Fried Liver

Traxler

Well, here is how a patzer responded to it (against another patzer). Black was completely winning around move 30, but it was a fast (rapid) game so he did not find how to kill White.

This line is just one out of four that give Black a good game (and no, the Traxler is not one of those good lines).

The lines you are giving aren't less complicated, and also they are wrong, e.g. 5.Bxd5? loses to 5...Nxd5 6.exd5 Qxg5 7.dxc6 Qxg2, and after 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ Bd7 (which is a good move) 7.Qe2! the move 7...Bd6 is somewhat better than 7...Be7.

Stockfish says that

A. 5.Bxd5?? Nxd5 6.exd5 Qxg5 wins on the spot.

B. That 7...Be7 and 7...Bd6 are both around 0.2, but the idea behind 7...Bd6 is not just protecting e5, but also something more concrete: Answering 8.Nc3 with 8...c6! when Black has at least equality.

My way? Nah. I'm not Sinatra.

7...Bd6 has been played by Carlsen, as well as other 2700+ players, and also at the top ICCF level, where mr. Stockfish is left to analyse for days, not seconds, as in your "analyses". And this is a typical ICCF game:

After 8...Be7 9.Nf3! it is somewhat more difficult for Black to prove his compensation (which is there).

Opening analysis is a serious business, which needs accuracy, patience and inventiveness. Evaluating a position by looking at what the crippled ChesDot Com engine says after a couple of minutes isn't the way to go.

I agree. Playing a gambit that its refutation (actually two of its refutations) is shown even in Wikipedia sounds like a brilliant idea.

Pretty sure that this

and then queen h4.

sorry, I meant H5

Meowl

It's to easy to defend

To what?

I would have been shocked to see the Fried Liver played between superGMs, and indeed it wasn't played in this game. Magnus played the b5 line instead.