Talk:Hungarian Defense

4...exd4

Although I wrote the original text suggesting 5.c3 in response to 4...exd4, I'm not sure where I got that idea (maybe it was original research) and I don't think it's correct. After 5.c3 Black can play 5...Na5 and seems to get an acceptable position. I used MCO-14 as a source for some of the article and it doesn't recommend (or even mention) 5.c3, instead giving 4...exd4 5.Nxd4 d6 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.0-0 0-0 8.h3 Nxd4 9.Qxd4 c6 10.a4 with advantage to White (Spassky-Hort, Reykjavik 1977). Maybe this part should simply read something like "If Black abandons the center with 4...exd4 White gets an advantage in space" ? Quale 00:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, that is an interesting point. The 5.c3 line definitely didn't originate with you. The 5...dxc3? 6.Qd5! line is well-known (including a game in Chess Life a few months ago, where W managed to lose horribly after 6...Nh6! 7.Bxh6 0-0! 8.Bc1!? Nb4! 9.Qd1? c2 10.Qd4?? cxb1(Q) 11.0-0?! (11.Rxb1 Nc2+ winning the Q) Qxa1). Your 5...Na5!? is an interesting idea I've never seen before. Krakatoa 00:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the text as per your suggestion. Krakatoa 01:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 5...Na5 isn't my idea, Fritz 8 spit it out when I fed it 5.c3. Searching the games database that came with Fritz, it shows two games with 5...Na5, both Scotch Gambits. In the second game White plays 6.Bb5 which looks more promising to me than 6.Qxd4 as played in the first, but the large rating difference means that the outcome isn't necessarily significant in trying to evaluate the position.

Palm, Nicolai (2255) - Furhoff, Johan (2320), Politiken Cup 1998.07.04

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Be7 5. c3 Na5 6. Qxd4 Nxc4 7. Qxc4 Nf6 8. e5 d5 9. Qa4+ Nd7 10. Be3 O-O 11. Nbd2 f5 12. g3 f4 13. gxf4 Nc5 14. Bxc5 Bxc5 15. Rg1 c6 16. f5 Bxf5 17. Qf4 Bg6 18. Qg4 Qe7 19. Rg2 Rf5 20. O-O-O Raf8 21. Rdg1 Rf4 22. Qh3 R8f5 23. Qg3 d4 24. cxd4 Bxd4 25. Nxd4 Rxd4 26. Qb3+ Kh8 27. Re1 Rxe5 28. Rxe5 Qxe5 29. Qxb7 Qe1# 0-1

Plukkel, Sjoerd - Van der Peet, Harry, Nova College op 2002.07.05

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Be7 5. c3 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. Ba4 Nf6 8. e5 Nd5 9. cxd4 d6 10. O-O Bg4 11. a3 Nc4 12. Re1 O-O 13. Bc2 dxe5 14. Qd3 e4 15. Rxe4 Bf5 16. Qxc4 Bxe4 17. Bxe4 Bf6 18. Qc2 g6 19. Nc3 Re8 20. g3 Qa5 21. h4 Rad8 22. Kg2 Re6 23. Bd2 Nxc3 24. bxc3 Rde8 25. Bd3 h5 26. Bc4 Kg7 27. Bxe6 Rxe6 28. Bg5 Bxg5 29. Nxg5 Qd5+ 30. Kg1 Re7 31. Qd2 f6 32. Nh3 Qe4 33. Nf4 Qf3 34. Re1 1-0

Quale 02:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, interesting games. It was impressive how Black smashed White in the first game. Black played terribly in the second. I wouldn't want to play 5.c3 in light of 5...Na5! I can see why Hort invited 5.c3 and Spassky didn't take him up on it. Krakatoa 03:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked this up in NCO instead of MCO-14 and found that Nunn et. al. cover both 5.c3 Na5 (=, they say) and 5.c3 dxc3? 6.Qd5 (big White advantage). Quale 16:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The line is covered in Danish Dynamite and can indeed arise from the Scotch Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Be7 5.c3). They give 5.c3?! Na5! = without making any further comments, in my opinion White's best may well be to continue in gambit style with 6.Bd3 though I don't have any sources for that- I analysed the line some time ago with the help of Fritz 8. The position after the dubious 5...dxc3 can also be reached via the Goring Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.c3 dxc3 5.Bc4 Be7), which I mentioned in the Wikipedia section on the Goring Gambit. In Danish Dynamite, following 6.Qd5 Nh6 7.Bxh6 0-0, Muller and Voigt give 8.Bc1?! Nb4 9.Qd1 c2 =+ (and I agree with that assessment), and 8.Nxc3 gxh6 9.Qh5 += as well as 8.Bxg7 Kxg7 9.Nxc3 +=. The position is notorious for the number of cases people have mis-analysed it as winning a piece for White. Tws45 (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]