My Drawn Simultaneous Exhibition Games Against GM Valentina Gunina, GM Vladimir Dobrov At the Start of 'The Chess Square 2026'

                                             

 My Drawn Simultaneous Exhibition Games Against

GM Valentina Gunina, GM Vladimir Dobrov

At the Start of 'The Chess Square 2026'

 

(by Yury V. Bukayev)

 

Dear readers, now I'd like to inform you briefly about my two recent very sharp drawn games against famous Grandmasters in their 15-board simultaneous exhibitions in Moscow. The official reports on these events are here: 

https://moscowchess.org/news/19321 ,

https://moscowchess.org/news/19338 .

Thus, here is the first of these games.

GM Valentina E. Gunina - Yury V. Bukayev

 simultaneous exhibition, Moscow, 2026,

June 6 ('The Chess Square 2026')

 

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 f5 4. d3 fxe4 5. dxe4 Nf6 6. O-O Bc5 7. Nc3 d6 8. Bg5 h6 9. Bxf6 Qxf6 10. Nd5 Qd8 11. b4 Bb6 12. Nxe5 dxe5 13. Qh5+ Kf8 14. Nxb6 axb6 15. f4 Be6 16. Rad1 Qe8 17. Qh4 Kg8 18. f5 Bf7 19. c3 Kh7 20. Rd3 Rd8 21. Rg3 Rg8 22. Rh3 Qf8 23. g4 Rd6 24. g5 Bxa2 25. Qf2 Bf7 26. Kh1 Kh8 27. Qg3 Qe8 28. Qe3 Qf8 Draw 

And here is the second of these games.

GM Vladimir V. Dobrov - Yury V. Bukayev

  simultaneous exhibition, Moscow, 2026,

   June 13 ('The Chess Square 2026')

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 a6 5. e3 b5 6. b3 Bg4 7. a4 bxc4 8. bxc4 e5 9. dxe5 Bb4 10. Bd2 Bxc3 11. Bxc3 Ne4 12. Qc2 Nd7 13. Be2 Qe7 14. O-O Nxc3 15. Qxc3 O-O 16. Rab1 Nxe5 17. Qxe5 Qxe5 18. Nxe5 Bxe2 19. Rfc1 dxc4 20. Nxc4 Rab8 21. Nb6 Bd3 22. Rb3 Rfd8 23. h4 Rd6 24. Rcc3 Rbd8 25. f3 f5 26. Kf2 Kf7 27. Rc5 Ke6 28. Rbc3 Rb8 29. a5 Bb5 30. Kg3 Rd2 31. h5 Rf8 32. Rc2 Rd3 33. Kf4 Ra3 34. Rxc6+ Draw 

We can see, Black played sharp gambits in both cases. It is interesting, in both cases White has made later a not good sacrifice. What role of chess psychology was here? I think, the role of psychology in maestro Valentina Gunina's main sacrifice 12. Nxe5 was not little, but the role of psychology in maestro Vladimir Dobrov's main sacrifice 34. Rxc6+ was enough little. 

Finally, let me show you some photos from these simultaneous exhibitions.

There is my move 5...Nf6 against GM Valentina Gunina:

There is her move 20. Rd3:

There is my move 24... Bxa2:

There is our final position:

There is a protocol of my game against Grandmaster Vladimir Dobrov with his signature in it (this protocol was enough wet at the end of the game because some rain-water was on our boards):

And here are the first minutes of GM Vladimir Dobrov's simultaneous exhibition (we play openings):

If you want, you could find more photos from this event on letochess.sport.mos.ru ('2026.06.13' folder).

Jerome Gambit: Drag the King

 

An Instagram video on the Jerome Gambit - or, at least the first dozen moves of a line - posted by "the_reject_club", has commentary that parallels the theme of this blog, and those who play the gambit

This is the Jerome Gambit — a 150 year old Italian Game trap that literally nobody at your rating knows how to handle. The king gets dragged out into the open and it's just pure chaos from there.

I can't stop playing this in blitz. It's too fun. The opponents always think they're winning until they're suddenly not.

 

Jerome Gambit: Declined

The other day, I was looking at the Jerome Gambit Declined, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kf8, with the help of the Stockfish 17.1 analysis engine. 

I noticed that the top four moves that the program recommended were three Bishop retreats (to d5, to c4, or to b3) and one Bishop exchange (5.Bxg8).

I also noticed that it's fifth choice (48 ply) - rated not much differently than the top four - was 5.b4.

Really? 

Searching through earlier blog posts, I found that in "Jerome Gambit: Two Hybrid Gambits (Part 1)" I had referred to 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.b4 as the Jerome Evans Gambit; so I guess that would make the relevant line in this post the Jerome Evans Gambit Declined.

Deeper digging turned up only two more relevant posts.

"Jerome Gambit: A Long Look At A Short Game" covered the Jerome Gambit declined, but did not mention 5.b4.

"Jerome Gambit for Dummies 2.0 (Part 3)" had one sentence that mentioned 5.b4 in the Jerome Gambit declined. It did refer Readers back to the first blog use of  the name, reversed: "The Evans Jerome Gambit".

On top of that, I could find no games in my over 129,000 game collection, The Database. 

The Lichess.org site has 30 games, with White scoring 63%. 

I guess I will start there.

Jerome Gambit: Heard To Be Believed

                                                             

My latest Google Alert sent me to the short video "Win In 9 Moves: Jerome Gambit!" by @ChessHomieOfficial.

It has to be seen to be believed.

Or, more accurately, heard.

The commentator yells, excitedly, the supposed moves of the Jerome Gambit, as they appear (allegedly) on a very strange chessboard (both ranks and files are lettered, neither numbered), with pieces set up, er, creatively - Is that Black with 9 pawns? Does he have 2 Kings? Is Black attacking in the Jerome? Does White have tripled pawns on the a-file (indicating at least 3 captures, but Black isn't missing that many)?

Checking out other videos by the same creator, I have to consider them more performance art than actual chess presentations.

Still, they bring a smile.

Jerome Gambit: And Yet... (Part 2)

                                             

Of course, it is possible to "improve" the Jerome "Face Palm Variation", mentioned in "Jerome Gambit: And Yet...(Part 1)".

To quote from "Jerome Gambit: Comfortable in the Calmer Game"

From "Jerome Gambit: The Improved Face Palm Variation?!"

Having taken a look at what I called the "Face Palm Variation" of the Jerome Gambit, I wondered if there was an "improved" variation, where White played an early d2-d4, so that his Knight could safely move to g5 with the support of his dark square Bishop.

I quickly recalled the game Wright -  Hunn, Arkansas,1874, played about a half year after Alonzo Wheeler Jerome published his first analysis of his gambit in the Dubuque Chess Journal. The game began 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4 exd4 5.Bxf7+.

The line was referred to as The Macbeth Attack on the Italian language website Sacchi64. It has a relationship to the Italian Gambit, (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4) as explored by Jude Acers and George S. Laven in their book The Italian Gambit and A Guiding Repertoire for White - 1.e4, (although they were not interested in Bxf7+)  as well as to the Lewis Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.d4) and the Von der Lasa Gambit, (1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Bc4 Bc5).

 But, I am not sure that I want to play the line - at least not yet. 

The Dubuque Chess Journal, November, 1874, referred to 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4 exd4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Ng5+ as"an unsound variation of Jerome's double opening".

That's good enough for me.

For now, at least.

     

Jerome Gambit: Uh, Maybe Next Time

                                                       

Today, I finally made it, again, to the very informal chess club that meets at a local library every-other-week.

I played three over-the-board games and won them all - none of them a Jerome Gambit, alas, as I had achieved earlier; in part because I had the Black pieces in two of the games.

Still, I was feeling rather Jerome-ish. All of the games ended with a checkmate.

My opponent in each game played some innocuous moves that gave me tempos that I then used in preparing and executing my attacks - something that was reinforced from playing the Jerome. This is likely a theme in some of your own Jerome Gambit games, as well.

I was guided by he maxim Three pieces and an attack; yet was happy to exchange Queens to eliminate a defender or to avoid slowing down my initiative.

True, I may get my (chess) clock cleaned* next time, but for now I feel just fine.

(*The idiom "getting your clock cleaned" means to be thoroughly defeated or beaten, often in a competitive context)

Jerome Gambit: And, Yet... (Part 1)

I thought that this blog had finished off this game's opening variation with posts like this, from "Jerome Gambit: I Tried", summarizing 

"Death of a Variation" was not the first time, but it was a not-so-subtle hint. That was followed by "Public Service Announcement" and "A Mention is Not an Endorsement". You might think that "Re-Inventing the Flat Tire" might do it. 

Even coming up with a specific name for the variation - "Jerome Gambit: The Face Palm Variation" didn't stamp it out.

Why all the fuss? Check out the following game.

deusmach - ggg_540

3 0 blitz, lichess.org, 2025

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Ng5+ 

Getting ahead of himself...

Remarkably, The Database has 851 games with this opening. Not so surprisingly, White scores 27%.

Admittedly, the average difference in rating betwen White and Black in this case is 90 points - in Black's favor - but the expectancy for the first player would still be about 40%.

The conclusion is obvious: avoid 5.Ng5+

5...Kf8 

Wait, wait, wait... What about 5...Qxg5?

6.O-O Qxg5 

Well, then...

7.Nc3 a6 8.d4

This is the idea behind 5.Ng5+: attack both the Bishop and the Queen. Had Black captured the Knight on move 5 (see above), he could have responded to 6.d4 with 6...Qxg2, but that Queen move, now, would be quite an error. 

8...exd4 9.Bxg5 Black resigned

Blitz games can be so cruel.