The Fried Liver

I notice at low levels the opening known as the 'fried liver' is played a lot. I am wondering what is the way to play it correctly at higher levels and what the counter to common mistakes are.

Here is what I know, correct me if I am wrong.

Go search in the forums--keyword "fried liver". Should give you enough information to write a book

I agree with Robert.

The Fried Liver is only the Nxf7 line. The other lines have their own names except for Na5 which is just the main line. You forgot the b5 line, which is the Ulvestad, and also I don't play into the Lolli Attack, but I think you put a bad move in there for Black 6... Nxd4 is the best way to try to hold it, eg: http://www.chess.com/blog/NimzoRoy/fried-liver-attack 

Yes I mainly only know the Na5 line and I definately agree with tmkroll.

In that main line of the F'liver with 7...Ke6 8. Nc3 Nb4 as white there are a few other alternatives maybe worth mentioning for move 9.  I'm wondering if 9. Qe4 would be better or worse than 9. 0-0. ? After 9. Qe4 (discourages 9...Nxc2+ with the fork) c6 white can kick that knight somewhere with 10. a3.  
If the knight goes back to 10...Na6, white seems to have a slight edge after 11. 0-0 Nc7 12. f4 (12...Bc5+ is interesting...) Kf7 13. fxe5+ Ke8 (or Kg8) 14. d4.
If the knight captures the c2 pawn - 10...Nxc2 - white plays 11. Qxc2 Kf7 (further opening the light squared bishop diagonal) and now white might play say 12. 0-0, 12. Qe4, or 12. Qb3.

If we go back and look at 9. 0-0, black must remember to safeguard d5! Obviously not 9...Nxc2?? which loses the game quickly for black (9...c6 would probably be the way to go...) 10. Bxd5+ Kd6 11. Bb3 Nxa1?? (even 11...Nd4 is bad after 12. Qd5+...) (11...c6 12. Bxc2 isn't exactly pleasant either...) 12. Qd5+ Ke7 13. Qxe5+ Be6 14. Qxe6# (or 13...Kd7 14. Qe6#)

I'm not sure why you gave 6. Nxf7? a question mark, though, as I'd want to play this line as white more than black.

Yeah 9.Qe4 is simple and effective.

Here an analysis i made for a pupil some months ago, sorry its in french but i am too much lazy to translate it, and it can make work your french too!

Oh, hey, I like the French (the language, not necessarily the Defense...) better anyway!  Makes the opening feel sexier when I read the analysis in French.  Who cares if I don't know a word you're saying, it's time for me to go attaque some pesto pasta (without fegatello in it) now... 

Other than Qe4 a3 is also a very interesting option, look for the game Shirov-Sulskis 2014 with this line.

I think fried liver is a great opening for beginners, however, for me, it is a horrible opening. Why? Because you develop the piece twice. In opening, development and centre is really important. Ng4 doesn't support the center. This is why I think it's a dubious move. Additionally, Ng4 can get countered really easily. This is one gambit against fried liver. It is really effective, but you must be really aggressive to play this one. It is fun! This gambit is called," Traxler Gambit".

Traxler is life. Traxler is love.

Many people takes with bishop, so that is not starting position.

I would recommend this line:

Ulvestad is my favorite line against the Fried Liver! It shows that Ng5 is premature

Bf1? Retreating a piece already moved? The Ng5 doesn't help but bf1 is another tempi for black:

Bf1 instead of Bxb5 of course... If 6.Bf1 Qxd5 7.Nc3, or u can transpose to "Fritz variation" with 6...Nd4 but its another story, there are independant lines such as 6...h6 too.

Bf1 seems ridiculous, same with 5...Nd4 6.Bf1 but is justified to protect g2, useful in many variations, its the only good move by the way...

Anyway, telling Ng5 is bad just shows u dont know very well all this sutff, u are only 1498 but u tell a thing most theoricians and great players dont know, i mean there is no clear judgement on Ng5, but theorically speaking Nd4 and b5 lines are (for the time being) inferior to Na5...

Oh I see that makes much more sense :)

I'm even lower than that. I did not say Ng5 entering the Fried liver was bad but that the extra tempi lost by moving the knight and bishop twice can't be all that good? It just looks weird from a logical chess view.

U said Ng5 premature, and later Ng5 doesnt help, so if u dont want to tell Ng5 is a bad move, strange to me...

Ng5 is helping on the contrary, Bc4 puts pressure on f7, u add it with Ng5, so its quite logical move.