Jerome Gambit: Arena (Part 1)

I recently came across a report on the internet site lichess.org, of a 2021 Jerome Gambit Arena event.

Here is a table with the results.

The games will come next.

Jerome Gambit Arena  2021         rating         score

  1. Cetin_Demirkol                         2138           5.0/6

  2. GlobalChess_Twitch                  2177           4.0/5

  3. onderch01                                   2072           3.0/4

  4. KAPANN                                   1439            3.0/4

  5. GLORIARODRIGUEZ_UNE   1500            2.0/5

  6. sey1t                                           1402            1.0/4

  7. sametneni                                   1013            1.0/3

  8. root129                                       1279            1.0/2

  9. zfruzn                                         1638             0.0/2

 10. kayrasemerci                             1329             0.0/3

 11.Dolar3lira                                   1410             0.0/1

 12. UzunMehmetErdem                 1918             0.0/1

Gambits: Theory and Evidence

 

Abstract of the article "Gambits: Theory and Evidence" by Shiva Maharaj, Nick Polson, Christian Turk, published in Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry,Volume 38, Issue 4, July 2022 

Gambits are central to human decision making. Our goal is to provide a theory of Gambits. A Gambit is a combination of psychological and technical factors designed to disrupt predictable play. Chess provides an environment to study Gambits and behavioral economics. Our theory is based on the Bellman optimality path for sequential decision making. This allows us to calculate the Q values of a Gambit where material (usually a pawn) is sacrificed for dynamic play. On the empirical side, we study the effectiveness of a number of popular chess Gambits. This is a natural setting as chess Gambits require a sequential assessment of a set of moves (a.k.a. policy) after the Gambit has been accepted. Our analysis uses Stockfish 14 to calculate the optimal Bellman Q values. To test whether Bellman's equation holds in play, we estimate the transition probabilities to the next board state via a database of expert human play. This then allows us to test whether the Gambiteer is following the optimal path in his decision making. Our methodology is applied to the popular Stafford, Reverse Stafford (a.k.a. Boden-Kieretsky-Morphy), Smith-Morra, Goring, Danish, and Halloween Gambits. We conclude with directions for future 

From the Discussion

 On the one hand, a Gambit policy is not rational; the Gambit leaves open one state of the world where the opponent can win with certainty. On the other hand, the Gambit leads the Gambiteer to advantage with any sub-optimal play from the opponent. 

Jerome Gambit: Several Stages

The following Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) game is interesting and instructive. It passes through several stages:

a) White attacks

b) Black finds an effective defense

c) Various tactics 

d) A slip by Black

e) White brings home the full point

NN - NN

blitz, lichess.org, 2023

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Kf8 

This move appears in Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's early analysis of his gambit, specifically in the July 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal, "Jerome's Double Opening, Third Variation".

7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qc3 Qf6 

Black has a plan - exchanging Queens will blunt White's attacking notions.

According to The Database, this position occurs in 105 of its games, with White scoring 40%.

Is that good? 

Well, if we research The Database for the position arising from the start of the Jerome Gambit - 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+  - we find 25,975 games, with White scoring 51%.

Moving along the regular lines, after 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ we find 16,798 games, with White improving to scoring 57%.

Likewise, after 5...Nxe5 6.Qh5+ in 12,606 games White continues to score  57%.

But all of this changes when we look at the defense 6...Kf8, which appears in 2,017 games, and White's score drops to 48%.

And, like it was pointed out above, after 8...Qf6 White scores only 40%.

9.Qxf6+ 

White is not bothered by exchanging Queens.

Looking at his further play, he might have chosen 9.O-O here, as  9...Qxc3 10.Nxc3 Nf6 would have saved him a tempo.

9...Nxf6 10.O-O Nxe4 11.d3 

11...Nxf2 

This exchange of two pieces for a Rook and a pawn slightly favors White. On the other hand, the retreat 11...Nf6 was probably not appealing. 

12.Rxf2+ 

Stockfish 15 actually prefers 12.c3 Ke8 13.d4 Nd3 14.dxc5 Nxc5 with advantage still to Black. 

12...Bxf2+ 13.Kxf2 Kf7 14.Bd2 Rf8 15.Nc3 Kg8+ 16.Kg1 Be6 

Black is up the exchange, but he still has to decide what to do with hi advantage.

17.b3 d5 18.Re1 Rfe8 19.Nb5 

The threatened Knight fork at c7 can be dealt with.

19...Re7

But not this way. Instead, 19...Bd7 20.Nxc7 Rxe1+ 21.Bxe1 Rc8 22.Bg3 d4 was the way to tie up White's pieces.

20.Bg5 

This is a smh moment for me, as the computer now recommends 20...Ree8, again allowing the Knight fork at c7.

Instead, Black loses the thread of the game. 

20...Kf7 21.Bxe7 Kxe7 22.Nxc7 Rc8 23.Nxe6 Kd6 

White is better. Perhaps his greater enemy at this point is the clock. Simplification helps him.

24.Nd4 Kc5 25.Ne6+ Kd6 26.c4 dxc4 27.dxc4 Re8 28.Kf2 Rxe6 29.Rxe6+ Kxe6 

The first player has a winning advantage. His moves come quickly now.

30.Ke3 Ke5 31.Kd3 a5 32.Kc3 Kd6 33.b4 b6 34.a3 Kc6 35.Kd4 Kd6 36.c5+ bxc5+ 37.bxc5+ Kc6 38.Kc4 

38...g6 39.a4 h6 40.g3 g5 41.h4 gxh4 42.gxh4 h5 43.Kd4 Kc7 44.Kd5 Kd7 45.c6+ Kc7 46.Kc5 Kc8 47.Kb6 Kb8 48.Kxa5 Kc7 49.Kb5 

White won on time

Bobby Fischer, His Ultra-Short Game & The New View

 

Bobby Fischer, His Ultra-Short Game & The New View

  

(by Yury V. Bukayev) 

 

 

The 80th anniversary of the birth of the deceased great chess maestro WCC Top GM Robert James Fischer is coming these days. Let’s consider one of his earliest known games. Thus, once he has played an ultra-short game which can be very educational for somebody. Here it is with my brief commentaries. 

 

Jacob Altusky – Robert J. Fischer 

 

offhand game, USA, 1954 

 

 

1.e4          e5  

2.Nf3        Nc6  

3.Bb5       a6 

4.Ba4       d6 

5.d4?!       b5 

6.Bb3       Bg4?! 

 

It was a serious mistake by Bobby Fischer (it isn’t so wonderful: he was 11 years old), because it permits his opponent to get an extra pawn and a not little advantage after 7.dxe5! dxe5 8.Qd5 Qxd5 9.Bxd5 Nge7! 10.Nxe5 Nxd5 11.Nxc6. After 6.Bb3 Black should play 6…Nxd4 with the good position.  

 

7.Bxf7+? 

 

Although we can thank Jacob Altusky (a little or a lot?) for this Jerome-ish move (he was 23 years old and could know that year about the 80th anniversary of the publishing of the Jerome gambit), but this move was weak, and its idea for that game was absolutely wrong. Mr. Altusky’s mistaken idea will be understood after his next move.  

   

7.  …        Kxf7 

8.Ng5+??  

 

After our analysis we can understand that he has planned the following: 8…Ke8?? 9.Qxg4 with 9…Nxd4 10.Qd1, or 10.Qh5+ g6 11.Qd1. 

  

8.  …        Qxg5!  , 

 

and White resigned. Of course, White missed this blow. And after 9.f3 Qg6 10.fxg4 Qxe4+ White had no real chance to save the game. 

 

According to my idea, Jacob Altusky could make this game “immortal” after 8…Qxg5. Thus, it was an offhand game only, and he (J.A.) could make the following with his young opponent (B.F.) instead of the resignation. 

 

J.A.: Queen (J.A. is touching his Queen) f three: check! (J.A. is replacing his Queen to the square f3.) Three: check – do you have anything against it? Three: check!! Do you hear me, Bobby?? 

B.F.: Well, three: check… 

J.A.: Yes, three-check! (J.A. is stopping the chess clock.) And this my check – 9.Qf3+! – is the third one. So I have won this three-check chess game, you remember three-check chess rules! Don't become very sad. For your further successes you should learn opening theory of 3-check chess including 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5? 4.Bxf7+! Kxf7?? 5.Nxe5+! with the fastest win. In fact, I also could play 8.Nxe5+! Ke8! 9.Qxg4! – with the win – in this our finished game instead of my 8.Ng5+!.

B.F.: But we have played ordinary chess!!! 

J.A.: Really? Well, in this case you have won. Sorry! It is a joke in honour of the birth of three-check (or 3-check, or three checks) chess!     

 

 

 Contact the author:  istinayubukayev@yandex.ru  

 

© 2023 Yury V. Bukayev (Copyright © Bukayev Yury Vyacheslavovich 2023). All rights reserved.  

[A legal using of this investigation with a reference to it is permitted  

and doesn’t require author’s consent.]