Jerome Gambit: This "Refuted" Thing (Part 1, A Basic Truth)

I recently received an email from a Reader of this blog who has been playing the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) successfully, and who has been enjoying the opening quite a bit.

There was this one line, however, that gave him trouble when he played it against a computer engine (set at a reasonble level of strength) - did I have any ideas for how he could succeed against it?

Other Readers have written to me with similar concerns.

Some Readers have written expressing puzzlement, that while the Jerome Gambit had led to a series of smashing, fun wins for them - a computer chess engine evaluated the opening as just plain no good, so how could that be? 

Those questions sent me into a deep think...

I have some answers. Please read along.

Let me start with a basic truth: The Jerome Gambit is a refuted opening. But - what does that mean, exactly?

What that means is: If your opponent is familiar with the Jerome Gambit and has enough time to think things through, he will probably have the advantage and may very well defeat you.

Of course, it's not that simple.

It is worth going back 13 years to a blog post titled "But – Is this stuff  playable?? (Part I)" where I reframed the discussion

Maybe a more useful question would be --
Under what conditions might the Jerome Gambit be playable?

I then shared some of Grandmaster Nigel Davies' wisdom from his book Gambiteer I (2007)

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.

 It is important to quickly pair GM Davies's thoughts with Geoff Chandler's "Blunder Table" (substitute "gambit" for "blunder")

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.

One conclusion to be drawn here is that an opening that is "refuted" at the Grandmaster level is not necessarily "refuted" at the beginner or club player level.

Another conclusion is that if you play the Jerome Gambit in a blitz or bullet game, your opponent may not have enough time to figure things out - much to his disadvantage.

Finally, if your opponent is unfamiliar with the Jerome Gambit - and many players are not familiar - he is more likely to make errors, much to your advantage. (As GM Nakamura cautioned "Once everybody knows about it, it won't be as good... as it has been")

So - how to respond to the questions mentioned at the start of this post? The answers range from the very simple, to the rather complex.

[to be continued]