Jerome Gambit: Probably Had Nothing To Do With It

Unlike yesterday's game (see "Inspired by the Jerome Gambit: A True Story"), today's game likely had nothing to do with the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+). I present it because it's a fun, quick game – and it has that "evil" move 4.Bxf7+.


Pazderic, Nickola - Hosford, Michael
Washington Invitational, 2009
notes by Pazderic, from the June 2009 issue of Northwest Chess

I arrived at my table awake just enough to notice that Michael seemed a bit edgy,perhaps because he woke up to two losses and last place after two rounds. I thought I would try to unbalance the game immediately to cross him up. How does one do this? Well, I suppose most chess players who followed Fischer would agree:

1.e4!

Michael didn't think too long and replied:

1...Nc6!?

I was a bit relieved; for I was bleary eyed and, thus, not so sure I could handle one of the trickier black defenses any better than my opponent. (Is not, as Lasker said, "the threat stronger than the execution"?—of course, one must still be able to execute...)

I thought for a couple of seconds and rejected 2. d4, knowing Black would be very happy to advance d5 or e5 and either develop his king bishop early or maneuver his knight (after 3. d5) to g6 via e7—when he could test my center with f6 and c5. I also considered 2. Nc3, when White invites Black into a classical set up. In any case,
the Nimzowitsch defense is a little passive and, thus, a little dubious. To provoke the opponent into advancing too far too fast is one goal of this defense. I thought I might catch Black off guard if I reversed the strategy by playing:

2.Bb5

With this move, White invites Black to advance his pawns against the bishop but without any claim to the center, as in the Ruy Lopez. I also thought that should Black venture 2....d5, I could always chop the knight and play my queen to the weakened white squares via e2 for a slight edge. 2...e5 leads to the Ruy Lopez, and I doubted that any Nimzowitsch player would want that. 2...Nf6 is given by my chess engine as the main line; I'm sure I would have attempted 3. Nc3 in reply.

2...Nd4

Bam! The question is put to the bishop immediately. But also instantly I began to scheme of ways to push his knight back into weird positions with a timely c3. The first choice was the natural 3.Ba4, and after 3....b5, I thought White could try at once 4.c3! Then I had a brain wave, reasoning "If I play Bc4 and Black plays the audacious 3...b5, I can probably sac the bishop on f7." That seemed even more off kilter than the solid 3. Ba4, 4. c3 plan. So,

3.Bc4 b5   

Michael played this quickly and, as I thought, audaciously. I didn't really calculate much at this point. I simply saw that black must capture, expose his king to check via h5, and either put his king on f6 or open up his white squares (and the juicy targets on a8 and d4) with a dreary g6. So, merrily I played

4.Bxf7+

At this point Michael said something, which I do not recall, and tipped over his king. In disbelief, I quickly wrote 1-0 on my score sheet, turned and handed it to Fred Kleist, the Tournament Director, and left the commotion.three times; each time White won in 40-55 moves, as I recall. But in practical play, this is no guarantee.



Michael should not have resigned, as he told me the next day. The best plan is to play 5...g6 and to force White to take on d4 or a8 after 6. Qd5+. White has material, but Black can generate some counterplay against the queen. I had my engine play the position

I'm not really proud of this game. But I did use a little counter-psychology, as expressible within the 64 squares, to take advantage of a perceived temporary weakness in my opponent's psychologicalarmor. I am not sure that this is a good way to play generally, but it worked in this case.