Chess Opening Nomenclature (Part 1)

 

The Common Approaches To The Chess Opening Nomenclature  

Part 1: The Queen's Gambit, JG-Lines: The Nature, Names, The New View 

 

(by Yury V. Bukayev) 

 

 

It is known that the formation of the chess nomenclature (including names of chess openings) is a result of many historical causes. Thus, some names are strange (or even extremely strange), but the chess world will continue to use the majority of them, although it is valuable to use new correct synonyms for them too. The ideal order in chess opening names has a value. Thus, someone can ask you following questions:  

 

1. Is the ‘Queen’s Gambit’ (1.d4 d5 2.c4) a true gambit?  

2. Is the ‘Jerome Double Gambit’ (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+) - we can see this name rarely - a true double gambit?  

3. If no (in both cases), then what name is the most suitable (for the chess world) for it (in both cases)? 

4. Does a true Queen’s Gambit exist?  

 

Let’s create right answers. The article ‘Queen’s gambit’ on en.wikipedia.org site has right words: “It is traditionally described as a gambit because White appears to sacrifice the c-pawn; however, this could be considered a misnomer as Black cannot retain the pawn…” But I disagree with the end of this sentence (“…without incurring a disadvantage.”), here is my variant of its right end: “…in result of White’s possible immediate attack to return a material.” This end is based on the fact: 2.c4 dxc4 3.Qa4+ (for example) 3…Nc6 4.e3, and White grabs Black’s pawn on c4 so White returns a material. It plays no role who has a positional advantage here. So 2.c4 isn’t a true sacrifice, it’s a suggestion to exchange pawns on the square c4 really. So the ‘Queen’s Gambit’ (1.d4 d5 2.c4) isn’t a true gambit, it is a pseudogambit (‘Wikipedia’ is right). We call it a ‘gambit’ traditionally so this large tradition makes this incorrect name suitable, but the synonym - the ‘Queen’s Pseudogambit’ - is suitable for the chess world too.  

Analogously, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ (it’s a true sacrifice, i.e. a true gambit – the Jerome Gambit) 4…Kxf7 the move 5.Nxe5+ isn’t a true sacrifice, it’s a pseudogambit, so the ‘Jerome Double Gambit’ (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+) isn’t a true double gambit. It is based on the fact: 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 (or 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4), and White can grab Black’s minor piece so White returns a material. There is no a large tradition to call it a ‘double gambit’ so it’s the most suitable for the chess world to call it a non-gambit (a pseudogambit) move of the Jerome Gambit.  

Let’s look at the nomenclature of the King’s Gambit (as a famous true gambit) so we can see the exact word analogy for the Jerome Gambit that is the most suitable for the chess world: 

 

1.e4 e5:  

King’s Gambit (2.f4) → King’s Gambit Accepted (KGA, 2.f4 exf4)  

→ Bishop’s Gambit (2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4) 

→ K-Knight’s Gambit (2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3) 

→ other gambits of KGA 

 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5:                                                                                          

Jerome Gambit (4.Bxf7+) → Jerome Gambit Twice Accepted (JGTA, 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5)  

→ Queen’s Gambit [= JGTA True Queen’s Gambit] (4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+) 

→ Q-Pawn’s Gambit (4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4) 

→ other gambits of JGTA 

 

This consideration shows that an accepted true gambit being a “tree” with two (or more) theoretically important “White’s thickest branches” should have a word ‘Gambit’ in the name of each “White’s thickest branch”. Thus, in KGA the word ‘Gambit’ is everywhere about the sacrifice 2.f4, in JGTA this word is everywhere about the sacrifice 4.Bxf7+. It is necessary to remember that 5.Nxe5+ is an alone theoretically important way after 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 so “White’s thickest branches” “grow” on White’s 6th move only. This consideration shows that a true Queen’s Gambit exists in JGTA. 

 

 

Here is my unusual addition to the article. It is about the latest using of the name ‘the Queen’s Gambit’ in the modern art. Thus, recently I have read a short exposition of the new film by ‘Netflix’ having this name. This film contains black fantasies so stop, please, young people if they want to risk to watch it without a presence of moral and highly educated specialists of medical sciences, scientific general psychology and pedagogics. The author says by this name that the girl Beth Harmon, a fiction person, is a queen of the chess world and that she makes a large sacrifice in her life. I would like to make a chess conclusion based on this my article: the name ‘The Queen’s Gambit’ of the film can be understood better if it compares this large sacrifice in her life with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ (the Queen’s Gambit), but not with 1.d4 d5 2.c4 (the Queen’s Pseudogambit): the sacrifice 4.Bxf7+ is true and very large, and 2.c4 is a pseudosacrifice. Moreover, in the Queen’s Pseudogambit White’s Queen isn’t very active, and in the Queen’s Gambit it is very active (for example, GM Hikaru Nakamura’s second win in his blitz games with the Jerome Gambit against GM Dmitrij Kollars, 28.08.2020, has shown that his Queen has made four opening moves to continue his pressing, and it isn’t a possible theoretical maximum here, of course). Finally, it can be added that the Russian ‘Netflix’s name of this film - “Ход королевы” (its exact translation is ‘The Queen’s Move’) - can be understood here as having a direct connection with the initial move of the Queen’s Gambit (6.Qh5+).  

 

 

Contacts:   istinayubukayev@yandex.ru   or   Facebook   .