The title of today's post was laid out, previously
Like Pinocchio or the Velveteen Rabbit, the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) longs to become a "real" chess opening, or at least a "normal" one.
Of course, that is a bit of a stretch for something so often refuted.
Yet, occasionally, I experience a sense of "normality", as I noted a while back in my post "Still More Errors in Thinking 4.0"
I mean, I play a game, I publish it on this blog, someone takes that information and uses it in another one of my Jerome Gambits. I publish that game in this blog, someone elses uses that information in another of my Jerome Gambits...
Just like a real opening.
perrypawnpusher - warwar
"Italian Battleground", Chess.com, 2018
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6
This variation does not have a name, but it could well be titled the Brownson Defense, after O.A. Brownson, who played it in Jerome - Brownson, Iowa, 1875 (1-0, 28), shortly after the Jerome Gambit's debut.
The defense was subsequently played by William Carrington in the first game of his second match against the Mexican champion, Andres Clemente Vazquez, in 1876 (1-0, 34).
It should be noted that Vazquez played a match against Steinitz in 1888, and one against Blackburne in 1891. The latter match included two Giuoco Piano openings played by Vazquez, and it would have been fascinating - if downright risky for the first player - if one of the strongest players of the Jerome Gambit at that time had used it against the player whose crush of it against "Amateur" a few years earlier had covered the attack in ignomy. Alas, Vazquez opted for 4.0-0 both times.
7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qe3 Nf6
There are 186 games with this position in The Database, with White scoring a surprising 71%. This more likely reflects the comfort, knowledge and experience of the player with the White pieces, rather than an "objective" evaluation of the state of affairs.
10.O-O Kf7
Black will castle-by-hand, bringing his Rook to the e-file.
White will urge his "Jerome pawns forward."
11.f4 Re8 12.f5 Ne5 13.d4
13...Neg4
After enticing White's pawns forward, Black takes a swipe at his Queen.
14.Qb3+ Kf8 15.h3 Nh6
16.Bxh6 gxh6 17.Nd2
Here we have a strange looking position, quite possibly even, with White's extra (and healthy) pawns and development balancing Black's extra piece and unsafe King.
[to be continued]
Like Pinocchio or the Velveteen Rabbit, the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) longs to become a "real" chess opening, or at least a "normal" one.
Of course, that is a bit of a stretch for something so often refuted.
Yet, occasionally, I experience a sense of "normality", as I noted a while back in my post "Still More Errors in Thinking 4.0"
I mean, I play a game, I publish it on this blog, someone takes that information and uses it in another one of my Jerome Gambits. I publish that game in this blog, someone else uses that information in another of my Jerome Gambits...
Not long ago, in "Jerome Gambit: Too Fast, Too Furious", I published a recent Jerome Gambit game of mine which featured an interesting 18th move. I had played the move a couple of years earlier, based on analysis of a game Bill Wall played 8 years ago. I found it curious that a third game was chugging along the same old tracks... (all wins for White, mind you)
I am currently playing an online game that follows all 3 of the earlier games, 17 moves deep, so far. I suppose that it is possible that my opponent is simply reflecting what I posted on this blog - in which case, it will be interesting to see which one of us unveils his "improvement" on the play first. (Especially since it is my only Jerome Gambit of this round in the tournament, and I am not likely to progress to the next round, for more opportunities.)
Recently Bill Wall sent me 16 of his Jerome Gambit games that were Human + Computer vs Computer encounters. Such teamwork is sometimes referred to as advanced chess, or cyborg chess, or centaur chess.
Over the years, I have posted games from Human vs Computer matches (including the legendary 1993 Fisher-Kirshner - Knight Stalker battles, and the rolling 2006 RevvedUp - Fritz 8 - Crafty 19.19 - Hiarcs 8 - Shredder 8 - Yace Paderborn mayhem) as well as many Computer vs Computer games, but I think this is the first centaur chess I have presented.
The results are interesting - even if it is difficult to assign the relative impact that the human had on the play. Also, the time controls, which affect the strength of computer programs, are not known.
Over all, White scored 4 - 9 - 3 (34%), which would be unimpressive for a normal opening under normal circumstances, but which seems - as with all Jerome Gambit matches - a bit "high" for a many-times-refuted opening.
A little more insight is available by breaking the games down into 4-game matches.
Crafty vs Stockfish + Wall, for example, yielded 2 wins for Black when played by the team; and, likewise, 2 wins for White when played by the team. With all due respect to Dr. Robert Hyatt's computer engine, it appears it could have been simply outplayed by its stronger computer opponent. Who played what color did not seem to matter.
On the other hand, the Komodo 5 vs Rybka + Wall match, which ended with a score of 2 - 2 - 0, was composed of 4 wins by Black. Neither engine, it appears, was able to ovecome the "handicap" of playing the Jerome Gambit.
The Hiarcs 9 vs Critter + Wall match seemed a reflection of the comparative strengths of the computer programs, as Hiarcs 9 lost 2 games as White, and could only manage a draw as Black.
Interesting, also, was the Fritz 12 vs Houdini + Wall match. The team was 1 - 0 - 1 as White, and 1 - 0 - 1 as Black, suggesting that Houdini was the brighter computer program.
Looking at a couple of lines of play, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 scored 2 - 5 - 1, while 6.Qh5+ scored 2 - 4 - 2, not much of a difference.
I will be sharing some of the games, taking a look at what "theoretical" enlightenment they bring.
I recently upgraded The Database with games from the online playing site FICS through August, 2018, bumping the number of games it contains to just above 59,000.
With almost 20 years of games from FICS, I have a pretty good representative sample (not just wins, but losses and draws as well) of how online club players play the kind of openings this blog covers.
There are Jerome Gambit and Jerome-related games, including:
14,353 games with the Jerome Gambit, proper, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5, 4.Bxf7+ (White scores 46%);
2,614 games with the Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ (White scores 38%);
204 games with the Semi-Italian Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 4.0-0 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ (White scores 64%);
144 games with the Semi-Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 4.0-0 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bc5 6.Bxf7+ (White scores 65%); and
6,064 games with the Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Bxf7+ (White scores 56%).
In addition, there are some miscellaneous lines, including 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ (2,406 games, White scores 72%); 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 4.Bxf7+ (2,061 games, White scores 40%); and various reversed Jerome-style openings, e.g. 1.e4 e5. Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Bxf2+.
So, who plays the Jerome Gambit?
The player with the most games in The Database (White and Black) is DragonTail (1,452), although I note that his last game is from 2012. Likewise, kingmaple appears 619 times, but his last game is from 2010. yorgos has 600 games, but his last game is from 2014.
As for "active" players, Bill Wall now leads the pack with 842 games in the Database, followed by perrypawnpusher with 592 games - closely followed by drumme with 553 games and Petasluk with 521. I am sure that there are others not yet on my "radar" (e.g. ZahariSokolov with 331 games and rising quickly).
