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
February 13, 2026	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

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
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. Topics inactive for 430 days are automatically archived by .

Merger proposal

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

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: 5 June 2024).

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]

Article review

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

There are uncited statements. While some of the statemets are demonstrating examples, and might not need citations, others are explaining concepts or the history of the technique and need a citation.
The article has some unnecessary detail, such as the "Illustrative games" section. I think this can be removed.

Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Budapest Gambit

The following discussion 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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. C 679 09:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements. While some of the statements are examples and might not need citations, others are explaining concepts or the history of the technique and need a citation. The article has some unnecessary detail, such as the "Illustrative games" section which might be able to be removed. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can list issues with the article and address them on a case by case basis. However this article hasn't had much work done on it lately, the current crop of chess editors don't seem very interested in it and I don't really care if it loses GA status. Being a minor opening not played by top level players, the article probably doesn't need to be as substantial as it is, but if we can justify it with sources we can keep the detail. One issue I can see is that the lead is too big. The lead should be a summary of the article. Many, perhaps even most wikipedia readers read only the lead of an article to get an overview of the topic. Long paragraphs are inappropriate in the lead. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is more substantial than the topic really deserves. But the paragraphs about its history are interesting and, as I superficially glance over them, seem to have sufficient citations. (There are places where citations are placed at the end of a paragraph rather than at the ends of individual sentences, which I assume used to be a more common practice than it is now.) I don't much like the section on "Performance"; it relies heavily on retrospective evaluations of who was Nth-best player and when, which we nowadays warn against in WP:CHESSRATING. I am happy with the "Illustrative game"; when I was a kid reading print encyclopedias, I always looked for articles about chess players, hoping to find games to play over. Overall, I did not find any claims with insufficient citations, but I may well have missed some -- please suggest where to look. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruce leverett: I have added citation needed tags to the article. As for the illustrative games: Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK articles should describe. While one examples might be appropriate while describing a concept a separate section in an article is probably not appropriate, as is the case for this article. I would remove these examples or integrate them into the text. Z1720 (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the citation needed templates. Some of them might be easily "curable", but for most of them, I would have to consult the sources. These are books (Lalic, Taylor, etc.). I think they are only available in print; googling "Internet Archive budapest defense" I only found Borik and Gutman. This is looking like an expensive project. Probably I should defer to someone who already has Budapest sources handy.

My argument by reminiscence in favor of "Illustrative games" may not be entirely convincing. We have "notable games" sections for chess player biographies, and this practice was what I was remembering from print encyclopedias, but this is not a chess player biography. The game is attractive and perhaps instructive, but I do not know if we have found the best way of integrating it into the article. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruce leverett: If a particular game is notable (perhaps because it would pass WP:GNG) then the information can be spun out into a new article. If it is an illustrative game, it can be incorporated into prose text (albeit summarised more effectively). For a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia, I do not think it should be incorporated like it currently is. Z1720 (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a clear difference between being notable enough to warrant a separate article (few individual chess games pass that bar), and notable enough for mention on a more general topic. The lesser-known Beatles song "You Won't See Me" is probably not notable enough for an article, but the band and the album Rubber Soul certainly are. (Does that analogy work?) MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and deleted the game. For what it's worth, it still appears in the article on Ashot Nadanian. You could illustrate an opening like this with any number of well-played games; there should be some reason to choose a specific game like this over all other candidates. Why choose a game of Nadanian's, when he's otherwise unmentioned in the article? Why pick only a Black win? Why not a grinding positional win by White? Why not a well-played draw? Why does only 4.Nf3 get an illustrative game, when 4.Bf4 is more critical? Without thought being given to questions like these, I'd argue the selection of this one game is a violation of NPOV. Cobblet (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at the tagged statements, and it seems to me that these are not overly concerning. I'm away from my chess library until January, but when I'm back home I can tackle these issues. I agree the lead should be condensed. One issue I'd like to examine when I have access to literature is whether the terms "Rubinstein Variation", "Adler Variation", "Alekhine Variation" have actually seen much use beyond one or two sources. As far as I recall, writers usually just refer to 4.Bf4, 4.Nf3 and 4.e4. Cobblet (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cobblet: Are you interested in making further improvements to this article? Of course, there is no obligation to do so. Z1720 (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it. Cobblet (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've either sourced or deleted all the tagged statements. I agree with Bruce's concerns about the Performance section and I've merged it into the History section. I've consulted some (not all) sources published since this article became a GA in 2009 and used them to update the article. When it was promoted to GA, the article was rather optimistic about Black's prospects in this opening; I've tried to redress the balance by rewriting certain sections (particularly the one on strategic and tactical themes) more neutrally. I've also fixed numerous inaccuracies. Cobblet (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxBrowne2: You asked whether Maroczy's opponent Mór Adler was the painter Mór Adler. I could not find any connection between the two. Maroczy explains that his opponent was a hustler at the Angol (English) cafe in Budapest. The painter's obituary does not mention chess; nor does it give the impression that the 70 year-old painter would have been the type of person who went around hustling games at stakes of 50 fillér. Cobblet (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some "citation needed" templates to the article. These would need to be resolved before I could recommend closing this as "keep" Z1720 (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Cobblet (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2026 (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.

4.Nf3

Couldn't this also be called an "old main line"/Classical Variation? That would explain why the previous name that was deleted was not in more sources. It seems 4.Nf3 occurred in over half of games when the gambit was new, but was gradually replaced by 4.Bf4. Dayshade (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reliable source calling it either of those things? Cobblet (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have paywalled sources; can you check if anything refers to 4.Nf3 as something like an "old main line" or "traditional line", etc? I'll check for some free sources too. Btw, is the "natural" part of "By playing the natural 4.Nf3" part of the source or editorial? Dayshade (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, does my conjecture give a logical or illogical vibe to you, if you had to say without looking at an RS first? Dayshade (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I work with sources, not speculation. I have not verified whether the word "natural" is used verbatim in sources – you're welcome to remove it if you don't think it's verifiable. Cobblet (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I wonder if any of your paid sources you have access to mention it then? I do see an explanation that the Adler arose from being the White player in 1896, which checks out. Dayshade (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not indulging your compulsion to name every variation that appears in a heading. I see you trying to do the same thing on other pages and it's not helping Wikipedia. I'm deleting any names you add that aren't well supported by reliable sources. Cobblet (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fiiiiiiine lol. You could at least add something to the prose about it being originally most common though, unless that definitely doesn't appear in any sources despite its clear truth. Still just do not get the excessive hostility/incivility though. Especially last year the thing on your talk was bewildering. I was trying really hard to downplay it and emphasize that it was a misunderstanding and you just would not stop being hostile the entire convo. I don't get why. And that was before all the fights with Max that you might have read! Dayshade (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, my latest practice has been to go for more lower case purely descriptive headers (e.g. "pawn sacrifice line", "castling line", etc) when it makes sense, but I'll try to force myself to desist from that as well as it seems it's not irritating you and Max any less. But just in case it mattered. Dayshade (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When you find yourself not getting along with multiple people, it's time to take a look in the mirror. Act with maturity if you want to be taken seriously. Be considerate of the fact that other volunteers are taking time out of their busy lives to engage with you, and don't expect favours from them when you can't be bothered to do any research yourself. I've yet to see you cite a source for anything you've added to pages on my watchlist. Cobblet (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly work on openings not on your watchlist where I have added a handful of sources, but a lot of my work has been filling in gaps, reformatting, etc. I'm not sure if my more informal messaging style is the cause; it's partially a response to the perceived hostility (I may perceive more than is intended) as it alarms me a bit and I try to calm others. I've only had issues with you and Max really, and I guess Quale slightly, whereas I have good relationships with some other editors and people I've asked for opinions on the conflicts in real life seem to think I'm doing an at least reasonable job handling it. However, with Max, I find it very difficult to get specifics on what he actually wants me to be doing. This might lead to some perceived immaturity as I can get frustrated with how it can be near-impossible to get him to be more constructive. Also, I do not feel as much hostility in your last two messages, so thank you, genuinely. Dayshade (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if 4.Nf3 really is the old main line (it is), then wouldn't it be a favor to the article, not to me? Dayshade (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you have issues with Max, please take it up with him on his talk page. If you want to add something to an article without having it deleted, do the necessary research yourself. You might even learn something in the process – consider it a favour to yourself. I'm sorry if my bluntness harshes your vibes, but I do not care about your personal drama and I do not take orders from you. Cobblet (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, the bluntness is good (I'm also blunt), it's more the condescension. But I may perceive more of it than you intend. I don't mind having stuff deleted. I just mind needless hostility. Dayshade (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, are there any elements of this page that you would like to see replicated on other pages more? Perhaps the pgn under headers? I haven't seen other pages do that, although I guess it can also just be done in diagrams, but Quale has hinted at liking the idea for clarity, although I can't tell if he actually does or not. Dayshade (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was the idea of the person who originally got this article to GA. I don't think it's used anywhere else. I'm indifferent to it myself. Cobblet (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, anything else from this page or Modern Benoni (are there any other opening GAs?) you think is being underused on other articles? For example, bolding certain pgn could be spread to other pages, but I think IHTS might oppose this; I'm indifferent. Dayshade (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citations, obviously. Content interests me more than formatting. Cobblet (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]