A Closer Look at the Big Picture (Part 3)

We continue responding to Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member Pete Banks' (blackburne) request for opening statistics (see his comment on "Another Closer Look"), based on the updated New Year's Database. 

For earlier numbers see "A Closer Look at the Big Picture (Part 1)" and "(Part 2)".

Currently the database contains 7, 074 games that begin 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7, with White scoring 44%.

Modern variations of the Jerome Gambit (which make up 47.4% of the Jerome Gambit Accepted games) are designed to either avoid the classical continuations (and refutations) by not playing 5.Nxe5 or they may represent new ways of conceptualizing the old gambit. 

They can be the choice of a competitor in a Jerome Gambit thematic tournament who simply decides no more sacrifices, or that of a higher-rated player giving "Jerome Gambit odds" who figures one sacrifice is enough to stir up things, let's see what happens now.

Since some lines can transpose into each other, the following statistics may be somewhat confounded, but here they are, nonetheless.

The most popular modern Jerome Gambit idea in the updated database is 5.d4, appearing in 1,318 games. It seems at least in part the offer of a central pawn to open lines, especially the c1-h6 diagonal to allow Bc1-g5 and Nf3-g5+.

Because of tranpositions, Black's best response, 5...exd4, shows up in the database in 1,896 games, with White scoring a difficult 37%. White does better than that against 5...Nxd4 (454 games, 45%) and worse than that against 5...Bxd4 (638 games, 27%).

After 5.0-0, seen in 768 games, White scores 36%. Again, 5.c3 fares better in 699 games with White scoring 47%; but worse in the 645 games in which White plays 5.d3 and scores 32%.

Perhaps White should explore 5.b4, which scores 63%, but in only 8 games.

There are still many variables in play in the modern Jerome Gambit besides move order, as 5.h3 has scored 75% (admittedly, in only 5 games) while 5.a3 has tallied 29% (in 28 games).

As expected, the theory of the modern Jerome Gambit is still evolving. From a practical, as opposed to a theoretical, perspective, the modern lines have not produced a line clearly more successful than the classical lines – at least at this introductory level of analysis.

Likely what is needed some time in the future is a Closer Closer Look at the Big Picture.