Jerome Gambit: Somewhat of A Disaster

The second round of the "Play the Italian Game III" tournament at Chess.com is turning out to be somewhat of a disaster for me: four games (out of six) completed, all of them losses - including two Jerome Gambits.

The loss in the following game can not be blamed on the opening, however.

perrypawnpusher - Freddy1201

3d/move, "Play The Italian Game III", Chess.com, 2023

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 

The Two Knights Defense.

4.O-O 

Instead, 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ (or 5.0-0 the Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit) is the Noa Gambit or the Monck Gambit -

4...Bc5 

Allowing a transposition.

5.Bxf7+ 

Transposing to the Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e4 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.O-O Nf6.

This position appears in 1,843 games in The Database, with White scoring 43%.

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ 

I have also faced 6.Nc3 in leobrazer - perrypawnpusher, 3 0 blitz, FICS, 2009 (0-1, 48) and 6.d3 in Capt.Mandrake - perrypawnpusher, JG3 thematic tournament, ChessWorld.net, 2008, 6.d3 Rf8 7.Ng5+ Kg8 8.Nf3 d5 Black resigned

6...Nxe5 7.d4 Bd6 

The strongest response for Black here is 7...d5. It has not been played a lot, but has scored 12 - 1 - 1 for the defender. (Some of that success might be due to familiarity and preparation in the opening. Yes, occasionally Black knows about the Jerome Gambit, too.)

8.dxe5 Bxe5 9.f4 Bd6 10.e5 Bc5+ 11.Kh1 d6 12.exf6 Qxf6 

Stockfish 16 evaluates this position as better for White, largely, it appears, due to it's choice for White's next move - 13.f5!? (which I never even considered)

Black's King is less safe than White's, but otherwise he is better developed and has the two Bishops. The theoretical advantage for the first player of having the Kingside pawn majority vs his opponent having the Queenside pawn majority would only come into play in a King + pawns endgame, which is still far away.

13.Nc3 Bf5 14.Qd5+ Be6 15.Qf3 

I probably should have gone pawn-grabbing, instead, with 15.Qxb7 Qf5 16.Qxc7+ Bd7, although in the play that follows Black would have enough activity to compensate.

15...c6 

Black does not want to give up those pawns.

However, this means that both of us did not understand the position.

In fact, even now, with the help of Stockfish 16, I still don't, except the generalization that active piece play (starting with 16...Qf5) will keep the position balanced, even if one player is ahead a pawn or two.

The text move give White another chance for that mysterious move f5!? and advantage.

16.Be3 Bxe3 17.Qxe3 Rhe8 18.Qd2 Bc4 19.Rfe1 d5 

The position is even.

White can now try the slow plan of giving up a pawn to "win the minor exchange", with 20.a4 Kg8 21.a5 Rad8 22.b3 Ra6 23.Na4 Re4 23.Nc5 Rxf4 24.Nxa6 bxa6 25.Qd3 c5 but he would have compensation for that pawn, and nothing more.

Instead, I foolishly surrendered control of the e-file in the pursuit of exchanging a couple of Rooks.

20.Rxe8 Rxe8 21.g3 

I originally intended 21.Re1, hoping for another Rook swap, but 21...Rx1+ 22.Qxe1 would drop a pawn to 22...Qxf5, but without the activity in the note to move 19. 

The text dangerously opens the a8-h1 diagonal toward my King.

21...Qe6 

This move is okay, but 21...d4 would take advantage of the fact that White's Knight needs to stay put to protect the e2 square and keep the Rook out.

22.b3 Ba6 23.Kg2 b6 

White resigned

Probably a bit early, but White's light squares are likely to get weaker and weaker, to go along with the surrendered e-file.

Also, I was getting battered in another Jerome Gambit game (I was playing 6 games at once) and feeling altogether discouraged.