The first proper book I found on the Budapest Gambit was the one written by Viktor Moskalenko in 2007, named “The Fabulous Budapest Gambit”, published by New In Chess. The book is written in a lively manner, and contains a lot of "text", which makes it very easy to read. History, ideas, and many annotated games. A good book review I found on Chessville: http://www.chessville.com/reviews/FabulousBudapestGambit.htm

Two years later I bought “The Budapest gambit” by Timothy Taylor, published by Everyman Chess. Not because I was in need of better ideas, but simply because I liked the book Taylor wrote on Bird’s Opening, and I was curious what Taylor’s ideas on the Budapest were. Taylor’s book is also written very skillfully, albeit more focused on analysis of variations than Moskalenko’s book. A book review can be found on Jeremy Silman’s site:
http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jd/Budapest_Gambit.html

When I bought Taylor’s book, I was actually hoping that the book would be complementary, and would be giving me more insight in the same variations that were also featured in Moskalenko’s book. But that was not the case, on the contrary… in some of the chapters, Taylor suggests exactly the opposite of what Moskalenko considers best. It took me a while to figure out which of the two gentlemen's ideas I like best! After some questions on these books in the Budapest Gambiteers group I decided to spend some time looking at the most important deviations. So, below I will try to give you some detail on the differences between the variations promoted in both books.

The Alekhine Attack

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4

I have not met the Alekhine attack very often in my games, but where I did, I found that the games were far from easy. White gets a lot of space, and it is not that easy to make use of the “weak” dark squares in White’s camp.

Moskalenko dedicates one chapter to the sharp continuations 4…h5 (reti’s choice) and 4…d6, and one chapter on 4…Nxe5. His conclusion is that black should continue with h5, or (preferably) with Nxe5! since h5 weakens the black kingside too much.  After f4, Moskalenko features games with Ng6 and Nec6, and concludes that both systems are playable for black, probably with preference for Nec6, for being more solid and avoiding the knight to be attacked by pushing the pawn to f5. Moskalenko even mentions the move 5…Nbc6 as a surprise weapon (check that one out yourself!).

Taylor starts his book with the Alekhine attack and first features many games where black bites the dust after 4…Nxe5. After 75 (!) pages, he gets to a chapter where 4…h5! is featured as the only playable move. Taylor considers the white ccontinuation 5.h3 as best, and after 5…Nxe5 this means that white is not able to chase the knight with f4 due to the check on h4, with a playable game for black. The chapter with the suggested move only takes up 17 pages, and features lines that are probably as risky as the ones suggested by Moskaleno, but will lead to very lively play.

 

The fianchetto variation against 4.Bf4

 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 g5!?

In games with Bf4, black typically really plays a gambit, and will not regain the gambitted pawn unless white cooperates at some point. The move g5 is an aggressive try for the initiative and the aim of this move is to regain the e5 pawn with Nc6 and Bg7, at the cost of a kingside weakness.

Moskalenko in his book features this move, accompanied by a number of games of Mamedyarov. Although white has a powerful countershot in 7.h4, which is shown in a number of games  Moskalenko concludes that the move is strategically suspicious, but playable.

Taylor also spends time on 4…g5, but only to prove that one should absolutely steer clear of this move, featuring games with 5.Bg3 Bg7 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.h4! Nxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.hxg5 after which black collapses in the end. There probably is a lot to explore there for black, but the enthusiastic club player probably does not want to have to deal with all white’s ideas over the board.

 

The Maroczy attack  

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5

One of my favourite ways to play the Budapest gambit is with the Maroczy attack. White continues with Nf3, not aiming to hang on to the e-pawn forever, but simply wanting to develop logically. For black this leaves the option to force white into playing e3 after the double attack on f2. Moskalenko promotes Bc5 as a fighting continuation, and specifically mentions the lines with “Drimer’s Crazy Rook” being a rook lift that is played with the sequence a5, Ra6, followed by moving the rook to the kingside. I personally like this idea and I scored many very nice victories with this move, both over the board as well as in correspondence chess.

Taylor however is not impressed by the move 4…Bc5 and tries to convince us not to play that move at all! He features games in which white manages to advance the f-pawn and render blacks rook useless at a6, for instance after 5.e3 Nc6 6.Nc3 0-0 7.Be2 Re8 8.0-0 a5 9.a3 Ncxe5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rb1 Ra6 12.b4 Ba7 13.c5 axb4 14.axb4 d6 15.f4! Ng6 16.f5 etc. It has to be said that Moskalenko also warns in his book for the move f4, but does not seem overly concerned about the correctness of this entire variation. Depending on the white setup I still think that the rook lift is still possible, and alternatively black can develop “normally” with 8.d6 and so on, but Taylors "f4-fear" is something Budapest Gambiteers should keep in mind. 

 

The 4.Bf4 main line with Nbd2

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2

Always a difficult move to face! After 6.Nc3, the obvious choice is Bxc3, wrecking the white pawn structure to compensate for the loss of a pawn. Both Taylor and Moskalenko prove in their books that black has all opportunities for a very pleasant game against 6.Nc3. The big difference after Nbd2 is that white will not get doubled pawns, and is aiming for counterplay by attacking the black queenside with a well timed c4-c5 and in many cases will be able to get the bishop pair as a lasting advantage.

Moskalenko in his book features some games with 6…Qe7 7. a3 Ngxe5! 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.e3 Bxd2 (claims this move is forced) 10. Qxd2 d6! (to avoid c5) with a game in which black will need to neutralize the bishop pair and the possible queenside advances. In the book, Moskalenko concludes that black should be able to create counterplay and regardless of the white bishop pair.

Taylor on the other hand features different ideas, aimed at not giving up the bishop pair. In the variation with 7. a3 and 9.e3 he advocates the move Bc5!, claiming that Bxd2 (see above)  is not forced at all. He then shows a game of his lovely (I hope for him ) wife, that continues 10.b4 Bd4 11.Rb1 d6 12.Be2 Bf5 13. Rb3 Ng6 14.Bg3 Bf6 with a good game for black.

In his book Taylor recommends one more idea in this line. In the variation after 6…Qe7 7.e3 (the other main line next to 7.a3) Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Be2 0-0 10.0-0 he recommends the “bishop saving” maneuvering 10…Ng6 11.Bg3 Bd6, a variation that is also presented in Moskalenko’s book, but there as an alternative to Bxd2.

There are more differences worth mentioning, but my lazyness makes me point to your local bookshop. Get the copies and see for yourself !

Anyway, after all, it is safe to conclude that Moskalenko is more forgiving, and presents a broader repertoire for the black player, whereas Taylor is more opinionated on a number of variations. Now that I have both books, I would not want to have to choose between the two. I’d read Moskalenko’s book on the beach, or when enjoying a tasty beer, and pick Taylor’s book when I have a chessboard at hand, to dive a bit deeper in theory. Or, to put it differently: buy Moskalenko's book to get enthusiastic about this fabulous gambit and get yourself a copy of Taylor's book when you feel you need a dose of reality... In any case, if you like the Budapest gambit, buy both books and uhmmm, why not join the Budapest gambiteers!

http://www.chess.com/groups/home/budapest-gambiteers