My opponent's play was bold enough to give me trouble, and even if he did not solve all of the mysteries of the Jerome Gambit, he played a game which left me feeling constantly as if I were one step behind.
perrypawnpusher - magza
blitz, FICS, 2011
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6
7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qe3 Be6
This move provokes f2-f4 by White, but it is only the beginning of Black's sharp play.
10.0-0
Or 10.f4 as in mrjoker - Melbourne, blitz, ICC, 2008 (1-0, 38), mrjoker - tomnoah, ICC, 2009 (0-1, 42), perrypawnpusher - GabrielChime, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 33); perrypawnpusher - udofink, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 29), and perrypawnpusher - Kingsmeal, blitz, FICS, 2010 (0-1, 25).
10...Kd7
My opponent practically screams "Come and get me!"
Alternatives include 10...Qf6, as in perrypawnpusher - OverwiseMan, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 24); 10...Nf6, as in perrypawnpusher - dirceu, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 16) and perrypawnpusher - nmuffjgp, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 22); and 10...h6 as in MrJoker - pds1, ICC, 2011 (1-0, 28).
(All of the games referred to can be found in The Database.)
11.f4 N6e7 12.f5 Bf7 13.d4 Bc4 14.Rd1 Nf6
Black's pieces keep close watch on White's "Jerome pawns."
"Just a couple more moves," I told myself, "and I'll have an even game."
15.b3
Either 15.e5 or 15.Na3 might have been a tiny bit better.
15...Ba6 16.Nc3
A curious move.
I know that I did not play 16.e5 because I was worried about 16...Nxf5, but that was just poor "analysis", as 17.Qf3 wins back the sacrificed piece with advantage to White. Black does better to answer 16.e5 with 16...Ng4, and after 17.Qg5 he holds his own (or better) in the tactics on the Kingside.
Consistent was 16.c4 followed by 17.Nc3.
16...Re8
This move was my "opportunity", the one that usually comes knocking in the Jerome Gambit. Black's best was 16...Qf8 working against the line given concerning 15.e5. In fact, White's next move should be 17.e5.
17.Qg5 Rg8 18.e5 Nfd5
19.Bb2
Developing the Bishop, protecting the Knight, uniting the Rooks: and it all still feels too slow.
After the game, Houdini suggested 19.Nxd5 Nxd5 20.Qg4 (coming soon: c2-c4) with an edge for White.
19...h6 20.Qd2 Nxc3 21.Bxc3 Nxf5
Bleh. A score-and-one moves, and White has little to say about his position, while Black's pieces are beginning to glow again.
22.d5 Qe7
Possible, and better, was 22...dxe5
23.e6+ Kc8 24.Bb2 b6 25.c4 Kb7
Black has castled-by-hand on the Queenside, and his light-squared Bishop looks a little bit odd. White has his dark-squared Bishop on a strong diagonal, and a protected, passed pawn at e6.
Houdini gives Black only a slight edge, but the question is: Where will White get his play? Black's pieces are well-placed to defend against the one plan that suggests itself, infiltrating along the f-file to f7: 26.Rf1 Raf8 27.Rf2 g6 28.Raf1 h5.
26.b4
Opting to stir things up on the Queenside.
26...Bxc4 27.Rdc1
Making the same kind of mistake referred to in the notes to White's 16th move, concerning 16.e5. Here the right move was 27.Qf4, although after 27...Bxd5 28.Rxd5 g6 Black has returned his extra piece for some pawns, and is a pawn ahead.
White's e-pawn would be weak, not strong, and that would give Black the advantage in the long run.
White's game now just flows from bad to worse.
27...b5 28.a4 a6 29.a5 g6 30.Rxc4 bxc4 31.Rc1 Qg5 32.Qxg5 hxg5 33.Rxc4 Ne3
White's sacrifice of the exchange only means that he is now a Rook behind.
34.Re4 Nxd5 35.Rg4 Rae8 36.Rxg5 Nxb4 37.Rg4 Nd3 38.Bc3 Rxe6 39.Rd4 Nc5 40.Rb4+ Kc6 White resigned
In preparing yesterday's post (see "New, Old, New, Old..."), I discovered that I had neglected to share one of my earlier games against gmann. Here it is now, "better late than never", with a quirky opening line and a tale that might be titled "Pawns Acting Badly".
perrypawnpusher - gmann
blitz, FICS, 2010
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 4.O-O Bc5 5.Bxf7+
The Semi-Italian Jerome Gambit.
5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Kf6
This is a strange move, one that I have not seen before, and if the idea was to confuse me from the start, it worked well enough.
This time.
7.Nxc6
Treating the position as if Black had played ...Ke6 against a regular Jerome Gambit, as in my game against johnde.
There is more in the position for White, if he is willing to attack wildly and sacrifice when necessary, e.g.: 7.Qh5 g5 8.Qf7+ Kxe5 9.b4 Bd4 10.c3 Nf6 11.cxd4+ Nxd4 12.f4+ gxf4 13.Na3 Rf8 14.Qg7 dxe4 15.Nb5 Kd5 16.Bxd4 a6 17.Rxf4 axb5 18.Bxf6 Rxf6 19.Rxf6 when White has recovered his material and still has a strong attack. This line deserves more attention in future posts.
7...dxc6 8.d3 g5
9.Nc3 Kg7 10.Be3 Bb4 11.f4 g4 12.d4
Stronger was 12.f5
12...Bxc3 13.bxc3 Qe8
White should now play 14.Qd3 and be very happy with his "Jerome pawns".
14.e5 Bf5 15.c4 Qe6 16.d5 cxd5 17.cxd5 Qg6 18.c4 Ne7 19.e6 Kh7 20.Qe1 Rhe8 21.Rd1 Bd3
Up to this point Black has done a good job of countering White's center pawns with his pieces. Now, instead of the text, returning the extra piece would allow complete destruction: 21...b5 22.Bc5 bxc4 23.Qb4 Nxd5 24.Rxd5 Qxe6
22.f5 Bxf5 23.Qh4 h5
This is too loosening.
24.Qg5
Missing the strong 24.Bg5. Suddenly, by exchanging Queens, I unbalance the position in Black's favor.
24...Qxg5 25.Bxg5 Kg6 26.Bxe7 Rxe7
Black is simply better, again, and White needs to keep busy and look for handouts...
27.Rf4 Kg5 28.Rdf1 Bd3 29.Rf7 Rae8 30.Rxe7 Bxf1
Here we go. Shortness of time may have been a factor.
31.Rxe8 Bxc4
32.e7 Kf6 33.Rc8 Kxe7 34.Rxc7+ Kd6 35.Rxc4
The "Jerome pawns" are gone, but it no longer matters.
35...Kxd5 36.Rc7 b5 37.Rxa7 b4 38.Rb7 Kc4 39.Kf2 Black resigned
The following game has a funny mix of things that were "new" to me and things that were "old" friends. After yesterday's challenging loss, it was nice to return to winning ways.
perrypawnpusher - gmann
blitz, FICS, 2011
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6
The Semi-Italian Opening.
4.Nc3
I've always played 4.0-0 here, as in an earlier game against my opponent, perrypawnpusher - gmann, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 39), but recent posts on this blog got me thinking about trying something new. Nothing came of it this time, however.
4...Nf6 5.0-0 Bc5
The game has transposed to the not-so-new Semi-Italian Four Knights Game, something that I have played over 45 times.
6.Bxf7+
6...Kxf7 7.Nxe5+ Nxe5 8.d4 Bxd4
An interesting idea was 8...Ng6, which I saw in perrypawnpusher - richardachatz, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 20) and later in perrypawnpusher - gmann, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 21).
9.Qxd4
9...Nc6 10.Qd3
An old decision. The computers prefer 10.Qc4+, but I have had mixed results with the move: perrypawnpusher - mjmonday, blitz, FICS, 2010 (0-1,26), perrypawnpusher - DeDaapse, blitz, FICS, 2010 (0-1, 19), and perrypawnpusher - transilvania, blitz, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 12).
10...d6 11.f4 g6
This was new to me. It was hard to look at the pawn pair at g6 and h6 and think that at least one of them should have stayed on its original square. This is not a major error, nothing to upset the fact the Black is better; but one way that Black loses in the Jerome Gambit is by the accumulation of small disadvantages.
12.Bd2 Nb4
Ah, yes, an old friend again... I am almost over feeling guilty when my opponents play this kind of move (When in doubt, harass the Queen!).
13.Qc4+ Be6
After the game Houdini showed a preference for 13...d5 14.Qxb4 dxe4 followed by 15.Nb5 a6 16.Qc4+ Be6 17.Qxc7+ Qxc7 18.Nxc7 Rac8 19.Nxe6 Kxe6 when White was a bit better.
14.Qxb4 Rb8 15.e5 Nd5 16.Nxd5 Bxd5 17.Qd4
This centralizing move is okay, but after the game Houdini recommended the more aggressive 17.f5. Now Black should retreat his Bishop.
17...c6 18.c4 Bxc4 19.Qxc4+ d5 20.Qd3 Kg7
Reaching the sanctuary he prepared on move 11, but it is too late.
21.Bc3 Kh7 22.f5 Qg5 23.fxg6+ Qxg6 24.Qxg6+
An old habit: simplify to an ending (missing 24.Rf7+ Kg8 25.Qxg6 checkmate).
24...Kxg6 25.Rf6+ Kg7 26.Raf1
26...Rhf8 27.Rxf8 Rxf8 28.e6+ Kg8 29.e7 Re8 30.Re1 Kf7 31.Bb4 b6 32.Bd6 b5
33.Rf1+ Ke6 34.Rf8 Rxe7 35.Bxe7 Kxe7 36.Ra8 Black resigned
So, I was following a discussion on the ChessPub Forum at ChessPub.com, always an interesting place to visit, when someone posted an innocent question
Seth_Xoma
Senior Member
FIDE Master, 2302 FIDE
and 2328 USCF.
Openings that you would never play
This could have been a poll but the number of possible openings would have been too many.
Anyway, which openings are so distasteful that you would never ever want to play them? For whatever reason?
I'm pretty opened-minded about adopting different openings but I don't think I would ever play the Pirc or the Botvinnik Semi-Slav for example.
For a while, the discussion was serious and thoughtful, with examples like the following
punter
YaBB Newbies
Budapest - 101 ways for white to get better ending
Any kind of scotch gambit/max lange attack etc. where black is better if he knows what he is doing
Pirc - 101 setups for white, all dangerous and black don't have clear way to equalize in neither
King's gambit - black is better
Basically no opening which leads to inferior position if opponent know the theory and no which leads to unpleasant ending out of the opening (even if it's drawable).
LostTactic
Junior Member
The Benoni systems, they're sound as far as I'm aware, but I still don't like the look of the positions they get.
Phildor defence, again don't like the look of the position for black.
The posts poured in. Occasionally you would see someone expressing open-mindedness, followed by someone who showed a limit to that open-mindeness – and sometimes those two "someones" would be the same "someone."
Smyslov_Fan
YaBB Moderator
Correspondence fan
I have a friend who's a master. He's made it a point of playing every legal first move in a rated tournament game. Ok, he chooses which openings to play against specific opponents, but I like his courage.
In blitz, I've played all sorts of openings. In tournament and correspondence chess, I don't know. I'm curious to see what Stefan Buecker would say. I doubt I'd ever play the Latvian, even in blitz. Nevermind.... I have played it in training games. Hmmmm.....
Other than that, I need to think about it some more.
Smyslov_Fan
YaBB Moderator
Correspondence fan
I wouldn't play the Transvestite Opening. There are some openings that are an affront to the game, and that's one of them. I also wouldn't play 1.Nf3 2.Ng1.
The latter post prompted some pleasant exchanges, all in the name of good fun (if not necessarily good chess)
Zwischenzugzwang
Junior Member
Dear Smyslov_Fan, would you be so kind to fill this gap in my chess knowledge - what is that??
Funky
YaBB Newbies
It's an opening in which king and queen trade spots on the first few moves, i.e. 1.e3 2.Ke2 3.Qe1 4. Kd1. It's playable for both sides, although White can claim a slight edge if you play it as black.
Michael Ayton
God Member
It skirts all dangers, and trousers the full point.
Zwischenzugzwang
Junior Member
Maybe 1.d3, 2.Qd2, 3.Kd1 and 4.Qe1 is more solid, as the king is not so exposed after move 2 !?
Seth_Xoma
Senior Member
FIDE Master, 2302 FIDE
and 2328 USCF.
Chess is all about finding the best move orders.
Some posters gave the discussion question some serious thought, and came back with some serious answers, like
Ty
YaBB Newbies
Here are some off of the top of my head:
As white:
-Grob
-Orangutang
-1.b3
-Annoying 1.d4 systems such as the london, colle, trompowsky, blackmar-diemar, veresov and others where white does not move the c-pawn.
-king's gambit
-caro-kann fantasy variation
-french exchange
-danish gambit, scotch gambit, max lange attack or any of those gambit lines where black is at least equal
-any anti-sicilian apart from maybe the Bb5 sicilians
-exchange slav
-vienna opening
-french advance
As black:
-QGD orthodox
-englund gambit
-petroff
-latvian gambit
-elephant gambit
-scandinavian
-1...b5
-1...b6
-philidor defence
-sicilian four knights
-sicilian pin variation
-mainline french with 3...dxe4
-Lowenthal sicilian
-Czech benoni
-Gurgenidze system of the Caro-Kann
There are probably more that I would not play, but I cannot think of them right now.
Uhohspaghettio
Full Member
Anything where you are relying on your opponent not to play accurately, eg. Elephant Gambit
* Any very sharp flank opening where you are hoping your opponent doesn't know it as well as you do.
* Anything where you do something that your opponent can easily avoid, for example Owen's Defence, Anderson's Opening.
* London System, Colle.
As will happen sometimes, the posts often approached the philisophical, if not the existential, as in
TN
God Member
The list of openings that you would never play is a reflection of the limitations of your playing style and chess culture.
That said, I would never intentionally play bad moves in a tournament game.
BPaulsen
God Member
2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.
Which is exactly why I wrote earlier I wouldn't play anything that sucks.
If it doesn't suck, I'll play it.
Fromper
Senior Member
GrandPatzer
So what does it say about me that I've actually played half the openings mentioned in this thread?
As to the original question, I have no answer. There are some things I can't imagine myself ever trying, like the Bongcloud Opening, but I could imagine myself maybe trying even the silly stuff once in a casual game just to see what happens. I just can't imagine ever ruling out any possible opening and saying that I'll never play it.
I read along, enjoying myself, skipping quickly over the inevitable squabbles that can threaten to derail, if not destroy, a good discussion, until I ran into the following. You knew it eventually had to come to
SWJediknight
God Member
There aren't many openings out there that I can say I would definitely never play, as although I have a reputation for offbeat gambits (e.g. Göring, Scotch, Albin's, Portuguese/Jadoul, and Blackmar-Diemer) I occasionally wheel out something more mainstream for a change. For example, I recently surprised one member of my local chess club with the continuation 1.d4 d5 2.c4!.
There are certain openings that I seriously doubt I would ever play though:
Fred Defence (1.e4 f5)
Damiano Defence (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6)
Latvian Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5)
Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+)
Grob (1.g4)
Omega Gambit (1.d4 Nf6 2.e4)
Oh, well, a long time ago I reconciled myself to the fact that not everybody was going to love/like/appreciate/tolerate/avoid denigrating the Jerome Gambit...
The discussion continued in the thread, mostly on topic, with some wrangling over the definition(s) of "gambit", for example.
A highlight for me was a series of posts by Stefan Bücker, editor and publisher of the awesome chess magazine, Kaissiber, who has reportedly been ill of late.
The last post left me smiling.
Mark Stephenson
YaBB Newbies
For me, the answer depends entirely on the circumstances. In correspondence, I would never play any dicey opening that depends on my opponent not knowing the best replies, since he or she will have access to every book, blog, forum, and database available. In blitz, I will try almost anything. And in classical, I may choose an opening that I ordinarily wouldn't play, if I know that it will really annoy my opponent. For example, as White, I will only play a KID exchange variation against a fire-breathing opponent who hates that.
There are many posts on this blog concerning the opening stages of the game, and more than a few on the endgame (especially the Bishops-of-opposite-colors ending, with and without drawing chances).
If the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) does its job, however (and more and more these days it seems to be doing so: see "Don't Blame the Jerome Gambit" Part 1 and Part 2 for a couple of examples), the focus of this blog's content should be shifting to the middle game.
Or, as in the case of examples of my play, the "muddle" game.
perrypawnpusher - FiNLiP
blitz, FICS, 2011
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6
7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qe3 Nf6
10.0-0 Ng4 11.Qg3 Qh4 12.Qxh4 Nxh4
Black has derailed any attacking thoughts White might have by exchanging Queens. Still, with two pawns for the sacrificed piece, at the club level the first player can hope for a draw (as I achieved in 54 moves this year, against pitrisko).
13.d4 Rf8 14.f4 Bd7 15.h3 Nh6 16.Nc3 b5 17.Bd2 c5
Lately, I have been using Houdini to help me analyze my games post mortem. I trust Rybka 3's positional sense a bit more, but Houdini is a very fast program, and in positions where there are tactics to uncover, it often gets there faster (and looks deeper).
Still, the kind of advice that Houdini occasionally offers is as far over my head as Rybka's can be. In the above position, for example, during the game, I was trying to figure out how to develop my "Jerome pawns": should I play 18.dxc5 and after 18...dxc5 have the e4 & f4 duo; or advance the d-pawn, followed by advancing and exchanging the e-pawn, giving me the d5 and e5 duo?
In "blunder check" mode, with 5 minutes allocated per move, Houdini suggested 18.dxc5 dxc5 19.f5 Bc6 20.a4 b4 21.Nb5 Rd8 22.Nc7+ Kf7 23.Bg5 Nxg2 24.Ne6 Rd4 25.Nxf8 Kxf8 26.Kxg2 Bxe4+ 27.Kh2 Bxc2 28.Rf2 b3 29.Be3 Rd5 30.f6 Nf5 31.fxg7+ Kxg7 32.Bd2 Bd3 33.Bc3+ Kf7 when White has an edge.
analysis diagram
Wow. If you say so...
The fact is, it will be a very long time before I can play chess like that.
In the game, I made the mistake of advancing the d-pawn.
18.d5 b4 19.Ne2 Bb5 20.Rae1 Kd7 21.Rf2 Rae8
22.Ng3 Ng6 23.f5 Ne5 24.Bxh6 gxh6 25.Nh5 Re7 26.Nf4 a5 27.Ne6 Rff7
Sometimes, when analyzing different Jerome Gambit games, the computers like White's pawn formation (d5-e4-f5) topped by his Knight, and I am sure that such a thing gets evaluation points for being positionally strong. Yet, in the game I wasn't sure what to do with the thing.
Worse, actually, it gave me an idea for a killer combination...
28.Re3
This is not best, but look what Houdini recommended: 28.Rf4 Re8 29.Kh2 Rf6 30.Rh4 Rc8 31.Re3 Rg8 32.b3 Ke7 33.Rg3 Rxg3 34.Kxg3 Be2 35.Rf4 Ba6 36.Kf2 Bc8 37.Rh4 Bd7 38.Ke3 a4 39.Rh5 a3 40.Rh4 Be8 41.Rf4 Bb5 42.g4 Kf7.
analysis diagram
If that's the line of play you chose, you're reading the wrong blog. (p.s. According to Houdini, Black has an edge.)
28...Nc4 29.Rg3 Nxb2 30.Rg8
I was not worried about what Black was doing on the Queenside, as I had a plan!
30...Re8 31.Rxe8 Kxe8
And here I was about to play 32.Nc7+, forking Black's King and Bishop, winning a piece... when I noticed that the c7 square was guarded by Black's remaining Rook. Somehow in my analysis at move 28 the pesky thing had disappeared.
Instead, White can win one of the worthless extra Black h-pawns, but the damage done, and to come, on the Queenside, gives Black the game.
32.Rf4 Be2 33.Rh4 h5 34.Nf4 Bd1 35.Nxh5 Bxh5 36.Rxh5
Given enough time, White can make something of his Kingside pawn majority; but he will not have the time to do so.
36...Nd1 37.g4 Nc3 38.g5 Nxa2 39.g6 hxg6 40.fxg6 Rg7 41.Rg5
Instead, White could go after Black's Queenside with 41.Rh8+ Ke7 42.Ra8 but his pawns would continue to fall, e.g. 42...Rxg6+ 43.Kf2 Nc3 44.Rxa5 Nxe4+ and Black's Knight proves his worth.
41...Nc3 42.h4 Nxe4 43.Rg2 Nf6 44.Rg5 a4 45.h5
The pawn race has only one outcome.
45...Nxh5 46.Rxh5 Rxg6+ 47.Kf2 a3 48.Ke2
Not best, indicated Houdini after the game, as it allows a mate in 54... I played on, hoping that my opponent would err, but he had a winning plan that actually won.
48...Rg1 49.Rh8+ Ke7 50.Ra8 Ra1 51.Kd3 Kf6 52.Kc4 Ra2 53.Rf8+ Ke5 54.Rf2 Rb2 55.Re2+ Kf5 56.Rf2+ Kg4 57.Rf6 a2 58.Rxd6 a1Q 59.Kxc5 Rxc2+ White resigned
I felt like ground meat after this game.
My congratulations to FiNLiP for some serious schooling.
In response to a Comment to a post here (see "GM Larry Evans and the Jerome Gambit"), continuing from yesterday's post (see "Instead of the Sunday Book Review"), here is a closer look at Whistler's Defense to the Jerome Gambit, through my most recent game at FICS.
perrypawnpusher - Yaku
blitz, FICS, 2011
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 Qe7
The American Chess Journal of December 1876, referring to their correspondence match, noted, "This is the key move to Lt. Whistler's defence, adopted in all his games with Mr. Jerome."
8.Qf4+
Of 8.Qxh8? the American Chess Journal of June 1876 commented, in presenting Jerome - D.P. Norton, correspondence, 1876 (1/2-1/2, 20) "Played experimentally; and analysis will probably show the capture to be unsound."
In the December 1876 issue, the ACJ was more succinct in its assessment of 8.Qxh8? in Jerome - Whistler, correpsondence, 1876: "Weak." The game continued 8...Qxe4+ 9.Kd1 Qg4+ 10.f3 Qxg2 11.Qxh7+ Kf8 12.Re1 d5 13.Qh4 Qxf3+ 14.Re2 Bg4 15.Nc3 Bf2 White resigned.
The alternative, 8.Qxe7+, seems to surrender White's chances for attack, leaving him with two pawns for the sacrificed piece, but lagging in development. Still, it was successful for White in the two games in The Database: obviously - flatchio, GameKnot.com, 2004 (1-0, 41) and Nesseerd - grandmasterrick, FICS, 2007 (1-0, 38).
Although 8.Qd5+ was given by the December 1876 American Chess Journal as better than 8.Qxh8?, it has received little attention: The Database has only one game, levigun - obviously, GameKnot.com, 2004 (0-1, 11) which is not very convincing.
8.d4 and 8.f4 remain untested, but as both allow the exchange of Queens, they seem as (in)effective as 8.Qxe7+.
8...Qf6
I faced, and eventually overcame, the sensible 8...Kg7 in a totally unconvincing win in perrypawnpusher - tmarkst, blitz, FICS, 2009 (1-0, 43), although my notes to the game have some ideas for White to try.
The text is a better way to block White's Queen check than 8...Nf6, showing that Black has to have some idea about how to play the Whistler Defense if he wants to keep his advantage. After 9.e5 Re8 10.d4 Bxd4 11.Qxd4 Qxe5+ 12.Qxe5 Rxe5+ 13.Be3, Black outplayed White with 13...Ng4 in Jerome - Jaeger, correspondence, 1879 (0-1, 45) while Black was outplayed by White after 13...Nd5, in abhailey - cruciverbalist, net.chess.com, 2008 (1-0, 51). The problem with 8...Nf6 is that it leads to a rather small edge for Black, nothing more.
9.Qg3 Ne7 10.0-0
At this point White's "compensation" for his sacrifice is looking a bit thin. He needs to keep developing and looking for opportunities.
After the game, Houdini suggested 10.Nc3 as a bit better than castling, but Black would still be better.
10...Rf8
Houdini's post mortem suggestion was 10...d5, which is one reason that White might have preferred 10.Nc3.
Intentionally or not, Black's move offers a pawn, which I decided to grab. That would give me three pawns for the sacrificed piece, and if I could keep my position solid until I got something going... Well, a guy can dream, can't he?
11.Qxc7 b6 12.Qg3
With Black getting ready to move ...Bb7, it looks like White is going to get punished for both taking the pawn and playing the Jerome Gambit in the first place. Still, the position is a problem that Black has to figure out.
12...Kg7 13.d3 Bb7 14.Nc3 Kg8
Black has castled-by-hand, but taken two moves to get his King to g8. (Perhaps he was first worried about the possibility of Bc1-h6 ?) The lost tempo is not a lot, but it does mean that White has been allowed one more small step toward equality.
15.Be3 Bxe3 16.fxe3 Qc6 17.Qg5 Rxf1+18.Rxf1
18...Qc5 19.Qf6
Another example of the warning, when you find a good move, sit on your hands and look for a better one... The threat to Black's King is real, and the offer of the e-pawn to distract Black's Queen is tempting, but White can accomplish the same (without the sacrifice) with 19.Qf4.
19...Qxe3+ 20.Kh1 Qc5
White is thinking "draw by repetition."
Is Black thinking "that's okay"?
If so, he misses 20...Nf5, which returns the piece but gives him a better endgame after 21.exf5 Rf8 22.Qh4 Rxf5 23.Qe1 Qxe1 24.Rxe1 Rf2 25.Rc1 Rxg2 26.Ne4 Re2 27.Kg1 Bxe4 28.dxe4 Kf7
21.Qf7+
With the draw available, I grabbed it.
Too bad. White could have tried 21.Na4, pressuring Black's Queen (which protects Black's Knight). If 21...Qxc2 then 22.Qf7+ Kh8 23.Qxe7 because if Black moves to keep material even with 23...Qxa4?, he will be checkmated. After 23...Qc8 24.Nc3 Qe8 25.Rf7 Qxe7 26.Rxe7 Rd8 it will be White who has the better endgame.
Of course, the rest of the moves in this game flashed by on the way to the draw, taking with them a few more chances for White to win.
21...Kh8 22.Qf6+ Kg8 23.Qf7+ Kh8 24.Qf6+ Kg8 25.Qf7+ Kh8 26.Qf6+ Kg8 Game drawn by repetition
