Why is 2.Qh5 considered so bad? It usually works out pretty well for me.

It is bad because it brings the queen out early, and that goes against opening principles.

Breaking opening principles isn't a bad thing, they're there to guide us not to be an ironclad rule.

EX:

In this line white moves his knight twice, brings out the queen early and moves it three times but is winning the game. White broke opening principles on almost every move but is now winning the game. Sure, it's a tactical sequence that is easy to see but that's the point. Examples like this show us that some things are worth breaking the opening principles for, and as you get stronger you will begin to have more subtle reasons for breaking them.

True but a lot of lower-rated players place too much emphasis on the principles and miss opportunities to win games because they don't even look at a piece if they just moved it or they don't even think of Na4 or Nh4 even if it happens to be a good move in the position. That was my point, maybe I could have found a better example where one side seemingly doesn't break opening principles and the other side does and wins but I thought it up on the fly.

So do you agree or disagree with the point? Why be obtuse? Do you think that the opening principles should be thought of as rules instead? Is it always bad to break opening principles? Or is it good to be aware that sometimes breaking opening principles is correct?

In my experience, opening principles are important; that's why they are principles. However, as Petrosian said, "Rely but verify"--it's good to know opening principles, but that doesn't mean your brain can take a nap. Everything depends upon the concrete position on the board--if there is no great reason (or strong/annoying move) to veer from opening principles, then don't. 2. Qh5 is just cheap and wastes time.  No decent player misplays it as Black. At best, it gives Black an even game, which is NOT the goal when you are White! It brings the Q out too early, where it can be attacked with tempo and developing moves, period. 

I every so often play Qh5 but not with the intention of mating as black will see through that obviously. The point is to induce some sort of weakness and then run back to d1. Is the tempo worth inducing the weakness? Maybe not fully. But it can throw black's opening strategy off. 

Qh5 is a fine move, but not best by theory. Nakamura has played it a few times.

How could you assume it was the Fried Liver when 4. Ng5 is just the first mainline move of the two knights defence? The two knights is a professional level defence that certainly does not allow the fried liver.  

The whole point of the name fried liver is that black is so screwed it looks like he is a fried liver. It's a curiosity in chess because black is being attacked so harshly and yet seems to always find a way out in theory, while in practice he is screwed. 

Also I have NEVER seen anyone use the acronym FLA. I did a search for "FLA chess opening" and there is a single result of it ever being used. It's the Fried Liver. 

Usually it's weaker players that do 2. Qh5, and are pretty much mentally committed to attacking, so they keep piling on more muscle to try and mate at f7, to deleterious effect. I guess if white actually studied the main variations, and not just try and mate black post haste, it's playable.

 I assumed it was Fried Liver because people that's what 4.Ng5 always turned out to be for me when I played Black many years ago.  The key is the attack on f7, for which there is really only one move, d5. After 5. exd5 if Black takes Nxd5, then Nxf7 is the Fried Liver Attack proper. In other words, I assumed it was, because it's literally only 2 moves away. As for "FLA", that was my own acronym, so I wouldn't have to spell it out each time. Carpel Tunnel, you know. Oh, and as far as Black being "fried liver", that's not necessarily true--Black can defend by moving his K to e6, but most players don't want to play that as Black, but at least Black knows what White is going to be up to, because White is down a piece for a pawn, so he's going to attack, attack, attack!

Just stop. You have no clue what you're talking about and have said many false and inaccurate things again. There is no way that as black you were playing the two knights and it always "turned out to be" the fried liver many years ago.

Did it not strike you as being a bit off that your king ended up in the centre of the board and you had a hopeless position as black every time you played it? I don't know about you but that's the sort of thing most people tend to notice about an opening they repeatedly play, especially when there are many different alternatives one move previous to it (the mainline Na5, the Ulvestad, the Friz) that all both look and are vastly better in every way. 

Why didn't you just listen to what I said? I told you that the Fried Liver is a very rare thing that you would almost never see in a whole career of playing chess (except occasionally in online blitz) and is almost indefensible for black when both players are good. This is one of the most basic and well known facts. I told you about the nature of it, how it is a curiosity in chess since white cannot force a win despite how bad the position looks. That is why people know about the fried liver, it is almost never actually played. What I say is right ok? What you're saying is just nonsense. Now stop. 

After 6 moves you undeveloped your queen. The win was a result of opponent blundering, not the opening.

I'm just telling you that the FLA appeared to me a lot, many years ago, playing online (blitz) so much so, that I learned how to play it as White. I never said I saw it a lot in tournaments, did I?  And it very often (yes, very often) appeared when my opponent played 4. Ng5. And because (as Black) I retook the d-pawn with my N, they would often (yes, very often) take on f7-thus the Fried Liver Attack. It's my experience. You don't have to believe me, but I speak the truth.   You seem a bit upset for some reason.  So...Bye!

Wow a 1500 soooo strong

"Dude, this isn't some 1500, this is an actual player!" ~GM Hikaru Nakamura 😂 

There is no valid reason to play 2. Qh5, it is nothing but farce. 

Nakamura should have been reprimanded for the move as it is clearly not in the spirit of doing your best to win which is a requirement of fair play of chess or any game. He played it to get attention.  

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1282198