Dennis' thoughts on the Jerome Gambit are rather dismissive -- although he has been more than polite in his exchanges with me at his site.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+??... leaves White a piece down for no compensation whatsoever. Is there even a single trap for Black to fall into in the Jerome Gambit?
Interested readers might want to take a look at some of my earlier posts: this one on junk openings, and see here and here on the Jerome Gambit with the follow-up 5.Nxe5+, as in a well-known Blackburne game.
Ah, yes, Dennis, you are of course completely correct: on a good day the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+??) aspires to be known as a "junk opening," but likely still over-reaches!
It's value, such as it is, can be found in the enjoyment (mixed with horror) that some players have experienced while employing the Jerome in blitz, or using it as a way of giving odds to a weaker player.
It is in the latter case that the "justification" of the opening is found: no traps, just the acute discomfort the second player feels (until he reaches a certain level of skill, of course; then he is brimming with confidence and a desire to pocket the gifted full point) with a King out of place and that Big, Bad Queen on the prowl...
The position after 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ is no more "objectively" lost than the starting position in a game where White gives Knight, Rook or Queen odds.
My interest in the JG over the last few years has been of a historical nature — where did such a thing come from and in what manner did it survive?
1 comment:
I encourage eaders to stop by Dennis' enjoyable 49 minute video "Master Lesson - Improvisation in the Italian Game" at http://www.chessvideos.tv/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1464 for plenty of fun ideas after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 -- including looks at the Blackburne Shilling Gambit, the Wilkes Barre Variation, and even (at minute 33) the Jerome Gambit.
Post a Comment