Jerome Gambit: "Jerome Gambit Odds" and Ratings

I am involved in a game online, with a time limit of one day per move. My opponent is playing quite well, and it looks like we will draw.

I am rated about 500 points higher than he is, and although different systems calculate things differently, an online Win Probability Calculator suggests that I have a 96% chance of being successful. Interestingly enough, it also indicates that such a difference in ratings is equivalent to 4.16 pawns.

Oh, and I am playing the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc4 4.Bxf7+) - giving him "Jerome Gambit odds".

Is that enough material sacrificed to compensate for the rating difference? Giving up two pieces (approximately 6 pawns) for 2 pawns in return would make us about even, and a draw would be a reasonable result.

How about that? 

I stumbled over an interesting comment that Grandmaster Larry Kaufman a dozen years ago on the Rybka Chess Community Forum. The discussion concerned an upcoming match between a strong computer chess program and a FIDE Master, with the computer giving Kight odds.

[T]he Elo equivalent of a given handicap degrades as you go down the scale. A knight seems to be worth around a thousand points when the "weak" player is around IM level, but it drops as you go down. For example, I'm about 2400 and I've played tons of knight odds games with students, and I would put the break-even point (for untimed but reasonably quick games) with me at around 1800, so maybe a 600 value at this level. An 1800 can probably give knight odds to a 1400, a 1400 to an 1100, an 1100 to a 900, etc. This is pretty obviously the way it must work, because the weaker the players are, the more likely the weaker one is to blunder a piece or more. When you get down to the level of the average 8 year old player, knight odds is just a slight edge, maybe 50 points or so.

So - according to GM Kaufman, the rating value of a Knight handicap may be 1,000 points between quite strong players, but it shrinks as the players' skill levels shrink. (If the Jerome Gambit is a blunder, or a way to give odds, it might be relevant to revisit Geoff Chandler's "Blunder table"). 

I think that means that if you're an average club player giving "Jerome Gambit odds", to somebody rated only a 100 points or so below you, you're out-performing expectations! 

Jerome Gambit: More Fun Quick Finishes

Some evenings I work late into the night, researching and analyzing, trying to find the elusive path to bringing the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) a step or two further away from "just another refuted opening" and a step or two closer to being a "real" opening. (See "Jerome Gambit: Pinocchio" and "Jerome Gambit: Velveteen Rabit Part 1".)

Then, in the next morning's email, I get another handful of games with notes like "This is my first Jerome Gambit, ever, and I totally crushed the guy!" and I realize that the Jerome is not about finally becoming a boring, normal opening.

The Jerome Gambit is about playing chess and having fun.

So - here are some more quick hits that recently arrived.

The checkmate in the following game never gets old. We have seen this kind of thing before, and we will, no doubt, see it again.

GraysonTheHoff - tengodosperras
3 0 blitz, lichess.org, 2020
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Ng6 7.e5 Nd5 8.Qf3+ Kg8 9.Qxd5#


The Jerome Gambit can inspire the sacrificial tendency in other openings, too. Jerome Sicilian, anyone?

UnitedN51 - Usern4me
3 2 blitz, Chess.com, 2020
1.e4 c5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.Nf3 a6 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Ne5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Kf6 7.Qf5#



Here, the Petroff Defense, by transposition, meets the Jerome Gambit. Any guess which wins?

Hipernight - newguy587
3 0 blitz, Chess.com, 2020
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nxe4 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kg8 6.Qh5 Nf6 7.Qf7#


I don't know a lot about playing the Jerome against the Hungarian Defense, but players are kind enough to teach me.

EN93 - AreaPedonale
10 0 blitz, Chess.com, 2020
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Be7 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.d4 d6 8.Qf5#


My daughter bought me Murray Chandler's How to Beat Your Dad at Chess. I am sure she meant no harm. The following game could have wound up in that book. I hope the son didn't get grounded.

Son - Dad
friendly blitz, 2020
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Be7 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.d4 Nc6 9.Qd5#


Finally, a Jerome Gambit that ended when the defender realized that his defense hadn't really defended.

Leicand - joskyano
3 2 blitz, lichess.org, 2020
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke8 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Qh5+ Black resigned

Jerome Gambit: More Mysteries

Jerome Gambit games keep pouring in...

Another mystery (see "Jerome Gambit: Ghosts in the Defense") arrived the other day, followed, a few days later, by, yet, another. I want to share the games, and some perspective. I have made the name of the players of the Black pieces anonymous.

Eelco_Niermeijer - NN
10 0 blitz, Chess.com, 2020

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 7.Qd5+ 

Black resigned

Okay...  How about

Eelco_Niermeijer - NN,
10 0 blitz, Chess.com, 2020

1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 

Black resigned

What was going on??

Three things, about the world of the Jerome Gambit.

I wanted to share something from GM Nigel Davies' fantastic book, Gambiteer I.

“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.”

That might explain the defender's behavior.  Meanwhile, to explain the attacker's attack, some input from Geoff Chandler, chess player, coach, and raconteur. I quote from one of his posts

Here is a one-move blunder table showing how severe the blunder needs to be in a game between two players of the same grade.

All players should be able to spot their opponent leaving a mate in one on. 

A 1200 player should win if an opponent blunders a Queen or a Rook. But not necessarily if they pick up a Bishop or Knight. 

1500 players often convert piece-up games into a win, but this is not the case if a pawn or two up. 

An 1800 player usually wins if they are two pawns up. 

In a game between two 2000+ players a blundered pawn is usually enough to win.

I think that Chandler's blunder table can be applied to time limits, as well. In correspondence play, a little material means a lot. In blitz or bullet play, though - sacrifice away!

Finally, an assessment from the Jerome Gambit player, himself, concerning the first game, although it could apply to the second as well.

The game started off with a normal Jerome Gambit. After ...Nxe5 I decided to go for the Queen check variation rather than the theoretically more solid d4 move forking the bishop and knight, mainly because I consider it to be a more active way to attack the king and eventually gain compensation for the sacrificed pieces. As soon as I checked the king with my queen, black started burning some serious time which suggests that this gambit might have caught him by surprise which is in my opinion the biggest advantage of the Jerome Gambit together with its fierce attack on the king side. As you can see in the game I sent you he eventually burned approximately 1 minute and 25 seconds, only in his sixth and final move. Which shows that the spontaneous nature of the gambit is its main advantage, as if this had been a quick 3 minute blitz game where this gambit is originally intended to be played, he would have already used half of his time in his first six moves. My opponent was probably considering the best way in which he could get out of check. He eventually decided to block the queen's check with his knight going for ...Ng6 probably because he was scared of playing something like ...g6 which would run into Qxe5 delivering a fork on the bishop and rook, or protecting his knight with a move like ...Ke6 which would expose his king in a very dangerous way. After my opponent played ...Ng6 both protecting his knight and blocking the check I decided to play Qd5+! which is as you already know the theoretical novelty that GM Aman Hambleton introduced in his video about the Jerome Gambit which has the idea of inviting black to play either Kf8 or Ke7 which allows white to capture the bishop with another check to continue his attack and to stop black from developing. Surprisingly enough, shortly after I played this move my opponent resigned because despite being objectively better, as he was two pieces up, he thought that he was losing because of the speed in which I played my moves which suggested that the Jerome Gambit was either some kind of tactic which he had blundered into or a very strong attack which I had brought prepared from home. The moral of the story is that he resigned a six move game being two pieces up and with plenty of time on the clock solely because of the speed of my moves and the position of his king...

Jerome Gambit: Searching for A Few Answers (Part 2)

[continued from previous post]

We are following a Jerome Gambit game by angelcamina, who has allowed himself the "luxury" of a full 5 minutes to play his game, instead of his usual 1 minute bullet (no increment in either case).

Some of the tactics that follow are both beautiful and mind-boggling.

angelcamina - nanangtisna

5 0 blitz, lichess.org, 2020

Black's Rook is attacked, and there are two moves that allow his Queen to protect it.

In the meantime, White's Queen is menacing the enemy King, but the defense has adequate resources.

10...Qf6 

Often f6 is the square for Black's Queen, and in some lines (in the Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit) even White finds the need to protect his Rook by putting his Queen on f3 - 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke6 6.c3 Qg5 7.cxd4 Qxg2 8.Qf3 - but not here. In the game, after 10...Nf6 11.Qxg5+ Ke6, Black's King would be shaky, but he would be better.


11.Qxc7+ Bd6

One of the funniest things about computer chess programs, including Komodo 10, is that they seem to have a reasonable, innate distrust of the Jerome Gambit, and, therefore, consider a draw to be an acceptable, even desirable, outcome. So, instead of the text, the recommendation is 11...Qd6 12.Qg7+ Qf6 13.Qc7+ Qd6, etc. with a draw by repetition.

Again, nanangtisna makes a reasonable move - but it is met by an unreasonable response.

12.d4+ 

When you sharpen your tactics in bullet play, this kind of a shot comes naturally.

12...Kxe4 

The best reply. It is fascinating to look at 12...Kxd4, which is met by the unassuming 13.Qa5. The more you look at White's move, the scarier it gets. Sure, White remains under-developed and a piece down, but he is threatening checkmate, and the enemy King is under fire, such as 13...Kxe4 14.Nc3+ Kf5 (sad, but all others are worse) 15.0-0+ Kg6 (15...Bf4 16.Nxd5) 16.Rxf6+ Nxf6 when White's Queen and pawn outweigh Black's Rook and Bishop.

13.Nc3+

But the clock still ticks! With 13.Qc3, White would have forced  13...Kf5, giving him 14.O-O+ again, when 14...Kg6 would lose the Queen, as in the above note, and 14...Bf4 would be met by the wonderful 15.Qg3 Qxd4+ 16.Be3.

13...Kxd4  

Incredibly, Stockfish 11 recommends, instead, 13...Kf5 14.O-O+ Kg4!? and exchanging Queens with 15.Rxf6 Bxc7 seems to lead to an edge for Black. Bumping Black's King first, with 15.h3+, and then exchanging Queens is supposed to lead to an even position - but I do not know how to reconcile these two evaluations.

I can't imagine working out these lines while avoiding a time forfeit.

14.Qa5 

A solid move. If angelcamina had started out with, say, 10 minutes on his clock, he might have found the creative 14.Be3+ which continues the tactics fest: 14...Ke5 (14...Kxe3 15.Nxd5+ Kd4 16.0-0-0+ Ke5 17.Qc3+ and Black will lose his Queen) 15.Qa5 (again threatening mate as in the note, above, to Black's 12th move) Kf5 16.O-O+ and again the Black Queen is a goner.

14...Bg4  

The clock ticks for Black, too.

Instead, 14...Qe7+ 15.Ne2+ Ke5 seems to give Black (a piece up) hope, but the skewer with 16.Qc3+ would then win a Rook. White would also have the safer 16.Bd2 Bg4 17.0-0-0 - of course, offering a piece that cannot be taken, i.e. 17...Bxe2 18.Bc3+ Kf4 19.Qxd5 - when, after 17...Kf5 18.Qxd5+ Kg6 19.Rhf1 White still offers that piece on e2, and with 19...Bxe2 20.Qf5+ Kh5 21.Qh3+, etc., the game would settle into a draw by repetition of position.

As once Geoff Chandler wryly suggested, maybe the Jerome Gambit is a draw, after all.

15.Qxd5 checkmate

Once again, fortune has favored the bold.

Now, please give me a few minutes to catch my breath...

Jerome Gambit: Out of Order

Many a chess master has lamented, after a loss, that he had gotten his opening line out of order: instead of playing move A, and then move B, he started out with move B - and it made a grave difference.

The following game - with a time limit 20 minutes per side - shows that club players, too, can fall prey to that kind of "Ooops!", even in the Jerome Gambit. Ouch!


ZahariSokolov - JasonXu
20 0 blitz, FICS, 2019

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 d6 

The Blackburne Defense. This can lead to the most notorious of Jerome Gambits, where White was crushed: Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1884. It can also lead to an analytical draw, as uncovered by Chandler and Dimitrov. Or, it can lead to success for White: The Database has 886 games with the variation, with White scoring 69%.

It all depends on how much the attacker and defender understand and remember.

8.Qxh8 Nf6 9.Qxd8 Black resigned

Oh, that's right - first you move the Black Queen to h4, then you develop the Knight...

Jerome Gambit Declined: Table Turned

The Jerome Gambit Declined - 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kf8/Ke7 - is beginning to annoy me. 

Some of it has to be psychological. Instead of grabbing the Bishop at move 4, and preparing to accept another piece the next move, Black says "No, thank you" and creates a bit of a gambit, himself. So, Black exchanges the opportunity for a "won" game with the chance to be a pawn down, with little objective compensation.

Huh?

perrypawnpusher - PrestonRFD
Italian Game Classic", Chess.com, 2019

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+

4...Ke7 

The Jerome Gambit Declined, and probably not in the best way.

The Database has 49 games with this position, with White scoring 70%, including perrypawnpusher - walkinthe spirit, blitz, FICS, 2009 (1-0, 24) and perrypawnpusher - walkinthespirit, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 34).

Stronger appears to be 4...Kf8, which appears 312 times in The Database, and against which White has scored 56%.

By comparison, based on almost 14,500 games in The Database, White scores only 46% with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7.

So - Black gives up something by refusing to accept the sacrifice, but the lesson of Geoff Chandler's "blunder table" is that the pawn Black offers in return is not much of a loss on his part. In the meanwhile White is forced to create a plan.

5.Bb3 

Certainly 5.Bxg8, instead, is worth a look: it scores 8-0 in The Database. I gave it a glance before moving my Bishop, but was needlessly worried about 5...Qxg8, with two heavy pieces backing two pawns aimed at the future home of my King.

If the Bishop is not exchanged, where should it go? On any given day, computers seem to prefer 5.Bd5 or 5.Bc4, although I can not figure out what advantage those moves have over the full retreat to b3.

The Database confirms that Black has succeeded in one of his goals, that of confusing White. The eleven 5th move responses include 5.Bb3, 5.c3, 5.Bc4, 5.d3, 5.d4, 5.Bd5, 5.Nxe5, 5.0-0, 5.Ng5, 5.Bxg8 and 5.Bh5.

5...Nf6 

Sensible, predictable and, according to the computer, wrong.

6.Nc3

I know that I am supposed to know all about the Jerome Gambit, so it is a bit embarassing to see this is at least a small error, as well. White should grab the pawn at e5, initiating the "fork trick": 6.Nxe5 Nxe5 7.d4 when he will get back either the piece at c5 or the one at e5. (I can console myself that there are no game examples of 6.Nxe5 in The Database. I should add this move to my "Jerome Gambit Secrets" posts.)

6...d6 7.h3

This is a boring move, designed mostly to prevent ...Bg4 as an aid to a possible ...Nd4. It was disappointing to come to grips with the realization that my advantage in the game was mostly the extra f-pawn, which wasn't going to advance any time soon. So, my plan became: small moves, small ideas, let him take the leap.

7...Re8 8.d3 Kf8 9.O-O Be6 

After the game, Stockfish recommended now that White play 10.Bxe6 Rxe6 11.Ng5 Re8 12.Nd5, with a complicated tactical line.
No matter. After

10.Bg5 

Black lost on time. 

I am not sure why. Perhaps: the real world.

Strange game, right to the end.

From the Corner - Smiling

It is hard to mention the chess wise guy Geoff Chandler without thinking about the following game that he posted, years ago, on his "Chandler Cornered" site

Anon - Anon
Edinburgh Congress

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bf4 Be7 7.Nc3 Nf6 8.Nb5 Bb4+

Geoff noted

Black played Bb4+ with the idea of playing Ba5 covering c7.
Whilst White was pondering on his next move Black suddenly stated:
"I thinks It's checkmate!"
And it was!!!
Before the start of the game neither player had noticed that the Black King and Queen were on the wrong squares.

(Okay, that was a Petroff Defense, not a Jerome Gambit. If you feel cheated, don't worry, I have you covered: check out Geoff's legendary "Mars Attacks!") 

Tidying Up - Or Messing Up?

Recently I was looking through long-time friend of this blog IM Gary Lane's 2012 "Trash or Treasure?" column, part of his at "Opening Lanes" efforts at Chess Cafe.

(Actually, I was looking at an old pdf file, stored on my phone - a phrase that would probably have been nearly meaningless when I first started this blog.)

I spotted some apparent confusion related to a Jerome Gambit game, and as I may have had a hand in causing it, I thought I'd try to do some unraveling.

From "Trash or Treasure?" 

...Finally, Mr. Kennedy pointed out a fairly recent game played by Scottish player Geoff Chandler. I have never met him, but I do know that Mr. Chandler has an excellent sense of humour and his old chess blog at Chandler Cornered was zany, thought provoking, and usually very funny. Therefore, the following game looks like a fabrication, but I am happy to be corrected in the future. Here is another Jerome Gambit game that is spectacular as always!

Chandler, Geoff - Dimitrov Todor

Blitz, Edinburgh, 2004

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+

This opening is ideally suited to blitz where you don't care whether you win or lose, but want to play something memorable.  

6...g6 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.O-O Nf6 10.Qd8!

Geoff is a decent club player and could have found this himself if the game was really played.* I still think it was more likely he was following the advice given in the previous Blackburne game, which has been copied up to this point. However, I did look up his old blog and found this comment "I recall about a year ago Todor and me had a dozen or so games playing 4.Bxf7+ at 5 minute chess in Bells." If you think he played a game inside an actual bell, then think again. He is referring to his chess club hosted at a local bar.  

10...Bh3 11.Qxc7+ Kg8

Here IM Lane gives 12.gxh3 and says

Instead 12.Qxb7 is winning, because12...Qg4 can be met by 13.Qb3+! (13.Qxa8+ Kf7 14.Qb7+ Kf8 15.e5? White should keep on checking, but this winning attempt backfires spectacularly upon 15...d5 and it turns out that Black wins.) 13...Kg7 Qxh3 and it is time for Black to put the pieces back into the box.  

Then 12...Qxh3 13.Qxb7 Qg4+ A draw by repetition beckons, but Mr. Kennedy assures me that Geoff went on to win.

 Actually, the game continued 12.Qxb7 Qg4 13.Qb3+ Kg7 14.Qxh3 and according to Chandler, White won.

How did the mixup in the moves of the game occur? I could have jumbled them when I emailed the game to IM Lane - if I actually sent it, as I can't find any record of that amongst our correspondence. (Gary might have made the slip, but is that likely? He's the professional, I'm the amateur.)

Anyhow, the Chandler - Dimitrov game and analysis can get pretty messy, so perhaps that was part of it.    

In support of that possibility, and a possible clue, it is worth looking at "Updating the Blackburne Defense (Part 2)" where I reference, among a number of things, Dennis Monokroussos's thoughts from about 7 years earlier about Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1884, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.O-O 

Dennis M's Chess Site
February 2, 2005

...But now, here's the puzzle. After 9...Nf6, Black has a substantial lead in development and several well-placed pieces ready to commence a feeding frenzy on the White kingside, yet had White found 10.Qd8, pinning the Black Nf6 to the queen on h4, it would have been Black needing to fight for his life! The following might be best play for both sides: 10.Qd8! Bh3 11.Qxc7+ (11.Qxa8? Qg4 12.g3 Qf3 forces mate) Kf8! (11...Kg8? 12.Qxb7 Qg4 13.Qb3+ and 14.Qxh3) 12.Qxb7 Qg4 13.Qxa8+ Kf7 14.Qb7+ Kf8 14.Qa8+ with a draw by perpetual check.  

When I first saw this game and was told about 10.Qd8, it seemed to me that Black just had to have something, but neither I nor my silicon friends have succeeded in proving a win or even an advantage for Black. Can any of my readers find something better for Black?

I can sympathize with Dennis - how can Black not win against the Jerome Gambit?? In a responding comment on his blog I shared

The line gets some analysis by Geoff Chandler and Todor Dimitrov on the former's hilarious website, Chandler Cornered http://www.chessedinburgh.co.uk/index.htm
It goes like this. (Notes by Chandler.)

10.Qd8 Bh3 Threatening simply Qg4 and Qg2 mate. 11.Qxc7+ Kf8 This is best. [In my Game v Todd he played the natural 11...Kg8 which allows a check on b3 12.Qxb7 Qg4 13.Qb3+ Kg7 14.Qxh3] 12.gxh3 forced [If 12.Qxb7 Qg4 13.Qxa8+ Kf7 (13...Kg7 14.e5 d5 15.exf6+ Kxf6 16.Qxd5) 14.e5 d5 15.e6+ (15.Qb7+ Be7 16.e6+ Kg7 17.Qxe7+ Kh6 18.d4+ Kh5) 15...Kg7 16.Qb7+ Kh6 17.d4+ Kh5 and Black mates on g2] 12...Qxh3 This appears to be the best. It keeps the attack rolling and keeps the draw in hand. Remember we are seeing if 10.Qd8 beats the Blackburne line. 13.Qxb7 Ng4 [Or 13...Qg4+ and ...Qf3+ drawing.] 14.Qxa8+ Kg7 15.Qb7+ Kg8 16.Qc8+ Kg7 17.Qd7+ Kg8 18.Qe8+ Kg7 19.Qe7+ Kg8 Black has to allow the draw else 18.Qe8+ Kg7 19.Qf7+ kh6 10.d4+ wins. So it appears 10.Qd8 draws.

Note in the above that the conclusion is that the game is drawn -- the same conclusion as you came to, although the particular line you give (12.Qxb7 instead of Chandler and Dimitrov's 12.gxh3) seems to tilt toward White.

In a later post Monokroussos added

(2) In my main line, Kennedy, citing analysis by Geoff Chandler and Todor Dimitrov, varies from my 12.Qxb7 with 12.gxh3, showing that it likewise draws after 12...Qxh3 13.Qxb7 Qg4+ 14.Kh1 Qf3+ etc. or 13...Ng4 14.Qxa8+ etc. (Note that Black can't escape the checks with 14...Ke7 15.Qb7+! Kf6?? [15...Kd8/e8/f8=] because of 16.e5+ followed by 17.Qg2.) 

(3) Chandler & Dimitrov also mention 12.Qxb7 and suggest it loses, but the culprit is not 12.Qxb7 but their 14.e5?, after which Black has a forced mate. 

Very interesting and I'm grateful to Kennedy for his comment...but my dream remains unfulfilled - can't Black win after 10.Qd8, somehow?

Readers, is this confusing enough for you? Above, I quote Monokroussos quoting me quoting Chandler...

I have put the moves to Chandler - Dimitrov, cited by Chandler, above, in italics. The move 12.gxh3, which IM Lane gives as part of the game, is actually part of Chandler's analysis after 11...Kf8, not 11...Kg8, as played in the game - although Chandler says in his note that the move 12.gxh3 is "forced" which may have made it look like it was played.

I muddied things even more by referring, in my comment to Monokroussos, to "Chandler and Dimitrov's 12.gxh3" - the move was from their analysis, as presented by Chandler, above, not their game; andy by referring to 12.Qxb7, the actual move in the game, as "the particular line you give". Monokroussos seems to catch this, as indicated in his (2) note in the later post.

By the way, Monokroussos is right in note (3) in correcting Chandler's analysis (which I had provided) that after 10.Qd8 Bh3 11.Qxc7+ Kf8 12.Qxb7 White does not lose - after 12...Qg4 13.Qxa8+ Kf7 the move 14.e5 is "the culprit... after which Black has a forced mate". Instead, 14.Qb7+ Kf8 15.Qa8+ draws by repetition - as Monokroussos mentioned in his first post, after "...Now here's the puzzle." 

Still, Monokroussos doesn't escape completely. The later post, note (2), above, gives the sideline 12.gxh3 Qxh3 13.Qxb7 Ng4 [instead of 13...Qg4+, drawing] for Black, suggesting that after 14.Qxa8+ etc. the game is drawn as well - but White has, instead of grabbing the Rook, the forced Queen exchange after 14.Qb3+ (how un-Jerome-ish) 14...Qxb3 15.axb3 which leaves him a Rook and 3 pawns better.

Ah, yes, now everything now is as clear as... trash. 

(*- Chandler commented in Chandler Cornered about 10.Qd8 "This is my over the board improvement that I have since learnt was first suggested in 1951." I had told Chandler that P. Wenman mentioned the move in his Master Chess Play (1951). I later learned that the move had been played in Harris, S - Quayle, E., correspondence, 1944, although, of course, the move had been first suggested in the August 1885 issue of the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle.)