Sometimes it feels like it has all been said, before.
Take the following game. Black decides to be creative in his defense to the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+), and even finds a novelty on move 7.
Alas, he is checkmated on move 8.
As I point out in the notes, there was a ton of information on the line - as well as a fascinating game example - available on this blog.
But, of course, you have to read the blog. (Forewarned is forearmed.)
Wall, Bill - Guest13762608
PlayChess.com, 2019
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke6
Wow. Black decides that accepting 1 piece is enough. There is a whole lot to say about this - check out the game Wall, Bill - Guest4105968, PlayChess.com, 2018 (1/2 - 1/2, 50) that I covered in detail in "Jerome Gambit: Over the Rainbow", Parts 1, 2 & 3.
For now, I can point out that the current Database has 29 games with this position, with White scoring 66%. In the 7 games that have the strongest followup (see below), White scores 79%.
6.Qg4+ Ke7
Black needed to play 6...Kxe5, and hang on.
7.Qxg7+ Ke8
The move 7...Kc6 would cost Black his Queen (after 8.Nf7+). Instead, the text costs him his King.
8.Qf7 checkmate
The following bullet game (1 minute, no increment) reminds me of the campy 1960s "Batman" tv show, when battles between the heroes and the villains would have large words such as "Pow!" and "Bam!" superimposed over them, comic book style. See for yourself.
angelcamina - fred314
1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2019
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6
7.Qxe5 Nf6
A simple solution that protects the Rook, but Black's best defenses - the Whistler (7...Qe7) and the Blackburne (7...d6) - both rely on offering the Rook.
8.Qxc5 c6
Or 8...d6 as in angelcamina - janpecsok18, lichess.org, 2018 (1-0, 17)
9.Qe3 Re8
Steady and principled, although 9...Nxe4!? directly was playable.
10.d3 d5 11.f3 dxe4 12.fxe4 Bg4
Mysterious. White's pressure on the King now builds and builds.
13.O-O b6 14.Qg3 Bh5 15.Bg5 Qd4+ 16.Kh1 Kg7 17.Bxf6+ Qxf6 18.Rxf6 Kxf6
19.Nc3 Kg7 20.Rf1 Rf8 21.Rxf8 Rxf8 22.Qe5+ Kh6 23.Kg1 Be2
Threatening checkmate, but overlooking the reply.
24.Nxe2
Black resigned
A major resource for understanding and playing the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) and related openings is The Database, a collection of over 59,000 games that I have maintained along with this blog.
While The Database contains all of the historical over-the-board and correspondence games that I have been able to collect, and, no doubt, suffers slightly from the fact that players are willing to share or publish their successful efforts, while letting their unsuccessful ones remain unnoticed - a full 93% of the games are drawn, regardless of their outcome, from games played at the online chess website FICS, at all time controls, from 1999 through September 2018.
That means that The Database largely reflects the experiences of the average online club player playing the Jerome Gambit.
So - how are the results of the Jerome Gambit (and for this question, I focused upon just 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) doing? Are we, as Jerome Gambit players, getting better over time?
This is what I found.
Year Games Score
1999 29 34%
2000 172 41%
2001 262 40%
2002 231 44%
2003 242 34%
2004 251 38%
2005 383 37%
2006 502 38%
2007 560 39%
2008 782 43%
2009 1,322 45%
2010 930 40%
2011 1,073 42%
2012 634 45%
2013 945 44%
2014 867 43%
2015 589 43%
2016 621 45%
2017 589 44%
2018* 389 45%
(*2018 includes games from January - September.)
("Scoring" is calculated by assigning one point to each win, one half point to each draw, and dividing by the number of games played.)
Another way of looking at the data is to graph the scoring percentages (which show a general trend upward):
There are any number of ways to look at this data.
Perhaps the simplest is to guess that players who are unsuccessful with the Jerome leave the pool (and produce no more games), while players who are successful stick around, adding more wins and bumping up the scoring percentage. Following this logic, though, it is not clear why the number of soon-to-be-unsuccessful players who played the Jerome Gambit in 1999 (and subsequently left the pool) should be any different than the soon-to-be-unsuccessful players who try their hand in 2019 (joining the pool, replacing those who left).
Maybe the Jerome Gambit, in general, is better known today than it was 20 years ago. (This blog and I will take some of the blame.) It is a risky and exciting opening, so, perhaps more sedate players who would find it not to their taste now steer clear (avoiding adding losses to The Database), while the adventurous swash-bucklers, knowing what they are getting into, charge straight ahead, nonetheless (adding wins, and possibly getting better over time).
Even though the scoring percentage for the Jerome Gambit remains quite modest, compared to many other openings, there are some super-players who do quite well with the opening. Quite possibly, the trend upwards of scoring reflects their entry into FICS play, and their improvement over time?
In the end, we must always remain careful about statistics - and refuted chess openings.
