Jerome Gambit: Rare Move, Indeed

According to The Database, White has played 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ in over 55,500 games.

Black has declined the Bishop in about 1,200 games - about 2% of the time.

In the following, older, game, Black's method is unusual enough - the move makes up 12% of the declined games, or about .3% of the Jerome Gambit games, in general. 

A comparatively rare move, indeed.

Wall, Bill - Guest28776850

internet, 2015

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Ke7 

The King would do better at f8.

5.Bxg8 Rxg8 6.d4 Black resigned

I suspect that has to be tied for Bill's shortest Jerome Gambit game.

If the game were to continue, Black would have to meet the threat of 7.Bg5+, to win the Queen. Either 6...h6, 6...g5 or 6...Kf8 would do that, leaving White to capture the Bishop at c5.

Back to Preschool

 

Today, I was back, again, at the very informal chess club that gathers at a local library.

A decade and a half earlier, in the post "A Return to Pre-School" I made the point

I think if the bodacious Blackmar Diemer Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxd4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3) can be referred to as a "high school for tactics" then the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) can at least be dubbed a "pre-school for tactics".

So, this afternoon, with a BDG* sharpened by my study of the "pre-school" that is the Jerome Gambit, I played sharp, sacrificial attacking chess, culminating in checkmating my opponent.

Then, I defended against the Grob opening (1.g4) and weasled my way through the game, grabbing pawns, until my opponent, totally unimpressed with my opening play (sound like some reactions to the Jerome Gambit?) hung a Rook... Not that he was intimidated or anything by my play - he made me play out my King + Queen vs his King endgame, just to see if I would slip into a stalemate.  

I didn't slip.

But I didn't get a Jerome Gambit today, either.

*- Checking my files, I note two Blackmar Diemer Gambits that I played 34  years ago, well before my interest in the Jerome Gambit. I lost both games.

 

Jerome Gambit: It'z PDV

If you were going to choose one game to illustrate the Jerome Gambit, which one would it be?

Of course, the Number 1 game filling that role appears to be
Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1885.

However It'z PDV's "#Guiccio piano: Jerome gambit" video shows something different.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5. Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 

This position is as old as Jerome - Brownson, Iowa, 1875 (1-0, 28).

7.Qd5+ 

A gentle "nudge".

7...Kf6 

Instead, life is safer on the 8th rank.

8.d4 

Not the best move, but the double threat is irresistable. (I have reached this position in 5 games - Rick)

Black sees one of them.

8...Bb6 9.Bg5 checkmate

By the way, 9.Qg5+, which will win the Queen, is superficially attractive; but after 9...Kf7 10.Qxd8 White's Queen will be trapped and soon won. You will have to take my word for it, as there are no such games in The Database.

A Reversed Reversed Jerome Gambit?!

                                   

I really was going to give the Busch-Gass Gambit a rest, but I ran into a video by Chess Pro @ChessPro912 (see "Jerome Gambit: Chess Pro" for an earlier mention on this blog, concerning the video "Jerome's Gambit Magic: Make Your Opponents Disappear") tantalizingly titled "Discover the POWER of Busch-Gass Gambit!".

It featured a game that got me scratching my head, so I took a deeper look.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 

So far, as advertised: the Busch-Gass Gambit.

3.Bc4 Nf6 

As National Master Graif recommended, as I reported, in "Reversed Jerome Gambit (Part 3)"

4.d4 

Transposing to a Petroff Defense or Center Game. The position was seen as early as Puller, Arthur Giles - Horne, Benjamin Worthy, British Chess Association Congress, Cambridge, 1860 (1-0, 44)

4...exd4 5.c3 

Sharper was 5.e5.

5...Nxe4 6.Bxf7+ 

Stockfish 16.1 sees this move as about 1/2 pawn riskier for White than the Jerome Gambit.

Does White's Bishop sacrifice turn the game into a kind of reversed, reversed Jerome gambit?

6...Kxf7 7.Ne5+ Kg8 8.cxd4 

White does not have much for his sacrificed piece.

8...Qh4 

I suppose that Black hopes that this aggressive move ends the game quickly - and it does, but not in the expected manner.

9.O-O 

White is temporarily cowed, but this does not last long.

9...Bxd4

For the moment, both  players overlook the possibility of checkmate.

Necessary was the defensive withdrawal, 9...Qf6, for an even game.

10.Qb3+ 

Back on track.

10...d5 11.Qxd5+ Be6 12.Qxe6+ Kf8 13.Qf7 checkmate

Reversed Jerome Gambit (Part 3)

                                                             

[continued from the previous post]

Another look at the Busch-Gass Gambit (a sort of reversed Jerome Gambit): FIDE Master William Graif (The Gambit Man) has a lot of great educational videos: 

"Busch-Gass Gambit: The GREATEST Gambit Ever?!"

"The Busch-Gass Gambit Is UNDECLINABLE!" 

"Busch-Gass Gambit Repertoire"

"Destroying Busch-Gass Gambit Deniers: FULL REPERTOIRE"

"Stockfish LOSES ITS MIND versus my Busch-Gass Gambit"

"I BEAT MITTENS WITH THE BUSCH-GASS GAMBIT (unassisted, no cheating)"

"SPICY and NEW: Busch-Gass Gambit Lines with f5!?"

(I wondered, maybe, someday, FIDE Master Graif will make a Jerome Gambit video? Indeed, he already did!)

Reversed Jerome Gambit (Part 2)

 

[continued from the previous post]

The previous post looked at the Busch-Gass Gambit as a reversed Jerome Gambit.  The focus was on 3.Nxe5, which raised, for me, the questions

This is all well and good, but what about 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Bc4 Bxf2!?+ or 3.Nc3 Bxf2+?

Very well. 

The earliest game in The Database with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Bc4 Bxf2!? features a player at redhotpawn.com who I have referred to, earlier, as "the King of Bxf7+" because of his use of that Bishop sacrifice in many openings, including, but certainly not limited to, double e-pawn lines. 

Dick Tracy - viejoasquerosos

RedHotPawn.com, 2006

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Bc4 Bxf2+ 4.Kxf2 d6 5.c3 c6 6.d4 Nf6 7.Bg5 Nxe4+ 8.Ke3 Nxg5 9.Nxg5 Qxg5+ 10.Kf2 exd4 11.Re1+ Kd8 12.Kg1 d5 13.Qxd4 Bh3 14.g3 Nd7 15.Bd3 Kc7 16.a4 h5 17.Na3 h4 18.Qf4+ Qxf4 19.gxf4 f5 20.Re7 g5 21.Rf7 Rhf8 22.Rxf8 Rxf8 23.Re1 gxf4 24.b4 Rg8+ 25.Kh1 Bg2+ 0-1

The earliest 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nc3 Bxf2+ game in The Database is

Vega3 - Kronos 

HCL-B1474, PlayChess.de, 2002

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nc3 Bxf2+ 4.Kxf2 c6 5.Nxe5 Qf6+ 6.Qf3 Qxe5 7.d3 Qc5+ 8.Be3 Qe7 9.Ke2 Nf6 10.Bg5 h6 11.Bh4 d6 12.h3 Qe5 13.g4 g5 14.Bg3 Qe6 15.Kd2 Nbd7 16.Bg2 b5 17.a3 Bb7 18.Rhe1 O-O-O 19.Re2 h5 20.e5 dxe5 21.Qf5 Rde8 22.Rae1 hxg4 23.Qxe6 Rxe6 24.hxg4 Nxg4 25.Be4 Rf6 26.Bg2 Re6 27.Ne4 f6 28.Bf3 Nh6 29.b4 Nf5 30.Bg4 Nxg3 31.Nxg3 Rd6 32.Ne4 Rd4 33.Bxd7+ Kxd7 34.Nxf6+ Ke6 35.Ne4 Rg8 36.Nc5+ Kd5 37.Rxe5+ Kd6 38.Nxb7+ Kc7 39.Nc5 Rg4 40.Re7+ Kb6 1-0

There certainly must be earlier examples of reversed Jerome Gambits - and I will continue to search - but I have not yet found them.

(Of course, I then checked lichess.org. The site had 1.5 million games with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Bc4 Bxf2+. It had "only" 604,000 games with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nc3 Bxf2+. Where to begin, where to begin...?)

Reversed Jerome Gambit (Part 1)

 

In a recent post, "Jerome Gambit: Oh, Never Mind...", I suggested

Maybe I need to work up a "reversed Jerome Gambit" 

Long-time Readers will have realized that at that point I was suffering from caffeine dificiency disorder. 

Of course I have taken a look at a "reversed Jerome Gambit."

I think that the first time that I mentioned "reversed" was in the post Jerome Gambit: Quick Finishes

Changing sides of the board, Jean_Kn plays a reversed Jerome Gambit, also know as the Busch-Gass Gambit or Chiodini's Gambit

Over time, that led to "Worth a Second Look... (Part 1)"

The opening 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 actually has a long pedigree. When J.H. Sarratt published his The Works of Damiano, Ruy-Lopez and Salvio on the Game of Chess in 1813, he noted Salvio's analysis of the line (from Il Puttino, altramente detto, il Cavaliero Errante, del Salvio, sopra el gioco de Scacchi, 1604), including the following (translated into modern algebraic notation)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.d4 Bb4+ (4...Bd6 5.f4 f7 6.Nc4 Qxe4+ 7.Kf2 Bxf4 8.Nc3 Qf5 9.Bd3 Qg5 10.Re1+; 4...d6 5.dxc4 Qxe5 6.cxd5 Qxe4+ 7.Be3 cxd6 8.Qxd6 Qxc2) 5.c3 Ba4 6.f3 f6 7.Nc4

Continuing in "Worth a Second Look... (Part 2)"

Rainer Schlenker refers to 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 (see "Worth a Second Look... (Part 1)") as the "Busch - Gass Gambit" in the May/June 1985 issue (pp. 69-71) of his magazine Randspringer.

He refers to analysis by Oskar Cordel in Führer durch die Schachtheorie (1888)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.d4 Bd6 (4...Bb6 5.Bc4!) 5.f4 f6 6.Nc4 Qxe4+ 7.Kf2 Bxf4 8.Nc3 Qf5 9.Bd3 Qg5 10.Re1+ Ne7 11.Kg1 Nbc6 12.Bxf4 Qxf4 13.Qh5+ Kf8 14.Re4 +/- / +-

and analysis included in Bilguer (1916)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.d4 Bd6 5.Nc3! Bxe5 6.Nd5 Qd6 7.dxe5 Qxe5 8.Bf4 Qxe4+ 9.Qd2

Schlenker, however, modifies the name that Bent Larsen gave to the line ("Busch-Gambit") in Larsen's Sharp Openings (in Danish) based on the game Baird - Busch, 15. Kongresses Deutchen Schachbundes, Nuremberg 1906. Sharp Openings included a portion of the game:

Baird,D - Busch 

Nuremberg, 1906

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Nf3 Qe7 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.d4 Nxe4 7.Nd5 Bb4+ 8.Bd2 Nxd2+ 9.Nxe7 Nxf3+ 10.Ke2 Nfxd4+ 11.Kd3 Bxe7 12.c3 Ne6 13.Kc2 0-0 14.g3 d5 15.Bd3 Rd8 16.f4 d4 17.f5 dxc3 18.fxe6 Nb4+ 19.Kxc3 Rxd3+ 20.Qxd3 Nxd3 21.exf7+ Kf8 22.Kxd3 Bf5+ 0-1

Schlenker adds the name "Gass" to the variation after the German master who had been playing the line in the 1970s and 1980s, and gives a few examples.

And, further in "Worth A Second Look...(Part 3)", where I wandered into Chiodini's Gambit

The most recent analysis of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 (see "Worth a Second Look (Part 1)" and "Worth a Second Look (Part 2)") is by NM Clyde Nakamura, in his very creative "The Search for Dragons & Mythical Chess Openings" column at Chessville. Nakamura refers to the line, after the additional 3.Nxe5 Nc6, as "Chiodini's Gambit" apparently so-named by a chessfriend-of-a-chessfriend. He gives earlier (1998) analysis by Stefano Vezzani and by Sverre Johnsen, and then gives a host of annotated games, including one by Busch and one by Gass.

For historical purposes, I can add that Otto Henshel, playing in the minor tournament of the 5th American Chess Congress of 1880, defended two games with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5, against A. T. Tompkins and against David Graham Baird, although both games continued 3.Bc4 d6.  

This is all well and good, but what about 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Bc4 Bxf2!?+ or 3.Nc3 Bxf2+? 

[to be continued]