The Queenside Fried Liver

how can I use one, if I don't have one??

jetfighter, please stay on topic, discussing this opening and any possible lines to it.

I was just saying, that before anyone calls me a patzer, they actually look at the entire body of games they play, plus I was rather offended by whatup's outbursts calling whomever dissagreed with him complete garbage, you at least have a semi open mind, and can be persuaded in some instances, and understand sarcasm. anyway, any responce to my Gambit line in your opening.

Jetfigher, your line is irrelevant because 5. e4 hangs a pawn, and white wouldn't play that line.

I might, because now my bishop goes to c4 and is aimed at the real weak square, f7, and the bishop should not be kicked due to a weakened pawn structure

This opening is now going to be dubbed the Waite-Harrison Attack, a mixture of whatupyodog and I's names. This is from shepi pointing out this is technically not a reverse fried liver.

Hm... I might have an answer for that. Anyone care to play me using that, correspondence or live? (Or both?)

I'm garbage, but whatupyodog could probably play you. Any comments on the lines?

i think this opening is based off mistakes, not  actual superior opening

after Nc3 or Bf4 , black could just as well play c6, stopping Nb5, completely stopping this idea(a6 would work too, but I like c6. Black might be behind in development, but it's certainly not a very big deal)

:P

Only comment is that I actually believe the best continuation for black after Bd3 Nxd3 is e6 followed by Bd6.

albotross, after c6, black's development is shattered, and white could give an ambitious try with b4 if he really wanted to. I thing forcing black to develop inferiorly is a good aspect of the waite-harrison.

Advlegitimate, instead of Rb1 Qd2 makes white much better, and shepi, instead of 10. 0-0-0, 10. Nge2 followed by an a3 b4 lets white push e4.

But at major costs.

Like what? Be specific.

A good response. Qc2 was a blunder on my part, wasting a tempo in a greedy attempt to snatch a pawn. e6 was likely a better decision.

Perhaps it might play out as such:

Anyhow, black has achieved equality by move 8, considering that black has the bishop pair, while white's bishop is on the same color square as white's pawn chain, and white has a doubled pawn. Playable, sure, but not ambitious. Black can work towards exploiting a few positional weaknesses (doubled pawns, bad bishop, knights and bishop versus knight and bishop pair), while white will probably pursue play in the center in order to try and trade off the doubled pawn. Playing this might be compared to riding a schoolbus as opposed to a Lamborghini. It might get you there, but there are better options, and your ride is relatively boring.

I disagree, White has a powerful bid for the center he can exploit in a few moves, and use to gain intiative. Could you provide examples of openings you believe that capture the initiative better?

Instead of 10. 0-0-0 white plays nge2 followed by a3 if e6 or f3 by anything else allowing e4.

The first two that pop into mind are the Ruy Lopez and the Open Sicilian. People have been working on the theory for both for ages, yet they both still manage to baffle human minds! Each hosts dozens of variations, and variations among variations... (inception?)

Kings Gambit