Here's a question for all you aficionados of the 1.e4 e5 reply to facing whatever White throws at you. I'm curious to know if you're booked to the gills in facing the Fried Liver attack or even the Max Lange. Keep in mind Capablanca as terrific a chess player as he was scored poorly when facing the Max Lange as Black when he had his private match with Frank Marshall. And to add insult to injury and really make this interesting it's curious to note Frank Marshall had a terrible score against Capablanca...25 losses but only 1 official victory. However, in their private match...Marshall scored 3 victories with the Max Lange against Capablanca as White. So this should tell you something about the potency of this line.

Which is why I'm posting this question to these followers of replying 1...e5 to White's 1.e4. Because unless you are booked to the gills against both the Fried Liver and the Max Lange...to me it becomes suicidal to risk playing 1...e5 when up against these fanatical wild gambit style attacking players who love this stuff. Just to give you another indication of how fanatical these people are...yesterday I tried placing an order for the new Everyman publication called The Blackmar Diemer Gambit. This book is still "out of stock". I was told over the phone this book is being heavily bought at huge numbers by chess enthusiasts. So this should tell you something. Gambit lines like this and the Fried Liver and the Max Lange are brutal. And unless you're booked to the gills against these move orders you're bound to get slaughtered in OTB play.

For me, it took me a while but I finally found my anti BDG antidote against my Caro Kann defense...which, by the way, is NOT mentioned in the new Caro Kann books by Jovanka Houska and Lars Schandorff. And it's no wonder my antidote isn't mentioned because it's such an obscure line it's hard to believe I had to find it OTB to see it's a workable solution. But when I checked my SCID database...there it was - 4...e5 stopping the BDG Gambit by transposition from the Caro Kann.

I like two replies to the fried liver attack and the games become very aggressive and filled with surprises, at least at my level so I love to see it in blitz games. I am pretty sure the fried liver is 1. e4-e5 2. Nf3-Nc6 3.Bc4-Nf6 4. Ng5.

many times I go into the C57. Two knight Ulvestad Variation and that is some fun. other times I go into a more aggressive opening that my software identifies as c57 Two knights Traxler. I am not sure what opening is called by the chess community.

at my level, these are very entertaining if not very high stress openings for both sides.

while looking on the everyman site I saw an interesting book about a sniper opening? I may give that a try for some opening fun.

You don't have to allow the Fried Liver. It only comes about after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5?! after all. If you don't like it, you can play the main line with 5...Na5 or the Ulvestad with 5...b5.

You can avoid the Max Lange as well. MCO 15, page 38, column 15 gives 6...Ng4 and columns 16-18 gives 5...Nxe4 (instead of 5...Bc5 so this requires the Two Knights move order). I haven't had much more time to do more than yank two books off the shelf to get a 35,000 foot view, so don't take either of these ideas as a personal endorsement. No matter what you do, this sort of thing can turn into a tactical slugfest if White wants to push it that way. It seems to me you can either learn the theory (Marin's Beating the Open Games has all the theory you could possibly want) or play the Caro-Kann... In any case, thanks for bringing this up. I'm starting to learn the Two Knights and this called attention to a hole in my repertoire that I didn't know I had.

One final thought about the Max Lange: in Marin the theory tree starts branching at move 18... Yikes! However, that suggests there are a whole bunch of only-moves for both sides here -- so White has to be just as booked up as Black if he wants to try this in the first place. I suspect the reason it shows up rarely at the club level is it's too much work for either side. It also suggests if you want to do the work, you might get a double bonus for your efforts by using it as a weapon while playing White.

As for the BDG, Josh made a video on the 4...e5 line (called the Hubsch Defense) awhile back (like 2-3 years). It's worth a look-see: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=793. There's also a good recommendation for taking the pawn and making White prove it by Andrew Martin on http://www.jeremysilman.com if you're interested.

Well Dorothy, that was not a question but an opinion. If u don't like 1...e5 then don't play it. Problem solved, right?

You will find that White can throw things at you in any opening, so you better keep buying those books, lol

Why would anyone ''provoke'' the Fried Liver Attack ? Two Knights, and everything is fine.

Defending against Max Lange is not hard, because the theory is indeed easy to learn (as Wildman suspected). There's a reason I don't play it with White, but that's personal preference. Also, if you overreact (and you're probably on the verge of doing so) your chess will suffer.

After taking a quick look (since something was niggling at me), I (re-)discovered katar's 1.e4 e5 video #3 covers the 5...Nxe4 (anti-Max Lange) lines in the last segment of the video viewtopic.php?t=6046. Here's the transcript PGN for that section:

Hidden Text Below - [Show it] - [Hide it Again]

+1

It's hardly anything to be afraid of, the theory moves can even be found over the board (unless you're playing Blitz maybe). All you might need to have seen is the Qd5-f5 maneuvre, maybe that's a bit hard to find on your own. In the end both sides have to play chess, but White can lose just as easily as Black. Plus, in 2620 Blitz games I've played with 1.e4 e5 in the last 3 years, I've faced the Max Lange... drumroll please... 11 times! Wow! I dare say this line is so neglected you hardly need to worry about meeting it otb...or at all!

These comments reveal a lack of understanding and/or irrational fear.
It is important to understand exactly which side is doing the attacking in the TND with 4.Ng5 (Black), and which side has the task of defending (White).
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 now the move 4.Ng5 is absolutely not an "attacking" move but simply a poison-pawn grab.

After 4...d5, it is Black (not White) who has whatever attacking chances exist in the position. Black has several dangerous ways to prosecute a long-lasting initiative in exchange for one single pawn. Houdini on my 3.4ghz machine puts it at equal, and Black outscores White historically in my database. So any fear of getting "slaughtered" from that position is completely unfounded and irrational.

There are many reasons why a player might not decide to play 1...e5, but fear of being "slaughtered" in the so-called "Fried Liver" is not one of them.

The thing about these 1.e4 e5 positions is that after one single sub-optimal move, it is White who might be getting annihilated in humiliating fashion. viewtopic.php?p=59462#p59462
This is simply not the case in other openings, where White can play a few inaccuracies and STILL be slightly better. After 1.e4 e5 Black has to take the mindset of the Punisher-- "I will stay equal with you, if you go Ruy Lopez i will respect you and take a slight disadvantage. Any disrespectful flaky BS will not be tolerated and will be punished swiftly and severely."

Katar, do you consider the Italian flaky? I always thought white had a slight pull there (though less so than the Lopez).

Best summary of 1...e5 I've ever read.

[x] I like

@ katar: Well said!

@ Sarciness: I agree with GW that the Italian is properly covered by the first sentence and not the second.

@ GW: Right on!

Italian is perfectly good and not flaky at all. White should play a slow gradual buildup with chances for a normal smallish edge. Nothing to fear for Black.

I was reacting to Dorothy's idea that 1...e5 is "suicide" against "fanatical wild gambit style attacking players". These are the players you should enjoy facing the most.

In a recent club game, my reckless opponent simply missed 12...Na5 and 15...d4, each of which wins a whole piece.

1800?? Hard to believe- he played like a right patzer and was duly well punished by you.

As Silman says, anybody who isn't an IM or GM is capable of playing quite badly.

Even IMs and GMs are capable of playing quite badly at times...