kingnchess έγραψε:
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 Bc5 5 Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6 Kf1! is better for white i think.
Nope, it is not. Draw with best play from both sides.
5.Nxf7 is a mistake.
The fried liver attack is the best white opening ever
Sort:
IM pfren wrote (August 26, 2013):
5.Bxf7+ is a lot of fun, actually. For white, that is.
6.Bd5 is equally strong to 6.Bb3, and certainly easier to handle as white. Almost "simple"- the only thing to have in mind is when to chop the c6 knight, and when/which side to castle.
5.Nxf7 isn't that bad, but it should be attributed with one and a half question mark: white unneccesarily complicates matters a lot, instead of grabbing a free pawn for little (if any) compensation.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/traxler-counter-attack-help?page=1
IM pfren wrote (October 5, 2016):
I have just finished a correspondence game (books, databases, engines, tablebases allowed) where Buecker's 5.d4!? worked very well. Still, I would not say for sure that it refutes the Traxler.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/traxler-counter-attack-help?page=2
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/why-players-say-that-traxler-countergambit-is-no-good?page=3
IM pfren wrote (January 22, 2017):
lbonetto wrote:
@pfren. I am intrigued by this 5.d4. So many possible responses for black. What is the main idea driving 5.d4 for white, and black not taking the offered pawn right away?
Simple: The c1 officer is on duty, and the Bxf2 cheapos don't work anymore. The Nxf7 threat is now real, and none of the captures on d4 prevents it.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/traxler-counter-attack-help?page=2
IM pfren wrote (January 23, 2017):
5. Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6. Kf1 is a draw with best play from both sides.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/traxler-counter-attack-help?page=2
IM pfren wrote (December 3, 2019):
gambitfan wrote:
I played 5 times the Traxler in completed games and I am playing one right now.
My 4 completed games were the variant 5 Nxf7, 75% 0-1
A 5th one is with 5 0-0 ?! 0-1 as well.
My present one is the 5 Bxf7 variant.
What does chessgames.com say about the Traxler ?
320 games in the data bank.
24% win for White|16% draw|60% win for Black.
The 2 main variants are:
the Bxf7+ variant (166) 33|18|49
the Nxf7 variant (125) 12|13|75
The Bxf7+ variant seems better for White.
chessgames.com does not give a lot of material after those moves.
No famous players playing that variant.
Traxler is good for Black if White do not know how to offer a counterplay.
My personal conclusion is that from now on after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 g5 ... I shall answer 4 ... d5 5 ed Na5, which is more secure.
5.Bxf7+ is indeed better for white, and the best line may well be 5.Bxf7+ Ke7 6.Bc4!, which is much less played than 6.Bb3 or 6.Bd5.
And my personal opinion is that 5.d4! is painfully close to being a refutation of the Traxler.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/traxler-counter-attack-help?page=3
Mar 12, 2020
0
#88
I wonder if it's a hopeless fight against windmills to try to remind people that 4.Ng5 is not named "fried liver attack". It seems that 99% of people think it is, and it's very widely referred to by that name. Whenever someone says "fried liver attack" it's probably safer to assume that they are referring to that 4.Ng5 move rather than the actual move named like that (ie. 6.Nxf7, after 4...d5 5.exd5 Nxd5).
I suppose that language and terminology is a matter of agreement, and may change over time. Because of extremely wide usage, the term "fried liver attack" may change over time to become a synonym for "Two Knights Defense: 4.Ng5".
Is it too much of nitpicking to keep reminding people that, as of still this point in time, that move is not the "fried liver attack"?
Mar 12, 2020
0
#89
DjVortex wrote:
I wonder if it's a hopeless fight against windmills to try to remind people that 4.Ng5 is not named "fried liver attack". It seems that 99% of people think it is, and it's very widely referred to by that name. Whenever someone says "fried liver attack" it's probably safer to assume that they are referring to that 4.Ng5 move rather than the actual move named like that (ie. 6.Nxf7, after 4...d5 5.exd5 Nxd5).
I suppose that language and terminology is a matter of agreement, and may change over time. Because of extremely wide usage, the term "fried liver attack" may change over time to become a synonym for "Two Knights Defense: 4.Ng5".
Is it too much of nitpicking to keep reminding people that, as of still this point in time, that move is not the "fried liver attack"?
What You are saying is true, but, since everyone acknowledges 4.Ng5 as the Fried Liver, I believe nobody is being misguided. As long as everyone uses the same lingo, being stuck on the exact definition is not really relevant.
An easy game I had
anat743 a écrit :
chamo2074 wrote:
An easy game I had
Bro your opponent played like a 600 rated
You're right lol, fried liver effect
DjVortex wrote:
I wonder if it's a hopeless fight against windmills to try to remind people that 4.Ng5 is not named "fried liver attack". It seems that 99% of people think it is, and it's very widely referred to by that name. Whenever someone says "fried liver attack" it's probably safer to assume that they are referring to that 4.Ng5 move rather than the actual move named like that (ie. 6.Nxf7, after 4...d5 5.exd5 Nxd5).
I suppose that language and terminology is a matter of agreement, and may change over time. Because of extremely wide usage, the term "fried liver attack" may change over time to become a synonym for "Two Knights Defense: 4.Ng5".
Is it too much of nitpicking to keep reminding people that, as of still this point in time, that move is not the "fried liver attack"?
In this particular thread, I wonder if I am somewhat to blame for the confusion. About five days ago, I wrote,
"... What I see is a specific reference to playing 'the fried liver attack 100% of the time as white'. Since that is technically impossible, one can understandably wonder what is intended. I see only one plausible interpretation: Always going for 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5 as White. …"
At the time, that seemed reasonable to me because I imagined that the cooperative 5...Nxd5 would be fairly rare. It now occurs to me that I was thinking in terms of players somewhat beyond the beginner stage and that, even with that, it was perhaps not appropriate to obscure the apparent intention of xzhi to react to 5...Nxd5 with 6 Nxf7. That last aspect of xzhi's plan might, I suppose, be somewhat controversial as some sources (ncluding Moret) favor 6 d4. My intention was to emphasize the not-so-controversial nature of White's first five moves.
IM pfren wrote (~25 hours ago):
Morphys-Revenge έγραψε:
kindaspongey wrote:
As I understand it, White has been playing respectable moves and has a reasonable position after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5.
5. ____b5
6.Bf1 and Black is short of equality.
"... The Ulvestad does not work, either. The problem is the following line:
While Black may hold this pawn-down ending, it's certainly not the most pleasant position to defend..." - IM pfren (September 14, 2017)
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/the-traxler-counterattack-always-wins?page=2
IM pfren wrote (January 2, 2017):
Yet another recent Traxler correspondence game featuring Bxf7+ and Bf7-c4!Black was unable to find any meaningful compensation.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 Bc5 5 Bxf7+ Ke7 6 Bd5 is better than 6 Bc4. i think.
IM pfren wrote (January 3, 2017):
PowerofMonado wrote:
is the fritz sound??
It's the same as the Ulvestad: the problem line is 4...d4 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5, when after 8.cxd4! Qxg5 9.Bxb5+ Kd8 10.0-0! Black has serious issues. No need to reproduct existing anlysis here.
5...Nb4 is not bad, but it does not equalize, either.
5...Na5! is the best and well established line, when 6.Bb5+ c6 is the main (and best!) line, but 6...Bd7!? is less ambitious, but (IMHO) enough for equality if you know what you are doing.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5 Na5! i think is the best. and is better for Black after 6 Bb5+ c6 7 dxc6 bxc6 8 Be2 h6 Nh3. where Black has enogh compensation for the pawn.
sorry for the spelling.
IM pfren wrote (April 15, 2016):
ThrillerFan wrote:
The bust to the Traxler is 5.Bxf7+ (5.Nxf7 is significantly weaker) Ke7 6.Bd5!
7.Bb3 and 7.Bd5 are both (very) good, but the little tried 7.Bc4 may be best- mainly due to a recent TN: [1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ Ke7 6.Bc4 Rf8 7.O-O h6 8.Nf3 Nxe4 9.d4]
Boom! Black is lost. No games played yet, but all engines agree that Black can pack and go home.
This means Black has to try some line involving ...Qe8 (when the bishop is doing great on c4, sometimes can switch to e2 to break a pin) or 8...d6, but after 9.d3 (and eventually Be3) he just has a pawn less.
Stefan Buecker's 5.d4!? also gives an advantage to white. Other than those few slightly unlucky instances, Black has "full equality", though... 
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/which-is-the-best-defense-against-fried-liver-attack?page=2
kingnchess a écrit :
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5 Na5! i think is the best. and is better for Black after 6 Bb5+ c6 7 dxc6 bxc6 8 Be2 h6 Nh3. where Black has enogh compensation for the pawn.
I don't think so:
In this position after your moves and by neglecting the pawn advantage black's pawn structure is horrific and the knight on a4 is silly
After 5...Nxd5, what are good alternatives to the fried liver attack (6.Nxf7), if one would want to avoid the complications of that line?
The lolli attack (6.d4) is actually thought of as both safer and superior to the fried liver.