have to give up your very strong bishop pair [(by playing 14...Bxc3)] just to try and defend a weak pawn. @teachmewell said in #15: > ... white winning the pawn still means I need to fight for a draw? Given your rating, I assume you play at a level with few errors from opponents. Is the pawn less not still a worse position? ... After 14...O-O, I would think that sensible play might have been 15 exd5 cxd5 16 Qxd7 Bxd7 17 Rac1 Rad8 18 Nxd5 Bxb2 19 Rc7 a6 and the machine seems to think that the position would have been pretty close to level. @crtex said in #13: > ... [teachmewell was] afraid of white's threats, felt like they "had to defend", and that's why they played [14...Bxc3]. ... @teachmewell said in #15: > ... Yes, that was my thought. My idea was that I would lose anyway if I have less material. Therefore better fight to the end than fight for a draw. ... Did you consider what would have happened after 14...Bxc3 15 bxc3 Be6 16 f4 ?
#17

Yes, this is correct. After 0-0 black is equal and has full compensation for the pawn if white tries to take it, in the form of completed development, bishop pair in a wide open position, no weaknesses since the weak pawn was captured, and white has some weaknesses of their own like the b2 pawn. So you're not fighting for a draw - the position is equal and whoever makes the first mistake will be worse - and with black being so active, white has real chances to make a mistake - the moves are a lot harder than what they had in the game.
But you need to recognize this compensation, and be comfortable playing down a pawn without immediately getting it back like in a tactic. This goes into being comfortable with tension and imbalanced positions, and provoking mistakes by creating this kind of position.
Most likely white will have to give back the pawn soon, and the engine agrees - however, a human may try to hold on to the pawn and get a bad position.

Yes, this is correct. After 0-0 black is equal and has full compensation for the pawn if white tries to take it, in the form of completed development, bishop pair in a wide open position, no weaknesses since the weak pawn was captured, and white has some weaknesses of their own like the b2 pawn. So you're not fighting for a draw - the position is equal and whoever makes the first mistake will be worse - and with black being so active, white has real chances to make a mistake - the moves are a lot harder than what they had in the game. But you need to recognize this compensation, and be comfortable playing down a pawn without immediately getting it back like in a tactic. This goes into being comfortable with tension and imbalanced positions, and provoking mistakes by creating this kind of position. Most likely white will have to give back the pawn soon, and the engine agrees - however, a human may try to hold on to the pawn and get a bad position.
#18

Referring to the position after 1 Nf3 Nf6 2 g3 c5 3 Bg2 Nc6 4 O-O d5 5 d4 cxd4 6 Nxd4
@kindaspongey said in #10:

... I am only a former USCF ~1500 player, but, if I had to guess, I would choose your decision to play 6...Bg4 (instead of 6...e5) as the start of your difficulties. It seemed that, sooner or later, you were going to face Nxc6 and the prospect of a d5-pawn, a c6-pawn, and an a8-rook, all in line with the g2-bishop. To my superficial brain, it seems that it could have been expected that the c8-bishop was going to be required for defense closer to home. ...
@kindaspongey said in #12:
... The machine seems to be pretty satisfied with the position for White that would have resulted from 6 Nxd4 Bg4 7 c4 - much better than the position after 6 Nxd4 e5. In the 2021 ... game, Fabiano Caruana (2820) chose 6...e5. In the 2016 ... game, Viswanathan Anand (2784) also chose 6...e5. I found a 2005 game ... where Varuzhan Eduardovich Akobian (2556) chose 6...Bg4, but there do not seem to be many examples where players felt moved to follow his example. ...
@kindaspongey said in #14:
... When I try it, the difference in evaluation between 6...e5 and 6...Bg4 ... is ~.6, ...
@teachmewell said in #15:
... The reason for these opening inaccuracies is because I lack opening knowledge.
I am not confident that “opening knowledge” would have enabled you to know anything specific for the position after 6 Nxd4. I suppose that it might have provided you with some inspiration if you had previously seen the standard Grünfeld line, 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 4 cxd5 Nxd5 5 e4. (“The most natural and critical response — White immediately constructs a big pawn-center.” - IM Sam Collins (2005))
@teachmewell said in #15:
I have no idea what to do if the opponent does nothing (same with if the opponent actually attacks).
In short: I do not know any "plans" one might want to persue in an opening. I know how to react to the opponent, yet am rarely active. ...
Perhaps, it would help if you looked at Best Lessons of a Chess Coach
https://www.amazon.com/Lessons-Chess-Coach-Sunil-Weeramantry/dp/1936277905?asin=B08C7HLWFJ&revisionId=78cd6cbc&format=1&depth=1
or one of the other books mentioned at https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/how-to-go-from-1600-1700-to-2000?page=2 .
@teachmewell said in #15:
... I have a book named 'My system' by Aaron Nimzowitsch. It is said to be good, but words are vague and it tells us to "act somehow to a certain degree" (I did not learn anything from it...) ...
"... I found [the books of Aaron Nimzowitsch to be] very difficult to read or understand. ... [Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal by Raymond Keene explains his] thinking and influence on the modern game in a far more lucid and accessible way. ... The books that are most highly thought of are not necessarily the most useful. Go with those that you find to be readable. ..." - GM Nigel Davies (2010)
@teachmewell said in #15:
... @kindaspongey, There may be these slight differences, but I want to know what good (ideas) moves like 6. ... e5 would have done. Is there an idea to persue in pushing the pawn, or would I be forced to 'hold' my position
As is natural (I think) for a game that has only progressed to the sixth move, the position is seen by the machine as slightly favoring White (~.3, assuming that you do choose 6...e5). Under the circumstances, holding-the-position seems to me to be the appropriate primary goal. Pushing for more might work against a weakling (like me), but, against strong opposition, it might get you into danger if you turn out to be the one who makes a mistake. Have you thought about what you would have done after 6...Bg4 7 c4 ?
Look again at your first game where you went for ...O-O-O, ...f5, and ...g5, and, after 21...Qg5, found yourself down a pawn with no compensation. If you are determined to continue using the Budapest Gambit, I suggest trying to examine some historical games that illustrate ideas that have been tried. Alternatively, maybe consider the Benko Gambit.

Referring to the position after 1 Nf3 Nf6 2 g3 c5 3 Bg2 Nc6 4 O-O d5 5 d4 cxd4 6 Nxd4 @kindaspongey said in #10: > ... I am only a former USCF ~1500 player, but, if I had to guess, I would choose your decision to play 6...Bg4 (instead of 6...e5) as the start of your difficulties. It seemed that, sooner or later, you were going to face Nxc6 and the prospect of a d5-pawn, a c6-pawn, and an a8-rook, all in line with the g2-bishop. To my superficial brain, it seems that it could have been expected that the c8-bishop was going to be required for defense closer to home. ... @kindaspongey said in #12: > ... The machine seems to be pretty satisfied with the position for White that would have resulted from 6 Nxd4 Bg4 7 c4 - much better than the position after 6 Nxd4 e5. In the 2021 ... game, Fabiano Caruana (2820) chose 6...e5. In the 2016 ... game, Viswanathan Anand (2784) also chose 6...e5. I found a 2005 game ... where Varuzhan Eduardovich Akobian (2556) chose 6...Bg4, but there do not seem to be many examples where players felt moved to follow his example. ... @kindaspongey said in #14: > ... When I try it, the difference in evaluation between 6...e5 and 6...Bg4 ... is ~.6, ... @teachmewell said in #15: > ... The reason for these opening inaccuracies is because I lack opening knowledge. I am not confident that “opening knowledge” would have enabled you to know anything specific for the position after 6 Nxd4. I suppose that it might have provided you with some inspiration if you had previously seen the standard Grünfeld line, 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 4 cxd5 Nxd5 5 e4. (“The most natural and critical response — White immediately constructs a big pawn-center.” - IM Sam Collins (2005)) @teachmewell said in #15: > I have no idea what to do if the opponent does nothing (same with if the opponent actually attacks). > In short: I do not know any "plans" one might want to persue in an opening. I know how to react to the opponent, yet am rarely active. ... Perhaps, it would help if you looked at Best Lessons of a Chess Coach https://www.amazon.com/Lessons-Chess-Coach-Sunil-Weeramantry/dp/1936277905?asin=B08C7HLWFJ&revisionId=78cd6cbc&format=1&depth=1 or one of the other books mentioned at https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/how-to-go-from-1600-1700-to-2000?page=2 . @teachmewell said in #15: > ... I have a book named 'My system' by Aaron Nimzowitsch. It is said to be good, but words are vague and it tells us to "act somehow to a certain degree" (I did not learn anything from it...) ... "... I found [the books of Aaron Nimzowitsch to be] very difficult to read or understand. ... [Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal by Raymond Keene explains his] thinking and influence on the modern game in a far more lucid and accessible way. ... The books that are most highly thought of are not necessarily the most useful. Go with those that you find to be readable. ..." - GM Nigel Davies (2010) @teachmewell said in #15: > ... @kindaspongey, There may be these slight differences, but I want to know what good (ideas) moves like 6. ... e5 would have done. Is there an idea to persue in pushing the pawn, or would I be forced to 'hold' my position As is natural (I think) for a game that has only progressed to the sixth move, the position is seen by the machine as slightly favoring White (~.3, assuming that you do choose 6...e5). Under the circumstances, holding-the-position seems to me to be the appropriate primary goal. Pushing for more might work against a weakling (like me), but, against strong opposition, it might get you into danger if you turn out to be the one who makes a mistake. Have you thought about what you would have done after 6...Bg4 7 c4 ? Look again at your first game where you went for ...O-O-O, ...f5, and ...g5, and, after 21...Qg5, found yourself down a pawn with no compensation. If you are determined to continue using the Budapest Gambit, I suggest trying to examine some historical games that illustrate ideas that have been tried. Alternatively, maybe consider the Benko Gambit.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.