Italian Game Anti-Fried Liver Defense (Part 2)

Do you like kibitzers?

Neither do I.

They always know the moves you should have played, the moves your opponent could have played, and they're never shy about sharing all of that.

There is a world of difference between kibitzing and annotating, despite their allegedly similar goals.

I mention all this because after Welton Vaz ("Gandybh" at Chess.com) completed his Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) treatment of the Semi-Italian Opening (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6) (see "Italian Game Anti-Fried Liver Defense Part 1"), he submitted it for analysis to the computer at Chess.com.

The result was surely educational, but it was also relentless. I chuckled my way through the game – it was a fun, exciting, typical Semi-Italian Jerome Gambit – because of the computer's notes. A computerized kibitzer – what will they think of next?

Gandybh - sqerl
Chess.com, 2009

0% (1270) - 0% (1243) [C55]
Live Chess Chess.com, 16.11.2009
[Chess.com Computer Analysis]

Inaccuracies(?!): 8 = 22.9% of moves
Mistakes(?): 3 = 8.6% of moves
Blunders(??): 3 = 8.6% of moves

1.e4 (Book Move) e5 (Book Move) 2.Nf3 (Book Move) Nc6 (Book Move) 3.Bc4 (Book Move) 3...h6 (+0.78)

4.Bxf7+??

(-2.32) BLUNDER - Oh no - a blunder! You should have played 4. O-O [BEST MOVE (+0.77) 4.0-0 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.Nxd4 Ne5 7.Bb3 Bc5 8.Nc3 0-0 9.f4 Bxd4+ 10.Qxd4 Nc6 11.Qc5 Kh8±;

BLUNDER (-2.32) 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.0-0 Nf6 6.d3 Bb4 7.a3 Ba5 8.Nc3 Bxc3 9.bxc3 d5 10.exd5 Nxd5 11.Bd2-+]

(I prefer to play something like 4.0-0 and wait for 4...Bc5 before sacrificing my Bishop, but Gandybh is a braver man than I am. Still, we have seen 4.Bxf7+ on this blog before: perrypawnpusher - marapr, blitz FICS, 2007 and Fuller - Vallance-Gallant, Women's Open Championship of Canada ICCF, 2008 – Rick)

4...Kxf7 (-2.33)

5.Nxe5+? (-4.91) MISTAKE - Your position is getting even worse - you are now losing. The best line was 5. O-O [BEST MOVE (-3.04) 5.0-0 Nf6 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.d3 Bxc3 8.bxc3 d6-+;

MISTAKE (-4.91) 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Nc6 7.0-0 Qh4 8.Nc3 Nf6 9.Qd3-+]

5...Nxe5 (-4.91)

6.Qh5+?!

(-5.18) INACCURACY - Perhaps better was 6. O-O [BEST MOVE (-4.80) 6.0-0 Ng6 7.d4 d6 8.Qf3+ Nf6 9.Qb3+ Be6 10.Qxb7 Be7-+;

INACCURACY (-5.18) 6.Qh5+ Ng6 7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.0-0 Qg5 9.Nc3 Nf4 10.Qxg5 hxg5-+]

6...Ng6 (-5.18) 7.Qd5+ (-5.26) 7...Ke8 (-5.31)

8.0-0 (-5.32) 8...Qe7 (-4.83) 9.Nc3 (-4.80) 9...c6 (-4.41) 10.Qf5 (-4.50) 10...Ne5 (-4.11)

11.d4 (-3.94) 11...d6 (-3.85) 12.Qf4 (-4.10) 12...Ng4 (-4.03)

13.f3 (-3.43) 13...Nxh2?

(-2.03) MISTAKE - Your opponent made a mistake! Better was 13... g5 [BEST MOVE (-3.49) 13...g5 14.Qg3 N4f6 15.e5 dxe5 16.dxe5 Qc5+ 17.Kh1 Nd5-+;

MISTAKE (-2.03) 13...Nxh2 14.Qxh2 Be6 15.d5 cxd5 16.Nxd5 Bxd5 17.exd5-+]

14.Kxh2?! (-2.80) INACCURACY - Things are looking up! You're still losing, but you're better off than before. [BEST MOVE (-1.99) 14.Qxh2 Kd8 15.e5 Bf5 16.Bf4 dxe5 17.dxe5 Kc7-+;

INACCURACY (-2.80) 14.Kxh2 Nf6 15.Kh1 Be6 16.e5 Nd5 17.Nxd5 Bxd5 18.exd6 Qxd6-+]

14...g5 (-2.60) 15.Qg3 (-2.83) 15...Bd7 (-2.14)

16.Be3?!

(-2.86) INACCURACY - Perhaps better was 16. e5 [BEST MOVE (-2.28) 16.e5 Qe6 17.Ne4 d5 18.Nc3 Qf5 19.Be3 Qxc2-+;

INACCURACY (-2.86) 16.Be3 Nf6 17.Kg1 Bg7 18.Rad1 Rf8 19.d5 cxd5 20.Nxd5 Nxd5 21.Rxd5-+]

16...Bg7 (-2.86)

17.Rh1?! (-3.52) INACCURACY - Your position is getting even worse - you are now losing. The best line was 17. a4 [BEST MOVE (-2.99) 17.a4 Nf6 18.Kh1 Nh5 19.Qh2 Nf4 20.g3 Nh3-+;

INACCURACY (-3.52) 17.Rh1 Nf6 18.a4 Nh5 19.Qf2 g4 20.fxg4 Bxg4-+]

17...Nf6 (-3.51)

18.Kg1?!

(-3.82) INACCURACY - Perhaps better was 18. Rhe1 [BEST MOVE (-3.50) 18.Rhe1 Nh5 19.Qf2 Kd8 20.g4 Nf4 21.Bxf4 gxf4-+;

INACCURACY (-3.82) 18.Kg1 Nd5 19.Kf2 Nxc3 20.bxc3 Rf8 21.Ke1 d5-+]

18...Kd8 (-3.55)

19.a4?! (-4.31) INACCURACY - Perhaps better was 19. Re1 [BEST MOVE (-3.51) 19.Re1 Nh7 20.e5 dxe5 21.dxe5 Bxe5 22.Bb6+ axb6 23.Rxe5-+;

INACCURACY (-4.31) 19.a4 Nd5 20.Nxd5 cxd5 21.Kf2 dxe4 22.c4 Kc7-+]

19...Ne8? (-3.17) MISTAKE - Your opponent made a mistake! Better was 19... Nd5 [BEST MOVE (-4.13) 19...Nd5 20.Kf2 Nxe3 21.Kxe3 Kc7 22.Ne2 h5 23.Kd2-+;

MISTAKE (-3.17) 19...Ne8 20.a5 g4 21.fxg4 Nf6 22.g5 Nxe4 23.Nxe4 Qxe4 24.gxh6 Bxd4 25.Bxd4 Qxd4+-+]

20.b4?! (-3.59) INACCURACY - Perhaps better was 20. a5 [BEST MOVE (-3.17) 20.a5 g4 21.fxg4 Nf6 22.g5 Nxe4 23.Nxe4 Qxe4 24.gxh6 Bxd4 25.Bxd4 Qxd4+-+;

INACCURACY (-3.59) 20.b4 d5 21.Qe1 Qxb4 22.Rb1 Qc4 23.e5 Kc7-+]

20...c5?

(-2.52) MISTAKE - Your opponent made a mistake! Better was 20... Qe6 [BEST MOVE (-3.98) 20...Qe6 21.Na2 Qc4 22.Qf2 Kc7 23.Rh2 Nf6 24.a5-+;

MISTAKE (-2.52) 20...c5 21.bxc5 dxc5 22.e5 cxd4 23.Bxd4 Qb4 24.Qf2-+]

21.Nd5 (-2.87) ALTERNATIVE - Things are looking up! You're still losing, but you're better off than before. [BEST MOVE (-2.72) 21.bxc5 dxc5 22.e5 cxd4 23.Bxd4 Qb4 24.Rd1 Bxa4 25.Be3+ Bd7-+;

ALTERNATIVE (-2.87) 21.Nd5 Qf7 22.c3 cxb4 23.cxb4 Be6 24.Rc1 Bxd5 25.exd5 Qxd5-+]

21...Qe6 (-3.04) 22.bxc5 (-2.66) 22...dxc5 (-2.55)

23.c3?

(-3.41) MISTAKE - Your position is getting even worse - you are now losing. The best line was 23. Rd1 [BEST MOVE (-2.39) 23.Rd1 Bxa4 24.dxc5 Kc8 25.Nb4 Bc3 26.Bd4 Qd7-+;

MISTAKE (-3.41) 23.c3 Bc6 24.Bxg5+ hxg5 25.Qxg5+ Kc8 26.Rxh8 Bxh8 27.dxc5 Be5-+]

23...cxd4 (-2.44) 24.cxd4 (-2.48) 24...g4 (-1.80) 25.Qh4+ (-2.19) 25...Nf6 (-2.19)

26.Bf4 (-2.33) 26...gxf3 (-1.96)

27.gxf3?!

(-1.96) INACCURACY - Perhaps better was 27. Be5 [BEST MOVE (-1.51) 27.Be5 Rf8 28.gxf3 Rc8 29.Rh2 Qf7 30.Rg2 h5-+;

INACCURACY (-1.96) 27.gxf3 Rc8 28.Rh2 Rg8 29.Rg2 Bc6 30.Bxh6 Bxh6 31.Nxf6-+]

27...Rc8 (-1.95)

28.a5?

(-3.12) MISTAKE - Your position is getting even worse - you are now losing. The best line was 28. Rh2 [BEST MOVE (-1.92) 28.Rh2 Rg8 29.Rg2-+;

MISTAKE (-3.12) 28.a5 Bc6 29.Nb4 Qc4 30.Nxc6+ Rxc6 31.Be5 Qe2 32.d5-+]

28...Bc6 (-2.49)

29.Nxf6??

(-4.82) BLUNDER - Oh no - a blunder! You should have played 29. Ne3 [BEST MOVE (-2.39) 29.Ne3 Ke8 30.d5 Nxd5 31.exd5 Bxd5 32.Qh5+ Qf7 33.Nxd5 Bxa1 34.Bxh6-+;

BLUNDER (-4.82) 29.Nxf6 Bxf6 30.Qf2 Rg8+ 31.Bg3 Qd6 32.e5 Rxg3+ 33.Qxg3 Qxd4+ 34.Kh2 Bxe5-+]

29...Bxf6 (-5.75) 30.Qf2 (-5.89) 30...Rg8+ (-5.96) 31.Kf1 (-5.96)

31...Bb5+??

(-4.78) BLUNDER - Lucky you! Your opponent blundered! The best move was 31... Qc4+ [BEST MOVE (-8.63) 31...Qc4+ 32.Qe2 Qb3 33.Bg5 hxg5 34.Kg2 Bxd4 35.Rad1 Qc3-+;

BLUNDER (-4.78) 31...Bb5+ 32.Ke1 Qb3 33.Bd2 Rc3 34.Rxh6 Rxf3 35.Rxf6 Rxf2 36.Rxf2-+]

32.Ke1 (-4.78)

32...Ke8??

(-3.43) BLUNDER - Lucky you! Your opponent blundered! The best move was 32... Qb3 [BEST MOVE (-6.23) 32...Qb3 33.Bd2 Bg5 34.f4 Qd3 35.Rh2 Qxe4+ 36.Qe3 Qxe3+-+;

BLUNDER (-3.43) 32...Ke8 33.d5 Bc3+ 34.Bd2 Qe5 35.Rd1 Bxd2+ 36.Qxd2 h5 37.d6-+]

33.Rxh6??

(-12.62) BLUNDER - Oh no - a blunder! You should have played 33. d5 [BEST MOVE (-3.44) 33.d5 Bc3+ 34.Bd2 Bxd2+ 35.Qxd2 Qe5 36.Rb1 Ba6 37.Qe3 Qg3+ 38.Qf2-+;

BLUNDER (-12.62) 33.Rxh6 Qc4 34.Bg5 Qc3+ 35.Qd2 Qxa1+ 36.Qd1 Qxa5+ 37.Kf2 Bxg5 38.Rh7-+]

33...Rd8??

(-0.59) BLUNDER - Lucky you! Your opponent blundered! The best move was 33... Qc4 [BEST MOVE (-20.06) 33...Qc4 34.Bg3 Qc3+ 35.Qd2 Qxa1+ 36.Qd1 Rc1 37.Kf2 Rxd1 38.Be5-+;

BLUNDER (-0.59) 33...Rd8 34.Rc1 Rf8 35.Be5 Qe7 36.Bxf6 Rxf6 37.Rh8+ Rf8³]

34.Rc1 (-1.52)

34...Bxd4??

(+10.00) BLUNDER - Lucky you! Your opponent blundered! The best move was 34... Qe7 [BEST MOVE (-2.47) 34...Qe7 35.Qh2 Qb4+ 36.Bd2 Bh4+ 37.Rxh4 Qxd4 38.Rg4 Rxg4 39.fxg4 Qxe4+ 40.Kd1 Qxg4+-+;

BLUNDER (+10.00) 34...Bxd4 35.Rxe6+ Kf8 36.Be3 Kf7 37.Bxd4 Kxe6 38.Qa2+ Ke7 39.Bc5+ Kd7 40.Qd5+ Kc8 41.Bxa7++-]

35.Rxe6+ (+10.84)

35...Kf7?

(+12.14) MISTAKE - Your opponent made a mistake! Better was 35... Kf8 [BEST MOVE (+10.84) 35...Kf8 36.Be3 Kf7 37.Rh6 Be5 38.f4 Bb8 39.Rh7+ Rg7 40.Rxg7+ Kxg7 41.Bxa7 Bxa7 42.Qxa7+-;

MISTAKE (+12.14) 35...Kf7 36.Rc7+ Bd7 37.Qxd4 Kxe6 38.Qd6+ Kf7 39.Rxd7+ Rxd7 40.Qxd7+ Kg6 41.Qxb7+-]

36.Rc7+ (+12.38)

36...Kxe6?

(+Mat04) MISTAKE - Your opponent made a mistake! Better was 36... Kf8 [BEST MOVE (Mat09) 36...Kf8 37.Bh6+ Rg7 38.Bxg7+ Bxg7 39.Qc5+ Kg8 40.Rxg7+ Kh8 41.Rh7+ Kxh7 42.Qe7+ Kh8 43.Rh6+ Kg8 44.Rg6++-;

MISTAKE (+Mat04) 36...Kxe6 37.Qa2+ Bc4 38.Qxc4+ Rd5 39.Qxd5+ Kf6 40.Qf7#+-]

37.Qa2+ (+Mat04) 37...Kf6 (+Mat01) 38.Qf7# (+Mate) WHITE WINS 1-0

The computer's comments remind me of something a friend would say whenever we finished a chess game: "I was winning, you know" and I would reply "Yes, you were winning – right up to the point where you had to resign."

Italian Game Anti-Fried Liver Defense (Part 1)

Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member Welton Vaz sends us a Chess.com link to an enjoyable discussion on the play of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 – known on this site as the "Semi-Italian Opening" (after Euwe) – as a way of avoiding the Fried Liver Attack 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Nxf7

Although one of the Chess.com posters complained about 3...h6 "I hate when players play this as it is an insult to the Italian" there was no suggestion on the website, either in the discussion or the related 21 games given, that White could return the "insult" of 3...h6 by transposing to the Jerome Gambit with, say, 4.0-0 Bc5 5.Bxf7+.

Of course Welton sent one of his games where he provided that "insult" – which we will see in "Italian Game Anti-Fried Liver Defense (Part 2)".

By the way, Grandmaster Boris Alterman has a 6-part series on the Fried Liver Attack on his website, along with instruction on a whole list of gambits, including the Danish, Evans, Max Lange and Morra.

I note that Alterman has two books forthcoming, one on gambits with White and one on gambits with Black. Of the first, he writes

The Alterman Gambit Guide: White Gambits is both an opening book and an instructive manual. Sharpen your tactics and learn to play dynamic attacking chess while studying the most entertaining gambits. Lines covered include:Evans Gambit, Panov Attack, Morra Gambit, Philidor, Danish Gambit, Urusov Gambit, Morphy Attack, Cochrane Gambit, Max Lange Attack, Fried Liver Attack and Milner-Barry Gambit

For those who like their liver fried, there is also a book by NM Dan Heisman on The Computer Analyzes the Fried Liver / Lolli.

Half-way There

I seem to be playing against the Blackburne Shilling Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4) a lot, lately. I'm not sure why – probably just coincidence. I'm still giving it the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) treatment, though.

perrypawnpusher - mbranimir
blitz 12 0, FICS, 2009

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nd4

4. Bxf7+ Kxf7 5. Nxe5+ Ke8

6.Qh5+ g6 7. Nxg6

Black usually plays 7...hxg6 here, although I've also faced 7...Nf6. My opponent now plays an interesting and logical move, first seen in perrypawnpusher - Iourotors, blitz FICS, 2009 (0-1, 37).

7...Nxc2+

This takes the Black Knight out of range of the White Queen. If, instead, 7...hxg6 then 8.Qxg6+ Ke7 9.Qg5+ Ke8 10.Qe5+ Qe7 11.Qxd4 Bg7 when White has 4 pawns for his sacrificed piece, in an unclear position.

8. Kd1 Nxa1

Sometimes half of a good plan turns out to be a bad plan after all. The proper move instead of the text was 8... hxg6, when everything is pretty unclear. Of course, White would always have 9.Qxg6+ Ke7 10. Qg5+ Ke8 11. Qg6+ etc, forcing the draw; or he could try 10.Kxc2 or 10.d3.

Certainly this line bears further investigation – but not today.

9. Nxh8+ Ke7 10. Qe5 checkmate

Tired

Lately my chess play has been sub-par, especially when playing the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) and related openings. I'm thinking not so much of my game against CorH, which was a decent affair, but of another loss that I'm still coming to terms with – and of the following game. Perhaps I've just been a bit tired lately.

perrypawnpusher -tiagorom
blitz 14 0, FICS, 2009

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. Bxf7+

4...Kxf7 5. Nxe5+ Nxe5 6. Qh5+ g6

As Blackburne played almost 125 years ago.

7. Qxe5 Nf6

Okay, not exactly like Blackburne. Blackburne played 7...d6 and got a complicated game and a crushing victory. Whistler played 7...Qe7 and got the same.

I've been here before, and quite possibly my opponent has not.

8. Qxc5 d6 9. Qd4

An experiment I probably won't repeat.

Previously: 9.Qe3
a) 9...Re8 10.d3 Kg7 11.0-0 d5 12.Qh6+ Kg8 13.exd5 Nxd5 14.Nc3 Nxc3 15.bxc3 Qf6 16.Bd2 Qg7 17.Rae1 Rxe1 18.Rxe1 Qxh6 19.Bxh6 Bf5 20.Re7 Rc8 21.Bf4 Kf8 22.Rxc7 Rxc7 23.Bxc7 Ke7 24.Kf1 Kd7 25.Be5 Kc6 26.Bd4 a6 27.c4 b5 28.cxb5+ axb5 29.a3 Be6 30.Ke2 Bd5 31.g3 Ba2 32.c3 Kd5 33.Ke3 Bb1 34.Bg7 Ba2 35.f4 Bb1 36.h3 Bc2 37.g4 Ke6 38.Ke4 Kf7 39.Bd4 h6 40.f5 g5 41.Kf3 Bxd3 42.Kg3 Be2 43.h4 Bd1 44.hxg5 hxg5 45.Be3 Kf6 46.Bb6 Ke5 47.Bd8 Ke4 48.Bxg5 Kd3 49.Bf6 Kc4 50.g5 Kb3 51.g6 Bh5 52.Kf4 Kxa3 53.Kg5 Bd1 54.Kh6 Bb3 55.Kg7 b4 56.cxb4 Kxb4 57.Kf8 Kc5 58.Be7+ Kd5 59.f6 Ke5 60.g7 Kf5 61.g8Q Bxg8 62.Kxg8 Kg6 63.f7 Black resigned, perrypawnpusher - Alternative, blitz FICS, 2005;
b) 9...Qe7 10.d3 Be6 11.0-0 b6 12.Nc3 Rae8 13.f4 Ng4 14.Qf3 h5 15.f5 gxf5 16.exf5 Bd7 17.Bd2 Nf6 18.Rae1 Qf8 19.Rxe8 Qxe8 20.Re1 Qd8 21.Bg5 Rg8 22.Bxf6 Qxf6 23.Qd5+ Kg7 24.Qf3 Rf8 25.Qg3+ Kh8 26.Qe3 Qxf5 27.Qd4+ Rf6 White forfeited on time, perrypawnpusher - MsD, blitz FICS, 2007;
c) 9...Be6 10.0-0 Rf8 11.Nc3 Kg7 12.d3 c5 13.f4 Ng4 14.Qg3 Rc8 15.f5 gxf5 16.h3 f4 17.Bxf4 Rxf4 18.Rxf4 Qg5 19.Rxg4 Bxg4 20.Qxg4 Qxg4 21.hxg4 Kg6 22.Rf1 Rh8 23.Rf5 a6 24.Nd5 Black resigned, perrypawnpusher - brain50, JG3 thematic Chessworld, 2008;

9...c5 10.Qd3 Re8

Black has been avoiding grabbing a pawn  ...Nf6xe4 (to be answered by 0-0) perhaps because he didn't see it. 

11.f3 d5 12.Nc3 dxe4 13.Qxd8 exf3+

This is a tactical oversight that should lose a Rook to the simple 14.Qxe8+. My response was a blunder – so much so that my opponent spent some time trying to figure it out, as he had seen his own error, as often sadly happens, right after playing it.

14.Kf2 Rxd8 15.gxf3

Sadly, my advantage is now just one paltry pawn, which could now be minimized further by the accurate 15...c4.

There was nothing left to do but try to make something of the pawn.

15...Bf5 16.d3 Re8 17.Bg5 a6 18.Ne4 Bxe4 19.fxe4 c4

20.Rhf1 Kg7 21.Bxf6+ Kxf6 22.Kg3+

Probably 22.Ke3+ was a bit better.

22...Kg7 23.Rf2 b5 24.Raf1 Rad8

25.Rf7+ Kh8 26.R1f3 h5 27.Ra7 Ra8 28.Rxa8 Rxa8 29.d4

The win is pretty straight-forward now.

29...Kg7 30.e5 Rf8 31.Rxf8 Kxf8 32.Kf4 Kf7 33.Kg5 a5 34.d5

34...b4 35.b3 c3 36.h4 Kg7 37.e6 Kf8 38.Kxg6 Ke7 39.Kxh5 Kd6 40.Kg6 Kxd5 41.e7 Black resigned

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.

Inspired by the Jerome Gambit: A True Story

I found the following game on the ChessKnot.com website, annotated by the winner. I've added a few notes, but mostly I'll let the game and the player of the White pieces speak for themselves.

csxrook  - bru39
Annotated by: csxrook
Chess opening: King's pawn game (C50)
GameKnot

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6

I saved this game because it was an experimental game that worked, 5.b4 was the first time I ever implemented a successful gambit on the spur of the moment and linked it together to win this blitz game in under 60 seconds.

This move seemed a bit peculiar to me as it was preempting my dark-squared bishop from sitting at g5 w/o even knowing if I had planned to fianchetto it to b2. Plus it neglected development of the pieces.

4.Nc3 Nge7

Poor move, IMO, as it blocks in the bishop & queen, prolonging development & castling.

5.b4

Noticing a familiar setup and lack of developed pieces, I offer the pawn to draw the knight away from protecting e5, with a certain surprise awaiting.

5....Nxb4

He takes!

6.Bxf7+

Combined with a sacrifice I learned from the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+), except now there's no pesky knight covering the e5 pawn!

6...Kxf7 7.Nxe5+ Ke8

7...Kg8 would have held out longer 

[After 7...Kg8 Black has the usual beginning Jerome Gambit advantage, whereas after the text, he is busted. - Rick]

8.Qh5+

[I hate to interrupt the Jerome Gambit flow here, but the quickest kill was 8.Qf3 first then: 8...Nf5 9.Qh5+ Ke7 10.Nd5+ Kd6 and Black loses his Queen to 11.Nf7+ - Rick]


8...g6 9.Nxg6 Nxc2+

[Tempting, but Black should instead reinforce g6 with 9...Rg8 so that after 10.Nh4+ he can block with 10...Ng6, for example: 11.Nxg6 Qg5 12.Qxg5 hxg5 - Rick]


10.Kf1

I moved away from the knight in hopes of sacrificing the inactive rook for another critical tempo.

10...Nxg6

mate in 2...

11.Qxg6+ Ke7

stalemated king

12.Nd5

Mate