"Given so much incorrectness, the
Traxler Gambit should be regarded
as unplayable. When it
will ever be reduced to a footnote
in the theory books of the future,
that note might read approximately
like: “4...Ãc5? 5.Àf7!
Ãf2 6.®f1! ©e7 7.Àh8 d5 8.ed5
Àd4 9.d6 cd6 10.®f2 d5
11.Ãe2ê De Zeeuw”. But in
the history of Traxler theory so
many mistakes have been made,
that even regarding this one cannot
be fully sure."
De Zeeuw's analyses are flawed in almost all variations.
http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/chess/YaBB.pl?num=1283315840
Given so much incorrectness, it's obvious that
1. His analyses should be mentioned with a barrel of salt handy.
2. Trying to refute the opening by 5.Nxf7 is silly- Black is OK in all lines.
3. Given the complexity of the position, and the bogus evaluations by enghines and experts, one playing white should adopt the KISS principle as soon as possible.
4. Neglected continuations, such as 5.Bxf7+ Ke7 6.Bc4!? should be taken quite seriously- Black has no clear way to prove compensation, and such lines are an excellent way to get "out of the book" as white, and maintain fair winning chances.
I agree with your first three points completely pfren.
As to 5.Bxf7+; 6.Bc4, I felt that when it was analysed in our group, it had some very dangerous lines if black was not careful and allowing a b4 strike, but comparatively to the other two variations, it did not offer as much of an advantage due to the bishop being at an exposed square while not providing pressure on the c6 knight. I would also like to note that I am surprised that more people do not try to go down the 5.d4 with the problems it creates for black. But I also realize that most people just slap down the move with the most play in a database or one that the books just slap an positive evaluation and leave it be.
The only good plan is the Bg4-Qh5-Nd4 light square kingside pressure, but even that doesn't give complete compensation against the 5.Bxf7+ lines.
sorry but i dont want this thread to end