I analyse that stronger players will play this.
I need someone to analyze this opening
Sort:
Yes, B usually sac a pawn like you showed in the second diagram, getting good play.
In the first variation 6. d4! first is considered more accurate and leading to some advantage (it's not a refutation as believed some years ago). The basic idea is to delay the knight sac to a more favourable moment, when W can get out the queen bishop immediatly. With very precise play W emerges only += according to current theory, but B has to find a very precise continuation among tons of lines which lead to a quick loss.
The immediate sac (fegatello or fried liver attack) is probably less accurate but very fun to play, unfortunately i have only a vague knowledge of it.
Apr 13, 2011
0
#4
The fried liver is fun to play but I have a problem with all the "anti fried livers" that just pack out horrible for white if you don't know how to play it. Like in diagram I showed.
And:
Calling the second line an anti-fried liver is a bit strange, that is a main line 2KD while the fried liver is a sideline 
the third line is known as the Traxler attack. Theoretically it goes up and down from "refuted" to "good enough with very precise play". In practice it is a tought beast to handle, very tactical and full of traps. I vaguely remember that is simpler for W to play Bxf7+ instead of Nxf7. B gets a less evident compensation, even if in practice the two moves are of similar strenght.
Overall Ng5 is a sharp move which requires to be backed up with lot of study. At sub 1400 level it's ofter worth to try Ng5 hoping for B to enter the variation in the first diagram, but if B knows his theory you have to be aware that in the 2KD its usually B who attacks and W the one defending. If you want open lines and piece play, maybe you should swich to 4.d4, the max lange attack.
If you want analysis on the traxler, you can search a long thread in the e4e5 section at chesspub.
However i don't think it's worth to learn by heart tons of complicated lines, better to learn sidelines on the field according to me.
Apr 13, 2011
0
#7
bresando wrote:
Calling the second line an anti-fried liver is a bit strange
That´s why I put it in brackets :D.
I mean anti as anything else your oppenent can do that drags you out of your fried liver lines.
Hey! I need someone to analyze this opening for me, it's called the Italian Game Two Knights Defense Fried Liver Attack