Learning the Traxler

What's the best way to practice complex openings (specifically the Traxler)? I'd love to get proficient in this line because it's so beautiful and fits my style perfectly, but it requires White to play the Fried Liver which doesn't happen very often at all.  Since I'm never expecting to get the opportunity to play it I'm almost always unprepared, and end up out of theory after just  8 to 10 moves.  Can anyone recommend some literature on the Traxler, or better yet, some kind of Fried Liver tournament online? Cheers! ^-^

for theory the most recent book is Boris Alterman's Gambit Guide: Black Gambits 2, which has 80+ pages on the Traxler:

https://www.qualitychess.co.uk/products/1/146/alterman_gambit_guide_-_black_gambits_2_by_boris_alterman/

https://www.chess.com/daily/game/181884368

this attack always wins!

This has now progressed from advertising to spam.

As far as I know, there are no direct transpositions from the Fried Liver Attack to the Traxler or vice versa.  The Traxler results from 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 whereas the Fried Liver Attack results from 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Nxf7.  In addition, the Lolli Attack with 6.d4 is a stronger variation to the Fried Liver Attack.  Now that we have clarified the nomenclature, let us address the opening question.

The best source of information on the variation is the Traxler Analysis group on chess.com.  We have compiled all of the available sources and input our own analysis on the variation.  Several titled players have been a part of the group, one of which you may know to be pfren.  It was a project conducted seven years ago after a thread on chess.com called Traxler Discussion went into massive analysis requiring more organization to the analysis.  We have compiled information from many sources such as John Jerz, Beliavsky, chesscafe articles, Stephen Buecker, amongst many many others.

The best way to playtest it is to probably play correspondence games with the theory next to you and to play a lot of them.

Where's this then?

https://www.chess.com/club/traxler-analysis

Your in-depth analysis does prove everything wrong.  Truly amazing work.  Where can I subscribe? 

Batgirl has published some things on the Traxler--check out her blogs.

I don't know. The traxler just blews by mind. The lines are so complicated. I don't feel like I could handle the position without any memorization because otherwise I have to rely on heavy calculation. But the lines are not just some 2-3 movers.

In my opionion, Traxler needs to be expected as much as King's Indian. It's very complex yet fun to play. Computer doesn't like it so much, but practice shows Black has great chance. 

I think here is all you need to know about Traxler. Study all the theory is not worth the time as it's too complex and White doesn't play Ng5 these days.  Just look for some games is enough.

 Here is one beautiful game found in my database

I agree. The Traxler is not worth the time because only people who did prepare Ng5 will play it. Nobody on our level of play will come up with Ng5 over the board unless that player is a patzer who wants a cheap attack or the player seriouslly studied that line but that is really rare.

But it requires your opponent to play Ng5. d3, 0-0 and Nc3 were the most common moves I encountered so far.

I think FM bank2010 is probably correct about how much you need to know. I've faced 4 Ng5 twelve times (W8, D3, L1) in thirty years OTB and as far as I can tell 4...Bc5 has always come as a surprise to White. All they tend to know about the Traxler (if anything) is that it's safer to take with the bishop on f7 and then retreat it again, without any real idea how to continue from there. One person did play 5 Nxf7 but he lost in 12 moves.

I like your avatar.   Is Velma your favorite character from Scooby Doo?

yes

A bold statement indeed

Are you relying on De Zeeuw's articles for that assessment? If so, I should say that he's wrong about quite a few lines there. But then they were from 2002 and engines are a lot stronger now.

I would certainly concur with you there.  You showed me how unpleasant the 5...d5 line was if white played correctly.  For practical purposes, I have shifted back to the old main line.  Luckily that line is very rare.

By feel alone, 5.Nxf7 gives black massive compensation which suggests that it is not correct.  5.Bxf7+ is certainly a lot better than people think though.  Most players tend to do a setup with 0-0 which seems to always backfire for white.  The d3/Nc3 lines are more of an issue in that black probably cannot fully equalize, but compensation exists.

5.d4 is borderline miserable to try to play against as black.  

It's interesting to note that the 5.Bxf7+ lines take on a more positional nature and focus more on the setup than exact lines.  

I suppose that might be true of your level, but at mine I see people play 4.Ng5 because they want to play the resulting middlegame in the Polerio.  Black players have to have strong fundamentals in dynamic play to be able to play that middlegame properly whereas white's plan is to consolidate the extra pawn.  It's a good line to rack up points and most black players lazily play the Italian Game which is plenty fine for white too.

Right, I've found Frendzas-Kahl. Hmmmm. I'd thought 9...Rf8 was the best move (rather than 9...h6 etc) and then 13...Nb3+ (rather than Bücker's 13...Nc2+), but checking my old analysis with Houdini now, neither 14 Be3 Bxe3+ 15 Kxe3 Nxa1 16 Nd2 nor 14 Ke2 Nxa1 15 Nf3 is looking particular pleasant for Black. Hmmmm.