Like I said, there is no way around it: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 g5 5.Bg3 Bg7 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Nc3 Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.e3 . Here, White achieves a nagging plus that will last through the middlegame without even trying. Tell me, would you rather play this position or a razor-sharp Semi-slav main line?

The second variation you give has been worked out to a White advantage and is quite unsound: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Bb4+ 5.Nd2 d6 6.exd6 Qf6 7.Nh3 Nxf2 8.Kxf2 Bxh3 9.g3 Bxf1 10. Rxf1 Qd4+ 11. Kf3 Bxd6 12.Ne4 Qxd1 13.Raxd1 Bxf4 14.gxf4 . A very clean advantage. Besides, White has the choice of playing 5.Nc3 anyway, forcing a transposition into 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nc3, which is of course better for him.

I liked to believe that my opponents would always play the opening well (except for those occasions when I found a hole in their repetoires). Therefore, I couldn't play openings like the Albin or Budapest and I have doubts about sitting down to a game where your winning chances depend upon your opponents' *not* knowing how to respond to your choice of opening.

Perhaps it'll be most appropriate to bring the discuessions back to the fundamentals: Defending against 1.d4. The old(perhaps classical sounds better:) way of thinking is that Black should hold the e4 square to prevent White from playing an ideal opening with central pawns on d4 and e4. Of course this old way of thought is challenged by systems such as Gruenfeld and King's Indian Defence, which concedes the central pawns to White but in return seeks other forms of compensations. However, like it or not, this point of view is still the most popular, which could account for the deep analysis of conventional Queen's Gambit Declined systems(eg. Slav defence, or conventional 2...e6) and also the Nimzo Indian and the Queen's Indian Defence, and the Cambridge Springs defence(Orthodox).

Often some Black players(myself included) finds it somewhat uncomfortable with the pawn on e6 as it blocks the c8 Bishop. Frankly, I didn't know how the Budapest Defence was first discovered and initially when I say this opening my reactions was similar to most of us here. "What the crap is this?" Only when I played 1.d4 more often on both sides, particularly as Black, do I realise that 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 deserves at least an !? and it is becoming part of my experimental repetiore(my conventional is Queen's Indian defence and Nimzo Indian defence.) Please be abit patient...I'm coming straight to the point:) The only reason why it's yet my standard repetoire, is that it's too tactical!(Yes, I firmly stand by your point after all, <RisingChamp>! )With 2...e5!?, Black has avoided the eyesore as compared to 2...e6.

A point to note is that unlike many opening gambits, the Budapest is hard to decline. For instance, some experts analysing the Budapest pointed out that the safe looking 3.e3 actually concedes the initative and Black is actually in advantage with the harmless looking 3...Bb4! Black will later play ...d5 standing better than White.

With the tactical lines aside for a moment, a positional line continues with 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Bb4+ 5.Nd2 Nc6 6.Nf3 Qe7 and White will return the pawn followed by a series of unavoidable exchanges. In my opinion, Black has very, very good drawing chances with a high degree of equality achieved.

Just because White can avoid it completely with 1.c4 and/or 1.e4 and/or 1.Nf3 doesn't belittle an opening at all. If it does, all openings should be belittled, since all openings can be avoided. It just doesn't sound right, does it!?:) In fact I do try my best to avoid it, personally with 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 and/or 2.Bg5 but that also means I've already avoided Nimzo Indian, Gruenfeld and QGD Slav. Does that make it unimportant to know those lines? It doesn't because I still want to catch those opponents playing 1.d4 2.c4 if I play any of these openings.

In fact with the idea of avoiding lines and with reference to the Symmetrical Advantage Theory I actually does 'belittle' Black in both the French Defence and QGD slav by the plain exchange variation. Now that's what I call Black is doubtlessly at White's mercy, theortically(symmetrical theory in this case) as Black is truely a move down as it is at the startup position. I wonder how razor sharp the Slav defence can remain after it's being blunt by the exchange variation(meant as a joke:)

I recognise that the Budapest is not so popular, even shown by this forum page itself, but I'm still positive about it. Also, I get more satisfaction playing something less common well, since I dislike to follow the crowd blindly without keeping my mind open for alternatives.

Let me go into greater detail as to why the Budapest never interested me. The defense has one basic pawn structure in the center: c4 and either e3 or e4 versus c7 or c6 and d6. That's it. Just the one. Compare this with the KID:

c4 and e4 versus c6 and e5;
c4, d5 and d4 versus c7, d6, e5;
c4 and e4 versus c6 and d6;
c4 and d5 versus c5 and d6.

There are others, but that will do for now. Each of these structures leads to an amazing variety of lines containing anything from intricate positional struggles to tactical slugfests. The Classical KID is known as the Death Variation in Scandinavia!

By comparison, the Budapest always felt rather paltry to me.

This analysis does not consider the history of the line. The Budapest does enjoy brief spurts of interest, yes. However, so far the interest has not lasted very long as new ways for White to maintain an edge are found.