Two Knights trap

I never said or insinuated that anybody plays an alternative to 4.Ng5 because they want to avoid the Traxler. I don't even play the Traxler my self!!!

It's rare that someone plays 4.Ng5 against me and most of the time I get 4.d3 or 4.Nc3 ...I've had to play against the Max Lange Attack one time and I usually don't even meet 1.e4 with 1 ... e5. I play the Sicilian.

I checked both chess.com and chessgames.com and 4.d3 is played more than twice as much as 4.Ng5 ...

I have never played the Traxler over the board.

You obviously can't even remember what you've written in the last hour or two.  Including that the Traxler has been worked out to a draw and that it's the reason why GMs avoid 4.Ng5.

Did you hit your head or something when you were younger?  Or maybe just earlier this morning?

Yeah well I'm going to get back to posting actual analysis in the long run, but I hate it when patzers run around saying idiotic things like "GMs avoid (insert crappy opening here) because it's been worked out to a draw"

All BS? No.

It's a fact that attacking me does not undermine Jan Pinski's book, the chessgames.com statistical database, or the database here at chess.com. Attacking me does not determine whether or not a chess position is playable for black.

Also, your USCF rating does not matter. Anybody with a rating over 800 can Komodo to analyze a position.

You are a moron. I never even insisted that my sources were correct. I said that Jan Pinksi used Fritz 8, which is obsolete, and that the book was published in 2003 and noted that I should probably be referring to a more up to date work on the subject.

Please go else where with your uneducated and angry idiot behavior.

I did say that the Traxler has MOSTLY been worked out to a draw. Later I clarified that it's the 5.Nxf7 line that is good for black and I cited statistics from the chessgames.com and chess.com database for the 5.Bxf7 line.

Apparently you're illiterate and you rereading doesn't help you.

I'm not convinced there is any definitive answer to Bxf7 over Nxf7.  They lead to entirely different games. There's certainly nothing in any of this to get all bent out of shape over (a sure way to get this thread locked).

This brief Chessbase article by GM Boris Alterman (http://en.chessbase.com/post/the-traxler-counter-attack-play-5-bxf7-) recommends Bxf7 but also goes on to say that "At first sight White is supposed to be fine. He is a pawn up, and Black’s king has lost the right to castle. Many would think that White should have a better position, and it’s not so clear what kind of compensation Black has."

NIC, in a far more extensive artilce by Maarten de Zeeuw (https://www.newinchess.com/Yearbook/pdf/YB65_137.pdf), claims 5. Bxf7  "in practice [is] much more popular than 5.Nf7, but hardly more effective; and analytically clearly inferior."  elaborating,  "White has an extra pawn, and Black's king is in an unusual place. But Black's compensation is significant. He has a half-open f-file, with pressure on pawn f2 and on White's king's knight after its likely return to f3, and an open diagonal e8-h5 which he can exploit with the manoeuvre Qe8-g6/h5,  already harmoniously prepared by 5...Ke7. Black has a lead in development (White's king's bishop played three times,  his king's knight twice), which dooms White effforts to open up the position early, whereas Black can mobilise  all  of  his  pieces  harmoniously. The development of Bc8 to g4 will either expose the lack of space of White's queen,  or
bring about a pin of Nf3 which will be nasty,  especially after White has prematurely castled kingside so that he can hardly afford the capture g2xf3. If White castles kingside early, Black has many thematic  (pseudo-)sacrifices, which will be explored in the Game Section.
Given these troubles, White cannot count on an automatic win at all."

I had explored the earlier history of the Traxler/Wilkes-Barre in two parts below:
http://www.chess.com/article/view/a-walk-on-the-wild-side
http://www.chess.com/article/view/a-walk-on-the-wild-side-part-ii

One point- nesting multiple quotes and thereby creating impossibly long comments is counterproductive since it alienates potential readers and makes the entire argument too much trouble to follow.

ok I see that on page 2, I did say that it was all worked out to a draw. At  the bottom of the page I said "mostly" worked out, etc..

For some reason I had that one line stuck in my head (5.Nxf7)

Two Knight's Defense is best for blitz chess or against weaker opponents.

The Max Lange Attack is better for white.

All this is still essential study material for developing players. It's one thing to say this is bad for black and another to go beat someone in these lines with either color.

Sorry but you also missed the point.

How are you going to respond if someone tells you that you're not a strong enough player and that your opinion doesn't matter?

You just subjected your self to this kind of attack, just as I did.

It was beyond my imagination that some angry and uneducated degenerate would bring up my rating when I was citing a book.

I never at any point gave my opinion, yet I was told it has no value.

Thanks for the material.  I did say I'd done some research and found that Beliavsky drew Karpov and beat Anand as Black against 5.Bxf7.  If things are as problematic as some of your material suggests, White's best may be 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kf1 -- Komodo 9.2 still has it at +1.5 at depth 36

Pure delusion

Did you ride the little bus?

Actually, I miss a lot of points and I'm not knowledgeable enough that my own opinion matters in analytical discussions. So, I just present that which I do know, that which I can document and, then, whatever someone else thinks or spouts out is pretty much irrelevant to me, other than the reasoning or documentaion behind it all.  But nesting quoted comments is a sure-fire way to get people NOT to read what you write.

I didn't do any different than you. That's what is so offensive. I made a claim, based on resources that I own or could cite, then I cited my sources. I was still attacked.

Never at any point did I offer an opinion on the Two Knight's Defense.

I will probably post my Komodo analysis in a new thread, but one advantage of the nested quotes is somebody cannot redact their own posts, for instance so it looks like they haven't spewed opinions after they've said "I never at any point gave my opinion"

You most certainly did offer opinions.  Here's one, very bottom of page two:

"GMs don't play it because it's mostly been worked out to a draw."

That's an opinion -- you have no way of knowing that it's true.

That isn't what I said. I said GMs PROBABLY don't play it because blah blah blah

You quoted me on this already. Now you've edited it. That also isn't an opinion. You first described it as suspicion and that's more accurate.

I don't know why GMs don't play it. However, opinions are not right or wrong. My SUSPICION is either right or wrong.

Sorry ... you said "speculation."

I have not edited it and you are now apparently redacting your comments.  You are a real piece of work.

I understand the partial rationale.  The disadvantage is that at some point nobody, other that the two people arguing virulently perhaps, cares to wallow through all that repetition. In that case, the discussion could have been carried out more effectively via private messaging.  Part of any forum discussion, in my opinion for what that's worth, should not just to be convincing but also to be reasonably readable.