Although I won the first game in our 2-game match (see "Jerome Gambit: Return to Transylvania") I think that my opponent, mika76, was unlucky, not out-played by me.In our second game mika76, using the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+), bowled me over.
Let me be clear.
A long time ago I read an article that described chess players' thinking about winning and losing. They won, most said, because of brilliant play on their own part. They lost, most said, because they had blundered. This makes a tiny bit of sense – until you realize that chess players play against each other.
"I beat Gronch Quigly," Augie Schnutz proclaims, "with brilliant play"; while Quigly replies "I lost to Schnutz, because of my blunder."
I won't have any of that: Mika76 beat me with strong play. Take a look.
mika76 - perrypawnpusher
www.GameKnot.com 2008
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.d3 Nf6 6.Nxe5+
A Delayed Jerome Gambit, a rather rare beast.6...Nxe5 7.d4
Transposing to the regular Jerome, a move down. Interesting. Black has one more piece developed – the Knight at f6 – but it blocks his strongest response, ...Qh4. "Objectively" Black is doing very well, but for some psychological rumblings, see "Sac a pawn, or a piece, or a..."
7...Bd6
Paging Dr. Freud! I have no idea where this move came from, but I am sure mika76 was glad to see it. I suspect I was in an anything wins against the Jerome Gambit state of mind – a deadly place to be, since my opponent plans to press and press until my game cracks.
Logical was 7...Bxd4 8.Qxd4 Nc6 with the typical advantage Black has early.
8.dxe5 Bxe5 9.f4 Bd6 10.Nc3 Bb4 11.e5 Ne8
12.Qd5+ Kf8 13.f5 Qe7 14.0-0 Qc5+ 15.Qxc5+ Bxc5+ 16.Kh1 Bd4
By exchanging Queens Black has eliminated the immediate danger to his King, but his development continues to lag.In the meantime, White's pawns become more annoying.
17.Bf4 d6 18.e6 Nf6 19.Nb5 Bb6 20.Rae1 Ke7
21.c4 a6 22.Nc3 Ba5 23.Re3 Bxc3 24.Rxc3 b6 25.b4 Bb7
I finally have my Bishop developed, but there are dangers in the position.26.h3 Rag8 27.c5
While Black is looking for a Kingside counter-attack, his Queenside springs a leak. Mika76 keeps his pressure on.
27...Nd5
This looked okay to me, but Rybka prefers 27...dxc5 28.bxc5 Ne4 29.Rc4 bxc5 30.Re1 Rf8 31.Rexe4 Bxe4 32.Rxe4 Rxf5 33.g4 Rd5 when things are messy, but the computer sees Black as better.
By keeping things complicated, mika76 looks for his chances.
28.cxd6+ cxd6
Surprisingly (to me) a game-losing decision: White is keeping things very dangerous for Black, and now gets his reward.
Rybka prefers 28...Kf6 29.Rd3 Nxf4 30.Rxf4 cxd6 31.Rxd6 Ke5 32.Rfd4 Rb8 33.Kh2 Rhe8 34.g4 g6 35.Rd2 Be4 to keep Black's edge, but that looks a lot like computer logic.
29.Bg5+ Ke8 30.Rc4 h6 31.Bh4 Rf8 32.Rfc1 Black resigned
6 comments:
Hi Rick,
This isn't a comment about the above game, but I thought you'd like to know that I've played another Jerome in a graded game OTB. As far as I know that's only the second one this century, and I played the other too! Correct me if I'm wrong.
Anyway, this was the rarest of Jerome games in that it ended in a draw!
Full game and notes to follow in a day or two. It's late here now. I've just got back from the match.
Pete Banks
Hi Pete,
Congratulations on the draw!
I can imagine your opponent explaining it to his club mates "He played the Jerome Gambit and I had him right where he wanted me..."
I can't remember if the new century began in 2000 or 2001, but my ever-growing Jerome Gambit database (more than 1,600 games) actually shows 8 over-the-board games from 2000 to 2008 (not including a secret Jerome Gambit match played a couple of years ago that I am not at liberty to divulge at this time)-- three of the games, soon to be four by you:
Banks - Pinfold, Birmingham and District Chess League, Halesowen v Bushbury, 2000 (1-0,28);
Schlenker - Sfrd, Germany, 2002 (1-0,17)
Rodriguez - Lauciello, 2003 (1-0, 15)
Banks - Rees, Wolverhampton Summer League Div 3S, Halesowen v Lucas BS,2003 (1-0, 45)
Chandler - Dimitrov, Scotland, 5 min game, 2004 (1-0, 14)
Garrido - Garcia, 2004 (0-1,51)
Banks - Freshwater, Halesowen 'B' vs Stourbridge, 2004 (1-0)
Nelson - Sugar, Jamaica, Queens, 2006, (1-0, 20)
(I wonder if GM Gary Lane is reading this??)
I will be pleased to post your game and notes.
Thanks.
Rick
Rick,
I'd forgotten about two of those games! I suppose I must have sent them to you at some point.
I notice that I won all three, so I'm a bit disappointed with the draw, but I was very short of time. I'll try to do the write-up at the weekend.
Oh, just to be nit-picky, my point was about OTB graded games. I have played it OTB many times in friendlies, 5-minute games etc, but I don't count those.
At least one of the games you list was a 5-minute game. Do you know the status of the others?
Pete,
It's a "good news" and "bad news" kind of thing...
Certainly Chandler - Dimitrov, Scotland, 2004, was a friendly blitz game (despite its theoretical value); and given that Rainer Schlenker (of Randspringer editorship) tried out so many of his creative opening ideas, it's quite possible that Schlenker - Sfrd, Germany, 2002 was a light-hearted romp.
I have no further information on Rodriguez - Lauciello, 2003 and Garrido - Garcia, 2004, but Nelson - Sugar, Jamaica, Queens, 2006 is a round six game, and so it was likely played under competitive conditions.
In all of this cross-checking, however, I uncovered the additional game Tobias Winkler - Suat Duran, Ditzingen 2006 which seems to be over-the-board; but, again, the conditions are unknown to me.
Do you have four-out-of-five or four-out-of-seven? Either way, you look like Top Dog for now. The Jerome Gambit Gemeinde salutes you.
Rick
Rick,
I've just noticed that of the 8 games you list, the score is 7-1 to the Jerome. With my draw, it's now 7.5-1.5. I don't know the result of the new game you've found, but on the evidence so far, the Jerome is a powerful weapon, contrary to all received wisdom in the few opening books in which it is mentioned. It must be the 'shock and awe' factor.
I wonder what the overall score is in 'serious' games in your database? I know a lot of them are 19th century before grades existed, but it might be possible to make an educated guess.
For instance, Jerome's own correspondence games could be classed as serious, whereas I think Blackburne himself said that his famous win with Black was an offhand game.
Pete
Pete,
Figuring out the effectiveness of the Jerome Gambit is as much a matter of "method" as it is of "outcome".
One issue to deal with is the "man bites dog" problem. Have a master play a simul at your club and score 39 wins and one draw - and the local paper's chess column will publish the draw.
Likewise, my research into Jerome Gambit games has relied a lot on published games where the novelty of a win may have won out in the columnist's mind over the routine thrashing of such a speculative gambit.
In the thematic Jerome Gambit tournaments that I have looked at, the Jerome has scored around 43%. If you lop off the games of under 10 moves that were determined by time, that number falls to about 38%.
In computer-vs-computer games, the Jerome Gambit scores about 27%. Of course, even that number is suspect: Randy Tipton, of "HANGING PAWN :: Tip's Chess Blog" (see my blog post "We are not alone...") ran a computer-vs-computer Jerome Gambit tournament, but so far he has only made available the wins by White.
If I include those games in my calculation of Jerome Gambit effectiveness in computer-vs-computer play, White scores around 72%!
I like your idea of evaluating the effectiveness of the Jerome Gambit in serious games, and will begin creating a database with just such games.
In the meantime, Deep Rybka 3 Aquarium and I are working on a more "objective" assessment of opening lines, but that is taking time.
Finally, my favorite statistic is the one that describes my own success with the Jerome Gambit, which is currently 25-5-1. (And, yes, I include wins on time in that one.)
Thanks for keeping the discussion going. (Others certainly are welcome to jump in!)
Rick
Post a Comment