I recently completed a Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) win and submitted the game to analysis by Stockfish 15. The results were confusing.
Was this another case of the computer not "understanding" the opening - as I have complained about before?
Or was I just stumbling along in the dark, only to be blinded by the light that the silicon assistant provided, post mortem?
perrypawnpusher - joshuagasta
"Giuoco Piano Game" tournament, Chess.com, 2022
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
A check with The Database shows that I have played 377 games with this position, scoring 82%.
Am I getting better? A quick check seems to show the opposite:
date range scoring %
2004-2005 100%
2006-2010 86%
2011-2015 76%
2016-2020 90%
2021-2023 75%
Oh, well...
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6
7.Qh3+
I have played this move once before, as chronicled in "Jerome Gambit: Wandering Away (Part 1) and (Part 2)".
[I] wandered away from recommended play and stumbled into a wilderness of weirdness.
I won, but I am not sure that I want to repeat the adventure.
The earliest game in The Database with this move is Idealist - Bhima, 3 0 blitz, FICS, 2000 (0-1, 20).
"JG: The New in Its Opening Theory, in Its " Psychology (Parts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, & 15) "
"Jerome Gambit: Analysis Leads the Way (Parts 1 & 2)"
7...Ke7 8.Qc3
Yury V. Bukayev 's novelty is his recommendation in his analyses.
joca552000 at lichess.org has subsequently adopted the move in a half dozen of his games, with mixed results.
8...Bxf2+
No comments:
Post a Comment