Watch it!

After playing over the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) and Jerome-ized lightning games (three minutes or less per side per game) played by ItsAllBullCheck, what I've got to say about the chess clock to those who would defend that crazy Bishop check is: watch it!

Russian International Master Ilya Odessky, in his one-of-a-king book Play 1.b3!, has some things to say, in general, along that line

Opening theory also changes in rapid chess. Unavoidably. Because the opening is like the start of a race, and runners have to train differently, depending on the distance they run. For a classical chess player, the opening is extremely important and has universal significance. It really matters whether one side has more space, the bishop pair, or an exposed king.

For a professional speed player, these things also matter, but much less so. The most important thing for him is an advantage on the clock. Second in importance is the possibility to surprise the opponent, lure him into a position with which you are familiar and he is not. This itself is usually transformed into an advantage on the clock, It is good to pose problems from the very start, so that he has to find the one and only good continueaiton; then, in order to find it, he has to use time, which in speed chess means more than the two (or even three!) bishops...

I remember an article in a chess magazine, I cannot recall which. But the author was one of the world top 10. Talking aobut a strong rapid tournament, and about what had happened on one of the top boards, he suddenly started to discuss the opening 1.d4 e5!? And several times referred to "the theory". And he started a serious discussion of the line - what Kasimzhanov thinks of the position, what Aronian thinks...

And just as suddenly, he stopped. Because he had said more than he intended – he had suddenly started revealing some of the theory of speed chess. Then the curtain was pulled across again.

Take it!

Here is another tip for those who would defend against the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+): take the Bishop!

Play 4...Kxf7. It's that simple.

That sounds like basic advice, and I have to admit that in 98% or 99% of the games in my database, Black does make the capture.

But there are 45 games in that same database where Black plays instead 4...Kf8 or 4...Ke7. What's that all about?

I realize that there's a bit of "If he wants me to take the bishop, then I won't!" involved in Black's decision-making, but defenders, listen up: a piece is a piece.

Curiously, White won only 60% of the games where Black declined the piece. What to make of that?

That is a higher winning percentage for Jerome Gambits in general (in thematic tournaments White tends to win 35% to 45% of the time), but lower than you might expect in games where the first player is given the gift of a pawn and an uncastled enemy King.

In only half of the games where Black declined the Bishop and still won was it clear that the defender was the significantly higher-rated player. (That is: Black turned down accepting "Jerome Gambit odds" and instead offered odds of pawn and uncastled King – and won.)

Finally, some advice for those playing White with the Jerome Gambit, as well: If your opponent declines the Bishop, move it away or exchange it.

In 16 of the games in the database, when Black did not capture the Bishop but played 4...Kf8 or 4...Ke7; and then White did not move or exchange his Bishop, White scored only 37.5%

Having said "A"...

Here is a tip for those who would defend against the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+): if you are going to make use of the Blackburne Defense, 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6, then it is important for you to realize that the move 6...g6 commits you to sacrificing your King's Rook. It's that simple: having said "A" you must now say "B". Now, this can be a good thing, as in Whistler's Defense, or even a playable thing, as in the Blackburne Defense proper; but if it turns out to be an ooooops! thing, difficulties will arise – as the following game demonstrates.

mrjoker - Parseltongue blitz 2 12, Internet Chess Club, 2008 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6

7.Qxe5

Now Black can play 7...d6, and after 8.Qxh8 he can counter-attack with 8...Qh4 – with best play by both sides, the game will be a draw. (Although see perrypawnpusher - Sgrunterundt, blitz, FICS, 2008 and perrypawnpusher - tejeshwar, blitz, FICS, 2009) Or Black can play 7...Qe7, and after 8.Qxh8 – again, after best play by both sides – he will crush White after 8...Qxe4+ (for example blackburne - perrypawnpusher, Chessworld 2008).

7...Be7

This move, while a novelty, does not stand up to the needs of the position.

8.Qxh8 Bf6 9.Qxh7+ Bg7 10.Qh3 d6 11.Qf3+ Nf6

White's Queen has escaped, and Black has no counter-attack to speak of.

12.Nc3 Bg4 13.Qe3 Qe7 14.f3 Bd7 15.d4 Black resigned

White is up the exchange and three pawns.

MrJoker

One of the joys of hosting this jeromegambit.blogspot.com blog is the contact that I have with adventurous chess players from all over the world.

I recently received an email from a modern Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) Gemeinde member. Of course, he sent along a file of games that included almost 100 Jerome Gambit games!

Hello Richard,

I don't know if you remember me. We exchanged Jerome Gambit games some time ago, but we lost contact, and I just happened to find your blog today. Since last time I played many more games on ICC (time control 2 12) under the nickname mrjoker.

My current blitz rating is 1703, with a peak of 1885. My recent result is 57-25-5 [68%] with this gambit, slightly better than my overall result 1695-853-289 [65%] with all openings.

Surprise value is not the only factor, as shown by my 12-3 result against Phlebas, who virtually tried everything against the Jerome Gambit, without finding anything good...

Your blog is very interesting. I have only a minor criticism: perhaps you insist too much on the "unsound" character of the opening. I consider myself as a serious player, and would never play anything unsound. Even though 4.Bxf7+ may not be the very best move in the Italian, it seems to me that White gets reasonable compensation and a more or less playable game in all variations. I still have to try the opening in tournament games with slow time controls against 1700-2100 players (my usual opponents), but it will come when I feel ready.

I tried to find pgn files on your blog. Are there any? If so please let me know.

I hope you will enjoy the games.

All the best,

Louis Morin
Of course, I sent him the file of all of the games given here in the blog's first year of existence.
And I'm working my way through the 100 games, too...

The Kentucky / Danvers Opening

The story of "the Kentucky Opening" (see Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4), 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 – which Joseph Henry Blackburne, I believe, likened to the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) in his Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess (after 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+) – can stand one more chapter.

In a post about the opening, which he referred to as the Danvers Opening, Bill Wall (see "The Kentucky Opening (Part 3) ") wrote

It is mentioned in the American Chess Bulletin with that name in 1905

Indeed, it is:

American Chess Bulletin
June 1905

ALL BOSTON VERSUS NEW ENGLAND

One of the largest gatherings of chess players ever brought together in Boston witnessed the struggle for supremacy between teams representing Boston and vicinity and the rest of New England at the rooms of the Boston Chess Club, 241 Tremont Street, on May 30. Boston won by 29 games to 11, the winning team being headed by such well known players as John F. Barry, A.M. Sussmann and Dr. E. E. Southard...

A special prize was offered for the best game at the "Danvers Opening," viz., 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Q-R5, which will probably go to Dr. E. E. Southard, the noted ex-Harvard champion, who adopted it successfully against his opponent.

The following month, the American Chess Bulletin gave the score of the two "Danvers Opening" games from the Boston vs New England event, McClure, - Mathewson (1-0, 42) and Southard - Hill (1-0, 27), which were presented in "The Kentucky Opening (Part 4)".

Toto, too

In "A Push for 'a Nudge' " I looked at an alternative in the Jerome Gambit that involved giving the Black King a "nudge" before capturing material: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6

and now White plays 7.Qd5+ before the capture 8.Qxc5, instead of 7.Qxc5 directly.

I decided to look in my database for the "nudge" in games of a "junior partner" of the Jerome Gambit, the Semi-Italian Opening. After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 4.0-0 Bc4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.Qh5+ Ng3

four games continued 8.Qd5+ (scoring 87.5%) while two games continued 8.Qxc5 (scoring 75%). Of course, all four "nudge" games were played by me, so we again have the warnings that go along with statistics...

After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.Qh5+ Ng6

all three games continued with the direct capture, 8.Qxc5 (scoring 67%).

For the record, Rybka 3 slightly prefers the nudge in each case.

A Push for "a Nudge"

It's a small thing, but in one particular line of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) I continue to play a move that I call "a nudge," despite its relative unpopularity.

After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 we reach the following position:

There are 268 games in my database that have reached this position. Sixty of them – 22% – continued with 7.Qd5+, nudging the King, followed by 8.Qxc5. The rest continued with the straight-forward 7.Qxc5.

I suppose it could all be a matter of style. On the other hand, while the popular 7.Qxc5 scored 45% in the database games, "my" unpopular 7.Qd5+ has scored 78%. Of course, statistics are weird things...

For the record, Rybka 3 slightly prefers the nudge to the direct capture. On the other hand, in either of the lines, Rybka 3 recommends ...Qe7 to meet the capture of the Bishop – something that shows up in only 4% of the database games.