Answers.Body: <p>I think the Cochrane gambit is sound enough:</p>
  
  <pre><code>[FEN ""]
  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nxf7!?
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>Also the Evans Gambit:</p>
  
  <pre><code>[FEN ""]
  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>The Marshall counter-gambit in Ruy Lopez, sacrifices are pawn and gives black a good attack. However, it seems that some Grandmasters are using it as drawing tool, but for us black should have an attack.</p>
  
  <pre><code>[FEN ""]
  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5
  </code></pre>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-02-20T16:09:58.393Z
Answers.Text: OK, good answer. I think my understanding of attacks is wrong. When I am thinking of attacks, I am thinking of a set of moves that have the name attack such as `Fried Liver Attack, Traxler Counter Attack, Grand Prix Attack, Lolli Attack`. Are gambits classified as one type of attack?
Answers.UserDisplayName: xaisoft
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-02-20T20:11:13.683Z
Answers.Text: Opening names are pretty arbitrary, there is very little system to them. "Attack" basically means that it is an opening that white chooses to play; variations that are defined by a black move are often called "Defence". Or, rarely, "Counter Attack". But that doesn't mean that those lines are classified as something, or that they have something in common.
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-02-20T21:33:55.627Z
Answers.Text: As @RemcoGerlich said the names are arbitrary. Any attack that includes a gambit, could very well be named `Gambit`, and I am sure there cases when an opening is referred to as both. Some openings that have a name `Attack` don't require a gambit. For example, `Austrian Attack`, `Bayonet Attack`, so `Attack` is more general.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Akavall
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-02-20T21:35:00.277Z
Answers.Text: Oh, and there is `Queen's Gambit` which is hardly a `Gambit`, the names are set arbitrarily :).
Answers.UserDisplayName: Akavall
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-02-20T15:50:06.467Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-02-20T16:12:35.740Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2013-02-20T16:12:35.740Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Akavall
Body: <p>By solid attacks, I mean, attacks that have been tested over time.  They don't necessarily have to be used at the top-level. I will give an example of what I am looking for:</p>
  
  <p>The <code>Fried Liver Attack</code> can be used against the <code>Two Knights Defense</code> and the <code>Traxler Counter Attack</code> can be used against the <code>Fried Liver Attack</code>.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-02-20T15:34:52.377Z
Comments.Text: I believe you are misusing the term "Fried Liver Attack". I think you mean it to refer to `1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 3.Nf6 4.Ng5`; however, the Fried Liver attack happens only after `4...d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Nxf7`, `6.Nxf7` (the option for white is `6.d4`) is what defines the Fried Liver attack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Knights_Defense,_Fried_Liver_Attack
Comments.UserDisplayName: Akavall
Tags: <learning>
Title: What are some solid attacks in chess?
ThreadText: # What are some solid attacks in chess?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2013-02-20)
  
  By solid attacks, I mean, attacks that have been tested over time. They don't necessarily have to be used at the top-level. I will give an example of what I am looking for:
  
  The `Fried Liver Attack` can be used against the `Two Knights Defense` and the `Traxler Counter Attack` can be used against the `Fried Liver Attack`.
  
  **Tags:** learning
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: I believe you are misusing the term "Fried Liver Attack". I think you mean it to refer to `1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 3.Nf6 4.Ng5`; however, the Fried Liver attack happens only after `4...d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Nxf7`, `6.Nxf7` (the option for white is `6.d4`) is what defines the Fried Liver attack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Knights_Defense,_Fried_Liver_Attack  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2013-02-20. Score: 3
  
  I think the Cochrane gambit is sound enough:
  [FEN ""]
  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nxf7!?
  
  Also the Evans Gambit:
  [FEN ""]
  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4
  
  The Marshall counter-gambit in Ruy Lopez, sacrifices are pawn and gives black a good attack. However, it seems that some Grandmasters are using it as drawing tool, but for us black should have an attack.
  [FEN ""]
  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: OK, good answer. I think my understanding of attacks is wrong. When I am thinking of attacks, I am thinking of a set of moves that have the name attack such as `Fried Liver Attack, Traxler Counter Attack, Grand Prix Attack, Lolli Attack`. Are gambits classified as one type of attack?  
  > **username_2**: Opening names are pretty arbitrary, there is very little system to them. "Attack" basically means that it is an opening that white chooses to play; variations that are defined by a black move are often called "Defence". Or, rarely, "Counter Attack". But that doesn't mean that those lines are classified as something, or that they have something in common.  
  > **username_1**: As @username_2 said the names are arbitrary. Any attack that includes a gambit, could very well be named `Gambit`, and I am sure there cases when an opening is referred to as both. Some openings that have a name `Attack` don't require a gambit. For example, `Austrian Attack`, `Bayonet Attack`, so `Attack` is more general.  
  > **username_1**: Oh, and there is `Queen's Gambit` which is hardly a `Gambit`, the names are set arbitrarily :).  
  
  ---
  
  