Answers.Body: <p>There is much inconsistency in the way this question is posed. The Fried Liver is associated with 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd Nxd5 6. Nxf7 (a sacrifice) The Traxler is associated with 4.Ng5 Bc5 and now perhaps 5. Nxf7 (a grab of material) In the first case Bxf2+ is not possible, so OP must be asking about the second case, when 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ has always been regarded as the correct play and White usually declines with 6.Kf1.</p>
  <p>The alternative in the Traxler of 5.Bxf7+ has always been regarded as safer although not necessarily stronger. Beliavsky held the resulting position against both Karpov and Anand, drawing with Karpov and even winning when Anand blundered. AFIK, theory has not yet spoken the last word.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-11-11T18:42:13.470Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-11-11T18:42:13.470Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Philip Roe
Answers.Body: <p>After <strong>1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5</strong>, now <strong>4....Bc5</strong> is a mistake by Black. If White goes <strong>5. Nxf7</strong> then following up with <strong>5...Bxf2+</strong> is the best move in that position, so definitely far from a blunder. Maybe the engine is running at a low depth or you may have made some error when inserting the position.</p>
  <p>Anyway engines don't classify moves as &quot;blunders&quot;, they just return a number as the position's evaluation. chess.com classifies moves according to those numbers into different categories (blunder, brilliant move, inaccuracy and so on...) but you shouldn't pay too much attention to those since they're arbitrary categorizations of something that exists on a continuum.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-11-09T23:37:07.760Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-11-10T11:50:06.550Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2022-11-10T11:50:06.550Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: David
Body: <p>I'm asking more about why a specific move is called a blunder. If you're playing as black, and white uses the Fried Liver attack, when you use the Bishop and do Bxf2+, Stockfish on Chess.com says that's a blunder. I'm curious as to why. I know it's (probably) giving up a valuable bishop, but White's King playing Kxf2 allows for Qh4 (thus removing the Queen from the threat of the rook on f7), and also possibly puts pressure on white's Bishop on c4.</p>
  <p>Is it a blunder <em>solely</em> because there's no equal or greater exchange? Is it something else?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-11-09T19:19:05.007Z
Comments.Text: This is 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 Bc5?! 5 ~ Bxf2+, right? Black might hope White blunders with 5 Nxf7?, and spring the trap with 5 ... Bxf2+! 6 Kxf2 Nxe4+ etc. But White avoids Black's trap, with 5 Bxf7+ Ke7 6 Bc4. If Black were to try 6 ... Bxf2+, White would have an even better position.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Rosie F
Tags: <blunder><traxler-counter-attack>
Title: Why is Bxf2+ a blunder in the Traxler Counterattack,?
ThreadText: # Why is Bxf2+ a blunder in the Traxler Counterattack,?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2022-11-09)
  
  I'm asking more about why a specific move is called a blunder. If you're playing as black, and white uses the Fried Liver attack, when you use the Bishop and do Bxf2+, Stockfish on Chess.com says that's a blunder. I'm curious as to why. I know it's (probably) giving up a valuable bishop, but White's King playing Kxf2 allows for Qh4 (thus removing the Queen from the threat of the rook on f7), and also possibly puts pressure on white's Bishop on c4.
  
  Is it a blunder *solely* because there's no equal or greater exchange? Is it something else?
  
  **Tags:** blunder, traxler-counter-attack
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: This is 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 Bc5?! 5 ~ Bxf2+, right? Black might hope White blunders with 5 Nxf7?, and spring the trap with 5 ... Bxf2+! 6 Kxf2 Nxe4+ etc. But White avoids Black's trap, with 5 Bxf7+ Ke7 6 Bc4. If Black were to try 6 ... Bxf2+, White would have an even better position.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2022-11-09. Score: 8 | Accepted answer
  
  After **1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5**, now **4....Bc5** is a mistake by Black. If White goes **5. Nxf7** then following up with **5...Bxf2+** is the best move in that position, so definitely far from a blunder. Maybe the engine is running at a low depth or you may have made some error when inserting the position.
  
  Anyway engines don't classify moves as "blunders", they just return a number as the position's evaluation. chess.com classifies moves according to those numbers into different categories (blunder, brilliant move, inaccuracy and so on...) but you shouldn't pay too much attention to those since they're arbitrary categorizations of something that exists on a continuum.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2022-11-11. Score: 2
  
  There is much inconsistency in the way this question is posed. The Fried Liver is associated with 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd Nxd5 6. Nxf7 (a sacrifice) The Traxler is associated with 4.Ng5 Bc5 and now perhaps 5. Nxf7 (a grab of material) In the first case Bxf2+ is not possible, so OP must be asking about the second case, when 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ has always been regarded as the correct play and White usually declines with 6.Kf1.
  
  The alternative in the Traxler of 5.Bxf7+ has always been regarded as safer although not necessarily stronger. Beliavsky held the resulting position against both Karpov and Anand, drawing with Karpov and even winning when Anand blundered. AFIK, theory has not yet spoken the last word.
  
  
  ---
  
  