Talk:Fried Liver Attack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Chess Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-Importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Origins of the name

Does anyone know why this game is called the fried liver?

I found something that might come in handy. The original name of this opening is in Italian, and the website mentions Venice. Hans Ree is a grandmaster, so I suppose his explaination could make sense (if this is in fact Hans Ree's writing). http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hans40.txt

DaDoc540 20:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continuations?

What are white's next choices after Nc3? O-O is my next move.

[edit] Main line

What is the main line? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChessCreator (talk • contribs) 10:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The main line of the Two Knights Defense is given in that article: 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.Nf3. The Fried Liver deviates from the main line with 5...Nxd5, exposing Black to a strong attack. It isn't a popular choice, as most players who choose the Two Knights prefer to be the aggressor (the main line gives Black some initiative at the cost of a pawn, and the Wilkes-Barre or Traxler gives Black even wilder tactical possibilities) rather than defend. The main line isn't a "refutation" of the Fried Liver, since it isn't the Fried Liver at all. A refutation would come if Black can demonstrate a win after 6.Nxf7. Quale (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, see what happened now. I meant the main line of the Fried Liver Attack, but it's not important as the previous edit by Smcb555 was talking about a refutation of the Two Knights Defense, and thus your reply within that context. ChessCreator (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Got it. I don't think people normally talk about a main line in the Fried Liver. There aren't that many options until Black's eighth move, and probably nothing stands out as a main line after that. Quale (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Depends on your level of detail I guess. Many years ago the main line of the fried liver was 6.Nxf7 Kxf7 7.Qf3+ Ke6 8.Nc3 Nb4 9. a3! (Somehow remember this moves was given an '!') that would of been in ECO. When Smcb555's edit was done saying that Nd4 was a refutation, my first thought was that the Fried Liver theory was rewritten and was now 8...Nd4, the move does attack the queen and the c2 pawn. But it seems Smcb555's meant 5...Nd4 (The Fritz) instead of the fried liver, although of course that is no refutation either. ChessCreator (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)