|
|||||||||
On page 7 in the introduction the author states two conclusions:
One: the Budapest Gambit
is sound, and can be played at the highest level. This seems reasonable. The author further elaborates that the Budapest can’t be played by “feel” and requires exact calculation and precise move orders. Suddenly this doesn’t sound like so much fun. I thought gambits were supposed to be fun? On page nine of the introduction the author uses some statistics as a basis for playing the Budapest. In the seven months after the author “signed on to write the book,” he had 23 games as Black and zero Budapest gambits. You see, all his opponents were frightened of playing against the Budapest. They wimped out with 2.Nf3 or 2.Bg5, inferior second moves at best, against which the author scored 90%. First: we have no idea what the author’s expected score would be in those games against “inferior” second moves. If he happened to face GM Hodgson playing 2.Bg5 his score might not have been so positive. Second: promoting the Budapest by explaining how all your opponents will play second best moves for which they can purchase a different book (by Everyman) just seems exploitative. One more thing: “signing on” a well known 1.d4/2.c4 player to write a book on the Budapest seems a bit like asking the wolf for advice on keeping the chickens safe. Previous works by Taylor contained a positive feel with good analysis, showing the author was invested in the work. I did not suspect the author was trying to sell me a sow’s ear, until I starting reading the analytical sections. Taylor states that the lines he is suggesting are not merely at the cutting edge, but literally the only ideas to try. Again I ask: where is the fun? I think two points will illustrate my feeling on this. The line 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4 receives the majority of the book’s coverage, because the author is an advocate of this line. His solution is to play 4…h5. This move receives its chapter, at the end of which Taylor says that the critical 5.h3 is still very unknown. I don’t know about you, but I have a queasy feeling about any opening where my “only option” on the 4th move is h5, and stating that the critical reply is still unknown just ain’t doing me any Pepto Bismol good. The second point is that the bibliography lists The Fabulous Budapest by Moskalenko (New In Chess) and Budapest Fajarowicz by Gutman (Batsford) along with three game collections. This means he didn’t consult excellent earlier works on the Budapest by Otto Borik or Tseitlin and Glazkov. I realized this when I noticed that the move 4.e6 was not covered in the book. This is a small point, but it tends to reinforce my other thoughts about this book. The analysis in the book is good, Taylor brings out some good points. As I said, I feel confident that I will make use of some piece of his analysis. To be fair, it is possible that we have reached a point where the Budapest really is not playable above club level. In that case all the analysis in this book is relevant. Even if that is true, the tone of this book is unacceptable. I can hear the argument that Taylor is correct about all of these lines and anyone playing Black has to stick to his recommendations. If that is the case, why should we buy this book at all? The book starts out by suggesting that players with White will be so afraid of the Budapest that they will play second rate moves at move two and you should buy this other book for that. Then Taylor proceeds to explain how each line is highly advantageous for White, unless you play Taylor’s recommendations, when the game will only be unclear. If all this previous analysis is wrong, why are players afraid to play against the Budapest? This book is bad. How bad, you ask: by page three of the introduction, I wished I didn’t have the book.
From the Publisher's website:
|
Chessville
The
Advertise to Single insert:
|
||||||||
|
|||||||||
