Jerome Gambit: In Context

Like I said in the two previous posts, I was considering writing something on the topic of piece sacrifices on f7 - a big part of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) - when I came across yet another interesting, related, exchange, this care of the United States Chess Federation.

What are your thoughts of the kings side bishop during the opening for both white and black. In other words black sacrifices his kings side bishop and white sacrifices his kings side bishop after:

1. e4 e5

2. … …

My thoughts are that its a very, very poor choice for either side.

There are some good books to consider:

Point One - The Evolution of Chess Theory

Modern Ideas In Chess - Reti

Development of Chess Style - Euwe

Point Two - Basic Chess Theory

Chess Fundamentals - Capablanca

Winning Chess Strategy - Seirawan

There are a number of other books that can also be recommended in this area -

The reason I’m suggesting these is this:

In the first two books mentioned, under point one, the authors suggest the idea that the development of an individual chess player’s ability tends to mirror the development of overall chess development of overall chess theory.

If one follows the development of chess, from the implementation of the current rule set around the middle 1500’s - the players then were highly tactical, playing gambits and wild attacking ideas straight out of the opening. The best players of the day soon learned, by the time of Giulio Cesare Polerio (ca. 1550 - ca. 1610) and Gioachino Greco (c. 1600 – c. 1634) that Gambits as wild as what you have been suggesting do not work for purely tactical reasons.

However, chess strategy was very poor until François-André Danican Philidor (September 7, 1726 – August 31, 1795) came on the scene. Philidor at his peak was probably 200-300 rating points better than his contemporaries.

Chess is comprised of 4 elements - Space and Time are dynamic elements, Material and Pawn Structure are static elements. Players prior to Philidor had gained some rudimentary knowledge of Space, Time and Material. They really had no idea of the 4th dimension - pawn structure. It was Philidor who said “My main purpose is to make myself commendable by a novelty of which no one was aware or perhaps was capable [of discovering]; this is to play the pawns well; they are the soul of chess: it is they which uniquely determine the attack and the defence, and on their good or bad arrangement depends entirely the winning or losing of the game.”

The middle part of the phrase, that “Pawns…are the soul of chess” is the most famous quote - because of its artistry of statement. But it is the final bolded phrase that shows that Philidor had come to grasp the fundamental concept of Pawn Structure, and that he recognized that he had just discovered the “4th dimension” of chess.

By this point, Philidor had clearly moved chess theory beyond the point of attacks such as those that you have been suggesting.

The books I noted above (and many others) summarize the general goals of chess as developed by these players, and then Morphy, Steinitz and others after (Lasker, Tarrasch, Capablana, etc.). Basically, the ideas that you have suggested on a few occasions now are ones that chess players have rejected as workable since the 1700’s if not earlier. This suggests that while you are creative and highly enthusiastic, that there hasn’t been an opportunity for you to learn these fundamentals.

I realize that this may not be what you want to hear, but I believe in providing my students (or other players looking for advice) with direct and honest feedback. My suggestion to you is to hold onto your creativity and enthusiasm, but get a better handle on basic chess theory.

For example, you suggest here 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 with the idea of 3.Bxf7+. Let’s assume: 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Bxf7+ Kxf7.

Let’s put that in context. We know from theory that an advantage of 1.6-ish pawns wins with best play. (An advantage of .75 to 1.6-ish pawns creates good chances to win, an advantage of .3-ish to .75-ish pawns creates an advantage, less than that is essentially equal.) So, you are suggesting that we sacrifice a Bishop, which is worth approximately 3.2, for a Pawn, which is worth 1. So White is already behind 2.2 in Material. Has White gained enough compensation in Space and time to offset this? The answer is no.

We can see that Black can refute White’s attack easily by just continuing with general principles of development: 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Bxf7+ Kxf7 4.Nf3 Nc6 (Developing and defending e5) 5.Ng5+ Kg8 6.d3 (to defend e4 and allow development) …h6 (Kicking the Knight and allowing an eventual Kh7 to develop the Rook) 7.Nf3 d5! (Again, Space and development [Time]) 8.exd5 Qxd5 9.Nc3 Bb4 10.O-O Bxc3 11.bxc3 Bg4. At this point Black has a big lead in development (an advantage in Time) has more Space, has more Material and is no worse in Pawn Structure. As soon as Black plays Kh7 he will be winning by MORE than the full Bishop White has sacrificed.

I hope from this you can see how a good understanding of basic chess theory would help a player to better see this, because as you can see, using principles all developed by 1900 it is possible to easily discern that the idea you wished to test is very bad for White indeed.

I hope that you find this analysis helpful, it is in that spirit in which it is offered.