Occasional blog posts, years ago, were referred to as "Tidying Up" and dedicated to smaller bits of information that did not rise to, say, the length of an annotated game.
So, a little bit of recent tidying...
About 3 weeks ago, in "Jerome Gambit: Match!?", I reported receiving a challenge to play a Jerome Gambit match, with each side playing the Jerome as White. I responded quickly, but I have a sense that the match will not happen.
If you have seen any of my annotated games posted here over the last few years, you may have noticed that I play slow games, most at the rate of 1 move / 3 days - although often I send moves, especially obvious ones, much quicker. By contrast, I checked out a few games by my challenger, and he seems to have a taste for 3 minute games. Perhaps that is why he hasn't responded to my suggested time control.
As a test, I went to FICS and played some 3- 4- and 5-minute games, to see how I would do. Not well. I discovered that the only way that I could win was if my opponent dropped a piece or two. That does sound a bit like someone playing the Jerome Gambit, however, so perhaps I should reconsider...
Reflecting upon Yury V. Bukayev's recent post "How To Beat The Aggressive Gunman If The Game Is Important For You" I got to thinking about "pre-moving" in online games - making your next move on your opponent's time, so that it appears instantly (actually, about .1 second, I have read) as soon as he has completed his move. It saves time. I have seen, for example, Grandmaster Hikaru Nakamura frequently pre-move in his 3-minute Jerome Gambit games.
I wrote to Yury
So, I suppose at the beginning of the game, while White is thinking about his first move, Black could pre-move 1...e5, 2...Bc5, 3...Qh4 and 4...Qxf2#. As long as the moves were legal in the positions as they develop, Black's moves would automatically be played by the computer. If White cooperated, the game could go 1.e4 e5 2.c4 Bc5 3.Nc3 Qh4 4.Nf3 Qxf2#.
Of course, there are some risks for someone who pre-moves. In this case, if White plays 1.e4, he would immediately see 1...e5, but if he then played 2.d4, instead, he would still see 2...Bc5 - but he would happily vary with 3.dxc5. (Likewise, if White played 1.e4, 2.c4 and 3.Nf3, he might be surprised by the pre-moved 3...Qh4, but happily play 4.Nxh4).
I think Bullet Chess, by Harper and Nakamura, has the funny example of Black pre-moving 1...g6 and 2...Bg7, because he loved to play the Modern Defense. He was disappointed to see White play 1.e4 and then the otherwise ridiculous 2.Bh6, because the computer
instantaneously executed 2...Bg7, and then White executed the bishop with 3.Bxg7.
Finally, in "Jerome Gambit: More Explorations (Part 1 & 2)", I touched on Karl Traxler's reference to the "Blackburne-Jerome gambit."
Recently I exchanged emails with Edward Winter, of Chess Notes authorship
Mr. Winter,
Traxler refers to the "Blackmar-Jerome gambit" in a note to move 4, and gives the opening moves of the Jerome Gambit - 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+.
Although I know a good bit about the Jerome Gambit, I do not know what Traxler refers to with "Blackmar-Jerome".
I have not found "Blackmar-Jerome" anywhere else other than in that article.
Are you familiar with the "Blackmar-Jerome", or do you have any insights into what Traxler might me indicating?
Thank you, very much.
Alas, Mr. Winter's reply, as always prompt and pleasant was
Dear Mr Kennedy,
Many thanks for your message of 19 February, which I have been unable to answer until now.
Unfortunately I can offer nothing further on the subject, despite some effort.
With apologies and best regards.
Yours sincerely,
