Jerome Gambit: Games Update

 

As I mentioned in the post, Jerome Gambit: Familiar

I am playing in Chess.com's second "Italian opning [sic] rapid players". In the first round, Group 1, I have managed to play only one Jerome Gambit game, but it was a successful one.

Nonetheless, I am not likely to finish higher than 4th place in my group, and only the top finisher - most likely Tadeasek2008 - will advance to the second round. 

In the meantime, from Abrahams Jerome Gambit: Exploring

I have joined the new BISHOP'S OPENING CUP 2025 at Chess.com - 250 players, time control 10 days per move (!).

My hope is to play a number of Abrahams Jerome Gambits, 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Bxf7+, a line that I have not tried before, but is worth exploring.

Starting off with two wins in the first round and two wins in the second round, none of them an Abrahams, I am going to have to wait until the final 9 games of the second round are completed, before I can move on to Round Three.

 

BSJG: Choices, Choices, Choices

The following game shows many choices, some taken, some not - some successful, some not.

It has a real Jerome-ish feel to it.

maestro_rabbittry01 - Florence_Madarang

2 5 bullet, training Arena, lichess.org, 2023

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nd4 

The Blackburne Shilling Gambit.

According to Wikipedia:

The first known mention of this line was by Steinitz, who noted it in 1895 in the Addenda to his Modern Chess Instructor, Part II. The earliest game with the opening on chessgames.com is Dunlop - Hicks, New Zealand Championship 1911. [1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.O-O Nxf3+ 5.Qxf3 Qf6 6.Qg3 Bc5 7.Nc3 c6 8.Kh1 b5 9.Bb3 d6 10.f4 h5 11.d3 Be6 12.f5 h4 13.Qg4 Bxb3 14.Bg5 h6 15.Qxh4 O-O-O 16.Bxf6 gxf6 17.axb3 Nxf5 18.Qxh8 Ng3+ 19.hxg3 Rxh8#].

4.Bxf7+

The Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit.

Stockfish 17.1 (at 34 ply), sees the position as about 1 pawn better for Black. 

The Database has 25 games by maestro_rabbittry01 with this line. He scores 64%.

The earliest game with this line in The Database is Nater, Carl - Rogers, Ian, Begonia op 09th, Ballarat, 1975 (0-1, 46 ).

Years ago, in the post "A GM Faces the BSJG: Not Quite (Part 4)" I had written

Regarding the early Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit game that we have been looking at ("A GM Faces the BSJG: Not Quite, Parts 1, 2 and 3"), Nater, Carl - Rogers, Ian, Begonia op 09th, Ballarat, 1975 (0-1, 46 ), I was able to contact GM Rogers, who, in turn, was able to contact Mr. Nater.

Not surprisingly, GM Rogers said that he was shocked to see his 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3, Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 met by 4.Bxf7+!?. At first, he expected simply be able to refute the move, as he not had it played against him previously - and actually had not even seen it mentioned before. He settled himself down and outplayed his opponent, for the full point.

"I gave up 3...Nd4 soon after that game for multiple reasons, not least that it was a bad move!" was GM Rogers' assessment.

Mr. Nater, rather than claiming to be one of the world's foremost experts on playing the Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit over-the-board, modestly reported that "my openings at my prime [around ’75 probably] may have dived as deep as 4/5 moves before descending into chaos ... nowadays worse still." Not surprisingly, he did not have access to game score sheets from 45 years ago, so he could not say if he had repeated (or was repeating) his moment of chess opening inspiration.

"But there doesn't seem to be too much wrong with 4.Bxf7, more wrong with 3...Nd4" was his assessment.

4...Kxf7 

From Black's perspective, the computer evaluates 4...Kxf7 as about two pawns better than 4...Ke7, just in case you were wondering.

This is reflected in The Database, where 4...Kxf7, with 7,155 games scores  56% for White; while 4...Ke7, with 919 games, scores 71% for White.

5.Nxe5+ Ke8 

6.Qh5+ g6 

Not 6...Ke7 7.Qf7+ Kd6 8.Nc4+ Kc5 9.Qd5+ Kb4 10.a3+ Ka4 11.Qa5 checkmate

7.Nxg6

The Database has 1,820 games with this move, with White scoring 60%.

The computer is more skeptical, evaluating the position about a pawn better for Black.

7...Nxc2+ 

It would be a lot to expect Black to be familiar with the post "BSJG: From Defeat to Full Point" and the much earlier "Warning: a1 & h8", which argue that giving up the Rook first with 7...hxg6 was the better choice, i.e. 8.Qxh8 Nxc2+ 9.Kd1 Nxa1 10.Qxg8 Qg5 when Black would be better, according to Stockfish 17.1. 

maestro_rabbittry01 had actually faced 7...hxg6 ten days before the current game, with play continuing  8.Qxh8 Qg5? 9.O-O (better 9.Qxd4) 9...Nf3+ (better 9...Ne2+ 10.Kh1 Kf7) 10.Kh1 Nh4 11.g3 Nf3 12.d4 (maybe 12.Kg2) 12...Qg4 13.Nd2 Nxd2 14.Bxd2 Ne7 15.Bh6 Qf3+ 16.Kg1 d6 17.Bxf8 Qxf8 18.Qh4 g5 19.Qxg5 Bh3 $6 20.Qh5+ Kd8 21.Qxh3 Nc6 22.c3 Ke7 23.f4 Qf6 24.e5 Qg7 25.Rae1 Rh8 26.exd6+ Kxd6 27.Qg2 Ne7 28.f5 Nd5 29.Re6+ Kd7 30.Qxd5+ Black resigned, maestro_rabbittry01 - mcdhardal, lichess.org, 2023 

Later on, he saw 7...Nf6 8.Qe5+ Qe7? (better 8...Ne6 9.Nxh8 Bg7 [9...Qe7 10.d4 Ng4 11.Qh5+ Kd8 12.Qxg4 Nxd4 13.Na3 d5 14.Qf4 dxe4 15.Nf7+ Ke8 16.Ne5 Nf5 17.O-O Be6 18.Qxe4 Rd8 19.Nb5 Bd5 20.Qe1 Bxg2 21.Nxc7+ Qxc7 22.Nc6+ Be7 23.Nxd8 Qxd8 24.Kxg2 Qd5+ 25.f3 Black resigned, maestro_rabbittry01 - ako_ang_mahina_dito, lichess.org, 2023] 10.O-O Bxh8 11.d4 d6 12.Qg3 Qe7 [12...Nxe4] 13.e5 [Qd3] Ng8 [13...Nxd4] 14.Qxg8+ Kd7 15.Qxh8 b5 16.Nc3 Bb7 17.Qf6 Qe8 18.Nxb5 Qh5 19.exd6 cxd6 20.Be3 [20.Re1] Rf8 21.Qxf8? [21.Qh6] Nxf8 22.c4 Qg4 [22...Bxg2] 23.g3? [23.f3] 23...Qh3 [instead, 23...Bf3 mates] 24.f3 Ng6 25.d5 h5 26.Nxa7?! h4 27.Nc6? [27.Rf2] 27...hxg3 28.hxg3 Qxg3+ 29.Kh1 Nh4 30.Rf2 Qh3+ 31.Rh2? [31.Kg1] 31...Qxf3+ 32.Kg1 Qg3+ 33.Kf1 Qxh2 White resigned, maestro_rabbittry01 - MarcAndreBullirseTCU, lichess.org, 2023) ) 9.Nxe7 Black resigned, maestro_rabbittry01 - Olamygoodfriend, lichess.org, 2024) 

Are you still with me? The game is now even.

8.Kd1 

The Database has 223 games with this position. Black scores 32%.

Time for Black to grab the draw.

8...Nxa1 

Quite likely, the 2-minute time control affected this choice. Instead, there was 8...hxg6 9.Qxg6+ Ke7 10.Qg5+ Ke8 [10...Nf6 is interesting, but after 11.e5 Kf7 12.Kxc2 White will still get his material back, and the game looks even] 11.Qg6+ draw 

9.Nxh8+ Ke7 10.d4 

Or 10.Qf7+ Black resigned, maestro_rabbittry01 - mcdhardal, lichess.org, 2023 

There is also 10.Qe5#. 

White sees another way.

10...Qe8 11.Bg5+ Nf6 12.Bxf6+ Black resigned

Jerome Gambit: A Cat May Look at A King

Chessfriend and contributor to this blog, Yury V. Bukayev, pointed out to me that a recent FIDE World Cup game had a Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) echo to it - in terms of what was played and what was not, and, perhaps, why not.

 The game Nepomniachtchi, Ian - Ghosh, Diptayan, FIDE World Cup 2025 reached the following position after 15 moves.

Now, White played 16.Qd1 and was eventually ground down by his opponent, resigning in 46 moves.

Why did Nepomniachtchi avoid 16.Bc4, instead?

Modestly, (A cat may look at a king) I would like to agree with Yury's suggestion that the super grandmaster was concerned that the Bishop move might be met by the Jerome-ish 16...Bxf2+, i.e. 17.Qxf2 Bxc4 or 17.Kxf2 Qc5+ 18.Be3 Qxc4.

In this case, I will call upon Stockfish 17.1 as arbiter: the computer notes that 16.Bc4 would still have been about 3/4 of a pawn better than 16.Qd1, even if it would still leave the second player about a 1/2 pawn better.

What's a half-pawn between grandmasters? 😃

(Check out Geoff Chandler's "Blunder Table")

Jerome Gambit: BookMoves

I recently discovered the utterly fascinating BookMoves website,

What is the primary objective of BookMoves?

Opening theory represents one of the most instrumental aspects of chess. Familiarizing yourself with different situations can help you quickly develop your strategies and boost your confidence with respect to the game.

With the help of BookMoves, you can learn, study, and regularly practice the most popular openings and keep track of your progress along the way. Our system automatically suggests the most appropriate moves based on your experience and skill level. 

Looking in particular at "Italian Game: Jerome Gambit" I found the following information

The Jerome Gambit is a highly aggressive and somewhat controversial opening that involves an early sacrifice of the light-squared bishop for a quick attack on the opponent's king. This gambit is not commonly seen in high-level play, as it is considered unsound and easily refuted by accurate play from the opponent. However, it can be a fun and surprising weapon for club players and those looking to catch their opponents off guard.

Of particular interest is the honest assessment...

Frequency: 0.6 %

Stockfish score: -5.0, depth 44

Games Statistics:

White/Draws/Black

42%

3.5%

54.5%

Bookmoves score:

Rate	White	Black
0...1800	49.5	71.1
1800...2000	49.4	68.6
2000...2200	47.4	69.4
2200...2500	42.0	69.6
2500...	25.4	74.6

Well, that's one answer to the question "Why don't Grandmasters usually play the Jerome Gambit?"

I recommend that you visit the website, for education and entertainment - but, be careful, you will be drawn in, and time will fly by...

Jerome Gambit: "Bxf7+ Is A Blunder"

 

I found the graphic, above, in Aleksander Merkoulov's Post (Chess.com Club - Learn, Play, Grow) at Facebook.

The discussion it initiates is important to those who play the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) - something I addressed at least as early as "But – Is this stuff playable?? (Part I)"

Of course not.

The Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) has many refutations.

I'm glad that's settled.

Maybe a more useful question would be --
Under what conditions might the Jerome Gambit be playable?

In casual or blitz games among "average" players , perhaps -- when Grandmaster Nigel Davies' words from his Gambiteer I (2007) are relevant:

Having examined literally thousands of club players’ games over the years, I have noticed several things:
1) The player with the more active pieces tends to win.
2) A pawn or even several pawns is rarely a decisive advantage.
3) Nobody knows much theory.
4) When faced with aggressive play, the usual reaction is to cower.

This is not an abstract idea for me. According to The Database, I have played the Jerome Gambit 489 times, scoring 82%.

Then, again, Bill Wall has played it 972 times, scoring 93%.

So, the question is, as above, "Under what conditions might the Jerome Gambit be playable?"

Jerome Gambit: The Confusion Sacrifice

Taking a trip back in time - 17 years - to the post "Sac a pawn, or a piece, or a..." I would like to quote, at length...

Why, oh why, do people play such a scary thing as the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+)?

I play the opening myself, and I still ask that question. I found one kind of answer in a recent Chess Cafe book review by Steve Goldberg. He was writing about Timothy Taylor's new Pawn Sacrifice! (Everyman Chess, 2008)

Of course, in the Jerome Gambit White sacrifices more than a pawn, but often his two-pawns-for-a-piece material disadvantage is on the same level of loss.

Chapter 12, titled "Confusion," represents an interesting use of pawn sacrifices. Taylor explains, "Sometimes your opponent is just too smug. You look across the board, and there he is, wearing his Andy Warhol t-shirt, dreamily calm in the midst of his prepared variation/middlegame he’s crushed GMs with/grinding ending, and he just knows he’s going to win, and you’re just going to have to sit there and suffer, and he’s going to enjoy it."

Taylor’s advice is to "rip the gauzy comfort zone right off his smiling face! What do you do? You sacrifice a pawn for no other reason than to confuse your opponent! He says to himself, ‘That can’t be good!’ Then he thinks: ‘But why did he do it? – there must be some idea!’ Then, ‘I can refute this, but I have to leave my beloved comfort zone! Ohhhhh no!’"

Five games are presented in this chapter, and four of these "go from objectively lost, to confused, to winning." Fritz doesn’t approve any of these sacrifices, but Taylor states, "The confusion sacrifice is a very effective weapon against humans … The next time you have a bad position, or a position you simply don’t like, cheer yourself up! Sac a pawn just for confusion, then watch your opponent flounder! You will win many more games this way than if you drearily and unhappily defend."

Jerome Gambit: Reality vs Imagination

In all of the Jerome Gambit and Jerome-like lines of play that I can think of, accepting the first offered piece - and, often, accepting the second one - is "objectively" better for Black.

Yet, some defenders decline. (About 3% with the Abrahams Jerome Gambit; the same for the main line Jerome Gambit.) 

Likely, they are thinking that the benefit of taking the attacker out of his regular opening moves is more important than taking the offered material.

This kind of imagination can crash into the reality of the chess board.

maestro_rabbittry01 - Daps247

10 0 rapid, lichess.org2025

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Bxf7+ 

As I wrote in "Slips in the Polerio / Abrahams Jerome Gambit"

Mentioned by Polerio in the 16th century (see "Jerome Gambit: Early Sources") and Abrahams in the 20th century (see " 'Tis A Puzzlement..." and "The Abrahams Jerome Gambit [Parts I & II]"), this relative / ancestor of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) has shown up in interesting places (see Yury V. Bukayev's "Jerome Gambit: Morphy vs the Mefistopheles" for his take on the Polerio Knightless Jerome Gambit) and can feature play both similar to and different from the Jerome.

3...Kf8 

Again, for an earlier look, see I'll Do The Thin'in' Around Here... 

The Abrahams Jerome Gambit Declined, which "objectively" turns Black's better game into a better game for White - especially after 4.Bc4 or 4.Bb3.

4.Bb3 Qf6 5.Nf3 d6 6.h3 Nc6 7.c3 Nge7 8.O-O

White has an extra pawn and a safer King.

8...Ng6

This development of the Knight is a bit awkward, although, perhaps it plans to go to f4 as a spearhead of an attack on the enemy King.. The anticipation move 8...Bb6 probably was the way to go.

9.d4 Bb6

This move does not pair well with his previous move. Can you see why?

10.Bg5 Black resigns

Black's Queen is "checkmated".