Refutation of the Budapest Gambit
Some openings are easier to refute than others. I never had a high opinion of the Budapest Gambit – black sacrifices a pawn and then spends time to take it back, all in order to achieve a worse pawn structure. The compensation he is theoretically promised, smooth development and some chances of an attack may have been valid in the past, but today there is no attack and the pawn structure turned out to be more important than the development.
It is important to define here what I mean by “refutation.” It is not a forced win, that is for sure! If white obtains a stable and safe advantage out of the opening in all the lines and at the same time black’s position lacks perspective and has no way to evolve then I consider an opening, or a variation, to have been refuted. I hope to show in the analysis below that this is valid for the Budapest Gambit.
The following analysis is based on a lot of my own work and games and two great books – Squeezing the Gambits by Kiril Georgiev (2010) and Grandmaster Repertoire 2 – 1 d4 Volume Two by Boris Avrukh (2010).
White’s key move in several lines is Nd2, followed by Nde4. This has a poweful effect – it prevents exchange of one pair of knights, which would help black if allowed (he has less space and it also opens the 6th rank for the rook maneuver Ra6-g6 or Ra6-h6), it attacks the Bc5, another important black piece, and it liberates the way for the f-pawn. Hence I have taken as a main line the move 7…Nge5, the only way black can prevent the Nd2-e4 maneuver. But life is not easy for black there either.
Here is the full analysis:
is also a .cbv version for download and viewing in Chessbase.