Repairing a Variation (Part 3)

The next step in repairing a variation, after you have defined the problem (Part 1) and reviewed some game history (Part 2), is to see what has been written about the line.

Unfortunately, when you are dealing with a variation of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+), reading up on the "His Nibs" Variation (4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Ke6 8.f4 Qh4) can be done during a coffee break.
There are only two sources in print that I have been able to find in about 8 years of study of the Jerome Gambit.

The first, in Randspringer #6 1990-1991, was in an article by Jack Young, author of many hysterical "Bozo's Chess Emporium" articles for Chess Horizons.

"Meet Jerome"

The Jerome Gambit (also known as the "Kentucky Opening" according to Blackburne), like the Reynolds Gambit, like the Chicago Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nxe5!! Nxe5 4.d4), like the Fred (1.e4 f5!!) desrves to be in the arsenal of every serious tournament player. Don't know the Jerome? That's OK but if you play through the following game I would not be surprised if it convinced you to venture the Jerome in your next serious tournament game. This important theoretical battle featured some real "high caliber" opposition and makes a good case for the playability of the Jerome Gambit...

...Young - Computer, 1991: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+! Kxf7 5.Nxe5+! Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4?! Another computer defused the attack after 8...Qh4+ 9.g3 Qf6

I admit that this is only a snippet of a mention, but I include it for a couple of reasons. First, it is also the first game (even if a partial) after "R.F" - "Nibs", 1899, that I have in my database. Secondly, it shows that the Black Queen check-and-return was primarily to disrupt White's kingside, not the beginning of a complicated Queen sacrifice.

The second reference I reviewed is from the unusual chess book Unorthodox Chess (2005), by the even more unusually-named author, Some Loser. (I reviewed the book for Chessville here.)

...the Jerome Gambit - an old favorite of mine, back in the good old days when I used to imagine I could get away with anything. It goes like so: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+!! Kxf7 5.Nxe5+! Nxe5 6.Qh5+ White will be able to recover one of the sacrificed pieces, after which Black's exposed King position plus the two Pawns, not to mention the fabulous shock value, almost compensate for the other piece. Ah, those were the days... and hard to swallow as it may seem, it has actually been known to work from time to time.
For instance 6...Ke6?! 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Qh4+?! 9.g3 Nf3+ 10.Kf1 Nxh2+?! 11.Kg2 Qd8 [11...Qg4 12.Qd5+ Ke7 13.Qxc5+ d6 14.Qf2 Nf6 15.Rxh2 Nxe4 16.Qe3 Qe6] 12.Qd5+ Ke7 13.Qxc5+ d6 14.Qg5+ Ke8 15.Qxd8+ Kxd8 16.Rxh2 Nf6 17.d3 Ng4? 18.Rh4 Nf6 19.Be3 Bg4?! 20.Bd4 Bd1? 21.Na3 Be2 22.Kf2 Bxd3 23.cxd3 c5 24.Bxf6+ gxf6 25.Nc4 Ke7 26.Ne3 Kf7 27.Rah1 Kg6 28.Rh6+ Kg7 29.Nf5+ Kg8 30.Rxf6 d5 31.Nh6+ Kg7 32.Rf7+ Kg6 33.e5 Rhg8 [33...Rab8 34.f5+ Kg5 35.Rg7#; 33...Rag8 34.Rf6+ Kg7 35.Nf5#] 34.Rf6+ Kg7 35.Nf5+ Kh8 36.Rxh7+ Kxh7 37.Rh6#

The lesson from Some Loser's game (or analysis, it is not clear from the text) is that the White King move 10.Kf1 is not an improvement over abhailey's and R.F.'s 10.Kd1. This was confirmed in both perrypawnpusher - james042665, Chess.com, 2008 (0-1, 18) and perrypawnpusher - Temmo, chessworld.com, 2008 (0-1, 43), even though both defenders did not follow the best line of play.
Black's 10...Nxh2+ vs Some Loser was a mistake which surrendered the second player's advantage. As in abhailey - peonconorejas, net-chess, 2008, the best move was 10...Ne7 with similar powerful play against White's Queen and King. Also, 10...Qd8 gave White the advantage, whereas 10...Qg4 would have led to an equal game.