Jerome Gambit: Very Practical Play

My last two Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) games have featured sacrifices of the exchange (see "Jerome Gambit: Those Jerome Pawns, Again (Part 1)" and "Jerome Gambit: Zzzzzz.... Huh? (Part 1)"), so I was pleased to receive the following game, where White sacrifices a Rook for a minor piece - twice.

What makes the exchange sacrifices attractive is that they were not grand surprises, they were just parts of some very practical play. White was just on his way to winning the game.

n0freelunch - Ninjaaa5000

3 0 blitz, lichess.org, 2021

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 7.Qd5+ Kf8 8.Qxc5+ d6 9.Qe3 Nf6 

A standard position in this line that shows up 150 times in The Database.

10.O-O Be6

Black is developing by rote, and will soon have to retract this move.

11.f4 

Of course. White threatens to fork Black's Bishop and Knight.

11...Bd7 

I was amused - but enlightened - to see that this position occurred in perrypawnpusher - Mences, 2 6 blitz, FICS, 2009 (1-0, 38) with Black to move, as my opponent had taken only 1 move to place his Bishop on d7.  

12.e5 

A bit stronger was 12.f5, but White was ready to get his attack going, starting with opening lines.

12...Nd5 13.Qe2 dxe5 14.fxe5+ Kg8

15.e6 Bc6 16.Qf2 Qf8 17.Qf7+ Qxf7 18.exf7+ Kf8 

White's advanced passed pawn gives Black something to constantly think about.

19.b4 Nxb4 

It is tempting to suggest that Black had pawns on his mind. This grab is dangerous. Simply returning the Knight to f6 was better.

20.Ba3 Bb5 

Following the old rule: If your opponent attacks one of your pieces, you don't have to defend it, you can simply attack a more valuable piece of his.

The problam for Black here is that White can capture with check.

21.Bxb4+ Ne7 22.Na3 

Practical chess. Stockfish 13 objects, but White wants to keep his f7 pawn protected.

Remember, too, that this is a 3-minute game. That's not a lot of time for Black to unravel all of the mysteries of the Jerome Gambit.

22...Bxf1 23.Rxf1 g6 

If only it were possible for Black to play ...Kg7 and ...Rhf8, he might finally get the enemy passer under control. Alas, there is no time - and the idea does not work, anyhow.

24.Nb5 Kg7 25.Bc3+ Kh6 26.Bxh8 Rxh8 

27.f8=Q+ Rxf8 28.Rxf8 Nf5 29.Rxf5 

Simplify, simplify, simplify.

White has enough extra material to win. He removes Black's last defending piece. Giving up the exchange does not matter.

29...gxf5 30.Nxc7 Kg5 31.Nd5 f4 32.Kf2 Kf5 33.Ne7+ Ke5 34.Nc8 Kd5 35.Nxa7 Kc5 

36.Nc8 Kc6 37.Ne7+ Kd6 38.Nf5+ White won on time

Black can not protect his Kingside pawns, stop White's passed d-pawn, and defend against White's wily Knight, so perhaps the clock did him a favor.

Jerome Gambit: History Lesson

I was roaming the internet, wondering if anyone else these days was dealing with the Jerome-ized version of the Two Knights Defense, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Bxf7+, a line I have occasionally referred to as an "impatient Jerome Gambit" because White sacrifices his Bishop before Black plays ...Bc5.

I came upon a pleasant surprise.

Do you remember "Battle Chess"? The early chess-playing program on a variety of platforms, featuring basic graphics and even more basic chess?

Well, there is a 2017 YouTube video of the game Doucette, Matthew - Battle Chess, NES (level 1) [1990], featuring this line of play.

If you think that the Jerome Gambit and its relatives are primative, then you will appreciate the computer treatment of this line from 30 years ago. I had to share it.

Plaing the game over here will take a lot less time then watching the video.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Ng5+ Kg6 6.Qf3! 

Why the "!"? Shouldn't the move get a "?!" because of the reply 6...Nd4 ?

Matthew gets credit for knowing his opponent: early computers were serious material-grabbers. While modern programs have been mostly cured of this affliction, there is simply no way that Battle Chess can resist temptation in this game.

6...Kxg5 7.Qf5+ Kh6 8.d3+ g5 9.Qxg5 checkmate.

Awesome.

Jerome Gambit: The Proper Mental Attitude

 

A new Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc3 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) video has just been posted on YouTube, and it is definitely worth the watch.

"Most AGGRESSIVE gambit? Jerome Gambit" by ChessGeek is inspired by GM Aman Hambleton's play (see "All In Good Fun") and shows both enthusiasm and the proper mental attitude for playing the game: objectively, some lines are clearly busted (e.g. capturing the Rook when facing Whistler's Defense) but are still the better choice, as things are so tricky/trappy that White has plenty of chances - of course, this could be said about the entire Jerome Gambit.

The video is about 9 1/2 minutes long, and if it doesn't get you even more enthusiastic about the Jerome Gambit - well, there's always the Exchange Slav that you can switch to...

Return to Pollock (Part 2)

 

The Knight sacrifice in the odds game Pollock - Rumboll, Bath, 1882 that we saw in yesterday's post was interesing enough that I searched for other game examples - not necessarily at odds - arising from the Vitzthum Attack. I was surprised that I could only find one.

Gyles, Alfred - Fox, C.

NZL-ch, Timaru, 1911

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Ng5 Nh6 6.Qh5 

I have used the name "Vitzthum Attack" and "Sarratt Attack" interchangeably, as have other authors, but the games that I have seen by Conrad Waldemar Vitzthum von Eckstaedt start with this Queen move, rather than 6.Nxf7 or 7.Bxf7+, so perhaps I should start being more precise.

6...Ne5 

Probably one reason that Selkirk's suggestion (see next move), from his The Book of Chess, is so rarely seen is that it comes after this defensive error by Black. Either 6...Qf6, 6...Qe7 or even 6...0-0 would be stronger.

7.Ne6 dxe6 

As recommended by Pollock.

Bruce Pandolfini, in his Chess Openings: Traps and Zaps (1989) assesses the situation

Scenario: White sacrifices a pawn to speed development. Black has as many pieces out at White, but they are not as well disposed: two lined up on the 5th rank and the other on the edge at h6. White pierces Black's veneer with 7.Ne6!, when 7...dxe6 8.Qxe5 points out Black's disarray and attendant helplessness. White then threatens to capture on c5, g7 and h6 - any of which would put White a piece ahead. There is no defense to all three forays.

8.Qxe5 Bb4+ 9.c3 

9...dxc3 10.bxc3 Be7 11.Qxg7 Bf6 12.Qxh6 Bxc3+ 13.Nxc3 Qd4

White has two extra pieces for a pawn. He decides to give back a piece, while placing his dark square Bishop on the long diagonal. He could try, instead, 14.Bb5+ c6 15.Bb2, because 15...cxb5 would be strongly met by 16.Rd1.

14.Bb2 Qxc4 15.O-O-O Bd7 16.Qf6 Rg8 17.Rd4 Qc5 18.Rhd1 Rd8 

19.Kb1 Qg5 20.Qxg5 

Exchanging Queens does not slow down White's attack much, but he has stronger in  20.Qf3. 

20...Rxg5 21.f4 Rxg2 22.Ba3 a6 23.f5 b6 24.fxe6 fxe6 25.Rf1 Rg8

White now liquidates the position. This strategy may turn out to be wrong, in which case he probably would regret not playing more aggressively at move 14 (see above).

26.e5 Bb5 27.Nxb5 axb5 28.Rxd8+ Kxd8 29.Rf8+ Rxf8 30.Bxf8 c5 

In this curious position, the game was reportedly drawn.

If Black keeps his Queenside pawn structure intact and unmoved, while advancing his King along the a-file - keeping in mind that he has to be able to protect his b6 pawn if it is attacked - it looks like he may very well keep the balace.

White cannot send his King to the Kingside to create a passed h-pawn, because Black's pawns would then break through on the Queenside.

Return to Pollock (Part 1)

 

I continue to keep an eye open for games by W.H.K. Pollock, despite his dismissive attitude toward the Jerome Gambit ("Every form of the Jerome Gambit is, I believe, unsound...").

This blog has taken a peek at 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Qe2 from (among others) Pollock, W.H.K. - Vernon, J.E., Bath vs Bristol match, 1883 (1/2 - 1/2, 29).

It has presented some history of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+, variously referred to as the  Noa Gambit / Monck Gambit / Open Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit, as well as a couple of Pollock's games with the line.

I recently encountered W.H.K. Pollock A Chess Biography with 523 Games, by Olipiu G. Urcan and John Hilbert, (2017), which includes an odds game by Pollock, using

[T]he Sarratt or Vitzthum Attack, a possible fore-runner to the Jerome Gambit. See "A Bridge To... Somewhere?", "Another Distant Relative?", "The Sarratt Attack", "Another look at the Sarratt Attack" and "Sarrat Attack: No Way A World Champion...".

 

Pollock - Rumboll, A.

Bath, 1882

Remove White's Knight at b1

notes by Pollock 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Ng5 Nh6 6.Qh5

6...Ne5

A more precise defense was 6...Qf6 7.O-O Qg6.

7.Ne6

This beautiful move, which wins a piece by force, is mentioned in [George H.] Selkirk's The Book of Chess but in very few, if any, more recent works in English. 

[Selkirk's suggestion came in a note to the game Pindar and Beaver, consultation vs Anderssen, Manchester, 1857 (1-0, 17). No odds were given. - Rick]

7...Bb4+

Producing a veritable vortex! It would have been better to play 7...dxe6 and the game would be about even. 

8.c3 Nd3+?

Giving away the advantage. Black could have maintained the edge with 8...dxe6! 9.Qxe5 Be7 10.Qxg7 Bf6 11.Qxh6 dxc3 12.Be3 cxb2 13.Rb1 Bc3+ 14.Ke2 Qd6. 

9.Bxd3 dxc3?

Best was 9...dxe6! 10.Qb5+ c6 11.Qxb4 e5 with chances for both sides. 

10.Nxg7+! Kf8 

10...Ke7 is met by 11.Qe5+ Kf8 12.Bxh6 cxb2+ 13.Ke2

11.Bxh6 cxb2+ 12.Ke2 bxa1=Q 13.Rxa1 Qf6 

13...Kg8 is met by 14.Qg4 Kf8 15.Ne6+ Ke8 16.Qg7! 

14.Ne6+ Kg8 15.e5 Qxe6 

and White mates in three moves

Jerome Gambit: Those Jerome Pawns, Again (Part 3)

 

[continued from the previous post]

perrypawnpusher - ManWithABigPlan

2d/move, Chess.com, 2021

20...a5 

My opponent gives up on his Knight too soon. He could take advantage of the placement of my Queen and play 20...h6, so as to meet 21.h3 with 21...hxg5. Whether White plays 22.Qxg5 or 22.Qg3 followed by 23.Qxg5 (Stockfish's post mortem choice, although I am not sure why) Black's Knight will escape.

21.h3 a4 22.hxg4 axb3 23.axb3 Qc5 

White has the advantage of the exchange and some pawns, but the tripled, isolated g-pawns do not look very impressive.

24.Qe3 Qc8 25.Qf4 

I was not sure of a plan, but if Black had tried 25...Qc5 here, I would not have repeated the position. Still, he should have offered.

25...Bxg4 

Now I had an idea to reposition my pieces.

26.Qf7+ Kh8 27.Rf4 Be6 28.Qh5 Bg8 

29.g6 

Played mostly out of frustration - and some hope for the f7 square.

29...h6 30.Rf7 

Afterward, Stockfish 13 preferred 30.e5. 

30...Bxf7 31.gxf7 Rf8 

Now the central pawns are a threat.

32.e5 Qe6 33.Rf1 Kh7 34.Qf5+ 

This does more than exchange Queens, removing the blockader of the pawn at e5. I could see my way to the end now.

34...Qxf5 35.Rxf5 g6 

35...Kg6 would receive the same response.

36.e6 gxf5 Black resigned

After 37.e7 a pawn will promote.

Those "Jerome pawns!"

An impressive game by ManWithABigPlan.

Jerome Gambit: Those Jerome Pawns, Again (Part 2)

 

[continued from the previous post]

It was time to complete my development, and then make a typical Jerome Gambit "error".

perrypawnpusher - ManWithABigPlan

2d/move, Chess.com, 2021

13.Rae1 Nxg5 14.fxg5 Ng4 

White's pawns have been disarranged by the exchange of pieces, but the result has given me more to work with. After the game Stockfish 13 rated Black almost 4 pawns better, but things were about to get very messy...

15.Nb5 Qb6 

After the game had concluded, the computer at Chess.com criticized this move as a "blunder" which I thought was quite harsh. It took a while to find out what the silicon friend was all worked up about - especially because the move leads to an even game. 

16.Nxd6 Be6 

An impresive idea, but probably there was something better.

The implied threat, 16...c4+, fizzles out after 17.Kh1, when Black's Rook remains in danger.

Moving the Rook with 16...Re7 allows White to equalize with 17.e5 Qxb2 18.h3 Nxe5 19.Qd5+ Be6 20.Qxe5 Qxe5 21.Rxe5 Rd8 22.Nxb7 Rd5 23.Re2 Rxb7 24.Rxe6. An even game is not bad - at this point in the game.

It is now possible to see that Black's best 15th move would have been 15...Be6, as then 16.Nxd6 could have been met by the dual purpose 16...Rf8, taking the Rook out of danger and contesting the f-file. White could exchange Rooks with 17.Rxf8+ Qxf8 and then grab a pawn with 18.Nxb7, but this would only lead to 18...Qb8 19.Nd6 Qxb2, when 20.h3 would not win a piece as the Knight's retreat 20...Ne5 would be to a protected square and White has no chance for Qd5+.

Of course, most of this insight came to me after the game was over.

17.Nxe8 Rxe8 

White has a Rook and 2 pawns for 2 pieces. However, his passed e-pawn does not seem to be going anywhere, his b-pawn and a-pawn are in danger, and his g-pawn's future is uncertain.

18.b3 c4+ 

My opponent had a plan.

19.Kh1 c3 

This was a fine idea, and under ordinary circumstances it might well have succeeded - because I completely overlooked the threat. I mean, can't White just grab the pawn? Certainly 20.Qxc3 Rc8 21.Qd2 is material for free, right? Especially because I have a habit of grabbing material, and then suffering for it...

20.Qf4

Luckily for me, it turns out that I was after material, but in a different way. (Saved by even greater greed!) This move cuts off Black's Knight's retreat, and makes it vulnerable to 21.h3.

The real problem with 20.Qxc3? was 20...Nf2+, winning back the exchange, because 21.Kg1?, instead of the capture, would have led to 21...Nh3+ 22.Kh1 Qg1+! 23.Rxg1 Nf2 smothered checkmate!

Hat tip to ManWithABigPlan!

[to be continued]