perrypawnpusher - vladchess
blitz, FICS, 2010
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6
Our one previous game was quite odd, a declined Busch-Gass Gambit: 2...Bc5 3. Bc4 f6 4.Nxe5 d6 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Nxg6 Kd7 7.Nxh8 Qe7 8.Qf7 Nc6 9.Be6+ Kd8 10.Qxg8+ Black resigned, perrypawnpusher - vladchess, blitz, FICS, 2010
3.Bc4 h6
The Semi-Italian Opening.
4.0-0 Nf6 5.Nc3
The Semi-Italian Four Knights Game.
My opponent hesitated before making his next move. Did he know that I was going to answer 5...Bc5 with 6.Bxf7+, the Semi-Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit? If he did, would that make him more or less likely to play 5...Bc5?
Instead, vladchess opted for the "fork trick". For a general overview of this maneuver, take a look at "Jerome Gambit vs Two Knights Defense (Part 3)".
5...Nxe4
Here I fell in with my opponent's plan.
6.Nxe4 d5 7.Bd3 dxe4 8.Bxe4 Bc5
The Bishop has taken a step too far, and this costs a pawn.
9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.Nxe5
Later, I grabbed a second pawn, and even later, a third, winning in 29 moves.
But – that hesitation at move 5. What was that all about?
Is there something about adding White's 0-0 and Black's ...h6 that changes the dynamics of the "fork trick"?
It turns out, there is. Instead of playing 6.Nxe4, White could have played the shocker 6.Nxe5!?.
Certainly now Black can continue with 6...Nxe5 and after 7.Re1 Be7 (or simply 7...d6) 8.Rxe4 d6 White will have the standard "plus over equals" edge that can come with the first move.
But what if Black mixes it up with 7...d5!? – and keeps playing crazy attacking moves?
8.Bxd5 Bg4 9.f3 Bc5+
10.d4 Bxf3 11.gxf3 Bxd4+ 12.Kg2
You know that things are getting tense for White when he has to play this "only" move.
12...Nxc3 13.Qxd4 Nxd5 14.Qxe5+ Kf8
Yes, Indeed, I am glad that I read and remembered that overview of the "fork trick", above, and decided to go that way, instead!
No comments:
Post a Comment