Jerome Gambit: More Mysteries

Jerome Gambit games keep pouring in...

Another mystery (see "Jerome Gambit: Ghosts in the Defense") arrived the other day, followed, a few days later, by, yet, another. I want to share the games, and some perspective. I have made the name of the players of the Black pieces anonymous.

Eelco_Niermeijer - NN
10 0 blitz, Chess.com, 2020

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 7.Qd5+ 

Black resigned

Okay...  How about

Eelco_Niermeijer - NN,
10 0 blitz, Chess.com, 2020

1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 

Black resigned

What was going on??

Three things, about the world of the Jerome Gambit.

I wanted to share something from GM Nigel Davies' fantastic book, Gambiteer I.

“Having examined literally thousands of club players’ games over the years, I have noticed several things: 

1) The player with the more active pieces tends to win. 

2) A pawn or even several pawns is rarely a decisive advantage. 

3) Nobody knows much theory. 

4) When faced with aggressive play, the usual reaction is to cower.”

That might explain the defender's behavior.  Meanwhile, to explain the attacker's attack, some input from Geoff Chandler, chess player, coach, and raconteur. I quote from one of his posts

Here is a one-move blunder table showing how severe the blunder needs to be in a game between two players of the same grade.

All players should be able to spot their opponent leaving a mate in one on. 

A 1200 player should win if an opponent blunders a Queen or a Rook. But not necessarily if they pick up a Bishop or Knight. 

1500 players often convert piece-up games into a win, but this is not the case if a pawn or two up. 

An 1800 player usually wins if they are two pawns up. 

In a game between two 2000+ players a blundered pawn is usually enough to win.

I think that Chandler's blunder table can be applied to time limits, as well. In correspondence play, a little material means a lot. In blitz or bullet play, though - sacrifice away!

Finally, an assessment from the Jerome Gambit player, himself, concerning the first game, although it could apply to the second as well.

The game started off with a normal Jerome Gambit. After ...Nxe5 I decided to go for the Queen check variation rather than the theoretically more solid d4 move forking the bishop and knight, mainly because I consider it to be a more active way to attack the king and eventually gain compensation for the sacrificed pieces. As soon as I checked the king with my queen, black started burning some serious time which suggests that this gambit might have caught him by surprise which is in my opinion the biggest advantage of the Jerome Gambit together with its fierce attack on the king side. As you can see in the game I sent you he eventually burned approximately 1 minute and 25 seconds, only in his sixth and final move. Which shows that the spontaneous nature of the gambit is its main advantage, as if this had been a quick 3 minute blitz game where this gambit is originally intended to be played, he would have already used half of his time in his first six moves. My opponent was probably considering the best way in which he could get out of check. He eventually decided to block the queen's check with his knight going for ...Ng6 probably because he was scared of playing something like ...g6 which would run into Qxe5 delivering a fork on the bishop and rook, or protecting his knight with a move like ...Ke6 which would expose his king in a very dangerous way. After my opponent played ...Ng6 both protecting his knight and blocking the check I decided to play Qd5+! which is as you already know the theoretical novelty that GM Aman Hambleton introduced in his video about the Jerome Gambit which has the idea of inviting black to play either Kf8 or Ke7 which allows white to capture the bishop with another check to continue his attack and to stop black from developing. Surprisingly enough, shortly after I played this move my opponent resigned because despite being objectively better, as he was two pieces up, he thought that he was losing because of the speed in which I played my moves which suggested that the Jerome Gambit was either some kind of tactic which he had blundered into or a very strong attack which I had brought prepared from home. The moral of the story is that he resigned a six move game being two pieces up and with plenty of time on the clock solely because of the speed of my moves and the position of his king...