Jerome Gambit: I'm Really Getting Too Old For This Fast Stuff... (Part 1)

After participating as a subject in the latest round of an ongoing study on dementia - you would think that my devotion to the Jerome Gambit would settle the matter, preemptively - I was restless and decided what I really needed to do was play a 5-minute online game of chess. 

Against a computer program.

Although I did not realize it at the time.

[Insert your own joke here.]

All of the comments by Stockfish came after the game was completed.

perrypawnpusher - guestM

5 1 blitz, FICS, 2023

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ 

The Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

I have played it 71 times, scoring 77%.

Not bad, but in the regular Jerome gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) - which I have played 436 times - I have scored 81%.

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.d4 Bxd4 8.Qxd4 d6 

9.f4 Nc6 10.Qd3 Re8 

I have also faced 10...Be6 in and perrypawnpusher - hklett, 2 12 blitz, FICS, 2010 (1 - 0, 18) and perrypawnpusher - obmanovichhh, 14 0 blitz, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 34) 

11. O-O Kg8 

Looking over things afterward, it is clear that the computer is doing well, especially since it is unlikely that the "refuted" Jerome Gambit would be deeply covered in its opening "book". 

There is bound to be a reckoning ahead, however.

The issue is not one for the strong contemporary chess programs (e.g. Fritz, Houdini, Komodo, Rybka, Stockfish), but with some of the simpler programs there is the problem that they still play consistently well - so much so that in order to make it "fun" to play against them by the average chess player, they need to be handicapped in some way. For a discussion, see the posts "Artificial Ignorance (Parts 1 and 2)"

Also see Part 2 of this topic, referencing the Maia Chess project.

Meanwhile, instead of the text, I have also seen 11...Nb4 in perrypawnpusher - abczyx, 10 5 blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 39) and 11...a6 in perrypawnpusher - HGBoone, 6 12 blitz FICS, 2010 (1-0, 46). 

12.b3 Nb4 

This is what I mean.

Instead, after 12...d5 13.e5 (if 13.exd5, then 13...Nb4) d4 14. Ne2 Nd5 15. Ng3 Qd7 16. Bd2 Qf7 17.Rae1 Bd7 Black would be better.

13.Qe2 

Sloppy. 13.Qc4+ would lead to the win of the Knight and an even game. 

13...Bg4 

guestM continues to play "kick the Queen", overlooking the consistent and better 13...d5.

14.Qc4+ 

Given a second chance, I grabbed it.

14...Be6 

Again, the move was 14...d5

15.Qxb4 

Thanks to the slipup, I was suddenly better. 

Of course, in a 5-minute game, lots of things happen "suddenly".

15...c5 

On principle, I do not think that grabbing the b-pawn now is a good idea. See "Jerome Gambit: He Who Takes the Queen's Knight Pawn..." and "Jerome: Risking the Gutter".

16.Qa3 

Stockfish 16 disagrees with me, based on concrete analysis: 16.Qxb7 Rb8 17.Qa6 Bc8 18.Qd3 Bb7 19.Bb2 Nxe4 20.Rae1 Nxc3 21.Qxc3 Qd7 and White is better. 

16...a6 17.Be3 b5 18.Qc1 b4 19. Ne2 Nxe4 

I am used to having the annoying pawns that advance and create disturbances - not facing them.

20.Ng3 Nxg3 21.hxg3 Bg4 22.Qd2 Qf6 23.Rad1 

An oversight that should have cost me the game. The Rook was better  placed at e1.

Blitz requires faster brain calculations than I am usually able to produce. 

You could say that both guestM an I were having "cognitive issues".

23...Rad8 

This had to be the kind of glitch seen on move 12.

24.Qd5+ 

Simply moving the Rook on d1 was the right idea. 

Instead, I was in a bit of a panic, rewriting the old reflection to be "panic sees check, panic gives check" ("panic" instead of "patzer").

24...Kh8 

Undeserved good fortune for me. The Queen should have blocked at either e6 or f7.

25.Rd2 

Throwing a piece away.

25...Rxe3 

At this point I was sincerely regretting my commitment to share every Jerome Gambit I played, win, lose or draw...

[to be continued]