As mentioned in "'Tis A Puzzlement..." the line 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Bxf7+ has sometimes been referred to as the Jerome Gambit, most notably in a couple of passages by Gerald Abrahams.
The Chess Mind (1951)
Gerald Abrahams
...Objectively regarded, every winning position, and every losing position, is an unbalanced position; a position in which a player has a great advantage in tempo, or in space, or in the capacity to bring great force to bear effectively on a given point. But these characteristics are not easy to assess while the game is in progress. An undeveloped position should not yield a winning attack. Yet it often does. In point is any one of a thousand Muzio Gambits at odds. In these violent openings it is always the case that White is undeveloped. So is Black. But the relative merits of what development there is can only be found by seeing all the more important lines of play. Chess opinion has convincingly condemned many extravagant unbalancing attacks, such as the once popular Jerome Gambit, (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Bxf7+), which yield the unbalancer nothing but loss against good defense.
The Pan Book of Chess (1965)
Gerald Abrahams
The Pianissimo form [of the Giuoco Piano] is 1.e4 e5... (But 2.Bc4 Bc5 can be played first and nobody in their right senses plays 3.Bxf7+ 3.BxPch, Jerome's Gambit.)...
It is fun to see if there are parallels between the "Abrahams Jerome Gambit" and the actual Jerome Gambit -- some knowledge might have proven helpful to the BlueEyedRook a few years back, for example.We'll leave hard core analysis for another time, and just look at some games.
magilla - seamus
net-chess.com 2003
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Bxf7+ Kxf7 4.Qh5+ g6 5.Qxe5 d6
A Rook sacrifice similar to NN - Blackburne, 1885 (see "Nobody expects the Jerome Gambit!", "Flaws (Part I)", "Flaws (Part II)", "The Joy of Discovery (Part I)" and others) – but does it work??
In this game White arrives at an overwhelming position, only to fritter it away, move-by-move, until he is losing – and then lost.
6.Qxh8 Qh4
6...Qe8 7.Qxh7+ Kf8 8.Nc3 ( 8.d3 Qf7 9.Qxf7+ Kxf7 10.Nf3 Nf6 11.0-0 Nc6 12.c3 Ne5 13.Ng5+ Kg8 14.d4 Nxe4 15.Nxe4 Nf3+ 16.gxf3 Bb6 17.Na3 Bh3 18.Nc4 d5 19.Nf6+ Kg7 20.Nxd5 Be6 21.Nde3 Rf8 22.Nxb6 axb6 23.Kg2 Rh8 24.Ng4 1-0 viejoasquerosos - Andrewtomlinson, redhotpawn.com 2006) 8...Qe6 9.d4 Bxd4 10.Bh6+ Ke8 11.Nd5 c6 12.Nc7+ Kd8 13.Nxe6+ Bxe6 14.Qxb7 Nxh6 15.Qxa8 Bxb2 16.Qxb8+ Bc8 17.Qxb2 Ng4 18.0-0-0 Nxf2 19.Rxd6+ Bd7 20.Qb8+ Ke7 21.Nf3 Nxh1 22.e5 a5 23.e6 Bxe6 24.Qd8+ Kf7 25.Ng5+ Kg7 26.Rxe6 Nf2 27.Qf6+ Kh6 28.Qxg6 checkmate, magilla - mduerr, net-chess.com 2002
6...Qf6 7.Qxh7+ Kf8 8.Nf3 Bg4 9.0-0 Qg7 10.Qh4 Bxf3 11.gxf3 Qf6 0-1 viejoasquerosos - Jeman, redhotpawn.com 2004
7.d4 Be6
7...Qxe4+ 8.Ne2 Bg4 9.Qxh7+ Kf6 10.f3 Qxc2 11.fxg4 Nd7 12.0-0+ Ke6 13.Qf7 checkmate, magilla-seamus, net-chess.com 2003
8.dxc5 Qxe4+ 9.Be3 Qxg2 10.cxd6 Qxh1 11.Qxh7+ Kf6
12.Bd4+ Kg5 13.f4+ Kxf4 14.Qh4+ Bg4 15.Nd2 Nd7 16.Qg3+
16...Kf5 17.Qf2+ Ke6 18.Qe3+ Kf7 19.Qf2+
19...Ngf6 20.Bxf6 Nxf6 21.dxc7
21...Re8+ 22.Kf1 Bh3+ 23.Qg2 Qxg2 checkmate
Nice post!
ReplyDeleteYeah, as with so many gambits, The Jerome Gambit comes up so infrequently, I am stunned any time I see it -- which is, of course, the whole reason why it is played!