Jerome Gambit for Dummies (5)

The study mentioned in "Jerome Gambit for Dummies (4)" used Candidate Masters and Masters for its subject pool, and the two openings that one group or the other specialized in were the Sicilian Defense and the French Defense.

While it is reassuring to think that specializing in the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) might give the Jerome-player a 200 point advantage when playing someone familiar with the Gambit, it is important to share information from a study I did last year, published in Unorthodox Openings Newsletter #21, June/July/August 2008, "Nobody Expects the Jerome Gambit",

Before diving into some of the lessons to be learned from the 156 games of the Jerome Gambit Tournament, I wanted to share something from GM Nigel Davies' fantastic book, Gambiteer I.

“Having examined literally thousands of club players’ games over the years, I have noticed several things:1) The player with the more active pieces tends to win.2) A pawn or even several pawns is rarely a decisive advantage.3) Nobody knows much theory.4) When faced with aggressive play, the usual reaction is to cower.”

- GM Nigel Davies

This wisdom is relevant to the tournament under consideration, where players ranged from the1200s to the1800s according to chessworld's rating system, and where knowledge of the “book” lines of the Jerome Gambit ranged from a good bit to not very much at all. We are not going to be looking at masters searching out the ultimate truth of the opening, we are going to see how it is played at club level.

Please remember, too, that we are not looking at the Ruy Lopez, or even the Blackmar Diemer Gambit. We are looking at the duck-billed platypus of the chess opening world.

In fact, I have to say that my first prediction for the result of the competition was a 13-way tie for first place, with the players losing all of their games with the white pieces and winning all of their games with the black pieces. After all, the Jerome Gambit has a number of clear refutations – how could it be otherwise?

After some thought, however, I realized that there was more to consider than just White vs Black. As I wrote in UON #17, the Jerome Gambit "is playable in the way that 'giving odds' is playable.” So I looked at all of the match-ups in the tournament, and when White was rated several hundred points above Black, I predicted a win for the first player.

Carrying this reevaluation through all of the games, I estimated that the tournament winner would score 18 points out of 24.

As it turns out, blackburne (Pete) scored 18 ½ points, winning 10 out of 12 times with white!

This was only good enough for fourth place, however, as SIRMO, who won a still-impressive 8 times with white and drew twice, won every game he played with the black pieces, for a total of 21 points! This allowed him to place ahead of savage13 and drewbear, each who won 9 times asWhite, scoring 20 and 19 points each.

Contrary to my initial impressions, White won 63 games in the Jerome Gambit Tournament, lost 90, and drew 3, for a score of 41% – this is unimpressive in comparison with “legitimate” chess openings, but a bit surprising for an opening that GM Keene once wrote “should never be played.”

Jerome Gambit Tournament 2007-2008
-------------------------1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--0--1--2--3--Total
1 SIRMO 1857 +13-------- ** 01 01 ½1 1½ 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 21.0/24
2 savage13 1712 +109---- 10 ** 10 01 11 11 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 20.0/24
3 drewbear 1562 +222---- 10 01 ** 01 11 10 11 11 11 10 11 11 11 19.0/24
4 blackburne 1795 -51--- ½0 10 10 ** 10 01 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 18.5/24
5 Nestor250168 1684 -106 0½ 00 00 01 ** 01 10 10 11 10 11 11 11 13.5/24
6 Ratscales 1383 +158--- 00 00 01 10 10 ** 01 11 1½ 10 00 10 11 11.5/24
7 AAlekhine 1607 -130--- 00 01 00 00 01 10 ** 01 00 10 01 11 11 10.0/24
8 Bullit52 1541 -58----- 00 00 00 00 01 00 10 ** 01 10 11 11 11 10.0/24
9 BrainFreeze 1594 -164- 00 00 00 00 00 0½ 11 10 ** 01 01 01 11 8.5/24
10 karmmark 1373 +59---- 00 00 01 00 01 01 01 01 10 ** 01 10 00 8.0/24
11 plummy 1463 -38------ 00 00 00 00 00 11 10 00 10 10 ** 01 11 8.0/24
12 NMTIGER 1292 +72----- 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 10 01 10 ** 11 6.0/24
13 manago 1202 -65------ 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 11 00 00 ** 2.0/24

Analysis of the results shows that the difference in ratings between White and Black (ratings rose and fell during the tournament after wins and losses) was a significant factor in the outcome of the games, with the correlation being about .7 (that is to say about ½ of the variance in the results was due the difference in strength of the players).

Charting each win and loss against a range of strength differences between the players – White is 0-100 points higher (or lower) than Black, White is 101-200 points higher (or lower) than Black, White is 201-300 points higher (or lower) than Black, etc. shows that in this Jerome Gambit Tournament, White needed to be rated only 200 points higher than his opponent to overcome the handicap of “giving Jerome Gambit odds” and have strong winning chances.

Jerome Gambit for Dummies (4)

Question: When it comes to playing the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) what happens if I don't know the best lines for White, and my opponent doesn't play one of the best defenses, anyhow?

Answer: Ha, ha, ha, ha...

Playing the Jerome Gambit is very risky business, and a serious member of the Jerome Gambit Gemeinde learns enough about the opening (starting with this blog, of course) to at least understand the imbalances that favor him (e.g. lack of the enemy King's safety) and the strategic ideas (e.g. advancing the "extra" pawns, attacking the enemy King) that are most likely to lead him to victory.

One significant advantage that the Jerome player has is that often his opponent is unfamiliar with the opening. A recent paper by Merim Bilalić and Peter McLeod, "Specialization Effect and its influence on Memory and Problem Solving in Expert Chess Players" has some interesting conclusions regarding familiarity with a position.

Expert chess players both remembered and solved problems arising from their area of opening specialization better than problems out side their specialization. We were also able to quantify the specialization effect - players remembered and
solved the problem stimuli within their specialization roughly at the level of players one SD [standard deviation] above them in skill but who lacked the specialized knowledge...

Looking at the Elo rating system, one standard deviation is 200 points. The study showed that players solving problems related to an opening that they played regularly performed that much better than those whose opening repertoire (i.e. specialization) was not related to the problems.
Under those circumstances, the unfamiliar players searched wider for solutions, and thus less deep. Those players familiar with the problem formations (because they came from openings that they played) were able to focus their search for solutions narrowly, and thus searched deeper.
Thus, the advantage (200 Elo points) of playing and knowing your openings against one who does not.

Stats (Huh?)

Readers might come away from examining the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) database statistics – see "Stats (1)", "Stats (2)" and "Stats (3)" – with a small sense of confusion, as the Opening Reports seem to both show that White scores "better than average" in a number of lines; yet there are Critical Lines where White scores poorly.

(Readers might also want to compare the analysis with the "A Closer Look" series, which took a look at the Ninja Knights T3 Jerome Gambit thematic tournament: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ; as well as look at the Comments following "Jerome Gambit: Transylvanian Terror!")

This result reflects both the nature of sampling bias (that is, because of how the games were collected – that Jerome Gambit wins are more likely to be published and available to the researcher than Jerome Gambit losses – there are more opening successes than failures, despite the opening's "objective" strength); and the nature of the opening itself (defenders are often taken by surprise, become intimidated, and do not take advantage of the winning opportunities that are presented to them).

A comparable case would be a database that collected all available games in which Queen-odds were given. Although being a Queen up is usually considered enough of an advantage for all but the rankest of amateurs to win with (see Geoff Chandler's "Blunder Table"), it is highly likely that the results of the database would highly favor the odds-giver.

Stats (3)

Taking yet a further look (see "Stats (1)" for a preliminary peek and "Stats (2)" for a deeper one) at a ChessBase Opening Report from my Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) database requires simply continuing to advancing along the move order.

Thus: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ will dig deeper.

According to the Opening Report, White scores "above average" (59%), with 276 wins (57%), 18 draws (4%) and 192 losses (40%). White wins are "shorter than average" (37 moves), Black's wins are "shorter than average" (33 moves) and draws are "short" (30 moves).

Looking at Moves and Plans for Black, 6...Ke6 appeared in 229 games, where Black scored "below average" (38%). Recommended for White is 7.f4, while in the Critical Line White scored only 36%: 7...d6 8.fxe5 dxe5 9.Qh3+ Ke7 10.Qg3.

In 117 games Black played the alternative, 6...Ng6, scoring "below average" (41%). Recommended for White is 7.Qxc5. The Critical Line is then 7...Nf6, against which White has scored only 29%.

In 78 games Black played 6...g6, scoring "below average" (38%). Recommended for White is 7.Qxe5, although in the Critical Line 7...d6 8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.0-0 Nf6 10.c3 White has scored 0%.

An important 6th move alternative for Black, played in 53 games, is 6...Kf8, which scored well (63%). Recommended for White is 7.Qxe5, although the Critical Line, again, is daunting for the first player, as after 7...Qe7 8.Qf4+ White scored 19%.

Finally, Black infrequently played 6...Kf6 (3 games) and scored "miserably" (0%) after White's recommended 7.Qf5+.

Stats (2)

Taking a further look (see "Stats (1)" for a preliminary peek) at a ChessBase Opening Report from my Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) database is as simple as advancing along the move order a bit, and then asking the software to analyze.

So, a look at 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ will dig deeper.

There are 856 games in my database with that line of play. The Opening Report says that White scores "well" with 69%: 510 wins (68%), 21 draws (3%) and 224 losses (30%). In addtion, White's wins are of "average" length (38 moves); Black's wins are "shorter than average" (33 moves); and draws are "short" (29 moves).

Looking at Moves and Plans, 5...Nxe5 was seen in 711 games, where Black scored "badly" 31%. The Opening Report recommends 6.Qh5+ for White, and gives as the Critical Line: 6...Kf8 7.Qxe5 Qe7 8.Qf4+ where White only scored 19%.

A fifth move alternative for Black, 5...Kf8, was seen in 18 games, and Black scored "well" at 56%. The recommended move for White is 6.0-0.

Also possible for Black was 5...Ke8, seen in 8 games, although he scored "miserably" with 0%; 5...Ke7, seen in 2 games, with likewise "miserable" results (0%).

Stats (1)

For what it's worth, let's look at some numbers, based on my Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) database.

Please keep in mind the caveats about this that I mentioned in my reply to Pete Bank's ("blackburne") Comment to "Fool me once..."

I use ChessBase 8 to store most of my Jerome Gambit games and findings.

If I look at the series of moves 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+, and run an Opening Report, I can see that ChessBase finds 1,436 relevant games. About these, it notes that White scores above average – 57%; that is, White wins 693 (55%), Draws 32 (3%), and Black wins 528 (42%). Not surprisingly, it points out that the Drawing number is quite low, with 1/3 of those drawn games having fewer than 20 moves.

In addition, White's wins are "shorter than average" (35 moves), Black's wins are "short" (29 moves), and the Draws are "shorter than average" (34 moves).

Looking at Moves and Plans, I can see that 1217 games featured 4...Kxf7, with which Black scored "averagely" – 44%. The Opening Report recommends 5.Nxe5+ for White, noting that 5...Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 d6 then occured in 97 games; 5...Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 occurred in 118 games; and 5...Nxe5 6.d4 Qh5 7.0-0 Nf6 8.dxc5 Qxe4 9.Nc3 Qb4 10.Nd5 occurred in 118 games. That last line is highly skewed: all 118 games were from a match between Deep Shredder 10 and Rybka 2.3.1.

Interestingly enough, the "Critical line" for White, in which he scored only 29%, is 5.Nxe5+ Kf8 6.Nxc6 dxc6, which certainly bears some looking into.

Althought taking the sacrificed Bishop seems the thing to do, the Opening Report shows that in 19 games Black played 4...Kf8 instead, scoring "below average" at 37%. The recommended response for White is 5.d3.

In 5 games Black responded with 4...Ke7, when he "scored miserably" with 20%. White's response should be 5.Bh5.

A Jerome Discovery (Afterword)

The chess columns from The Literary Digest (see Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5) are an exciting discovery for Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) fans on several counts.

First, it gives analysis of an important defense for Black that is not very well known, but is very effective. See "Jerome Gambit Tournament: Chapter X" for both its first appearance (Sorensen - X, Denmark, 1888) and my use of it in Sir Osis of the Liver - perrypawnpusher, chessworld.net, 2008.

It also is the first "live" account of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome that I have run across, since the 1884 mention of him by the chess columnist of the Pittsburgh Chronicle-Telegraph (see "100 Posts - What more to say?").

That year must have been a difficult one for A.W. Jerome, as 1884 saw the publication of Cook's Synopsis of Chess Openings A Tabular Analysis by William Cook, With American Inventions in the Openings and Fresh Analysis since 1882, by J. W. Miller.

Cook's Synopsis of Chess Openings, 3rd Edition, (surely the English language MCO/ECO of its time) had been published in 1882 and sold out quickly. The newer edition from Miller contained analysis of the Jerome Gambit in both Cook's reprinted work and in the American "supplement" – without mention of Jerome, the man, and including the notation

We give the fullest analysis of this American invention that has yet been in print. The author is Mr. S. A. Charles, Cincinnati, O.

S. A. Charles, a member of the Cincinnati Chess Club (as was J. W. Miller), had written a series of analytical articles years earlier for the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, Miller's newspaper, before going on to submit his work to the Pittsburgh Telegraph (later Chronicle-Telegraph).

In 1881, the Telegraph published Charles' "compilation" of what he could find of Jerome Gambit analysis, suplemented later by mostly incomplete correspondence games he had played with A. W. Jerome. This look at the Jerome Gambit was later that year picked up by Brentano's Chess Monthly, and the following year by Cook's Synopsis.

Although Charles mentioned Jerome when he wrote, by the time Cook got ahold of the analysis in 1882, Jerome's name, except for the Gambit's title, had been dropped. Then along came Miller in 1884, with the same "oversight".

This was all sealed with the 1889 publication of the first edition of Freeborough and Rankin's Chess Openings Ancient and Modern, which explained

Mr. S. A. Charles of Cincinnati, Ohio is named in the American Supplement as the chief analyst of this opening.

The Literary Digest's chess columns suggest that there might be other magazines out there with Jerome Gambit games and analysis by the gambit's inventor, from the mid-1880s to 1900.