Fried Liver
Sort:
The game review goes about 6 to 10 moves deep in book so yeah you’re still in the opening explorer and it will give you a brilliant for the move that everyone plays.
Got it, did the game review get a major update at some point?
asherahgguh wrote:
Got it, did the game review get a major update at some point?
All that stuff get tinkered with constantly, so yes.
The list of "book moves" is smaller now than it used to be, as chess.com decided that the most suspicious openings won't count as book moves anymore. I think this happened last year.
The Fried liver itself (6. Nxf7) is good, but the previous black move, 5 - Nxd5 (?) is as suspicious as it gets.
magipi wrote:
asherahgguh wrote:
Got it, did the game review get a major update at some point?
All that stuff get tinkered with constantly, so yes.
The list of "book moves" is smaller now than it used to be, as chess.com decided that the most suspicious openings won't count as book moves anymore. I think this happened last year.
The Fried liver itself (6. Nxf7) is good, but the previous black move, 5 - Nxd5 (?) is as suspicious as it gets.
Yah, the Fried Liver starts with 6. Nxf7 (it's the Two Knights Defence up until that move), and so the Fried Liver is only possible if Black Plays 5. ..Nxd5??, or maybe the annotation would be Nxd5?! - I recall it used to be considered a blunder, and Black is much better if they just continue with the Main Line of the Two Knights Defence with 5. ... Na5.
It's just strange that the Fried Liver is accepted as an opening in chess.com analysis board and has many named lines following it, and yet Chess.com is not giving it book moves...
asherahgguh wrote:
Got it, did the game review get a major update at some point?
Yes but it's still complete rubbish.
This is probably the only line in the Fried Liver that's actually "book", since pretty much most other lines are losing for black, hence not "book".
That's the bishop check line, right? Is it annotated with book, because that would be really confusing how the book line is separated in two parts, the Italian Two Knights and Bishop Check Line...
Optimissed wrote:
This is probably the only line in the Fried Liver that's actually "book", since pretty much most other lines are losing for black, hence not "book".
Not true. 6...Bd7 is also entirely playable, and 5...b5 is also "book", and quite sufficient.
Optimissed wrote:
This is probably the only line in the Fried Liver that's actually "book", since pretty much most other lines are losing for black, hence not "book".
That's not the Fried Liver, that's the Two Knight's Defence in the Italian Game. The Fried Liver refers to a specific line, where Black recaptures the d pawn with their Knight (5. ... Nd5 considered a blunder) and then White sacs their Knight on f7 with 6. Nxf7 ... only now has one entered the line called the Fried Liver Attack.
A lot of streamers keep referring to 4. Ng5 as if that is the start of the Fried Liver Attack, but it isn't, it's still the main line of the Two Knights Defence, and 5. ... Na5 is still the main line. The Fried Liver is a line that branches off a mistake made by black - so it's a "trap line" that Black should avoid, and White should know if they don't.
AngusByers wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
This is probably the only line in the Fried Liver that's actually "book", since pretty much most other lines are losing for black, hence not "book".
That's not the Fried Liver, that's the Two Knight's Defence in the Italian Game. The Fried Liver refers to a specific line, where Black recaptures the d pawn with their Knight (5. ... Nd5 considered a blunder) and then White sacs their Knight on f7 with 6. Nxf7 ... only now has one entered the line called the Fried Liver Attack.
A lot of streamers keep referring to 4. Ng5 as if that is the start of the Fried Liver Attack, but it isn't, it's still the main line of the Two Knights Defence, and 5. ... Na5 is still the main line. The Fried Liver is a line that branches off a mistake made by black - so it's a "trap line" that Black should avoid, and White should know if they don't.
I think most of what you said is true, until your last sentence.
The Fried Liver isn’t a Trap Line.
White doesn’t have to play 6.Nxf7 in that position.
White could play 6.d4 which is known as Lolli Attack.
Would you call Lolli Attack a trap line as well?
Neither the Fried Liver nor Lolli Attack should be called Trap Lines to be honest. They are just viable continuation’s designed to capitalize on an opponent’s dubious move.
Compadre_J wrote:
AngusByers wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
I think most of what you said is true, until your last sentence.
The Fried Liver isn’t a Trap Line.
White doesn’t have to play 6.Nxf7 in that position.
White could play 6.d4 which is known as Lolli Attack.
Would you call Lolli Attack a trap line as well?
Neither the Fried Liver nor Lolli Attack should be called Trap Lines to be honest. They are just viable continuation’s designed to capitalize on an opponent’s dubious move.
Wow, I'm learning something new everyday :0
Compadre_J wrote:
AngusByers wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
This is probably the only line in the Fried Liver that's actually "book", since pretty much most other lines are losing for black, hence not "book".
That's not the Fried Liver, that's the Two Knight's Defence in the Italian Game. The Fried Liver refers to a specific line, where Black recaptures the d pawn with their Knight (5. ... Nd5 considered a blunder) and then White sacs their Knight on f7 with 6. Nxf7 ... only now has one entered the line called the Fried Liver Attack.
A lot of streamers keep referring to 4. Ng5 as if that is the start of the Fried Liver Attack, but it isn't, it's still the main line of the Two Knights Defence, and 5. ... Na5 is still the main line. The Fried Liver is a line that branches off a mistake made by black - so it's a "trap line" that Black should avoid, and White should know if they don't.
I think most of what you said is true, until your last sentence.
The Fried Liver isn’t a Trap Line.
White doesn’t have to play 6.Nxf7 in that position.
White could play 6.d4 which is known as Lolli Attack.
Would you call Lolli Attack a trap line as well?
Neither the Fried Liver nor Lolli Attack should be called Trap Lines to be honest. They are just viable continuation’s designed to capitalize on an opponent’s dubious move.
Sure, I get that. I was just trying to emphasize that the Fried Liver is a line that follows on after Black makes a dubious move (I've seen it called a blunder in some books), sort of like a trap in other lines, where the opponent can avoid it if they simply don't play into it, and that they are quickly much worse off if they avoid it. I wasn't sure how to refer to it, so used "trap line" in quotes, but perhaps just calling it a poor line for Black would be more accurate.
AngusByers wrote:
Compadre_J wrote:
AngusByers wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
This is probably the only line in the Fried Liver that's actually "book", since pretty much most other lines are losing for black, hence not "book".
That's not the Fried Liver, that's the Two Knight's Defence in the Italian Game. The Fried Liver refers to a specific line, where Black recaptures the d pawn with their Knight (5. ... Nd5 considered a blunder) and then White sacs their Knight on f7 with 6. Nxf7 ... only now has one entered the line called the Fried Liver Attack.
A lot of streamers keep referring to 4. Ng5 as if that is the start of the Fried Liver Attack, but it isn't, it's still the main line of the Two Knights Defence, and 5. ... Na5 is still the main line. The Fried Liver is a line that branches off a mistake made by black - so it's a "trap line" that Black should avoid, and White should know if they don't.
I think most of what you said is true, until your last sentence.
The Fried Liver isn’t a Trap Line.
White doesn’t have to play 6.Nxf7 in that position.
White could play 6.d4 which is known as Lolli Attack.
Would you call Lolli Attack a trap line as well?
Neither the Fried Liver nor Lolli Attack should be called Trap Lines to be honest. They are just viable continuation’s designed to capitalize on an opponent’s dubious move.
Sure, I get that. I was just trying to emphasize that the Fried Liver is a line that follows on after Black makes a dubious move (I've seen it called a blunder in some books), sort of like a trap in other lines, where the opponent can avoid it if they simply don't play into it, and that they are quickly much worse off if they avoid it. I wasn't sure how to refer to it, so used "trap line" in quotes, but perhaps just calling it a poor line for Black would be more accurate.
I think "trap line" is an adequate way to explain what the Fried Liver is, as it baits people to enter a deep dark hole of theory by taking back what seems to be a free pawn.
Mazetoskylo wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
This is probably the only line in the Fried Liver that's actually "book", since pretty much most other lines are losing for black, hence not "book".
Not true. 6...Bd7 is also entirely playable, and 5...b5 is also "book", and quite sufficient.
Even more so, 5. - Nd4 is also a well known move, not to mention the infamous Traxler Countergambit with 4. - Bc5.
But none of these lines is the Fries Liver, so I'm entirely baffled why Optimissed even talks about these.
Even the proper Fried Liver is not as simple as people think. Here is a correspondence game:
AngusByers wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
This is probably the only line in the Fried Liver that's actually "book", since pretty much most other lines are losing for black, hence not "book".
That's not the Fried Liver, that's the Two Knight's Defence in the Italian Game. The Fried Liver refers to a specific line, where Black recaptures the d pawn with their Knight (5. ... Nd5 considered a blunder) and then White sacs their Knight on f7 with 6. Nxf7 ... only now has one entered the line called the Fried Liver Attack.
A lot of streamers keep referring to 4. Ng5 as if that is the start of the Fried Liver Attack, but it isn't, it's still the main line of the Two Knights Defence, and 5. ... Na5 is still the main line. The Fried Liver is a line that branches off a mistake made by black - so it's a "trap line" that Black should avoid, and White should know if they don't.
No, you've been misinformed, I'm afraid. There's no way that move is the main line of the Two Knights. 4. Ng5 isn't particularly strong and as you can see, it leads to a pawn plus for white but white has a rather passive position. It is possible to try to defend the extra pawn for a win but it isn't easy. Of course there are other tries with slightly different moves.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
I don't remember the fried liver having brilliant moves, wasn't everything book moves before? A friend of mine played the fried liver against his opponent and the seemingly normal moves that have been played thousands of times are annotated with brilliant moves. Is chess.com's engine buggin or am I tripping.