Talk:Budapest Gambit

The good article status of this article is being reassessed to determine whether the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page.

^{Date: 15:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)}

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
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 .

Traffic statistics

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]

Update to performance section

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

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

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

Result pending

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]