traxler

I just played the Traxler Counterattack and absolutely crushed my opponent. But I'm curious cuz the engine says white is actually winning after initial Traxler theory. Is this actually true or is it just an incorrect evaluation that will correct at a higher depth? I'd assumed that the Traxler would provide lots of chances for black but would help equalize if white played according to theory. I did not know white had a significant advantage

it's so funny how you think that a trash trappy line popularized by youtuber is winning for black. No the Traxler is refuted because if White has some braincells left he will play 5. Bxf7! And you just don't have enough for the pawn

The Traxler can be countered but there is maybe one very specific line the opponent has to know to do so.

So it's kind of a catch-22 for players of the Fried Liver; if you're playing Fried Liver, you probably aren't high enough of a rating to bother studying the line to counter the Traxler.

So remember that just because something is marked as losing by the engine doesn't mean it's a bad move. It could be that there is a single 22-move line that winds up leaving you a pawn down (as a result of both players having perfect play), but chances are at some point in that 22 move sequence your opponent will screw up and you will have the advantage.

As an additional example, IIRC the King's Gambit has been refuted (perfect play will always result in the white having the disadvantage), but people still play it because it is very difficult or impossible to memorize every variation of the King's Gambit to make those perfect moves that the computer is able to predict.

you cant compare the KG to the Traxler, "he has to know what to do" you're making it look like rocket science when its just a single natural move. Good chess players never play something they know is losing hoping the opponent will mess up. The fried Liver is a very sound opening, why do you think everyone who play it is bad and doesn't know theory? I speak as a former Fried Liver player and I knew a lot of theory even in sidelines. "it doesn't mean it's a bad move" listen it basically hangs the f7 pawn, if you want to play the whole game down a pawn then just play some other Gambit.

also you don't need to memorize a lot of theory as White, 5. Bxf7 Ke7 6. Bb3 is much better for White

So, what is it?

LMAOOOOOOOO U really hate when people play agressive don't U?

It's true what the engine say I guess, although sometimes engine don't see certain things. But, there's the human perspective - maybe White has advantage with perfect defense, including very non-human moves - comp doesn't care, we will never play certain moves, that's all. comp say that the Polerio Defense is the correct one, in practice this is super sharp tactics, not really for humans, so... Traxler is better.

#7 nah I don't have any hate for him, I just find it funny he thinks the Traxler is winning for Black and when he sees the engine and GothamChess have different opinions he trusts Gotham more

I never said I thought black was winning. Also this has nothing to do with Gotham Chess. It is clear the Traxler is an aggressive opening providing chances for black. I thought that it would be close to equal since it's theory. The reason I even asked it cuz the engine says it's +2 even when I'm playing book moves, so I was curious as to whether or not it is humanly possible to hold on to that edge.

How does a Traxler game have anything to do with Gotham? That's just an out of the blue assumption when I see one.

I am very booked up on Traxler theory, and I always play Nxf7 against the Traxler. If you think you can outtheory your opponent, Nxf7 is a good practical choice. Bxf7+ gets a pawn with some complications, and d4 simplifies to a favorable but not clearly winning endgame, but neither can get you as large of an advantage in general as your opponent not playing against Nxf7 precisely. Maybe Bxf7+ and d4 are objectively better, but Nxf7 is completely playable if you specialize in the opening.

😃♟

This is my favorite opening