AI, Revisited

 

About 2 1/2 years ago, in "Jerome Gambit: AI", I asked the artificial intelligence entity Chat GPT about the Jerome Gambit.

Shortly thereafter, in "Jerome Gambit: AI Once More", I inquired about the Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit.

As a further post, "Jerome Gambit: Has ChatGPT Learned Anything?" suggested, the answer was not much.

Still, in time I was struck by the AI's humor, as related in "ChatGPT Strikes Again!" featuring a made-up game where Bobby Fischer plays the Abrahams Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Bxf7+) and checkmates in 6 moves.

Today, I asked (the much improved) Chat GPT about the Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit, and it responded

The Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit is an eccentric counter to Black's Blackburne Shilling Gambit:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Bxf7+!?

Black has just played 3...Nd4, hoping White grabs the apparent free pawn with 4.Nxe5?, when 4...Qg5 creates dangerous threats. Instead, White plays the Jerome-style bishop sacrifice 4.Bxf7+, forcing Black's king into the open. This is distinct from both the ordinary Blackburne Shilling Gambit and the regular Jerome Gambit.

What White is trying to do

After the usual continuation:

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+

White has sacrificed a bishop to:

remove Black's f7-pawn;

drag the king into the open;

recover the e5-pawn with check;

build an attack with c3, d4, Qh5+, Rf1, and rapid development.

One particularly wild line is:

5...Ke6 6.c3 Kxe5 7.cxd4+

White recovers Black's advanced knight, leaving an unusual position with an exposed king. Some versions can approach equality, but the tactics are highly move-dependent.

Is it any good?

Objectively, not really. After sensible defence, Black generally keeps an advantage, often holding a piece for two pawns. For example:

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke7 6.c3 Nc6 7.Nxc6+ dxc6

Black should consolidate with moves such as ...Kf7, exchange queens when possible, and avoid greedily marching the king through the centre.

At club level, however, it has practical value:

Setting          Verdict

Classical tournament game Too risky for regular use

Rapid Playable as an occasional                                                                          surprise

Blitz or bullet         Dangerous and entertaining

Against prepared opposition Usually favourable for Black

Its principal weapon is surprise, not theoretical soundness. White's moves are natural and forcing, while Black may have to find several unintuitive king retreats. The opening has also appeared only rarely, so its name and theory are less standardized than those of mainstream gambits. 

Here is an instructive online club game, 

HenriDepraz - sds_slothv2

2+1, Lichess, 2025:

1.e4            e5

2.Nf3         Nc6

3.Bc4         Nd4

4.Bxf7+     Kxf7

5.Nxe5+    Ke7

6.c3            Nc6

7.Nxc6+    dxc6

8.d4           Nf6?!

9.e5            Nd5

10.Bg5+     Nf6

11.exf6+     gxf6

12.Qe2+

Black emerged from the opening a piece for two pawns and was objectively better, but 8...Nf6?! allowed White to open more lines against the king. The game continued with Black missing chances to simplify:

12...            Kf7

13.Bh4       Be6

14.Nd2       Qd7

15.O-O       Be6

16.Nd2       Bf7

17.Qg4+     Kf8?

18.Bh6+     Ke8

19.Rfe1+    Be7

20.Ne4        Rg8

21.Nxf6#

The recorded score ends in checkmate. The instructive point is not that White's sacrifice was sound: Black obtained the better position but failed to neutralize the attack. On moves 14 and 17, exchanging queens or blocking with ...Bg6 would have made Black's extra material much more important. 

The practical rule is simple: play it for tactical fun and surprise value, but do not build a serious White repertoire around it.