Jerome Gambit: Catching Up

With many new chess players discovering the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7) and this blog, there is an opportunity to learn a great deal more about the opening, the person who created it, and the people who play it.

But, do you have to go back to the beginning - "Welcome!" - and read almost 3,000 blog posts?? No, of course not.

If you have an interest in a particular player, or a particular topic, or even a particular move, you can always use the "Search This Blog" function, on the right. Searching a string of moves, say "4.Bxf7+ Kf8 5.Bxg8 Kxg8" can also be effectively done with general search engines like Google or Bing, which will turn up links to this blog.

You can also visit the "Retro" page, which has easy links to pages of interest, with lots of information.

Or you can take the multi-part Jerome Gambit quiz, starting here.

There is a page, with links, that discusses the timeless, but relevant question, "Is the Jerome Gambit playable?"

Finally, for a deep dive into the Jerome Gambit, you can read the multi-part article that I wrote for Stefan Bücker's chess magazine, Kaissiber. He tried and he tried and he tried to make the article fit, but I think the Jerome was a bit too irregular for him.

Jerome Gambit: Searching for A Few Answers (Part 1)

I am used to playing over 1-minute (no increment) Jerome Gambit games by angelcamina. Occasionally I have wondered, what would happen if he had more time to work his magic?

Recently I found out - he sent me a 5-minute game that got weird, fast, and that's saying something for a Jerome Gambit.

For some enlightenment, I did what I usually do: turning to The Database I looked at some of the games with that line that had been played previously. There were only 5, I'm not sure how many of those games had a grip on the line, either.

So, I turned to my trusted Komodo 10 for insight - you can probably guess how that turned out.

Finally, I reviewed my blog, and, although I had peeked at the line, before - see "Boris isn't so hot..." and ''Jerome Gambit Hammer" - there was still more to be said.

Here's how it all came down...

angelcamina - nanangtisna
5 0 blitz, lichess.org, 2020

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 g5 

Here's a position you don't see very often. What is it all about? What is Black getting at?

It is possible to get a hint by looking at a Bill Wall game that continued 8.fxe5 Qf8, as if Black were offering a counter-gambit followed by a threatened Queen check at f2. Bill wasn't impressed, however, and quickly found a solution after 9.Rf1 Qe7 10.Qg4+ Kxe5 11.Qf5+, Black resigned, facing a mate in 1, Wall,B - Lisandru, Chess.com, 2012. The defender's Queen should have gone to g7 instead of e7, but 10.d4 would have then cemented White's avantage. 

8.fxe5 Kxe5 

After a long think (26 ply), Komodo 10 passes up this move, as well as 8...d5 and 8...Ne7, and chooses Stockfish 7's suggestion from 4 years ago, 8...Nf6 9.exf6 Qxf6 10.Rf1 Qg6 11.Qe2 Ke7, with White up about a pawn and a half.

But nanangtisna's choice of move is reasonable.

9.Qf7 

Setting up a mating net.

Previously, 9.Rf1 was seen in GuestCRJQ - Despistado, FICS, 2009 (1-0, 26),  Wall,B - Boris, sparkchess.com, 2012 (1-0, 16) and Vlastous - PornobeshKumar , internet, 2016 (1-0, 13).

Also successful was 9.c3 Be7 10.d4+ in Black,D - Boris, sparkchess.com, 2012 (1-0, 18). 

Probably best is Komodo 10's (and Stockfish 7's!) 9.d4+, as 9...Bxd4 10.Bxg5 Nf6 11.Bxf6+ Kxf6 12.Rf1+ Kg7 13.Rf7+ Kg8 14.Rf3 Bf6 15.Nc3 Kg7 remains, as I noted

a line worth looking at in detail as an example of building an attack.

9...d5

Often this strike at the center, opening up lines for development, serves Black well in the Jerome Gambit. Here, though, 9...Nf6 might have been better, although White could meet it with 10.d4+, with play similar to that in Vlastous - PornobeshKumar, Internet, 2016.

It is worth pointing out, again, that this is a 5-minute blitz game, and it is always easier to come up with improvements after the fact.

10.Qg7+

Out of the blue, Komodo 10 prefers 10.b4. It takes a moment to realize that it has not just found a way for White to castle - 10...Bxb4 11.0-0 - as it further recommends that Black answer with 10...Nf6, giving up a piece to 11.bxc5. No, the b-pawn advances to allow White to subsequently fianchetto his dark squared Bishop.

The idea 10.b4 Bd4 11.c3 Bb6 12.d4 reminds me of a suggestion that Stefan Bücker made to me in a similar line, back in 2004, when I still hoped to have my Jerome Gambit article published in his fantastic chess magazine, Kaissiber. See, fittingly, "Delusions of Grandeur".

[to be continued]

Jerome Gambit: Patient Who Suffered Not Too Long

I recently receive a Jerome Gambit game from eronald, who plays online at lichess.org. His comment

For your entertainment, here is my latest Jerome treatment of a patient who suffered not too long.

Indeed! Especially in blitz.

eronald - basel82
5 1 blitz, lichess.org, 2020

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

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 Nf6 

Ah, yes. I am reminded of the comment by FM Stefan Buecker, in the online ChessPub Forum, over a decade ago

Searching for a forced refutation of a rare opening, with the clock ticking, requires more courage than many have.

(For the record, he was not referencing the Jerome Gambit - but he might as well have been. For other "might as well have beens", see "Were They Talking About the Jerome Gambit Again?")

I am also reminded of the old, vaudeville joke, which I pass on to all defenders

patient: Doc, it hurts when I do this [demonstrates] 

doctor: Well, then, don't do that.

8.Qxe5+ Kf7 9.Qxc5 d6 10.Qc4+ Be6 11.Qe2 Re8 12.O-O Ke7

Certainly completing castling-by-hand with 12...Kg8 would have been more prudent.

Please, Doctor eronald, put this patient out of his misery.

13.f5 Bd7 14.d4 Rg8 

Strange symptomatology, Doctor. Will he survive?

15.e5 dxe5 16.dxe5 Nd5 

Oh, dear. Not having the best of days. (Time trouble?)

17.Bg5+ Kf8 

Interposing the Knight with 17...Nf6 is equally horrible, e.g. 18.exf6+ Kf8 19.fxg7+ Rxg7 20.Bxd8 Bc6 21.Rd1 Rxg2+ 22.Qxg2 Kxg2 when White is a Rook, two pieces, and a pawn ahead.

18.Bxd8 Rxd8 19.e6 Re8 

This pin will not hold...

20.exd7 Rd8 

If 20.Rxe2 d8/Qch 21.Re8 Qxd5, etc.

21.f6 

Doc, I keep seeing pawns. They're everywhere!

21...g6 22.Nc3 Rxd7 23.Nxd5 Rf7 24.Rae1 Rxf6 25.Qe7 checkmate

Jerome Gambit: So Normal

I like to play over Bill Wall's Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) games. They are exciting, and they often make the opening seem so normal.

Wall, Bill - Anonymous
lichess.org, 2020

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Bb4+ 

One way to deal with the pawn fork.

7.c3 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 

The alternative is 8.Nxc3, and Bill has played that, too.

8...Nc6 

The game has a bit of a hypermodern feel to it, Black's piece vs White's pawns.

9.O-O 

White is happy with his pawn center, and leaves it in place, for now. A wild alternative was 9.d5 Ne5 10.f4 Nc4 11.0-0 Qe7 12.Qd4 Nd6 13.e5 Nf5 14.Qf7, which Komodo 10 sees as still in Black's favor, and which FM Stefan Bücker would probably enjoy.

9...d6 10.Be3 Nf6 11.Qb3+ Kf8 

Black hasn't quite castled-by-hand, as his King blocks in his Rook.

12.e5 dxe5 13.dxe5 Nxe5 

Instead, the Knight on f6 needed to retreat.

14.Bc5+ Ke8 15.Re1 Nfd7 

The "best" Black has is to surrender both Knights with 15...Qd5 16.Qxd5 Nxd5 17.Rxe5+ Kf7 18.Rxd5.

16.Qe6+ Black resigned

"Jerome pawns" - Clowning Around

After my discouraging loss with the Jerome Gambit in my previous Chess.com Italian Game tournament (perrypawnpusher - Buddy_Thompson), I knew that I had to cook up something new, or risk facing a future opponent who just "looked the refutation up" (and not even on this blog, mind you, but in my recent games on Chess.com).

I was happy that I did do the research, too, because in my third Jerome Gambit in my current tourney, my opponent went straight for the same line (leaving out the superfluous Queen check).

As often happens, the white "Jerome pawns" held a starring, if comic, role in the game, supporting me while mistreating the Black King horribly.

perrypawnpusher - djdave28
Chess.com Italian game tournament, 2014

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Qf6 9.fxe5+ Qxe5 

10.Qxe5+

This was my idea, to "surrender" to Black's plan. Exchanging Queens isn't much worse than leaving them on. I found only 30 examples of this line in The Database, including a few played by "Blackburne", Louis Morin and UNPREDICTABLE.

If we go back to the perrypawnpusher - Buddy_Thompson, Chess.com, 2014 game, however, with 8...Qh4+ 9.g3 Qf6 thrown into the move order, there are two relevant precendents: NN - Kapil Gain, Internet, 2004 (1-0, 56) and perrypawnpusher - Kevin the Fruitbat, Jerome Gambit Thematic, ChessWorld.net, 2008.(1-0, 38). Both are discussed at "Jerome Gambit Tournament: Chapter XIII".

Likewise, if we use the opening approach 7.f4 (instead of 7.Qf5+) Qf6 8.Qxe5+ Qxe5 9.fxe5 Kxe5 we reach the same position as in the game, only a move earlier. There are 13 examples of this in The Database, but only one follows our main line (see below).

10...Kxe5 11.b4

This is the reason I went into the line - it looks hokey, and the next few moves by White don't suggest that I know what I am doing, either. (It's only showed up twice - three times if we count transpositions - before in The Database.)

I was pretty sure that I had discussed the line in an email with Stefan Bücker, editor of Kaissiber, years ago; but I have not been able to find our correspondence on the topic.

11...Bb6

The alternative, 11...Bd4, was seen in two games:

Spike1.2 - Fritz 6.0, USA 2006:  12.c3 Bb6 13.d4+ Kxe4 14.Nd2+ Kf5 15.0-0+ Ke6 16.a4 a5 17.b5 Nf6 18.Ba3 Re8 19.Rae1+ Kf7 20.Rxe8 Kxe8 21.Re1+ Kf7 22.Nc4 Nd5 23.Rf1+ Ke6 24.Re1+ Kf6 25.Rf1+ Kg5 26.Bc1+ Kh4 27.Rf5 Nxc3 28.Be3 Bxd4 29.Bxd4 Ne2+ 30.Kf2 Nxd4 31.Rf4+ Kg5 32.Rxd4 b6 33.Ne3 Ra7 34.Rc4 Kf6 35.Nd5+ Ke5 36.Nxb6 cxb6 37.Rxc8 d5 38.Rh8 h6 39.Rb8 Rf7+ 40.Ke3 Rf6 41.h3 h5 42.Rh8 Rh6 43.Re8+ Re6 44.Rc8 Kd6+ 45.Kd3 h4 46.Rc2 Re4 47.Rc6+ Ke5 48.Rxb6 Rxa4 49.Ra6 Ra2 50.b6 Rxg2 51.Rxa5 Rb2 52.Ra6 g5 53.Kc3 Rb5 54.Kc2 g4 55.hxg4 Kf4 56.Ra4+ Kg5 57.Rd4 h3 58.Rd2 Rxb6 59.Rxd5+ Kh4 60.Rd2 Rf6 61.g5 Kxg5 62.Rd5+ Kg4 63.Rd1 h2 64.Kb3 Rf4 65.Ka2 Rf3 66.Rc1 Kh3 67.Rc8 Kg2 68.Rg8+ Rg3 69.Rh8 h1Q 70.Rxh1 Kxh1 71.Kb2 Kg2 72.Kc2 Kf1 73.Kd2 Rh3 74.Kc1 Ke2 75.Kc2 Rd3 White resigned;

and in

Matacz CCT7 - Imp 0.74b, 2005: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 Qf6 8.Qxe5+ Qxe5 9.fxe5 Kxe5 10.b4 Bd4 11.c3 Bb6 12.d3 d5 13.Rf1 dxe4 14.Bf4+ Ke6 15.dxe4 Nf6 16.Nd2 Bd7 17.a4 a5 18.b5 Rhf8 19.0-0-0 Rac8 20.h4 Bc5 21.Nb3 Bb6 22.c4 Nh5 23.g3 Nxf4 24.Rxf4 Ke7 25.Rxf8 Rxf8 26.Rd3 c5 27.e5 Rf1+ 28.Kb2 Re1 29.Rd6 Bc7 30.Nxc5 Bc8 31.Rd5 Rxe5 32.h5 b6 33.Na6 Rxd5 34.Nxc7 Rxh5 35.Nd5+ Kd6 36.Nxb6 Be6 37.Kc3 Kc5 38.Na8 Rh3 39.Nc7 Rxg3+ 40.Kd2 Bxc4 41.Na6+ Kd6 42.Nb8 Ra3 43.Nc6 Rxa4 44.Nd4 Kc5 45.Nf3 Kd5 46.b6 Ra3 47.Nh4 Ke4 48.b7 Rb3 49.Ng2 Rxb7 50.Ne3 Bd3 51.Nd1 Kd4 52.Ke1 a4 53.Kf2 a3 54.Kg3 Be2 White resigned

12.Bb2+ Bd4

The "idea" behind the line appeared in axykk - bromby, FICS, 2011: 12...Kxe4 13.Bxg7 Black resigned.

13.c3 Bb6 14.d4+ 

14...Kxe4

I wouldn't be surprised to find that taking the pawn isn't the strongest move (see Spike1.2 - Fritz 6.0, USA, 2006, above). It reminds me of the Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit line, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke6 6.c3 Kxe5 7.cxd4+ where Black has to think "homeward bound" for his King, or risk dangerous play. More prudent in our game seems 14...Ke6.

I suspect that my opponent saw the position as an endgame, in which case his King should be safe; while I saw it as a Queenless middlegame, where I still had tactical intentions. 

15.0-0 Nf6 16.Nd2+ Kd3 17.Nf3 d6 18.Rad1+ Kc4 19.Nd2+ 

I was hoping for 19...Kd3, when I was going to plan 20.Nf3+ and offer a draw. I know that's a bold thing to do, down a piece, but I thought Black's King might be feeling homesick.

19...Kb5

Again, a surprise. I thought that after 19...Kd5 I could play 20.c4+ and 21.c5 and win the piece back - hoping that my lead in development would compensate for my lack of pawns.

20.a4+

Played automatically, remembering a comment that Bill Wall once made to me, that certain moves just have to be played, not even thought over. Here, it either works, or White is doomed, anyway - I'm a piece down, and if Black's King escapes, I got nothin'... 

To my chagrin, when this game was over and I shared it will Bill, he suggested 20.c4+ instead.

20...Kxa4 21.c4 

The "Jerome pawns" do special duty, hemming in the King.

21...Kxb4 

This move, however, leads to a pie in the face. After the game, both Bill and Houdini suggested 21...d5.

22.Rf3 Black resigned

The King cannot escape checkmate.

Nostalgia

Having taken a look back at earlier times in this blog with yesterday's post, I would like to continue by pointing out some more, early, distinctive items. Newer Readers might be interested at what has gone on. Older Readers might enjoy the nostalgia.


Of course, it all started in mid-2008 with a "Welcome!". This was followed quickly with a post on the first published analysis, by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome, of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) in "In The Beginning..."


Before starting this blog, I had written a history of the Jerome Gambit, and International Master Stefan Bücker, has, over the years, tried to find a way to publish a version of it in his fantastic magazine, Kaissiber. I don't know how many Readers believe this tale, but it has been told occasionally on this blog, starting with "To Infinity... And Beyond! (Part II)."


Of course, it is hard to overlook Geoff Chandler's send-up of the Jerome Gambit by pairing the moves of the infamous game, Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1885, with pictures from the even-more-infamous collector cards of "Mars Attacks!"


An early mention of "My Jerome Gambit Database" mentioned a whopping 950 games. Currently, The Database contains over 26,500 games, including Jerome Gambit (around 20,000) and related (e.g. Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit) games.


It was fun pointing out "Pitfall Numero Uno in the Jerome Gambit", as well as speculating on the possible "Godfather of the Jerome Gambit?". I was pleased to see that Wikipedia would let me link this blog to their entry on the Jerome Gambit (see "Hey Wiki, it's me, Ricky..."). It was easy to post Jerome Gambit resources with "Jerome Gambit Scrapbook".


There have been many opportunities for historical research. Whether or not Winston Churchill was related to Alonzo Wheeler Jerome, it was funny to report, as Anne Sebba wrote in American Jennie The Remarkable Life of Lady Randolph Churchill

And when Jennie displayed some daring originality or eccentricity the relations would comment: 'How very American. How very Jerome.'

Computers, smart and not-so, have weighed in on the value of the Jerome Gambit, including a massive and interesting computer vs human match.


When I add this blog contains "lots and lots of games" that I have uncovered, and that  friends of this blog have added; and toss in "lots of analysis"; all I can say is: and this is just from the year 2008...


There is sooooo much more. Check it out.

Delusions of Grandeur

Years before starting this Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) blog, I had researched the history of the opening and its inventor, and put what I had found into an article that I then brazenly submitted to Stefan Bücker, for his Kaissiber magazine.

Much to my amazement (and delight) Stefan showed interest. As I reported in the first week of JeromeGambit.blogspot.com, in "To Infinity... And Beyond! (Part II)"

Some time this year, perhaps in the fall issue, Kaissiber will publish an article outlining the history of the Jerome Gambit, based on my researches.

The idea of having an article published in the world's #2 chess magazine was not a complete pipe dream: Kaissiber 27 actually included my article on the game Alekhine - Marshall, Baden-Baden, 1925, which featured 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6!?.

Still, I probably amused and annoyed a lot of people with my predictions of publication.

In June of 2008, I was still optimistic about the Jerome Gambit article, as I mentioned in "Breaking News"

He's still interested in publishing an article on the Jerome Gambit, based on all the information I've been sending him. In the fall. In a much more succinct format than what I've written.

A couple of months later ("Jerome Gambit Blog: Tidying Up") I could still report "Current speculation is there may be a short article in the October 2008 issue."

However, October came and went, and at the end of 2008 I could only report ("Jerome Gambit Blog: More Tidying Up") "I'm still hopeful."

Toward the middle of the next year, that optimism expired ("Jerome Gambit Blog: Still More Tidying Up") 

I'm not hopeful any more. It's unlikely that my history of the Jerome Gambit will appear in the pages of Stefan Bücker's amazing chess magazine, Kaissiber. While the audacity of such an opening appealed to the editor, the story of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's creation is a history of questionable analysis and even more questionable play. Although Kaissiber does not shy away from creative chess notions, its focus on an accurate assessment of things would require massive corrections and/or footnoting – to start.

Will the Jerome Gambit ever get its due in the pages of Kaissiber? Some skeptics would say that if it is never, ever mentioned, that is what is due. (Occasionally, I am inclined to agree.)

Since then, though, Stefan has made occasional mentions in emails. He is probably just being polite.

But, hope has not completly vanished. (If it ever does, I'll probably switch to the Ruy Lopez, too.)

You Knew It Eventually Had To Come To That...

So, I was following a discussion on the ChessPub Forum at ChessPub.com, always an interesting place to visit, when someone posted an innocent question

Seth_Xoma

Senior Member
FIDE Master, 2302 FIDE
and 2328 USCF.

Openings that you would never play

This could have been a poll but the number of possible openings would have been too many.

Anyway, which openings are so distasteful that you would never ever want to play them? For whatever reason?

I'm pretty opened-minded about adopting different openings but I don't think I would ever play the Pirc or the Botvinnik Semi-Slav for example.

For a while, the discussion was serious and thoughtful, with examples like the following

punter
YaBB Newbies

Budapest - 101 ways for white to get better ending
Any kind of scotch gambit/max lange attack etc. where black is better if he knows what he is doing
Pirc - 101 setups for white, all dangerous and black don't have clear way to equalize in neither
King's gambit - black is better
Basically no opening which leads to inferior position if opponent know the theory and no which leads to unpleasant ending out of the opening (even if it's drawable).


LostTactic
Junior Member

The Benoni systems, they're sound as far as I'm aware, but I still don't like the look of the positions they get.
Phildor defence, again don't like the look of the position for black.

The posts poured in. Occasionally you would see someone expressing open-mindedness, followed by someone who showed a limit to that open-mindeness – and sometimes those two "someones" would be the same "someone."
 
Smyslov_Fan
YaBB Moderator
Correspondence fan

I have a friend who's a master. He's made it a point of playing every legal first move in a rated tournament game. Ok, he chooses which openings to play against specific opponents, but I like his courage.

In blitz, I've played all sorts of openings. In tournament and correspondence chess, I don't know. I'm curious to see what Stefan Buecker would say. I doubt I'd ever play the Latvian, even in blitz. Nevermind.... I have played it in training games. Hmmmm.....

Other than that, I need to think about it some more.


Smyslov_Fan
YaBB Moderator
Correspondence fan

I wouldn't play the Transvestite Opening. There are some openings that are an affront to the game, and that's one of them. I also wouldn't play 1.Nf3 2.Ng1.

The latter post prompted some pleasant exchanges, all in the name of good fun (if not necessarily good chess)
 
Zwischenzugzwang
Junior Member

Dear Smyslov_Fan, would you be so kind to fill this gap in my chess knowledge - what is that??


Funky
YaBB Newbies

It's an opening in which king and queen trade spots on the first few moves, i.e. 1.e3 2.Ke2 3.Qe1 4. Kd1. It's playable for both sides, although White can claim a slight edge if you play it as black.


Michael Ayton
God Member

It skirts all dangers, and trousers the full point.


Zwischenzugzwang
Junior Member

Maybe 1.d3, 2.Qd2, 3.Kd1 and 4.Qe1 is more solid, as the king is not so exposed after move 2 !?


Seth_Xoma
Senior Member
FIDE Master, 2302 FIDE
and 2328 USCF.

Chess is all about finding the best move orders.

Some posters gave the discussion question some serious thought, and came back with some serious answers, like

Ty
YaBB Newbies

Here are some off of the top of my head:
As white:
-Grob
-Orangutang
-1.b3
-Annoying 1.d4 systems such as the london, colle, trompowsky, blackmar-diemar, veresov and others where white does not move the c-pawn.
-king's gambit
-caro-kann fantasy variation
-french exchange
-danish gambit, scotch gambit, max lange attack or any of those gambit lines where black is at least equal
-any anti-sicilian apart from maybe the Bb5 sicilians
-exchange slav
-vienna opening
-french advance

As black:
-QGD orthodox
-englund gambit
-petroff
-latvian gambit
-elephant gambit
-scandinavian
-1...b5
-1...b6
-philidor defence
-sicilian four knights
-sicilian pin variation
-mainline french with 3...dxe4
-Lowenthal sicilian
-Czech benoni
-Gurgenidze system of the Caro-Kann

There are probably more that I would not play, but I cannot think of them right now.


Uhohspaghettio
Full Member

Anything where you are relying on your opponent not to play accurately, eg. Elephant Gambit
* Any very sharp flank opening where you are hoping your opponent doesn't know it as well as you do.
* Anything where you do something that your opponent can easily avoid, for example Owen's Defence, Anderson's Opening.
* London System, Colle.


As will happen sometimes, the posts often approached the philisophical, if not the existential, as in

TN
God Member

The list of openings that you would never play is a reflection of the limitations of your playing style and chess culture.

That said, I would never intentionally play bad moves in a tournament game.


BPaulsen
God Member
2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

Which is exactly why I wrote earlier I wouldn't play anything that sucks.

If it doesn't suck, I'll play it.


Fromper
Senior Member
GrandPatzer

So what does it say about me that I've actually played half the openings mentioned in this thread?

As to the original question, I have no answer. There are some things I can't imagine myself ever trying, like the Bongcloud Opening, but I could imagine myself maybe trying even the silly stuff once in a casual game just to see what happens. I just can't imagine ever ruling out any possible opening and saying that I'll never play it.

I read along, enjoying myself, skipping quickly over the inevitable squabbles that can threaten to derail, if not destroy, a good discussion, until I ran into the following. You knew it eventually had to come to

SWJediknight
God Member

There aren't many openings out there that I can say I would definitely never play, as although I have a reputation for offbeat gambits (e.g. Göring, Scotch, Albin's, Portuguese/Jadoul, and Blackmar-Diemer) I occasionally wheel out something more mainstream for a change. For example, I recently surprised one member of my local chess club with the continuation 1.d4 d5 2.c4!.

There are certain openings that I seriously doubt I would ever play though:
Fred Defence (1.e4 f5)
Damiano Defence (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6)
Latvian Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5)
Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+)
Grob (1.g4)
Omega Gambit (1.d4 Nf6 2.e4)


Oh, well, a long time ago I reconciled myself to the fact that not everybody was going to love/like/appreciate/tolerate/avoid denigrating the Jerome Gambit...

The discussion continued in the thread, mostly on topic, with some wrangling over the definition(s) of "gambit", for example.

A highlight for me was a series of posts by Stefan Bücker, editor and publisher of the awesome chess magazine, Kaissiber, who has reportedly been ill of late.

The last post left me smiling. 

Mark Stephenson
YaBB Newbies

For me, the answer depends entirely on the circumstances. In correspondence, I would never play any dicey opening that depends on my opponent not knowing the best replies, since he or she will have access to every book, blog, forum, and database available. In blitz, I will try almost anything. And in classical, I may choose an opening that I ordinarily wouldn't play, if I know that it will really annoy my opponent. For example, as White, I will only play a KID exchange variation against a fire-breathing opponent who hates that.