This isn't self promotion, I just feel like a lot of people don't know how to respond in different variations of the Traxler counter-attack. It can lead to complex and dynamic games. lichess.org/study/WLyfoXTJ
This opening is terrible. White plays 5. Bxf7+ and has a winning position.
I notice you omit that line.
I notice you omit that line.
@BigGreenShrek Stockfish (at depth 22) evaluates 5. Nxf7 to be the better move. Also, I don't know who added the line 5. Bxf7+ Ke7 6. Bc4 to the study, but in that line, according to Lichess' opening explorer, black wins 52 percent of the time to white's 45 percent. That's with the opening explorer only set with higher ratings and longer time controls.
@Snuffington This (Nxf7+) is a line that is notoriously misevaluated by computers. There was a previous discussion about it here a few weeks ago. If you want the objective truth, there's a lot of analysis floating about on the internet. I think the chesspub forum is probably the most reliable resource.
However, my suggestion was more of a practical one. There's no point as an e4 player memorizing the tons of theory necessary to escape the labyrinth that is Nxf7+, because you'll face it very rarely and any slip in recall could be fatal. (And at least speaking for myself, I except such a slip to happen unless I frequently review the theory, since I won't often see it on the board. I don't want to spend my precious chess time doing that.)
In contrast, 5.Bxf7+ Ke7 6.Bb3 is a simple and risk free way to get a clear advantage.
The late USCF Senior Master Mark Morss put it more succinctly in a chesspub post: "The Traxler is refuted by 5.Bxf7+ and so forth. I would never consider 5.Nxf7 which, whether or not it succeeds, is too difficult to prepare and gives Black too much of what he wants."
However, my suggestion was more of a practical one. There's no point as an e4 player memorizing the tons of theory necessary to escape the labyrinth that is Nxf7+, because you'll face it very rarely and any slip in recall could be fatal. (And at least speaking for myself, I except such a slip to happen unless I frequently review the theory, since I won't often see it on the board. I don't want to spend my precious chess time doing that.)
In contrast, 5.Bxf7+ Ke7 6.Bb3 is a simple and risk free way to get a clear advantage.
The late USCF Senior Master Mark Morss put it more succinctly in a chesspub post: "The Traxler is refuted by 5.Bxf7+ and so forth. I would never consider 5.Nxf7 which, whether or not it succeeds, is too difficult to prepare and gives Black too much of what he wants."
@Snuffington That may be true, however depth 22 is basically nothing. IIRC at higher depth it rates Bxf7+ higher, also it's a lot simpler. Though you then want to play Bb3 not Bc4.
Is 6 Bb3 now the move? I thought 6 Bd5 was stronger so as to trade off Nc6.
I actually don't know the details on the opening. However AFAIK Bb3 was safer and still good. Though possible that Bd5 was even stronger. (but then I would always be scared that I might somehow accidentally lose a piece :D)
@MoistvonLipwig Yes I completely agree, depth 22 is nothing. But the other person posted as if it was open and shut, this move is terrible. Indeed, @BigGreenShrek later added:
" If you want the objective truth, there's a lot of analysis floating about on the internet."
This is where he lost me. Objective truth? If it were "objective truth" that this move were so bad, then in play white would have a much, much larger success rate than the opening explorer shows. Obviously human play is not the same as computer analysis, and that is the cause for the difference, but then if that's the case then how can it be called objectively true? If the move were objectively the wrong one, then black would lose literally every time. If anyone can interpret it and end up losing as white, then it's not objective. If it depends on the person doing the playing, then it is literally the exact opposite of objective.
Until chess is solved, then any move called "objectively" anything is absolutely silly, unless it can be demonstrated to be a forced sequence of moves.
" If you want the objective truth, there's a lot of analysis floating about on the internet."
This is where he lost me. Objective truth? If it were "objective truth" that this move were so bad, then in play white would have a much, much larger success rate than the opening explorer shows. Obviously human play is not the same as computer analysis, and that is the cause for the difference, but then if that's the case then how can it be called objectively true? If the move were objectively the wrong one, then black would lose literally every time. If anyone can interpret it and end up losing as white, then it's not objective. If it depends on the person doing the playing, then it is literally the exact opposite of objective.
Until chess is solved, then any move called "objectively" anything is absolutely silly, unless it can be demonstrated to be a forced sequence of moves.
@Snuffington Well, according to the lichess db there are 65 games with Bxf7+, 43% white wins vs only 23% black wins that's pretty bad.
(Nxf7 has an even higher winrate with white 48% however also 32% for black which isn't surprising considering the sharp positions)
Though of course the sample size is rather small so the numbers don't have that much weight.
(Nxf7 has an even higher winrate with white 48% however also 32% for black which isn't surprising considering the sharp positions)
Though of course the sample size is rather small so the numbers don't have that much weight.
@Snuffington Oh, I don't think Nxf7 is bad. I just think there are strong practical reasons to prefer Bxf7.
But I'm not sure I understand your comments about the "objective truth" regarding Nxf7. It could be the case that the move is objectively bad, but we haven't yet found the refutation or the players don't know it, so it scores well (for example -- I'm not saying this is actually the case). Generally when talking about opening theory we're talking about what happens with best play by both sides, not practical considerations.
In any case, I'm not making any claim about the theoretical status of Nxf7, or saying that opening theorists have settled the matter yet. I'm just saying that if you want to get a little closer to the truth, check the threads at chesspub. It's an interesting line, certainly.
But I'm not sure I understand your comments about the "objective truth" regarding Nxf7. It could be the case that the move is objectively bad, but we haven't yet found the refutation or the players don't know it, so it scores well (for example -- I'm not saying this is actually the case). Generally when talking about opening theory we're talking about what happens with best play by both sides, not practical considerations.
In any case, I'm not making any claim about the theoretical status of Nxf7, or saying that opening theorists have settled the matter yet. I'm just saying that if you want to get a little closer to the truth, check the threads at chesspub. It's an interesting line, certainly.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.