Jerome Gambit: Illogical

I have been reading International Master Erik Kislik's Applying Logic in Chess (2018) and Chess Logic in Practice (2019). It is difficult work, but worth the effort.

The chess coach has convinced me, without mentioning it by name, that playing the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) is illogical.

Kislik has a good sense of chess computer programs (like Stockfish and Komodo) and their evaluations of positions and games. Here is a taste of his insights, should you wish to investigate his books. Consider it a Public Service by this chess blog.

Players often have little idea about the meaning of computer evaluations, so here are some guidelines on how to interpret engine scores. A +.50 advantage (with no tablebase hits) is an objective win a little less than 50% of the time, while a +1.00 advantage wins objectively nearly 80% of the time. +2.00 is closer to 95%, and +3 should be winning in well over 99% of objective cases excluding a major engine error. Hence, +.5 usually refers to a meaningful but non-decisive advantage for White (+/=), while a position that is +/- is at least 70% likely to be objectively winning. In practical games between titled players, if a player obtains a +/- position (often these positions are strategically winning if the reason for the advantage is structural) and can maintain it, the defending side rarely manages to defend perfectly and hold the position if it is at all possible.

I suppose it should be mentioned in this context that Stockfish 15 evaluates the position (30 ply) after  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ as being just about -4.00.

To quote the International Master and apply his words to the Jerome Gambit, Black "should be winning in well over 99%" of the time.

Oh, well. You have been warned.