Chessfriend and Jerome Gambit advocate Philidor1792 quickly came to my rescue concerning the book mentioned in my previous post (see "Italian Party Stunt") - Opening Traps by GM Ferzbery [Boris Vainstein] (1990). Look at his hard work.
Hi, Rick,
I read in your blog about Vainstein's book in Russian. Here is a translation of a section about Jerome gambit from this book (not sure about the quality of translation, but it should be better than Google). In an attachment you can find the book itself as well as a Jerome gambit game from Kasparovchess forum:
The book is written in a form of dialog between a chess teacher (Vainstein) and his students: p.32
Philidor1792
I read in your blog about Vainstein's book in Russian. Here is a translation of a section about Jerome gambit from this book (not sure about the quality of translation, but it should be better than Google). In an attachment you can find the book itself as well as a Jerome gambit game from Kasparovchess forum:
The book is written in a form of dialog between a chess teacher (Vainstein) and his students: p.32
- Couldn’t white play “fortissimo” here? – asked Sergej
- How?
- Look: 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5
- So what did you get for the piece? – asked Nikolaj
- Two pawns and three checks – More than enough compensation. And by the way I’m attacking the bishop and rook now! What are you going to do?
- That’s really a question? - thought Nikolaj. Did Sergej really invent a new “fortissimo”?
- This was already refuted by English chess master Joseph Blackburne many years ago: 7. Qxe5 d6 8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.0-0 Nf6 10.c3 Ng4 11.h3 Bxf2+ 12.Kh1 Bf5! 13.Qxa8 Qxh3+! 14.gxh3 Bxe4#. In the final position black has only three light pieces, while white – a queen, two rooks and two pieces.
- Beautiful - Sergej said, - but you and even Joseph Blackburne did not persuade me. First of all white doesn’t have to take 8.Qxh8, it can play 8.Qd5+ giving one more check and probably take the b7 pawn then. So for a piece it will get three pawns and four checks.
- Probably this is not enough too. After 9...Rb8 and 10...Qh4 we will get pretty much the same as in the Blackburne’s game. (Why not 11.Qe2? – Philidor1792).
- Ok, but what about 10.c3? It looks as if one tried to fry an egg on fire in his house. Generally I must check all this.
- There’s nothing to check here. – said Nikolaj sharply. One can’t suddenly sacrifice two pieces in the very beginning of the game. Black doesn’t violate any opening principles after all.
- No, I must examine this myself. Remember, what Capablaca said!
***
Then I thought - said Sergej Viktorovitch - probably two-piece sacrifice is not good, but it’s also unfair to punish white so sharply – mate in 14 moves! Today I can suggest 9.d4! for white. Black got one pawn and one check back 9...Qxe4+, but what to do after 10.Be3! If black takes another pawn 10...Qxg2, white queen goes free 11.Qh7+ and here white shouldn’t lose. And if Blackburne closes the cage 10...Nf6, white shouldn’t be greedy and take the bishop 11.dc because of 11...Qxg2 12.Rf1 Bh3! 13.Qxa8 Qxf1+ and 14 ...Ne4#
But rather play simply and effectively 11.Nd2 Qxg2 12.0-0-0! and after the bishop retreats - play 13.Bh6 after which Blackburne won’t survive.
However he could win if he played without too much beauty and instead of 6...g6? simply protected his king by 6...Ng6! 7.Qxc5 d6. And now black has a piece for two pawns and good chances for a win. Though black should be aware of two dangerous white central pawns...
Conclusion is: there weren’t any reasons to sacrifice two pieces but still sometimes it’s worth making a trap for the sake of beauty. Blackburne’s opponent didn’t find a right way to defend. The result was a wonderful combination with two rooks and queen sacrifice.
Philidor1792
.png)