Talk:Budapest Gambit

Budapest Gambit has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 11, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

Chess Mid‑importance

	Chess portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is in the list of selected articles that are shown on Portal:Chess.

This article was nominated for merging with Budapest Gambit, Kieninger Trap on 2 September 2013. The result of the discussion was merge.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 430 days may be automatically archived by .

Traffic statistics[edit]

Here is the monthly volume of view counts for the article. Redirects (Budapest Defense and Budapest Defence) are included from 2008 to 2010 but not afterwards.

Month	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
January	1266	1108	1286	1336	1216
February	1167	1059	1382	1394	1229
March	1334	1457	1323	1593	1221
April	1222	1245	1470	1193	1090
May	1136	4015	1702	1100	1310
June	1003	1342	822	1108	1312
July	N/A	1968	927	1101
August	982	1534	1480	1045
September	844	1678	1298	862
October	1076	1634	1265	1132
November	1021	1258	1255	2134
December	903	1239	1467	1238

The point of this is that "Gambit" is far more common than Defense/defence, right? Bubba73 (talk), 18:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no, not really, it is just that I would like to see if traffic increases as the article improves. But there does not seem to be a link for the moment :-( SyG (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see yesterday's traffic? It is incredible number - about 1400! Probably becouse of this: http://mostpopulartopics.com/node/5383/budapest_gambit.html --Userresuuser (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow ! I did not expect this kind of site to bring readers to this kind of article ! Thanks for the hint, otherwise I would have been puzzled for weeks. SyG (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is a lot easier to get the page view statistics. Go to article/view history/page view stats near the top. However, is there a point to be made with this table of stats? Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I cannot find the link you are talking about ? Is there a special patch to install to get that feature ? SyG (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be on the article (not the talk page), click "history" tab, and then a few lines down is a line "external tools", which lists four blue links, and "page view stats" is one of them. It doesn't seem to be something that is set in "my preferences". Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I get it now. Thanks ! SyG (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if someone can explain why there was a 2k spike in November 2011... SyG (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5.f4...Compensation?[edit]

I understand that after 4...Ng4, 5.f4 makes it hard for white to develop. But doesn't a space advantage present some compensation for the development loss? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.122.213.2 (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A space advantage is not useful in itself. It becomes useful if you can make something of it (like developping an attack) or if it annoys your opponent (because he is lacking of space). Here White has a space advantage but it only helps Black to develop his initiative through the open lines. SyG (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...okay, thanks SyG. Grand Mattster 20:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean 4.f4? (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.f4) otherwise I don't see what variation you mean. SunCreator (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I meant. Sorry for being unclear/inaccurate. Grand Mattster 20:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Other fourth moves after 3...Ng4 : "The greedy 4.f4 is weak...". 75.47.155.6 (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrative Games[edit]

Thanks - this is a very detailed and helpful guide to the Budapest Gambit. Have just been thrashed by someone playing it against me so am following Kasparov's advice always to learn something from your mistakes! Could I suggest at the end of each section inclusion of links to illustrative games - maybe a few with wins for White and a few with wins for Black. Even drawn games can be instructive. Neil Parker (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words and this great suggestion. There are already numerous links to games in the section "Footnotes", but it may be interesting to add some at the end of each section as you suggest. I will try to work on that in the next weeks. SyG (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update to performance section[edit]

Ivanchuck played it against Aronian (and lost) in the Candidates Tournament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.137.78 (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Merged Cobblet (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose that Budapest Gambit, Kieninger Trap be redirected here, since all the information contained there is already in this article. Cobblet (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. For now at least, the Kieninger Trap article doesn't have enough to be an article by itself. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.--Grondilu (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It isn't quite true that all the information at Budapest Gambit, Kieninger Trap is here, as that page explains the trap at a more elementary level than would be appropriate here. (It can also afford a second diagram, which wouldn't be a wise use of space here.) A merge would also make it impractical to categorize the page as a chess trap. (Admittedly that could be solved by eliminating the category entirely, if desired.) Finally, this article is already far too long and should be significantly trimmed. More in this article should be removed rather than added. Quale (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Budapest Gambit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]