We must know what we're doing...

Did you look over the games from Thursday's post?

Did you actually play the moves from Bill Wall's games out in your head or on a board?

Did you wind up asking yourself: What was Black thinking??

White plays 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 and before he can even think of sacrificing his Bishop with 4.Bxf7+ he sacrifices his Knight instead with 4.Nxe5.

Does Black say "Yippee! Gimme! Gimme!ThankYouVeryMuch!" and take the piece? No, he does not. He looks the gift horse in the mouth and plays 4...Nh6. 

Really.

Next time around, the Bill's new opponent does take the Knight, but only after he sacrifices a piece of his own with 4...Bxf2+ 5.Kxf2 Nxe5.

What?

If these were over-the-board games, we might be accusing Bill of witchcraft – or would that be warlockcraft ?

Every time I tell Bill that it's risky to play such a refuted opening as the Jerome Gambit, he reminds me that it is only risky if the opponent knows the refutation.

Sometimes, instead, the opponent figures that the Jerome Gambiteer must know what he's doing – why else would someone sacrifice a piece, except if it were strong ? –  and so bails out of the refutation, just in case.

With almost 1600 posts, this blog is many things, but most peculiarly an ongoing study of what must be considered errors in problem-solving.