i have a question about the italian game: two knights defense, open variation. here it is in diagram form:
there are hardly any GM games that showcase 5. Nxd4 (13 came up in my search). am i just missing something here?
consider the following variations:
so why is 5. Nxd4 used so seldomly?
The Lolli Attack with 6. d4 is considered to be practically a refutation.
isn't the lolli attack the following:
i don't understand how this refutes 5. Nxd4
isn't the lolli attack the following:
i don't understand how this refutes 5. Nxd4
Oh sorry I thought you were talking about another line. About 5. N:d4 here, well I reckon the White would just lose the e pawn without much compensation. 5. 0-0 brings the rook into the play and thus creates some threats on the e file.
Black equalizes easily after 5.Nxd4 d6!
@trigs: I disagree with your conclusion at the end of your 1...Nxe4 line.
I think it just loses the e pawn. Good initial question though. This is what all of us must do continually, viz question "accepted wisdom" - and if an ordinary player - which means most of us - can discover some early good novelty - we can look forward to many years of anonymous victories 
The position can arise from the Scotch of course 1e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3d4 ed 4Nxd4 Nf6 5Bc4 ?!
@trigs: I disagree with your conclusion at the end of your 1...Nxe4 line.
yeah i'd have to agree with you there Scarblac.
I would suggest they were/are good players precisely because they are critical about what went before
Here is some analysis after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nxd4:
5. ... Nxe4!
a) 6.Bxf7+ Kxf7 7.Qh5+ g6 8.Qd5+ Kg7 9.Nxc6 bxc6 (9. ...Nf6? 10.Bh6+!) 10.Qxe4 Qe8 11.Qxe8 Bb4+ (same as line above) -+
b) 6.Qh5! Qf6! and now:
(b1) 7.Ng5 Bb4+! 8.c3 Ba5.
(b2) 7.Nf3 Bb4+ 8.c3 Qe7 9.O-O Bc5
(b3) 7.Nxc6 bxc6! (7. ...Qxf2+? Kd1) 8.O-O Be7 9.Nd2 Ng5 10.Re1 O-O 11.f4 g6! 12.Qh6 (12.Qxg5? Qd4+) 12. ...Ne6 13.Nf3 d5 14.Bd3 Qg7 keeping the extra pawn.
All this is from The Italian Game by Harding and Botterill, 1977 (a Batsford book.)
Regards, Zug
thanks a lot zug, i'll look through all of that :)
@trigs: I disagree with your conclusion at the end of your 1...Nxe4 line.
What's wrong with 11. Qe3?
I would suggest they were/are good players precisely because they are critical about what went before
But again, there is a vast amount of work that has already been done before us. Think of it as a shortcut...unless you want to go through all the trouble of reinventing calculus or some such, you're a lot better off taking what's been handed down to you and moving on from there.
The way Is see it is that you have to seek a reasonable divergence at an early stage. How early a stage is a moot point. Otherwise a game between two "middle strength" players will just start when one player hasn't remembered by rote to the same extent as another in a particular line.
Eg I'm looking at Marshall's Franco Sicilian with an early d5 and c5/e6 structures. This was supposedly refuted Donkey's years ago, but I believe it offers promising players against even intermediate strength players and also worthy of seeking improvements to. I suggest this approach is the way to go and not to knock out the first 20 moves of the Najdorf without knowing how to win a rook and pawn end game...
@trigs: I disagree with your conclusion at the end of your 1...Nxe4 line.
What's wrong with 11. Qe3?
11.Qe3 Bc5 still with advantage
Black equalizes easily after 5.Nxd4 d6!
ummm, huh?
i have a question about the italian game: two knights defense, open variation. here it is in diagram form:
there are hardly any GM games that showcase 5. Nxd4 (13 came up in my search). am i just missing something here?
consider the following variations:
so why is 5. Nxd4 used so seldomly?