Anti-Fried Liver Defense? Why?

There was a time where I faced the Anti-Fried Liver Defense constantly.  I gather if I started playing Bc4 again I would see it constantly yet again.  I think the answer to your question is the obvious answer most people do not know how to handle the Fried Liver after exd5.  For some reason, most people do not think to play Na5.  Granted I myself was shown Na5 before I started playing it, but I wonder if I would have ever thought of that move on my own?  I don't know.  The problem is most people these days are spoon feed stuff.  They look up how to beat the Fried liver, and they see a video on the anti-fried liver defense and go with it.  The average chess player does not think for himself, but rather, allows himself to get spoon feed lines.  They just google it.  The ironic part about this is that all one has to do is google how to beat the Fried liver one more time and they will find the other line, but they do not seem to find it.  My guess is that often they do not even think to google the line they just start playing h6.  WGM Tatev Abrahamyan advises against this move in her easily accessible video on beginner openings, but I guess most people don't bother to even google, they just start playing h6.  They probably do not see anything wrong with h6 and do not feel the need to investigate further.  I know a lot of people that play pawn moves like this without thinking.  It's a sickness beginner's have.  It's coded in their chess DNA.  It's one of their ten commandments.  Thou shalt make unnecessary pawn moves.  To ask this original question one must also ask why do beginners make unnecessary pawn moves?  The answer quite simply is the following, BECAUSE THEY ARE BEGINNERS.    Eventually, they will see the line that is good to play against the Fried Liver, and then they will probably wonder why they are gambiting a pawn, and then do what all of us think is unthinkable, switch back to the anti-fried liver defense just because they do not want to lose a pawn!  Some will get the idea of moving the light-squared bishop in the way of the black light squared bishop after the instinctive check, however, little does the beginner know that this is inferior to the mainline, which is, the line most beginners who play the anti-fried liver either don't know about, or don't play simply because they do not want to gambit a pawn.

So, either the beginner just doesn't know, or incorrectly assesses that the anti-fried liver defense is superior to the Na5 line simply because it gambits a pawn.

Another reason might be this...  they are chess players.  And often, chess players make inferior moves, even in the picking of their opening repertoire.  I can't tell you how many games where I lost simply because my opponent surprised me due to a move that I thought was a fantastic novelty.  After each game I lost in those instances I realized that I could have won if I had just calmed down and rationally when through my list of candidate moves.  Often times I lose sight of the big picture when my king is attacked, or a powerful piece like a rook or a queen is attacked, and I fumble.  

The only answer to the problem is to make sure you are not spoon feed.  Work tactics daily and when you watch chess videos pause of the video when the maker of the video tells you to pause it, and work out the situation on your own first.  The only way to get better at chess is the learn to think for yourself.  Gain that muscle, and maybe you will be able to see a move like Na5 after exd5.

Lastly, I will say this.  I currently am a chess player of a particular group of people that play chess at a local Starbucks.  I am the second best player there.  Out of all of them, none of them, including the guy that is better than me, knows, about Na5.  That'll give you something to think about...!?!?!

I will also say this.  That computer assessment of the anti-fried liver, most beginners who play it, know about those sort of tricks already, and will not play into them...  Trust me I know.  I can't tell you how many times where I wanted them to play their bishop to defend their pawn after I offered up another pawn so I could pounce on them with the Bxf7+ motif.  It's true, you will only get 2 out of 10 players in that motif.  If all you want to do is prey on innocent beginners who do not know about that particular motif, then go for it, but please know that you will not get most people to succumb to your trickery who play the anti-fried liver, because, at least at my rating level, most have encountered that motif before and studied it.

xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

In answer to the question posed in the O.P., the "Fried Liver" isn't actually all that bad. Some stronger players may play it because they believe they've figured out a way to reach a better ending for white. Another reason may be that many stronger players with black believe it's no good for white.

And another reason may be to get people to play the appalling 3. ...h6!

One of the ways you can tell if you are actually improving as a player is you don't have many games that end up in Fried Liver positions at all. While lots of fun, the FL is basically greasy kid stuff.

p.S. For the greasy Kids out there, that is not a slam. It is a reference to a very old commercial that if you are under about 40 or so have probably never heard of the phrase.

I think they play the anti fried liver defense because they want to prevent bishop pin on g5. But why play that before white even tries to develop the bishop I don't know. Anti fried liver defense just allows white to play c3-d4 at his leisure so I wouldn't care one way or another

They don't like it up 'em, Mr Mainwaring, sir.

Probably because black has the two bishops and might be slightly ahead if black plays sensibly, that is. 12. .... Bc5 doesn't look bad, or even Bd6 if black really wants to play b6, but probably not 12. .... b6. That just gives white targets and it's slow.

The fact that 3...h6 (admittedly, not a particularly good move) frustrates you speaks to the move's viability from a psychological standpoint. I also like to open with the Italian Game as White. I absolutely agree with you that 3...h6 happens with inordinate frequency. I usually just play 4.d4 and continue with what I consider a Super-Scottish Opening. 

I frequently play 1...e5 as Black and nearly always play the Two Knights Defense, which practically begs White to play the Fried Liver with 4.Ng5. I know all those lines, though. I may play Traxler Attack or I sometimes will play the more common 4...d5. I'll even allow White to play the Classic Fried Liver Attack (with the knight sac on f2) because I also know how to weather that storm.

Yeah, I get it, 3...h6 seems like a the type of move that is played by a player who is petrified of White playing Ng5. Yet, I have to say, it is actually a perfectly playable move although, obviously, not the best. 

What is going unsaid in this thread is that the Fried Liver Attack is really only made possible if Black chooses to play the Two Knights Defense. That is actually a deceptively complex defense. It's no small matter that Black plays 3.Nf6 instead of 3.Bc5 in response to White playing an Italian opening. If Black plays a main line Italian (Giuoco Piano) by playing 3...Bc5, White's threat of Ng5 doesn't really exist. There is no Fried Liver Attack.

I know I am late to this but after reading this thread, one thing is very clear. The people who actually play anti-fried lever will not reply to you in here. Because they know they can't defend the fried lever and they don't want to learn or calculate all good moves.

One thing that remains a mystery is what people mean by "anti-fried liver". I don't think that's the real name of a real opening.

@53

They call it that way, because weaker players are so scared of 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5 Nxd5 6 Nxf7, that they think they must avoid it with 3...h6. They ignore that 5...Na5 is strong.

That h6 move is just a beginner mistake, not a real opening. Disappointing.

@55

There are many more beginner mistakes with names, e.g. Damiano Defense 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f6?

That isn't hope chess. Hope chess is a name for playing bad moves hoping that the opponent makes a bad reply and falls into some trap or other.

No decent chess player would dream of objecting to 3. ...h6. People who object are showing they're weak players.

That's a special case. It was Damiano who first wrote that f6 is a bad move, so naming the move after him is both a misnomer and an insult. We all should refrain from doing so.

Quite right. Interestingly, the engine doesn't believe that 3. ...h6 is a bad move, presumably because it's out of its horizon.

You just play 4. d4 and black's a move behind in whatever black tries to do.

3. h6 I would be and was smiling every time. Thanks for the tempo and center! Oh, you don’t think it’s a big deal? Let’s see if you will continue thinking that way.