Budapest Gambit Fajarowicz Variation

   At one time I had a fondness for the Budapest Gambit (1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5) which GM Boris Avrukh called “almost respectable” and doubts there is a refutation. GM Robert Byrne wrote pretty much the same thing.
     Eventually I gave it up though because although I usually regained the P without much trouble, after that I was out of ideas and white always seemed much better. 
     Under the influence of GM Arthur Bisguier who occasionally played the Budapest, the Fajarowicz Variation (1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ne4 instead of 3...Ng5) was to be avoided. Bisguier based his opinion on a game he lost to Reshevsky in the 1954-55 Rosenwald tournament. 
     Bisguier wrote that Reshevsky’s 4.a3 refuted the Fajarowicz and so he gave it up. The term “refute” seems a bit strong. Although his game was pretty anemic from early on, the fatal blunder was 16...g4. 
     In any case, the Budapest wasn’t a good choice against Reshevsky as Arnold Denker discovered when he played it against him at Syracuse (New York) back in 1934 and got mated in 20 moves! 
     Rather than concentrating on regaining the sacrificed Pawn, in the Fajarowicz Variation black puts the emphasis active piece play, fighting for key squares and tactical tricks. But, most theoreticians are in agreement that with simple moves black's tactical possibilities and initiative can be neutralized. 
     Back in 1996, Tim Harding wrote a book, The Fighting Fajarowicz, in which he examined the variation, but at the end it has to be admitted that in practice the Fajarowicz just doesn’t work as well as you would hope. That said, unless white cooperates by not playing the main lines (4. Nf3 or 4. a3) black can often carryout his plans. Even if white plays the best 4th moves, he still has to be careful. Unless you’re playing Grandmasters the Fajarowicz is worth a try.

Play Online Chess

[Event "Online G/10"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2020.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Anonymous"]
[Black "Tartajubow"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]

%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{Budapest Gambit, Fajarowicz Variation} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ne4 {
Reshevsky's 4.a3 allows white to avoid the annoying check ...Bb4+ as well as
the annoying ...Nb4 and prepares Qc2 to undermine black's N. Another
frequently seen move is 4.Qc2 immediately attacking the N and forcing black to
surrender his temporary lead in development. Black's only option then is to
try to develop while trying to keep the N on e4, but that is by no means easy
to do.} 4. Nf3 {This move develops a piece and guards the d2-square which can
become the focal point in case of ...Bb4+ At this point black almost always
plays 4...Nc6 but after 5.Nbd2 he is slightly better. In my database 4...Bb4+
is rarely played, but is perhaps slightly better.} 4... Bc5 {Of course white
easily meets the threat to f2, but I like this move because it develops the B
and white is forced to shut in his dark squared B.} 5. e3 {My database has
two games from this position. In one black played 5...O-O and in the other
5... d6 and lost both games. Logical is 5...Bb4+ 6.Nfd2! Nc5 7.a3 with a good
game for white.} 5... Ng5 {Stockfish doesn't care for this, but my idea was
that if white takes the N then after 6...Qxg5 I would regain the P on e5.
Actually, Stockfish shows that even after 7.f4 (instead of 7.Nc3) hanging onto
the P white is better.} 6. Be2 O-O 7. Nxg5 {Better options were 7.Nbd2 or even
7.Nd4. } 7... Qxg5 8. O-O Qxe5 {Mission accomplished, but now what?!} 9. Nc3
{Stockfish now wants me to guard against Nd5 with 9...c6 then start a
counterattack with . ..f5.} 9... b6 {I'm thinking about an attack on g2.} 10.
e4 {This blocks my Bs diagonal, but neutralizing the B with 10.Bf3 was
better.} 10... Bb7 {White should now prepare f4 with 11.Kh1. The e-Pawn can't
be taken: 11...Bxe4? 12.Nxe4 Qxe4 13.Bf3 pinning the Q and R.} 11. Bf3 {A poor
move that allows black to achieve equality.} 11... Nc6 {At some point you must
complete your development!} 12. Ne2 {Apparently this is motivated by his
desire to neutralize ...Nd4, but preparing a retreat for the B with 12.g3 is
good. Now Stockfish seems undecided. Should I defend the d-Pawn with
12...Qe6 or even 12...d6 or offer it up with 12.Rae8 all of which are good
choices to retain the advantage.} 12... Nd4 {Not really bad, but not quite as
good as the other choices. My idea was to uncover the B on b7 and I have a
plan to attack on the K-side. With a little help from white it worked.} 13.
Nxd4 Bxd4 {Now quite satisfactory for white is 14.Bf4 Bxf2+ and ...Qxf4.
Interesting is 14.g3 when 14...Bxe4 is to risky and leads to unclear
complications after 15.Bxe4 Qxe4 16.Re1 Bxf2+ 17.Kxf2 Qxc2. I would probably
have played 14...Rae8 with good chances.} 14. Qc2 Rfe8 { Playing the other R
here was better...black would then have ...f5 (which could also have been
played immediately) as a strong threat.} 15. Re1 Re6 {This is the idea I was
thinking about when I played 12...Nd4. The Rs, via e6, will be used to attack
white's K.} 16. Rb1 Rae8 17. Bd2 Rg6 {According to Stockfish 17. ..f5 was
really good. At this point black's advantage is minimal.} 18. Re2 { Better was
18.Be3. Stockfish thinks I should now play 18...a5. That's because 19.Qa4
would attack two Ps and after 19...Bc6 (let him have the least valuable on and
at the same time place is Q out of play) 20.Qxa7.} 18... Ree6 19. g3 {My
opponent was probably thinking, as was I, that ...Ref6 and ...Rxf3 posed a
threat so he made a provision to retreat the B to g2. I was considering what
to do here and 19...h5 or 19...f5 came into consideration, Both are good.
Almost on a par with them and what I was about to play was 19...Ref6 which is
almost as good. I had the mouse on the R when it hit me...the f-Pawn is
pinned.} 19... Rxg3+ {Winning outright.} 20. hxg3 Qxg3+ {White's best defense
is now 21.Kf1 which holds out for a mate in 17} 21. Bg2 {This cuts the moves to
mate down to 14 after 22.Bg5 and 23.Kf1.} 21... Rg6 {White resigned. I only
had about 2.5 minutes left so mating in 13 moves may have been difficult, but
my opponent was down to only 30 seconds or so.} 0-1