Talk:Budapest Gambit/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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: