This game already featured some key aspects of the gambit, such as active play for the black pieces, and White making the typical mistake of moving the queen too early.

[8] At a loss for what to play, he sought advice from his friend Abonyi, who showed him the Budapest Gambit and the main ideas the Hungarian players had found.

[9] This victory so heartened Vidmar that he went on to win the tournament, while Rubinstein was so demoralised by this defeat that he lost another game against Mieses and drew a third one against Schlechter in the same opening.

Alexander Alekhine showed how White could get a strong attack with 4.e4 in his games against Ilya Rabinovich (Baden-Baden 1925) and Adolf Seitz (Hastings 1925–26).

Another tournament in Semmering the same year saw Alekhine losing to Karl Gilg in his pet line with White against the gambit, so that the e4-line had a mixed reputation.

[16] The Budapest Gambit saw a short-lived revival in 1984–85 when Chess Informant included three games (as many as in the previous fifteen years), all played at a high level of competition, and all won by Black.

His problems generally come from the white pressure on the d-column and a lack of space to manoeuvre his pieces.Boris Avrukh writes, "The Budapest Gambit is almost a respectable opening; I doubt there is a refutation.

"[37] Hence in this variation Black lets White build her pawn centre only to undermine it later, a playing philosophy espoused in the teachings of the hypermodern school.

However, inconveniences arise from delaying d7–d6 in order to allow the lift: the light-square bishop has to wait a long time to develop, and any attack on the Bc5 is potentially annoying for Black (since it means either closing the sixth rank with ...d6/...b6, abandoning the active a7–g1 diagonal, or blocking the rook when deployed to a7).

[59] To avoid such an unfavourable development, White players have changed the move-order to keep the Bc1 on its original square as long as possible, so that it can help the defence.

After 12.Bb2 ECO considers the situation as favourable to White, but Tseitlin thinks Black still has a lot of possibilities (e.g. the other rook lift Re8–e6–h6), so that "the struggle still lies ahead".

[60] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 By refraining from the advance a2-a3 White tries to gain a tempo on the lines of the previous section, making it more difficult for Black to initiate the Re8–e6–h6 or Ra8–a6–h6 lifts.

Lalic still thinks 11...Ba7 is the right move after 11.Ne4 due to the importance of the a7–g1 diagonal, but Black can also reroute the bishop with 11...Bf8 and "White has no obvious path to even a minute advantage".

[61] After 11.Na4 Black can also simply react by 11...b6 when the loss of the bishop pair is compensated by the semi-open b-file and improved control of the central squares.

[64][65] However Lalic writes of 15...Bb8, "it is true that the bishop pair looks a bit pathetic lined up on the back rank just now, but there is no way to stop them breaking out later".

On the other hand, the early development of the bishop means that White is more vulnerable to the check Bf8–b4+, the b2-pawn is not defended, and in some rare cases the Bf4 can become subject to attack.

Apart from the sideline 4...g5, the main line continues with both players developing their pieces around the e5-pawn with 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ when White has an important choice between the moves 6.Nc3 and 6.Nbd2, each leading to extremely different play.

[71][72] For years, the reaction 5.Bg3 was not well considered, because the retreat does not make the most out of Black's provocative fourth move; as Tseitlin points out, "the bishop is in danger of staying out of play for a long time".

[92] When Black opts for 10...Bxd2, he runs the risk to end up a tempo down over the 7.a3 variation and to be soon unable to meet White's positional threats on the queenside.

[96] In the game Gausel–Reite (Norwegian Team Championship 1991), after the same 9.Be2 b6 10.0-0 Bxd2 11.Qxd2 Bb7 Black introduced a highly original plan by avoiding the natural advance d7–d6, and instead blocked a white c5-push by playing ...c5 himself.

[120] Instead, he recommends 7...d6 8.Nf3 0-0 9.Bd3 and now the same development as in Pomar's game:[121] 9...a5 and 10...Na6 deserves attention, when White's movements on the queenside are more restricted and the black knight will be able to settle on the c5-square without being kicked by the thematic b2–b4.

It may appear that we have reached the same position elaborated in previous games a tempo down for Black, since he has committed his bishop to b4 and will later drop back to the c5-square instead of heading there at once.

?, when "it is not so easy for White to meet [10...f5] as the two main responses, 11.e5 and 11.exf5, allow Black promising chances with 11...d6 and 11...Nxf4 respectively".1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ne4 The Fajarowicz variation is said to have its origins in the chess circles from Leipzig, with the first important game being H.Steiner–Fajarowicz at the 1928 Wiesbaden tournament.

[131][132] In this variation, Black makes no immediate effort to regain the gambit pawn, preferring to concentrate on active piece play and tactical tricks.

The line 4.Qc2 immediately attacks the Ne4, as a retreat by Black would effectively surrender his temporary lead in development, which is the compensation for the sacrificed pawn.

[143]1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e3 Apart from the main lines 4.Bf4, 4.Nf3 and 4.e4, the only significant other fourth move is 4.e3 to continue by 4...Nxe5 5.Nh3 (or the other move-order 4.Nh3 and 5.e3) so that the white knight starts the journey Ng1–h3–f4–d5 reach its ideal d5-square.

The cooling 4.e6 avoids complications and heads for an equal endgame with 4...dxe6 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8, Black's loss of the right to castle being of no great importance since queens have been traded.

[155] White must develop quietly with moves like Nc3/Nf3/e3/Be2, allowing Black to find active positions for his pieces with 0-0/Be6/Qe7/Rfd8, and preparing several sacrificial ideas on e3 or f2, with excellent attacking possibilities.

[156] Similar to 4.Qd4 is 4.Qd5 when after 4...Nc6 White can seize the last opportunity to return to calm waters with 5.Bf4 Bb4+ 6.Nc3 which will transpose in the Rubinstein line,[157] or he can try 5.Nf3 d6 6.exd6 Be6 7.d7+ Bxd7 when Black's lead in development compensates for the pawn.

[164]The following game was played between the Chinese GM Wu Shaobin (White) and Armenian IM Ashot Nadanian (Black) at Singapore 2006.