Showing posts with label Wenman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wenman. Show all posts

Monday, January 29, 2018

Tidying Up - Or Messing Up?


Recently I was looking through long-time friend of this blog IM Gary Lane's 2012 "Trash or Treasure?" column, part of his at "Opening Lanes" efforts at Chess Cafe.

(Actually, I was looking at an old pdf file, stored on my phone - a phrase that would probably have been nearly meaningless when I first started this blog.)

I spotted some apparent confusion related to a Jerome Gambit game, and as I may have had a hand in causing it, I thought I'd try to do some unraveling.

From "Trash or Treasure?" 
...Finally, Mr. Kennedy pointed out a fairly recent game played by Scottish player Geoff Chandler. I have never met him, but I do know that Mr. Chandler has an excellent sense of humour and his old chess blog at Chandler Cornered was zany, thought provoking, and usually very funny. Therefore, the following game looks like a fabrication, but I am happy to be corrected in the future. Here is another Jerome Gambit game that is spectacular as always!
Chandler, Geoff - Dimitrov Todor
Blitz, Edinburgh, 2004
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+
This opening is ideally suited to blitz where you don't care whether you win or lose, but want to play something memorable.  
6...g6 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.O-O Nf6 10.Qd8!

Geoff is a decent club player and could have found this himself if the game was really played.* I still think it was more likely he was following the advice given in the previous Blackburne game, which has been copied up to this point. However, I did look up his old blog and found this comment "I recall about a year ago Todor and me had a dozen or so games playing 4.Bxf7+ at 5 minute chess in Bells." If you think he played a game inside an actual bell, then think again. He is referring to his chess club hosted at a local bar.  
10...Bh3 11.Qxc7+ Kg8
Here IM Lane gives 12.gxh3 and says
Instead 12.Qxb7 is winning, because12...Qg4 can be met by 13.Qb3+! (13.Qxa8+ Kf7 14.Qb7+ Kf8 15.e5? White should keep on checking, but this winning attempt backfires spectacularly upon 15...d5 and it turns out that Black wins.) 13...Kg7 Qxh3 and it is time for Black to put the pieces back into the box.  
Then 12...Qxh3 13.Qxb7 Qg4+ A draw by repetition beckons, but Mr. Kennedy assures me that Geoff went on to win.

 Actually, the game continued 12.Qxb7 Qg4 13.Qb3+ Kg7 14.Qxh3 and according to Chandler, White won.

How did the mixup in the moves of the game occur? I could have jumbled them when I emailed the game to IM Lane - if I actually sent it, as I can't find any record of that amongst our correspondence. (Gary might have made the slip, but is that likely? He's the professional, I'm the amateur.)

Anyhow, the Chandler - Dimitrov game and analysis can get pretty messy, so perhaps that was part of it.    

In support of that possibility, and a possible clue, it is worth looking at "Updating the Blackburne Defense (Part 2)" where I reference, among a number of things, Dennis Monokroussos's thoughts from about 7 years earlier about Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1884, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.O-O 

Dennis M's Chess Site
February 2, 2005
...But now, here's the puzzle. After 9...Nf6, Black has a substantial lead in development and several well-placed pieces ready to commence a feeding frenzy on the White kingside, yet had White found 10.Qd8, pinning the Black Nf6 to the queen on h4, it would have been Black needing to fight for his life! The following might be best play for both sides: 10.Qd8! Bh3 11.Qxc7+ (11.Qxa8? Qg4 12.g3 Qf3 forces mate) Kf8! (11...Kg8? 12.Qxb7 Qg4 13.Qb3+ and 14.Qxh3) 12.Qxb7 Qg4 13.Qxa8+ Kf7 14.Qb7+ Kf8 14.Qa8+ with a draw by perpetual check.  
When I first saw this game and was told about 10.Qd8, it seemed to me that Black just had to have something, but neither I nor my silicon friends have succeeded in proving a win or even an advantage for Black. Can any of my readers find something better for Black?

I can sympathize with Dennis - how can Black not win against the Jerome Gambit?? In a responding comment on his blog I shared
The line gets some analysis by Geoff Chandler and Todor Dimitrov on the former's hilarious website, Chandler Cornered http://www.chessedinburgh.co.uk/index.htm
It goes like this. (Notes by Chandler.)

10.Qd8 Bh3 Threatening simply Qg4 and Qg2 mate. 11.Qxc7+ Kf8 This is best. [In my Game v Todd he played the natural 11...Kg8 which allows a check on b3 12.Qxb7 Qg4 13.Qb3+ Kg7 14.Qxh3] 12.gxh3 forced [If 12.Qxb7 Qg4 13.Qxa8+ Kf7 (13...Kg7 14.e5 d5 15.exf6+ Kxf6 16.Qxd5) 14.e5 d5 15.e6+ (15.Qb7+ Be7 16.e6+ Kg7 17.Qxe7+ Kh6 18.d4+ Kh5) 15...Kg7 16.Qb7+ Kh6 17.d4+ Kh5 and Black mates on g2] 12...Qxh3 This appears to be the best. It keeps the attack rolling and keeps the draw in hand. Remember we are seeing if 10.Qd8 beats the Blackburne line. 13.Qxb7 Ng4 [Or 13...Qg4+ and ...Qf3+ drawing.] 14.Qxa8+ Kg7 15.Qb7+ Kg8 16.Qc8+ Kg7 17.Qd7+ Kg8 18.Qe8+ Kg7 19.Qe7+ Kg8 Black has to allow the draw else 18.Qe8+ Kg7 19.Qf7+ kh6 10.d4+ wins. So it appears 10.Qd8 draws.
Note in the above that the conclusion is that the game is drawn -- the same conclusion as you came to, although the particular line you give (12.Qxb7 instead of Chandler and Dimitrov's 12.gxh3) seems to tilt toward White.

In a later post Monokroussos added
(2) In my main line, Kennedy, citing analysis by Geoff Chandler and Todor Dimitrov, varies from my 12.Qxb7 with 12.gxh3, showing that it likewise draws after 12...Qxh3 13.Qxb7 Qg4+ 14.Kh1 Qf3+ etc. or 13...Ng4 14.Qxa8+ etc. (Note that Black can't escape the checks with 14...Ke7 15.Qb7+! Kf6?? [15...Kd8/e8/f8=] because of 16.e5+ followed by 17.Qg2.) 
(3) Chandler & Dimitrov also mention 12.Qxb7 and suggest it loses, but the culprit is not 12.Qxb7 but their 14.e5?, after which Black has a forced mate. 
Very interesting and I'm grateful to Kennedy for his comment...but my dream remains unfulfilled - can't Black win after 10.Qd8, somehow?

Readers, is this confusing enough for you? Above, I quote Monokroussos quoting me quoting Chandler...

I have put the moves to Chandler - Dimitrov, cited by Chandler, above, in italics. The move 12.gxh3, which IM Lane gives as part of the game, is actually part of Chandler's analysis after 11...Kf8, not 11...Kg8, as played in the game - although Chandler says in his note that the move 12.gxh3 is "forced" which may have made it look like it was played.

I muddied things even more by referring, in my comment to Monokroussos, to "Chandler and Dimitrov's 12.gxh3" - the move was from their analysis, as presented by Chandler, above, not their game; andy by referring to 12.Qxb7, the actual move in the game, as "the particular line you give". Monokroussos seems to catch this, as indicated in his (2) note in the later post.

By the way, Monokroussos is right in note (3) in correcting Chandler's analysis (which I had provided) that after 10.Qd8 Bh3 11.Qxc7+ Kf8 12.Qxb7 White does not lose - after 12...Qg4 13.Qxa8+ Kf7 the move 14.e5 is "the culprit... after which Black has a forced mate". Instead, 14.Qb7+ Kf8 15.Qa8+ draws by repetition - as Monokroussos mentioned in his first post, after "...Now here's the puzzle." 

Still, Monokroussos doesn't escape completely. The later post, note (2), above, gives the sideline 12.gxh3 Qxh3 13.Qxb7 Ng4 [instead of 13...Qg4+, drawing] for Black, suggesting that after 14.Qxa8+ etc. the game is drawn as well - but White has, instead of grabbing the Rook, the forced Queen exchange after 14.Qb3+ (how un-Jerome-ish) 14...Qxb3 15.axb3 which leaves him a Rook and 3 pawns better.

Ah, yes, now everything now is as clear as... trash. 

(*- Chandler commented in Chandler Cornered about 10.Qd8 "This is my over the board improvement that I have since learnt was first suggested in 1951." I had told Chandler that P. Wenman mentioned the move in his Master Chess Play (1951). I later learned that the move had been played in Harris, S - Quayle, E., correspondence, 1944, although, of course, the move had been first suggested in the August 1885 issue of the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle.)

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

The Jerome Gambit Treatment - Unbelieveable! (A Bit More)


I found a few more examples of the opening line that we have been looking at in the last two posts (see "The Jerome Gambit Treatment - Unbelieveable!" and "The Jerome Gambit Treatment - Unbelieveable! (Addendum)"), including an over-the-board game with the defender declining the gambit.

The player of the White pieces in the following game is Francis Percival Wenman, who included the game in his 175 Chess Brilliancies (Pitman, London, 1947). The Chess Scotland and Yorkshire Chess History websites have information about him.


Wenman, P. - NN

Bristol, 1941

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 4.d4 




 White has responded to the Semi-Italian opening with a center pawn break. It is a good strategy, although it appears to rule out transposition to a Jerome Gambit, which could still be reached after 4.0-0 or 4.Nc3.


4...d6 5.dxe5 dxe5 6.Bxf7+ Ke7




Wenman applies the "Jerome solution" (although it is not known if he was aware of the Gambit) and his opponent says "No, thank you."


7.Bd5 Nf6 8.0-0 Bg4 9.c4 Nd4 10.b3 c6





Black has trapped the enemy Bishop and it looks like its demise will give the defender the advantage. White, however, has a surprise for his opponent.

11.Nxe5 Bxd1 12.Ba3+ Ke8 13.Bf7 checkmate




A "miniature" where a Queen sacrifice leads to checkmate. Brilliant!

Or is it?


What if we go back to Black's 10th move, and we go after the White King first with 10...Nxf3+!? 11.gxf3 Bh3 ? (This is not a hard idea to find.) White's Rook is attacked, and if he moves it, Black still has the chance to trap the advanced Bishop. If White offers the exchange with 12.f4!? (as an example) the play becomes sharp, but balanced, with both sides having chances in a complicated position. This would be very exciting play, but not necessarily a "brilliancy" for White.


It is also clear that on his 12th move, in order to avoid mate, Black has to return his Queen with 12...Qd6 13.Bxd6+ Kxd6, entering a tactical mess where he has chances to survive. Stockfish 6 tries to help with 14.Nf7+ Ke7 15.Rxd1 Rg8 16.Rxd4 cxd5 17.e5 Kxf7 18.exf6 Bb4 19.cxd5 Rge8 and it will be hard for White to hold onto his 3 extra pawns, e.g. 20.Rd1 Re2 21.a3 Rae8 22.Rf1 Bc5 23.Nc3 Rc2 24.b4 Rxc3 25.bxc5 Rxc5 26.fxg7 Rxd5 27.Rab1 b6 28.Rbc1 Re7 29.Rfd1 Rxd1+ 30.Rxd1 Kxg7. White will probably prevail in this Rook + 4 pawns vs Rook + 3 pawns, but the brilliancy has evaporated.


Saturday, April 7, 2012

A Few More Books







Continuing from yesterday's post, a few more books that touch on the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) include

Master Chess Play (1951), Percy Wenman

An Invitation to Chess A Picture Guide to the Royal Game (1945), Irving Chernev and Kevin Harkness

200 Miniature Games of Chess (1942), Julius du Mont


It is fun to present Wenman's take on the classic game Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1885. Why such begrudging praise for Blackburne's checkmating combination? Would it have been appropriate to mention that 10.Qd8 actually would save White?

"Jerome Opening"

Amateur - J.H. Blackburne

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

One of the most unsound of all openings.

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

A sporting reply, but 6...Kf8 7.Qxe5 d6 is all that is required to give Black a won game.

7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qxh8 Qh4

Now it is Black who gets all the fun.

9.0-0 Nf6 10.c3

White plays weakly. The only move that was of any use is 10.Qd8.

10...Ng4 11.h3 Bxf2+ 12.Kh1 Bf5

A pretty mating combination which has, of course, in varous ways occurred many times.

13.Qxa8 Qxh3+ 14.gxh3 Bxe4 checkmate

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Firsts



An exchange of emails with Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member Pete Banks ("blackburne"):



Hi Rick,

Not sure if I mentioned this, but one of my Internet wins with the Jerome is in Gary Lane's book The Greatest Ever Chess Tricks and Traps .

I wonder if this is the first publication of a complete Jerome game in book form?

Pete





Hi Pete,


I've got dibs on the review copy of Gary's book when it shows up at Chessville, so I'll be able to see your game in print with my own eyes. Congratulations all over again!


As for the first publication of a complete Jerome Gambit game in book form, I think your game is a rare item, but not the first.


Andres Clemente Vazquez included three Jerome Gambits from his second match with William Carrington in his book Algunas Partidas de Ajedrez (1876); and he shared his game against L. Giraudy in the 2nd & 3rd editions of his Analisis del juego de ajedres: libro a propositio para que pueda aprender dicho juego, el que lo ignore del todo, in necesidad de maestro (1885, 1889). (Not in the 1st edition, mind you: it was published in 1874, the first year that the Jerome Gambit saw print.)


Of course, the infamous game Amateur - Blackburne, London 1885, appeared in Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess (1899), and thereafter in numerous books, including Handbuch des Schachspiels - 8th ed (1916); Du Mont's 200 Miniature Games of Chess (1942); Chernev and Harkness' An Invitation to Chess A Picture Guide to the Royal Game (1945); and Wenman's Master Chess Play (1951).


More recently, Eric Schiller has included Amateur -Blackburne in his Unorthodox Chess Openings (1998, 2002) and Gambit Chess Openings (2002); and, with John Watson, his Survive and Beat Annoying Chess Openings (2003).


Hope that isn't rain on your parade -- your game appears to be the first game from this century and the past one to appear in book form, as far as I know. Good enough?


Best wishes,


Rick