Sometimes a defender may appear ready to deal with the Jerome Gambit, and might even start off looking prepared - but if that preparation is "a mile wide and an inch deep", it won't be enough.
Consider the following game.
Wall, Bill - Guest5643953
PlayChess.com, 2018
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Qh4
This "pie-in-the-face" variation is another example of an early ...Qh4 by Black, which immediately challenges White to find a way to survive.
7.O-O Nf3+
Okay, this is kind of strange...
Black's 6th move was one of the strongest ways to meet 6.d4, by ignoring possible material loss and, instead, initiating a counter-attack; but this move looks like the second player is suddenly upset at having two minor pieces attacked, and so he decides to give one up.
8.Qxf3+ Nf6 9.dxc5 Qxe4
What a difference a few moves can make! Instead of being down two pieces, White is up a pawn.
The game is not over, but certainly there is no talk of a refutation any more.
10.Qb3+ d5 11.cxd6+ Be6 12.Qa3 Qxc2 13.Nc3 cxd6
Here we have a subtle position. Material is even. White's advantage is the weakness of Black's pawn on d6.
Black hurries to protect the pawn, but this makes his position worse.
14.Bg5 Ne8 15.Qb4 Bc8
There was less danger in 15...b6. Black has un-developed two minor pieces and dis-connected his Rooks.
16.Rae1 h6 17.Re7+ Kg6 18.Be3
After the game Stockfish 8 showed a preference for 18.Bxh6!? but there was no need to chase complications after 18...gxh6 19.Qd4 Rf8 20.g4!? The text move is fine.
18...Rf8 19.Qd4 Qf5 20.Nd5
White's pieces cooperate and close in on the enemy King. In the mean time, it is again relevant to point out Black's Bishop at home, blocking his Rook, at home. Black now develops the Bishop, but it is too late.
20...Bd7 21.Re4
Threatening 22.Ne7+, forking the Queen and King.
21...Qh5 22.g4 Qh4 23.Ne7+ Kh7 24.g5
It is a tossup as to which is in more danger, Black's King or his Queen.
24...Qh3 25.Rh4 Qe6 26.g6+ Kh8 27.Rxh6 checkmate
Very nice!
One of the reasons that few chess players open a game with 1.f3 e5 2.g4 is that there is a one-move refutation - 2...Qh4 is checkmate.
For other refuted openings, however, the demands upon the defender are more onerous. Even the Jerome Gambit, which has a number of refutations, can require consistent play by Black, or the attacker will not only escape unpunished, he will win.
The following game is a good example.
Wall, Bill - Guest436030
PlayChess.com, 2018
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Bb4+ 7.c3 Qh4
Black does not waste time saving either of his minor pieces, but makes the same "mistake" that White often does in the Jerome Gambit - early development of his Queen.
The position, with Black's great lead in development, shows how White can see the tables turn and subject the attacker to an attack.
Before this game, The Database had 10 games with this line - all wins for Black.
(A well-timed ...Qh4 is one reason that I prefer the 6.Qh5+ variations over the 6.d4 variations; but Bill is not troubled by such things!)
8.O-O Ng4 9.h3 Be7
Black prefers to save his Bishop, instead of withdrawing his Knight with 9...N4f6.
10.hxg4 d6 11.Qb3+ Ke8 12.f3 Nf6
White's pawn wall defense seems to scream for 12...h5!? by Black.
13.Be3 b6
Planning to put his Bishop on b7 to further pressure White's pawn chain and Kingside is reasonable, but slow. The move also creates deadly weaknesses on the light squares for Black, as his opponent quickly shows.
14.e5 dxe5 15.dxe5
15...Nxg4
Black insists that he still has an attack, and is willing to give back his extra piece to prove it. Stockfish 8 is not convinced, however, and recommends, instead, 15...h5 16.g5 Nh7 17.g6 Ng5 18.Qd5 when 18...Nh3+ 19.gxh3 Qg3+ 20.Kh1 Qxh3+ 21.Kg1 Qg3+ 22.Kh1 Qh3+ etc. would lead to a draw by repetition.
16.fxg4 Qxg4
Compounding his error. Better was 16...Bb7, but White would still be better. Now White's counter-counter-attack wins.
17.Qf7+ Kd7 18.Qd5+ Ke8 19.Qc6+ Bd7 20.Qxa8+ Bd8 21.Nd2 Black resigned
Black is down a Rook with almost nothing to show for it.
Things are happening in the "Italian Battleground" tournament at Chess.com.
With 8.5/10, it looks like I will top Group 2 and move on to the next round - with JohnDuh2 (6.5) and Abhishek29 (5.5). With the Jerome Gambit I scored 2.5/3.
Likewise, xtfabio (8.5) is set to win Group 4, and advance with two of the following three: vasbur, XristosGikas, and nand_1996, who are still battling.
In Group 1 there are still plenty games to complete, but FM_Andy_Markk, Marek_Sturmvogel and warwar are likely to make it to round two.
Group 3 is too hard to call at this point. There are too many important games left to complete. One player - the second-highest rated on in the group - has completed only 1 of his 10 games, to date, but could still walk away with the whole thing. All six players still have chances to be among the three who advance to the next round!
Continuing the thread of the last few posts, it is no surprise that I have also been unable to find support for the suppossed Jerome Gambit game "Halpern, Jacob - von Scheve, Theodor, London, 1880".
I could find no game reference for Halpern earlier than 1883, and only four games by von Scheve earlier than that year - all games against Siegbert Tarrasch.
As interesting - if, in some ways, unfortunate - as it would have been for Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1884 to have been anticipated, it remains an exciting and original "first".
