Monday, August 24, 2020

Jerome Gambit: Article

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

I recently received  by email the following Jerome Gambit article. Have a pleasure!                                                                        

The new life for A.Jerome’s and D.Mills’s b2-b4 blow!

 

Dear Rick, my dear friend!

 

The Jerome Gambit (JG, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bf7) is your main chess love, and here is my present for you! Thus, I would like to show my inventions in “a strong theory of this theoretically weak gambit that is very useful for players”. It isn’t necessary to comment the following initial moves: 4.Bf7 Kf7 5.Ne5 Ne5 6.Qh5 Ke6. It isn’t necessary to compare the forces of the way 7.Qf5 Kd6 8.b4 (Way 1) and of the way 7.b4 (Way 2) with their alternatives; I’ll consider these two ways below. But it is necessary to say that some modern experts of JG analyse the very bright game (1899) of the famous chess person Daniel Yarnton Mills (White) and NN (Black)

[1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bf7+ Kf7 5.Ne5+ Ne5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.b4 Bb4 9.c3 Ba5 10.Ba3+ c5 11.Bc5+ Kc5 12.Qe5+ Kb6 13.Qd6+ Kb5 14.a4+ Kc4 15.Qd5#],

and all experts comment its middle without a censure of the moves 8…Bb4 9.c3. Consequently, they evaluate these moves as very good ones, and these their evaluations are mistaken, I’ll prove it below. I suggest the following names to don’t use the names “Way 1” and “Way 2”: Way 1 = Queen’s Jerome-Mills variation, Way 2 = Pawn’s Jerome-Mills variation. Here is a part of my analysis with my inventions:

 

I.                [Queen’s Jerome-Mills variation]

A)   8…Bb4?!

A1) 9.f4!N [White has an enough strong attack.] 9…Ke7! [9…Qf6?? 10.fe! Qe5 11.Qe5 Ke5 12.Bb2 with 13.Bg7: White wins. If 9…Ng6 or 9…Nc6 then 10.Bb2! If 9…Qe7 then 10.Bb2 too. If 9…Qh4 10.g3 Nf3 then 11.Kf2!: White wins.] 10.fe! d6 [10…Nh6 11.Qg5 Ke6 (11…Ke8 12.Qh5!: White attacks. If 12.Qg7? then 12…Qh4!: Black wins.) 12.Qg3!: White attacks.] 11.Qf4! Ke8 [11…de 12.Qe5; 11…Qf8?! 12.Qg5 with 13.Rf1; 11…Nh6 12.Qh4 Ke6 13.Qh3; 11…Be6 12.Bb2: White attacks in all the cases.] 12.Bb2 Qe7 13.0-0 de 14.Be5: White attacks.

I suggest the name “Bona Fide Master attack” for this opening variation 9.f4. (Of course, it is impossible to see here the title “FIDE Master”: there are English words “bona fide” and “master” only.) Also I suggest “Three Directions attack” as the synonym of this name: White pieces’ and pawns’ moves form here three directions of attacking. If White’s pawns go to the north then these exact directions are a north-west one, a north-east one and a north one.

 

A2) 9.c3? Nd3!N 10.Kd1 Qf6!? 11.Qd5 Ke7 12.Qd3 Bc5: Black wins.

B) 8…Bd4!N 9.Nc3 [9.c3? Nd3! 10.Kd1 Nf2 11.Ke2 Nh1 with the idea 12…Ke7: Black wins. If 9.Ba3? then 9…Ba1 10.b5 c5: Black wins.] 9…Bc3 10.dc Qf6: Black wins.

 

II.             [Pawn’s Jerome-Mills variation]

7…Bb4!? [There are some good alternatives, but the fight can finish rapidly nowhere, for   example: 7…Bd4!?N 8.Qh3!] 8.Qf5!

A)   8…Kd6?! – 7.Qf5 Kd6 8.b4 Bb4?! (Queen’s Jerome-Mills variation)

B)    8…Ke7!N 9.Qe5 Kf8: Black wins.

 

It is a new opening theory only. If you think about future practice then it is important to remember that it isn’t very simple for Black to find in blitz the winning return of a piece 8…Ke7! in the Pawn’s Jerome-Mills variation, because Black has accepted all White’s “wild” sacrifices since the 4th move and feels the growing emotional weakening. And I say the same about the return of a piece 9…Ke7! in the Bona Fide Master attack.

Regards, Yury V. Bukayev, istinayubukayev@yandex.ru .

 

No comments: