Jerome Gambit: Time Flies (Part 2)

 

[continued from the previous post]

perrypawnpusher - klask

2 12 blitz, FICS, 2023

21...h6 22.Bh4 Rd7 23.Rad1 

Many years ago, Grandmaster Andy Soltis, in his "Chess to Enjoy" column for Chess Life, suggested, tongue-in-cheek, that it was always safe in such situations to comment "Wrong Rook".

In this particular situation, Stockfish 15.1 (35 ply) suggests 23.Bxf6 gxf6 24.Rfd1.

23...Nh5 24.d4 Nf4 25.Rfe1 exd4 26.cxd4 g5 27.Bg3 

Both players think and move quickly according to basic principles. White's Rooks back up his central pawns. Black has an outpost Knight supported by a pawn and a Rook.

27...Nh5 

Black hopes to win the "minor exchange" (Bishop for Knight) but he would have done better to double his Rooks on the d-file.

28.Be5 Rdf7 29.Rf1 

29.Rd2 would have avoided some odd pins on White's Knight.

29...Nf4 30.Rfe1 

Overlooking a tactical shot. Better 30.Rd2.

30...Kh7 

Here Black had 30...Nxg2, uncovering the Rooks' attack on the Knight. After 31.Re2 the Black Knight would withdraw with 31...Nh4.

31.g3 Ng6 32.Rf1 Nxe5 33.dxe5

Again, the computer evaluates the position as balanced. Apparently White's doubled, isolated (passed) e-pawns help compensate for not having the Bishop.

33...Rd7 

Looking for an exchange of Rooks, and he gets his way.

Things would not have been so comfortable if White now replied with 34.Rd6!?, forcing 34...Rxd6 exd6 and elevating his central pawns to a real threat.

34.Rxd7+ Bxd7 35.Rd1 Rf7 36.Kg2 Re7 

37.Nd3 

Instead, 37.Rd6 would apply more pressure.

37...Bg4 38.Rf1 

A blunder, allowing a Bishop fork. I could easily have resigned here.

Despite White's central passed pawn, his Knight is out-played by Black's Rook.

38...Be2 39.Rf3 Bxf3+ 40.Kxf3 c5 41.h4 Kg6 42.hxg5 Kxg5 43.Nf2 Rxe5 44.Nh3+ Kf6 45.Nf4 Re8 46.Nd3 Kg5 47.a4 Rd8

White resigned

One bit of good news, I can't blame this loss on the Jerome Gambit.