Fried Liver

I'd probably been playing chess competitively for six years and I reverted for one year or one chess season to playing 1. e4 and 1. ... e5, much to the disgust of my team mates, because I'd been playing 1. c4 and I felt I needed to sharpen up.

I'd been playing the Fried Liver occasionally, if black went 3. ...Nf6. My favourite though was the Moller attack, which I played with the full sacrificial line with Nc3 rather than with the chicken-out line of Bd2 that some GMs use. I faced the Nb4 move over the board in a match and I'd never seen it. It's 30 years ago but I remember I found Bb3 over the board, which is logically stronger than 0-0 and which enables a3. I think 0-0 is a mistake.

@21

9 Bb3 is not that simple either: here is another correspondence game:

It isn't though. It's an old opening from the Classical days. Morphy played it (badly). Maybe it's in the same league as the Bongcloud and there are some people here who have been duped by the penchant of chess writers these days for giving people what they want to hear. It's been considered to be an off-beat bit of fun for about a century and maybe it's only the internet and the prepondrance of weak players who make it seem like it's a main line. Also it's long been considered the domain of correspondance chess, too. Difficult to play otb.

Main line Two Knights Defence is 4. d4 (maybe leading to the Max Lange) 4. d3 (Pianissimo) maybe 4. Nc3.

But note that both these lines were won by black in a position where white has an edge and black's king is unsafe. It seems that neither of these was well-played by the white side.

Also, the white side was the weaker player and 2224 isn't particularly strong, anyway.

In the second game 12. d4 ... Be7 looks correct. But then on the 13th move, white can castle. However, if played as in the game, with 13. c4, white cannot castle the next move. That's an obvious error. which white should have picked up on over the board, never mind in a correspondence game. It's easy to spot that black gets the better ending because white's central pawns are an isolated doubleton.. So white played that one badly too. It just illustrates that as you rightly say, the Fried Liver, which starts with Nxf7, isn't a foregone conclusion.

I need to apologise and admit my thinking 4. Ng5 was the Fried Liver was mistaken. Sorry about that but everyone I knew, including chess coaches, referred to 4. Ng5 as the Fried Liver: but it looks like we were technically incorrect to do so.

Having now looked at it with the aid of the analysis tool, I would say that white definitely blundered because 13. 0-0 is correct, since white would like an active rook and can afford to make such a useful waiting move. It's black's decision as to how to continue and 13. c4 was premature and incorrect. So white has made three errors in a row, including the knight move.

The player I beat in this position was about 1950 FIDE and no pushover. I can remember thinking for quite a long time when he played the Nb4 move. Also in the first game, it seems that I was wrong about 0-0 being a mistake. White can play Re1 and black loses if Nxc2 with the fork on the rooks.

@24

"It seems that neither of these was well-played by the white side."
++ This is obvious: whenever a player loses, he did not play well.

"the white side was the weaker player and 2224 isn't particularly strong"
++ 2224 ICCF is pretty strong. Anyway I admire the bold fellows who dare play 5...Nxd5 in correspondence: it means months of suffering.

I myself once played 5...Nxd5 in an over the board classical game. My opponent was a young player rated 1900 and very well versed in opening theory. He obviously was well prepared for me and I was not prepared at all for a theoretical discussion. He was bewildered when I played 5...Nxd5 and even more when I played the inferior 8...Ne7. I won that game, but only after some uneasy moments. That is the difference between theory and practical play. I had no interest in a theoretical discussion after the better 5...Na5 or even the better 8...Nb4. I just wanted to play chess and in my judgement the objectively inferior moves offered a better practical chance to win than the theoretically better moves.

Theoretically 4 Ng5? may be a mistake: Tarrasch considered it a duffer's move (Patzerszug) as it moves the same piece twice in the opening. Nevertheless, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov and many other grandmasters have occasionally played it. In their World Championship match Carlsen played 3...Nf6 fully believing in his compensation if white takes the pawn and Nepomniachtchi opted for the tame 4 d3, which may be more sound.

Ummm, you do realise that 4. Ng5 is a required move that must be played to even get to the Fried Liver? Yes, the game can deviate after this, but the Fried Liver (topic) doesn't even become possible for a few moves later ....Hmmmm ...

No, it may have been a main line in Morphy's day, that's all. There is no way on Earth that was considered a main line in the past 140 years, more than likely. White does not play an opening where all he can hope for is a pawn advantage and being under intense pressure for about 15 moves, so it's nonsense to suggest it was a main line. If you still think it is considered to be a main line of the Two Knights Defence after it's been explained why it isn't, perhaps you would care to explain why it is? It isn't even certain that white can cling onto the pawn!

That's maybe not the right way to look at it if we can't be certain that white's position after the knight sacrifice isn't already lost. I don't think it's lost but I also think it's possible that it's drawn with best play. However, it isn't the opening tableau and judging by this conversation we don't know how it should be played. If we don't know that, it obviously isn't a main line of anything. Imagine a main line where no-one has much of an idea how to play the white side!

I learned more today than I've ever known and I used to play it and often win with it, simply because it was almost unknown. What I was really doing was learning to play the Max Lange and when I could play that, I switched straight to the Max Lange, where black cooperated, and won several games before the season's end. Many players consider it far too difficult because of its highly positional nature but it suited me.

the idea that the 4.Ng5 move is a main line is silly by comparison. It's a rather ridiculous line that's played for shock value. I preferred playing the Max Lange to the Moller Attack, which is much more tactical with 1000 variations where black is probably losing but I could only draw.

It's a main line - perhaps we use that term differently though - by "main line" I just mean there's a line of moves that follows, none of which are considered "bad". 4. Ng5 has been played for ages, and, having looked in some (now old) opening books from the 1990s, it was still part of what needed to be covered (authors are Kasparov and Keene, looking at BCO2). You may not play 4. Ng5, but it is a playable line, and one I've seen referred to as the main line. Call it something else if you wish, maybe you consider something else the main line of the two knights defence. That's cool, but 4. Ng5 is a move; just not the one that defines the Fried Liver Attack.

It wasn't considered very playable in the first half of the 1990s. There were some people who played it for surprise effect though.

After that, I lost touch and was busier working out my own openings and helping others do theirs.

Weird, it is covered in Batsford Chess Opening (published 1995) which covers at least 7 variations, and also MCO13 (from the 1990s where 4. Ng5 goes on for a few pages of lines. Not quite sure upon what basis you claim "it wasn't very playable"? It's a line, you may not think it the best line, but it is still a main line nonetheless.

@34

Main line is just fashion.
In the times of Morphy and Anderssen 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 d4 or 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5 Na5 6 d3 were the main lines.
In the times of Steinitz and Chigorin 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5 Na5 6 Bb5+ c6 7 dxc6 bxc6 8 Be2 h6 9 Nh3 was the main line.
Nowadays 4 d3 is main line and 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5 Na5 6 Bb5+ c6 7 dxc6 bxc6 8 Bd3 is fashionable.

So is the fried liver solved now? If then, it definitely wouldn't be a main line anymore.

By the way, Ng5 is called the Knight Attack which is one of the many lines that derive from the two knights position. From there, it branches off even more.

For the record, I want to address an issue.

It is very important for people to remember that strong players often use Short Handed Notation.

If a Grand Master was to say 4.Ng5 Fried Liver type position, It doesn’t mean the GrandMaster is being literal. It also doesn’t mean that the GrandMaster doesn’t know when the Fried Liver starts. It is a Short hand expression.

It could be seen as rude to suggest that a strong player doesn’t know when a line starts.

I just want to mention the above because it can be seen as offensive.

Like people mentioned coaches saying the above things which against most coaches are strong players. They don’t want to spend unnecessary time writing a string of notation. They use a short hand notation as a reference.

For example:

If I was to say 1…c5 Sicilian Dragon

Does this mean I literally think the Sicilian Dragon is just 1 move?

No, it is a Short Hand expression trying to indicate what line I as Black would like to go for if my opponent allows me to do so. Right?

Other strong players would also know what I am saying correct?

Sicilian Defense has many variations by saying Sicilian Dragon.
I narrow down what I am trying to play.

Now, I will admit something for beginners or low level players doing a short hand could possibly confuse them and make them think lines start at different moves.

I am sure a lot of strong players are not trying to confuse people. They just don’t want to waste a lot of time writing a string of unnecessary notation right? 

The important thing to remember is we don’t want to make strong players think we are being rude due to a short hand expression and we also don’t want weaker players to get confused and mixing up starting positions so there is a delicate balance here.

4. Ng5 is considered bad. The person who referred to it as the main line was certainly wrong and misinformed. It isn't your fault. I'm not claiming that you're doing anything other than repeating what you believe to be true, just as I am.

Quite right. 4. Ng5 hasn't been a main line for 140 years, as i pointed out.