The 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Bxf7+ game, Draper, Dr - Child, AW., Belfast - Dublin team correspondence match-2 1891-2, 1891 (0-1, 20), that we looked at in the previous post - because of its similarity to the Jerome Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ - is creative, but does not give a lot of direction on how the opening is to be played.
Fortunately, we have some guidance from Jerome Gambit players.
Philidor 1792 (265 games in The Database, 27 with this line) wrote in the post "What's Going on Here?"
Since I wrote to you last time, I've played many Jerome games and found some fun ideas.
First of all, I explored the Modern Jerome Gambit and realized that here, in contrast to Double Jerome Gambit, one doesn't need to wait when opponent develop his bishop to c5 square (because the Qh5+ idea isn't involved), so why not to play Bxf7+ in response to Be7 or Nf6, without waiting Bc5 move?
As you wrote in your blog some people believe that "it is bad investment to sacrifice the second piece with 5.Nxe5" and prefer to "focus on development". (If there is any soundness to be found in the Jerome, then I believe it involves replacing 5. Nxe5+ with a different move. - Gary K. Gifford). Why do we need a black bishop on c5 then?
So I tried to play Bxf7+ after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 as a response to any black move. After that I saw that in the arising positions the main idea of the Halloween Gambit is applicable. For example after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Ng6 7.e5 the black knight doesn't have any secure square (the g4 and h5 squares are controled by the white queen and after Nd5 or Ne4, Qf3+ with a fork may follow.)
The Halloween Gambit, by the way, is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5 Nxe5 5.d4.
You can find game examples by Philidor 1792 in "Unasked Questions".
I will return to this topic when I have more to share.
No comments:
Post a Comment