Jerome Gambit: One Way Out

 

The following Jerome Gambit is interesting in that it shows the defender, under pressure, sacrificing a piece for a position that keeps a draw in hand, while producing all sorts of difficulties for his opponent - unless his opponent finds the one move that allows him to escape and go on to win.

The Database shows 627 games with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ played by Bill Wall, and he scores 91%. 

Wall, Bill - NN

lichess.org, 2020

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 

As I have mentioned in an earlier post (see "Jerome Gambit: What About the Rook?") when Black plays this move he commits himself to sacrificing a Rook - it is the main idea behind both the Blackburne and Whistler defenses.

Serious defense requires knowledge of this, as an alternative strategy - Kick the enemy Queen with a pawn, and figure the rest out later - tends not to work too well.

7.Qxe5 Nf6 

Black protects the Rook, giving up the Bishop, instead. It is worth referring back to "Jerome Gambit: e-File, Friend or Foe?"

By the way, there are 879 games in The Database with 7...Nf6; White scores 63%.

8.Qxc5 

Here Black resigned in Wall - Guest3151819, PlayChess.com, 2014. He might have tried the trap 8...Nxe4 9.Qd5+ Kg7 hoping for 10.Qxe4 Re8, winning White's Queen. Years ago, Bill side-stepped this with 10.f3 Nf6 11.Qd4 b5 12.d3 Bb7 13.Nc3 c6 14.Bf4 Qe8+ 15.Kd1 d6 16.Ne4 Rf8 17.Bxd6 Qe6 18.Bxf8+ Rxf8 19.Qxa7 Nxe4 20.Qxb7+ Rf7 21.Qb6 Nf6 22.Re1 Qc8 23.a4 Qa8 24.b3 Nd5 25.Qd4+ Nf6 26.axb5 Qb7 27.bxc6 Qxc6 28.Ra7 Rxa7 29.Qxa7+ Kh6 30.Qe3+ g5 31.Qe7 Kg6 32.Re6 Black resigned, Wall,B - Sigmon,A, lichess.org, 2012) 

8...Qe8 

9.d3 

Sensible. Possible was 9.e5 Qd6 10.0-0 Nd5 11.Nc3 Nxc3 12.Qxc3 Re8 13.d4, but Bill is content to keep things simple: he is up two pawns.

9...d6 10.Qxc7+ Bd7 11.Qxd6 

11...Nxe4 

Hoping to stir up some trouble. At first I thought that 8...Qe8 might have been a mouse slip, intending, instead, 8...Qe7, but this might have been Black's plan all along.

12.dxe4 Qxe4+ 

After a long think, Stockfish 11 suggests that now 13.Kd2 would lead to a draw by repetion, initiated by Black, while all other moves -except one - would lead to a lot of pain and suffering for White, ending in checkmate.

Leave it to Bill to find that one exception.

13.Be3 

You found the move right away, right?

13...Rhd8 14.Nc3 Qxg2 15.O-O-O Black resigned

White is up a pawn and a piece, and, just as important, his King is safe.

Jerome Gambit: The Pawns Hold Their own

The following game is a pleasant contest between the extra "Jerome pawns" and the extra piece. Balance is maintained until the "33rd piece" intervenes - as it often does in a Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) bullet game.

angelcamina - olimacoinotna

1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2020

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 

7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qc3 Nf6 10.d3  

Seen recently:

10.O-O c6 11.Re1 Kf7 12.d3 Re8 13.Nd2 b514.Qxc6 Be6  15.Qxb5 Bg4 16.f3 Be6 17.a4 Qc7 18.Nc4 Bxc4 19.Qxc4+ Qxc4 20.dxc4 Ne5 21.b3 a5 22.Be3 Nfd7 23.Kf2 h6  24.Bd4 Ke6  25.Rad1 g5 26.Ke3 Ra6 27.h4 Nc6 28.Bc3 Nb4  29.Bxb4 axb4 30.hxg5 hxg5 31.Rd5 Ne5 32.Rh1 Kd7 33.Rh7+ Kc6 34.c5 Re6 35.cxd6 Ra8 36.Rc7+ Kb6 37.Rb5+ Ka6 38.Rcc5 Rae8 39.Rxe5 Rxe5 40.Rxe5 Rd8 41.Re6 Kb7 42.Re7+ Kc6 43.e5 Kd5 44.d7 Kc6 45.e6 Kd6 46.Re8 Kc7 47.Rxd8 Kxd8 48.a5 Black resigned, Wall,B -Varitt, FICS, 2020. 

10...Rf8 

Also seen recently:

10...Kf7 11.O-O Re8 12.Bg5 Kg8 13.Nd2 Rf8 14.f4 Qd7 15.f5 Ne5 16.Nf3 Nfg4 17.h3 Ne3 18.Bxe3 Nxf3+ 19.Rxf3 c5 20.Raf1 b5 21.a3 Rf6 22.Rg3 Qf7 23.Bg5 b4 24.axb4 cxb4 25.Qxb4 a5 26.Qc3 Qa7+ 27.Kh1 Rf8 28.Bh6 Rf7 29.f6 g6 30.e5 d5 31.d4 Be6 32.Bg7 Rb8 33.b3 Qa6 34.Rff3 Rc8 35.Qd2 Bf5 36.Rxf5 gxf5 37.Qg5 Qf1+ 38.Kh2 Qa6 39.Qxf5 Qa7 40.Qxc8+ Rf8 41.Qxf8 checkmate, MrPantera - IsaGOR, 10 0 blitz, lichess.org, 2020; and

10...Bg4 11.f3 Be6 12.O-O h6 13.f4 Bg4 14.h3 Be6 15.f5 Bxf5 16.exf5 Ne5 17.Re1 Qe7 18.Bf4 Nfd7 19.Nd2 c5 20.Nc4 Nf3+ 21.gxf3 Black resigned, Eser - NN, 10 0 blitz, Chess.com, 2020. 

11.O-O Kf7 12.Qb3+ 

Black wants to castle-by-hand. White disrupts this with a check, asking Is it worth a pawn for your King to find safety? The answer: Yes.

12...Be6 13.Qxb7 Rb8 14.Qxa7 Kg8 

Black has paid 2 pawns, but his King is safe.

White has 4 pawns for the sacrificed piece. Can he put them to good use?

15.f4 Ra8 16.Qe3 Bd7 17.Nc3 Rb8 18.h3 Bc6 19.b3 

Preparing to put pressure along the a3-f8 diagonal.

19...Ba8 20.Ba3 Qd7 21.e5 Rfe8 22.d4 dxe5 23.fxe5 Nd5 24.Nxd5 Qxd5 

Black has his own dangerous diagonal, and threatens checkmate.

25.Rf2 Ne7 26.c4 Qb7 27.Qf4 Rf8 28.Qg5 Rxf2 29.Kxf2 Rf8+ 30.Kg1 

The pawns have held their own against the extra piece. Now the clock claims its victim in two different ways.

30...Ng6 

A time slip.

31.Bxf8 White won on time

Jerome Gambit: Named...What?

 

The Jerome Gambit had experienced a series of names - some more serious than others.

When Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's analysis of his opening first appeared in the April 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal, the "New Chess Opening" was given an introduction

We have received from A.W. Jerome of Paxton, Ford county, Illinois, some analyses of a new move in the Giuoco Piano, first played by him, which we offer our readers as: Jerome's Double Opening

The editor of the Dubuque Chess Journal was impressed by the two sacrifices, 4.Bxf7+ and 5.Nxe5+, hence the "double" in the name.

Apparently, he was also interested in highlighting the Queen moves that the opening contained, such as 6.Qh5+, as the Dubuque Chess Journal of January, 1875 presented more of Jerome's analysis with the curious title "Queen's Gambit in Jerome's Double Opening". I have never seen that name again; but, see the Kentucky Opening, below.

The American Chess Journal of June 15, 1876 referred to the opening as "Jerome's Double Gambit". A few months later, November 1876, publishing a letter from Jerome, the ACJ referred to Jerome's "Double Opening". In a February 1877 article it simplified the name to "Jerome's Gambit".

A very powerful event reinforced that last name. Lieutenant Soren Anton Sorensen, writing in the May 1877 issue of the Danish chess magazine Nordisk Skaktidende - an article that subsequently was translated to English, French, Spanish and Italian (probably other languages as well) and was reprinted widely - gave his analysis of the opening, noting

The Americans call the game "Jerome's double opening," an allusion, probably, to the fresh sacrifice of a piece which follows at the next move, but we shall prefer to use the short and sufficiently clear designation, Jerome Gambit.

"Jerome Gambit", it was, after that, for the most part.

One subsquent attempt at renaming came in a review of  G. H. D. Gossip's book, Theory of the Chess Openings (1879), in the Huddersfield College Magazine of July 1879, where Thomas Long mused

We do not well know why this opening (a branch of the "Giuoco") is styled a gambit, as it consists in White sacrificing a piece on the fourth move, and Staunton in his Handbook defines a gambit as a sacrifice of a Pawn.

The Americans recognize the force of this by styling the opening "Jerome's double opening," although we don't quite see the meaning of this. How "double"? We think that the simple and natural definition of Jerome's Attack - as Cochrane's attack in the "Petroff" where a piece is also given up by White on his fourth move - would suffice.

"Jerome's Attack" does not seem to have been widely adopted, either.

One bit of renaming came with the publication of Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess by P. Anderson Graham in 1899. Blackburne's notes to his famous game Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1884 included the mention, after 6.Qh5+

Note - I used to call this the Kentucky opening.

As I explored in "The Kentucky Opening (Part 1, 2, 3 and 4)", Blackburne was linking the aggressive Queen move - and, hence the opening - to 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5, which was analyzed in the May 1875 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal, and titled the "Kentucky Opening."

However, the name has stuck, and you will occasionally see 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ referred to as the Kentucky Opening.

Of course, such an outrageous chess opening will have been called many light-hearted names over the years.

The July 13, 1917 issue of Western Mail of Perth, Australia, had a story referring to the opening as "The Verdun Gambit".

American chess legend George Koltanowski, as recorded in the September 1958 issue of the Precita Valley Chess Herald, referred to the "Ashcan Opening", riffing off the name of John E. Ishkan, who had played the opening in a tournament that Kolty had observed.

Editor Gary K. Gifford, in his Unorthodox Openings Newsletter #17, asked, fairly, "Jerome Gambit, or Jerome Gamble?"

Most recently, I have seen a YouTube video referring to the "Headless Chicken" opening.

 

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   .