Jerome Gambit, or Jerome Gamble? (Part 1)

Here is one of the articles from the "Unorthodox Openings Newsletter" (UON-17, January - April 2007), mentioned in the previous blog post.

Jerome Gambit, or Jerome Gamble? 

        By Rick Kennedy & Gary K. Gifford, edited by Gifford 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ . . . 

“This is completely unsound and should never be tried.” – Raymond Keene 

Gifford writes: In my opinion, the Jerome Gambit allows the player of black to win by force; of course, it is no picnic for black… he must be very careful. But I became convinced that black can win. I drew this conclusion after watching computer programs (with ELO 2300+) play both sides of the gambit. The black side won game after game. However, humans cannot calculate with the brute force, precision, and speed of computers. So, when humans play against humans, especially in quick time controls, it does not surprise me that white can often win with the Jerome. But, as Raymond Keene wrote in The Complete Book of Gambits (pub. Henry Holt & Co, 1993), in regard to move 5, Nxe5 (after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ . . . (see diagram) “This is completely unsound and should never be tried.” 

This article is based on e-mail conversations between Rick Kennedy and me [Gary Gifford]. Rick plays the gambit and is very familiar with its history and degree of worldwide popularity. I do not play the Jerome, but was optimistic about its apparent potential; that is, until I studied the opening as played by computer programs, inwhich I forced the chess engines to play the intended opening.

In mid September, 2006, Rick sent the following games to me. Under the username of PerryPawnpusher, Rick had some blitz wins with the Jerome Gambit. Rick wrote, “Gary, two more of my Jeromes, won't ever be mistaken for Topalov - Kramnik.” 

perrypawnpusher (1392) - Alternative (1177) [C50] 

FICS rated blitz game 6 16 FICS, San Jose, California US, 24.06.2005 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 Nf6? 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qe3 Re8 10.d3 Kg7 11.0-0 d5 12.Qh6+ Kg8 13.exd5 Nxd5 14.Nc3 Nxc3 15.bxc3 Qf6 16.Bd2 Qg7 17.Rae1 Rxe1 18.Rxe1 Qxh6 19.Bxh6 Bf5 20.Re7 Rc8 21.Bf4 Kf8 22.Rxc7 Rxc7 23.Bxc7 Ke7 24.Kf1 Kd7 25.Be5 Kc6 26.Bd4 a6 27.c4 b5 28.cxb5+ axb5 29.a3 Be6 30.Ke2 Bd5 31.g3 Ba2 32.c3 Kd5 33.Ke3 Bb1 34.Bg7 Ba2 35.f4 Bb1 36.h3 Bc2 37.g4 Ke6 38.Ke4 Kf7 39.Bd4 h6 40.f5 g5 41.Kf3 Bxd3 42.Kg3 Be2 43.h4 Bd1 44.hxg5 hxg5 45.Be3 Kf6 46.Bb6 Ke5 47.Bd8 Ke4 48.Bxg5 Kd3 49.Bf6 Kc4 50.g5 Kb3 51.g6 Bh5 52.Kf4 Kxa3 53.Kg5 Bd1 54.Kh6 Bb3 55.Kg7 b4 56.cxb4 Kxb4 57.Kf8 Kc5 58.Be7+ Kd5 59.f6 Ke5 60.g7 Kf5 61.g8Q Bxg8 62.Kxg8 Kg6 63.f7 Black resigns 1-0

perrypawnpusher (1394) - PREMK (1238) [C50] 

FICS rated blitz game 6 12 FICS, San Jose, California US, 18.06.2005 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Qf6 9.fxe5+ Qxe5 10.Qf3 Nf6 11.d3 Ke7 12.Nc3 Bb4 13.0-0 Rf8 14.Nd5+ Black resigns 1-0 

On Thursday, 28 Sep 2006, I [Gary Gifford] replied: “Hi Rick: Again, thanks for the games. Additional Jerome PC results have: 

Rybka / Colossus 0-1     Colossus / Rybka 0-1 

Spike / Colossus 0-1     Colossus / Spike 0-1 

I am pretty much convinced that White has a forced loss after: 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 

I believe White is taking a big gamble.... and that "The Jerome Gamble" may be a more appropriate name. If there is any soundness to be found in the Jerome, then I believe it involves replacing 5. Nxe5+ with a different move.

Still, for club players and blitz games, black will be under tremendous pressure. To find a safe path over-the-board, while the clock is ticking, is not easy. These programs can look at millions of positions quickly... we cannot.

I still remain curious as to if white will eventually pull off a win.

One thing this experiment shows is good defensive technique by black; and white trying very hard to get the dancing black-monarch. 

Take care, Gary 

Rick responds: “Gary, I appreciate the work you're doing on this. I have no illusions, by the way, about the soundness of the Jerome Gambit -- it's not sound, and there are plenty of refutations. It is "playable" in the way that "giving odds" is playable, or at a blitz time limit where surprise and attitude may be enough to win. What's interesting about it for me is the history of the line -- how it wound up in the equivalent of MCO and ECO, despite its dodginess; how it was followed all over the world.

[to be continued]