Jerome Gambit: The Science of the Draw?! (Part 1)

I just completed my second Jerome Gambit game in the ongoing "Italian Battleground" tournament at Chess.com. It put me very much in mind of the questions raised in the recent post "Jerome Gambit: The Eternal Question of Draws".

It felt, at first, like I was dropping 1/2 a point, but by the end of the game it appeared like I had won 1/2 a point. In any event, it is appropriate to speak well of my opponent, Krisstianes_017, whose scientific approach to defending against the opening was successful - if you call achieving a draw against a "refuted" opening a success. (Another "eternal question".)

(Although my "escape" into a drawn endgame a pawn down was very much "scientific" as well, as it involved knowledge and experience with Bishops-of-opposite-colors.)  

perrypawnpusher - Krisstianes_017

"Italian Battleground", Chess.com, 2018

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 

The same line chosen by Abhishek29 in my other Jerome Gambit (so far) in the same tournament. For a short while I was worried that I would be playing the same game, twice.

7.Qd5+

Again, the "nudge".

7...Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qe3 Nf6 10.O-O Be6

Black is developing his minor pieces, but this move is probably not best, as it summons the move f2-f4 (threatening a pawn fork with f4-f5) from White.

After the game, in preparing this blog post, I asked Stockfish 9 to evaluate the move 10...Be6. At a depth of 30 ply, it saw the resulting position as equal. That is worth thinking about. Should Black be happy? Should White be happy?

It is funny to note, however, that after White plays 11.f4, Stockfish 9 - again, at 30 ply analysis depth - recommends returning the Bishop with 11...Bc8!? and evaluates the result as a slight edge to Black!

I have just recently begun using version 9 of Stockfish to help me understand my completed games, and this is not the only quirky output it has provide me.  

In any event, the computer prefers 10...Nh5!? (preventing f2-f4?) instead of the text.

11.f4 Ne7 

Interesting and good.

I faced 11...Bc4 in perrypawnpusher - avgur, blitz, FICS, 2009 (1-0, 43) as well as 11...Ng4 in perrypawnpusher - Verlen, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 23) and 11...Kd7 in perrypawnpusher - dirceu, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 16).

12.d4

Stockfish 9's recommendation is 12.f5 Bc8 13.c4 Nc6 14.d3, apparently seeing ...d7-d5 as worth preventing.

12...Kd7 

Courageously planning to castle-by-hand on the queenside. I can see why my opponent would not want to strike at the center until his King was safe.

Still, the computer's suggestion is 12...d5, and I faced that move in perrypawnpusher - nmuffjgp, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 22).

13.d5 Bf7 14.c4 Kc8 

15.e5 

My plan was to open the center and use my "Jerome pawns" to cause havoc amongst Black's minor pieces.

Amazingly, after the game Stockfish 9 recommended the line 15.Bd2 Kb8 16.Nc3 h5 17.Rae1 a5. I was reminded of my ancient Fidelity Chess Challenger 7, that, when it assessed its King to be safe (wherever it was) and the position balanced, couldn't "think" of what to do, and so would advance its Rook pawns...  

15...dxe5 

This seems natural to me, but the computer doesn't like it, and prefers 15...Ng4 with an even game.

16.fxe5 Nfxd5 

Again, in the post mortem Stockfish 9 had a fit with this idea. I thought it was rather "scientific" to give back the sacrificed material and leave me with an isolated pawn.

17.cxd5 

Sigh. After the game, the compter had a fit with this move, too. I am glad I wasn't working with the old "talking" Fritz computer program that had a whole CD full of insults and sarcasm!

[to be continued] 

Jerome Gambit: An Unusual Mate

I recently received a couple of games from chessfriend shugart, who plays at the online site FICS. The time control for each game is 1 minute, with a 2 second increment per move.

That kind of speed melts my brain, so the whole field of lightning - or bullet - chess always amazes me. Especially when it involves the Jerome Gambit.

Years ago I reviewed Bullet Chess One Minute to Mate by Hikaru Nakamura and Bruce Harper. A quote from that book is worth sharing

It is important to realize that bullet chess is not really about "truth," to the extent that some chess players use the term to refer to the objectively best moves, but rather whatever works. Bullet chess won't often help you in your search for "chess truth," although it will certainly help you learn how to play chess more quickly! But bullet chess will teach you a lot about chess psychology, as there is always a reason  that any particular move is played it may not be a good reason, and it may not have much to do with the actual position, but there is always a reason. In this book, we explore the reasons why players do what they do when they are short of time, especially when it comes to making mistakes.

Clearly, the largely unknown and often unappreciated Jerome Gambit is going to cause the defender many "huh?" moments - deadly, in and of itself, when time is of the essence.

The final position brings a smile to the face.

shugart - kisa
1 2 lightning, FICS, 2017

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Bxd4 7.Qxd4 Qf6 

Okay, commenting on moves in this game would be something like watching someone juggling chainsaws, and saying "That one over there doesn't look so sharp". But, I do have to point out that White's Queen is unprotected and at risk of being lost after ...Nf3+.

8.O-O Ne7 9.f4 N5c6 10.Qc4+ Qe6 11.Qe2 Rf8 12.Nc3 Kg8

Black has castled-by-hand. White has to give him something to worry about.

13.Be3 a6

A good sign. I remember that whenever my Chess Challenger 7 computer felt its position was fine, or it could not come up with a move that improved its position, it would begin to move its Rook pawns. That often allowed me to slowly improve my own position without disruption.

14.Rae1 d6 15.f5 Qe5 16.Bf4 Qc5+ 17.Be3 Qe5 

Will there be a draw?

18.Kh1 

White does not repeat the position. We can guess who is ahead on time.

18...Bd7 19.Bf4 Qa5 20.Bg5 Nd4

21.Qc4+ 

Tactics prevail.

21...Kh8 22.Qxd4 Nc6 23.Qc4 Rae8 24.f6 g6 25.f7 Re5 26.Bf6 checkmate

Very nice!

Ups and Downs

I enjoy playing over ZahariSokolov's games because so many of them go right to critical or interesting positions in the Jerome Gambit, allowing him (and us) to experience the excitement of battle, with all of its ups and downs.

ZahariSokolov - Yrusia
standard, FICS, 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

8...Nc4

Bypassing the solid and good 8...Qf6 and the wild and good 8...Qh5+. It is helpful for the Jerome Gambit player to have enough knowledge about the opening to know that Black's move calls for "punishment".

9.Qd5+ Ke7 10.Qxc4 

The text is good enough for an equal position. The other capture, according to The Database, works out better:

10.Qxc5+ Nd6 (10...Kf7 11.Qxc4+ Kf8 12.d4 d6 13.O-O Nf6 14.Nc3 Qe7 15.e5 dxe5 16.fxe5 Be6 17.d5 Bg4 18.Bg5 h6 19.exf6 Black resigned, Petasluk - Comi, FICS, 2006) 11.e5 Nf6 (11...b6 12. exd6+ cxd6 13.Qe3+ Kf8 14.O-O Bb7 15.g3 Nf6 16.Qe2 Kf7 17.Nc3 Re8 18.Qf2 Ng4 19.Qd4 h5 20.Qxd6 h4 21.d3 hxg3 22.hxg3 Re6 23.Qd4 Rh6 24.f5 Rh1 checkmate, UNPREDICTABLE - ennuitois, blitz, FICS, 2009) 12.O-O Qg8 13.Nc3 g5 14.exf6+ Kxf6 15.fxg5+ Kg7 16.Qe5+ Kg6 17.Qf6+ Kh5 18.Qh6+ Kg4 19.h3+ Kg3 20.Ne2 checkmate, Kennedy - Chess Challenger 7, 2008. 

10...d6 

11.f5 

Instead, 11.d4 led to another adventure:  11...Be6 12.Qd3 Bb6 13.f5 Bf7 14.c3 Kd7 15.Nd2 Qh4+ 16.g3 Qg4 17.Qf3 Qxf3 18.Nxf3 Nf6 19.Nd2 Rae8 20.O-O Nxe4 21.Nxe4 Rxe4 22.Bf4 Rhe8 23.Rf2 Re2 24.Rb1 Rxf2 25.Kxf2 Bc4 26.Be3 c5 27.b3 Bd3 28.Rd1 Bxf5 29.dxc5 Bc7 30.cxd6 Bxd6 31.Bxa7 Kc6 32.Be3 Bc5 33.Bxc5 Kxc5 34.Rd2 Rf8 35.Ke3 Bg6 36.c4 Re8+ 37.Kf4 Kc6 38.Kf3 Re6 39.Kf2 Rd6 40.Rb2 Rd3 41.b4 b5 42.c5 Bf7 43.Ke2 Ra3 44.Kf2 Rxa2 45.Rxa2 Bxa2 46.Ke3 Kd5 47.Kd3 g6 48.Kc3 Bc4 49.Kd2 g5 50.Ke3 Ke5 51.h3 Be6 52.h4 gxh4 53.gxh4 Kf5 54.Kd4 Kg4 55.Ke5 Bf5 56.c6 Black forfeited on time, UNPREDICTABLE - LucioF, FICS 2010 

11...Nf6 12.d3

A center pawn push is probably premature, although it leads to interesting play, something like Houdini vs Nimzovich:  12.e5!? Re8! 13.d4 (13.exf6+?! Kf8+ 14.Kd1 Qxf6 advantage to Black; or 13.e6 b5!? 14.Qe2 [14.Qxb5 g6!? 15.c3 gxf5 16.d4 Bb6 17.Qxf5 Bxe6 18.Qd3 advantage to Black] 14... g6!? advantage to Black) 13...b5!? 14.Qc3 Kf8 15.O-O Bb6 16.e6!? (16.exf6 Qxf6 advantage to Black) 16...Bb7 17.a4 bxa4 18.Rxa4 c5 19.d5 c4+ 20.Kh1 Rc8 21.Bg5 Bxd5 22.Qd2 Bc6 23.Ra3 Kg8 24.Qe2 d5 25.Nd2 Bc5 26.Rh3 Rb8 27.Qe5 Qe7 advantage to Black

12...Bd7 13.Nc3

Again, 13.e5!? Re8 14.d4 Kf8 15.e6 b5!? edge to Black

13...Bc6 

Black has the extra piece and better development, although with an exposed King. White has the "Jerome pawn" wall, maintains rough equality.

14.Nd5+

Forcing the issue, while 14.d4!? would keep things equal.

From here on out, inaccuracies control the outcome of the game.

14...Kd7 

Instead, 14...Bxd5 15.exd5 Re8! planning to castle-by-hand and attack, was the way to go.

15.Nb4

Probably 15.Nf4 intending 16.Ne6 was better. Of course, that is easier to see from the sidelines.

15...Ng4 

Planning a Kingside attack, but overlooking something. 

16.Qe6 checkmate

Complexity In The Notes.

ZahariSokolov has played some very interesting Jerome Gambits at FICS lately. The following games shows off one of the aspects of the Jerome - that even the "winning" lines for Black are tricky for the second player, as are the "losing" lines for White.

So much of the complexity this time is in the notes.

ZahariSokolov - GhengusFungus
standard, FICS, 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 Nf3+

This rogue knight move marks the "Norton Variation", as opposed to one move later - 8...Qh4+ 9.g3 Nf3+!? - which would lead to a very sharp and complicated Queen sacrifice that wins for Black.

Nonetheless, The Database has 9 games with the Norton line, and White wins 8 of them. There are 44 games with the Queen check line, and White wins half of them.

Perhaps GhengusFungus was unfamiliar with the Queen sac, or he found the Knight move to be disturbing enough.

9. gxf3 

I was able to get away with the erroronious 9.Kf1? twice, in blitz games,  perrypawnpusher - igormsp, blitz, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 13) and perrypawnpusher - rheapennata, blitz, FICS, 2012 (1-0, 12); but long ago, at a slower pace, the Gambit's creator was not Jerome,A - Norton,D, Correspondence 1876 (0-1, 42).

9... Qh4+ 10.Kd1

Again, this is the correct square for the King, although two games in The Database show White winning after 10.Ke2? Young,J - "Chess Challenger 10" Computer, 1979 (1-0,18) and gibonacci - jschulte, GameKnot.com ,5d/move, 2007 (1-0, 48). 

10... Qe7 

In "Vortex" I wrote

White's best chance is 11.Qe5+ Kc6 12.b4!? when White can probably eke out a draw, whether or not the pawn is captured, but the play is very difficult.

That is a fair assessment of this Norton variation: a very complicated game, but a draw, with a lot of hard work by White.

Two games show White successful after 10...Ne7!?: CFBBlind -Quandary, FICS, 2001 (1-0, 18) and perrypawnpusher - sjeijk, blitz, FICS, 2011 (1-0,19); while White had a draw against 10...Qf2 - until he was given more in perrypawnpusher - Sir Osis of the Liver, JG3 thematic, ChessWorld.net, 2008 (1-0,19).

How did Black deal with all these complications? Apparently he relaxed too soon. 

11. Qd5 Black checkmate

Reversing Moves

In my latest Jerome Gambit game, my opponent reversed the 8th and 9th moves of the "His Nibs defense" and still got a good game. My only chance was to vary and confuse him.

It worked.

perrypawnpusher  - rheapennata
blitz, FICS, 2012

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Nf3+ 

The malicious "Nibs defense" continues instead 8...Qh4+ and after 9.g3, then 9...Nf3+.

Still, the text, introducing the so-called  "Norton variation" (see below) is strong, itself.

9.Kf1 

Probably not as strong as 9.gxf3, which has been played before:  9...Qh4+ 10.Kd1 (10.Ke2 Qf2+ 11.Kd3 Qxf3+ 12.Kc4 b5+ 13.Kxb5 Rb8+ 14.Ka5 Bb4+ 15.Ka4 Qxh1 16.Qe5+ Kc6 17.Qd5+ Kb6 18.Qb5 checkmate, Young,J - Chess "Challenger" 10, Computer game, 1979) 10...Ne7 (10...Qf2 11.Qe5+ Kc6 12.Qd5+ Kb6 13.Qb3+ Ka6 14.Qa4+ Kb6 15.Qb3+ Kc6 16.Qd5+ Kb5 17.Nc3+ Ka6 18.Qc4+ Kb6 19.Qb5 checkmate,  perrypawnpusher - Sir Osis of the Liver, JG3 thematic, Chessworld, 2008) 11.e5+ Kc6 12.Qe4+ Nd5 13.Nc3 Qxf4 14.Qxd5+ Kb6 15.Qb3+ Kc6 16.Qd5+ Kb6 17.Qb3+ Bb4 18.Nd5+ Kb5 19.Nxf4 Black resigned, perrypawnpusher - sjeijk, blitz, FICS, 2011 

9...Qh4 

Alternatives, new and old:

9...Kc6 10.Qd5+ Kb6 11.Qb3+ Kc6 12.Qxf3 Qf6 13.e5+ Black resigned, perrypawnpusher - igormsp, blitz, FICS, 2011; and

9...c6 10.gxf3 Qe7 11.b4 Bb6 12.Bb2 Kc7 13.Qe5+ Qxe5 14.Bxe5+ d6 15.Bxg7 Bh3+ 16.Ke2 Bg2 17.Rd1 Ne7 18.Bxh8 Ng6 19.d4 Rxh8 20.Kf2 Nxf4 21.c3 Rg8 22.Nd2 Kd7 23.Ke3 Rf8 24.Rg1 Bd8 25.Kf2 Rg8 26.Ke3 Nh3 27.f4 Nxg1 28.Rxg1 Rg4 29.Nf1 Bh3 30.Ng3 Rh4 31.Nf5 Bxf5 32.exf5 Bf6 33.Rg3 Rxh2 34.a4 Rh1 35.a5 Re1+ 36.Kf3 Re7 37.Rh3 c5 38.bxc5 dxc5 39.Rh6 cxd4 40.cxd4 Bxd4 41.f6 Rf7 42.Ke4 Bxf6 and Black won, Jerome,A - Norton,D, Correspondence, 1876.

Probably best was 9...Ne7 10.e5+ Nxe5 11.Qxe5+ Kc6. 

10.Qd5+ 

Here 10.g3?, transposing into the "His Nibs" variation, would have been foolish.

10...Ke7 11.Qxc5+ Kd8 

Up until this point, my opponent had been using a good bit of time, as he made his way through the variation. This is a blitz slip, however, probably more reflex than planning.

Instead, 11...Kf7 12.gxf3 Qxf4 13.Ke2 would have left White a pawn up. 

12.Qf8 checkmate

Silicon Jurassic Park

Reader quickturtle must have been browsing back posts on this blog recently (something that I highly recommend, by the way: there are almost 1,300 of them; you can use the "search this blog" Google gadget if you are looking for something special) as he posted a comment to "A Jerome Gambit 'Challenger' ", my tale of a Jerome Gambit-tinged battle against the venerable Chess Challenger 7 chess computer.

Because his comment hints at future adventures, I reprint it here:

Rick, this was a wonderful game and analysis. I still have to give the CC7 a lot of credit considering it's age and the limited amount of info those old machines had. I still have a Fidelity Designer 2100 and a Novag Super Expert and now I'm going to pull them out of the closet and give the Jerome a shot with them :)



Good luck against those silicon dinosaurs, quickturtle.

Be careful, too: remember those "Jurassic Park" movies!

Compensation

My relationship with my chess partner, Rybka 3, is a mixed one: it helps me understand my games after they are over; in turn, I have to put up with its "insults" (negative evaluations) about my play.

I trust Rybka's evaluations, but sometimes they are based upon the dynamic play that is possible in a position – often including moves played at the master level – as compensation for sacrificed material.

In games like the following, my opponent could be content with his extra material throughout the game. I struggled, successfully, as it turned out, to find all of the compensation that Rybka, afterward, assured me was there.

perrypawnpusher - irak
blitz 6 10, FICS, 2011

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6

The Semi-Italian Opening.

4.0-0 Bc5 5.Bxf7+

The Semi-Italian Jerome Gambit.

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.Qh5+ Kf8

Stronger, but more complicated with more risk, is 7...Ke6. The text move keeps Black's advantage.

8.Qxe5 Bd6

I have faced this move, without ...h6 and 0-0, against LeiCar and dogofthesouth.

9.Qc3

Possibly a bit stronger than 9.Qd4 in perrypawnpusher - LethHansen, blitz, FICS, 2009 (1-0, 26).

9...Qf6

Black would not mind exchanging some pieces, to remove any danger to his King. White should be able to take advantage of this mind set and get an equal game.

10.d4 Bf4 11.Nd2

After the game Rybka 3 preferred 11.e5.

11...c6

AlonzoJerome - MarleysGhost, blitz, ICC, 2011, also continued with an overt "exchange" theme: 11...Bxd2 12.Bxd2 Qc6 13.Qf3+ Qf6 14.Qe3 d6 (1-0, 17)

12.Nf3 Bxc1 13.Raxc1 Ne7

Black is rightly pleased with his solid game, although a skeptic would point out that he moved his dark-squared Bishop four times in exchanging it for White's un-moved counterpart. These missing tempi can be seen in comparing the two home ranks: White's Rooks are linked, while it will take Black three moves to do so.

The question, as always, is: can White make something of this, or will Black's extra piece prevail in the end?

14.e5 Qe6 15.Qd3 Qxa2

I knew that Black could not afford this further loss of time, even with his solid position. This is the kind of  pawn-grabbing that Chess Challenger 7 used to do against me all the time, many, many years ago.

How to punish it??

16.b3 Qa6 17.Qe4

Understandable, although more consistent (i.e. "Jerome pawns") was 17.c4. Nothing is going to happen quickly, but White's clamp-down on Black's position can grow tighter and tighter.

17...Ke8

Far-sighted: he plans to make f5 a strong point for defense. It will cost him more tempi to get his Queen back into play, but if he does not create further weaknesses in his position it will remain White's responsibility to show compensation for his sacrifices.

18.Nh4 Qb5 19.f4 Qd5 20.Qe3 Rf8

As planned, but Black gets his moves out of order.

After 20...g6 White can still go for the breakthrough with 21.f5 but after 21...Nxf5 22.Nxf5 gxf5 23.Rxf5 c5 Black is still holding his own, according to Rybka 3. White would still have to play accurately and actively to show his compensation.

21.f5 d6

Understandable: Black hits White's center, and prepares to finally develop his Queen Bishop and Queen Rook. Unfortunately, it opens things up for White, who can now better get at his King.

As painful as it might have felt, Black needed to continue to set development aside and play something like 21...c5.

After the game Rybka 3 suggested 22.Rcd1 cxd4 23.Rxd4 Qc5 24.f6 Nd5 25.Qf2 gxf6 26.Nf5 Kd8 27.Nd6 b6 28.Ne4 with an edge for White. Again, that is a rather sophisticated evaluation: White's compensation is largely in dynamic play, and if he lags, he loses.

22.f6

Good, and thematic, but second best: how could I have overlooked the "Jerome pawn"-themed 22.c4 (followed by 23.exd6)?

22...gxf6 23.exf6

23...Qf7

After some excellent cold-blooded defense, Black slips again, and his game rolls downhill...

Rybka 3 reduces the game to a Rook and pawn endgame that is better for White with 23...Rf7 24.Rce1 Qg5 25.Qxg5 hxg5 26.Ng6 Bg4 27.Rxe7+ Rxe7 28.fxe7 Kd7 29.Rf7 Rc8 30.c4 a5 31.Kf2 Bh5 32.Nf8+ Ke8 33.Rg7 Bf7 34.Nh7 Kxe7 35.Nxg5 Kf6 36.Rxf7+ Kxg5 37.Rxb7 Kf4 38.Re7 Rb8.

24.fxe7 Qxe7 25.Qxh6

Again, this is enough, but the puckish 25.Rxf8+ was better, as 25...Kxf8 would have been followed by the Knight fork 26.Ng6+, winning the Black Queen.

25...Rxf1+ 26.Rxf1 Be6 27.Re1 Kd7 28.c4 Re8

Finally, the pieces are developed. If Black could move his Queen out of the pin along the e-file, he could envision further resistance, being only a pawn down, with a Bishop against a Knight.

29.d5 Qf8 30.dxe6+ Ke7 31.Ng6+ Kf6 32.Nxf8+ Ke7 33.Qg7+

Here Black's time ran out. His clock was still running over 2 1/2 minutes later, so I courtesy adjourned the game. He resigned the next day.

Artificial Ignorance (Part 1)

How do you get a chess-playing computer to play poorly?

In the case of programs like Talking LCD Chess – see "Jerome Gambit and the Perfesser (Part I)", Part II, Part III and Part IV – you can limit how deeply it searches for each move. It sees less, it misses more.

In the case of programs like Chess Challenger 7 – see "A Jerome Gambit 'Challenger' " –  you can limit the amount of time it spends on choosing each move. Again, playing strength has a lot to do with how far the computer "sees".

Or, when you design a program, you can have it play a relatively decent game, but every once-in-a-while have it choose the 4th or 5th or worse move choice. That's the blunder-as-a-ticking-time-bomb model: with strong players, large mistakes are rare; but with weak players things go *boom* quite regularly.

I was thinking about this "problem" (most of the time programmers are trying to make their chess engines stronger and smarter) today while discussing the Chess Titans program (which is included in the Windows 7 operating system) with my son, Jon.

The youngest of the "Kennedy Kids", home on vacation from his work in Haiti, has been spending more time on chess lately. Of course, he wanted me to show him the details of the Jerome Gambit, and of course I spent a lot of time doing so.

He wants to return to The Haitian Project, play his boss at chess, and beat him with the Jerome Gambit...

A Jerome Gambit "Challenger"

The other day I was thinking about my old, old chess computer, the Fidelity "Chess Challenger 7" from the late 1970s / early 1980s.

Back then, playing my first "chess computer," even set at the fastest time setting, I had to actually think about my moves or I would get into trouble.


That was well before I had discovered the Jerome Gambit, however.


So I decided to put the old CC7 to the test!


Rick - Chess Challenger 7
USA, 2008


1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6

We're out of Chess Challenger 7's opening book, and Blackburne's move 6...g6 followed by Whistler's Defense 7.Qxe5 Qe7 is probably too long for the computer to calculate.

7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4



I held my breath. Modern calculating machines can jump on 8...Qh4+ these days, and even work out the later Queen sacrifice to crush White. They also can see the safety in returning material with 8...Qf6.

8...Nc4 TL

A new move, a "Theoretical Novelty" that is actually a "Theoretical Lemon." But – don't go away. There are some interesting ideas behind this move, surprising for such and old machine. The game is not over.

9.Qd5+ Ke7 10.Qxc5+ Nd6 11.e5 Nf6


Hey! Give the old machine some props, huh? It's going to lose a piece, and developing like this doesn't change that situation – it just gives Black more development.

12.0-0 Qg8

Again, CC7 is content to let me capture whichever Knight I please, and plans a counter-attack!

Great-grandchild Rybka suggests a tougher line: 12... b6 13. Qa3 (I can affort to "ignore" the capture for now, too) 13... Re8 14. Nc3 Bb7 15. d3 Kf8 16. exd6 c5 17.f5 a6 18. Bg5 Qb8 19. Rad1 Qxd6. (analysis diagram) White has an edge, sure, but the computer would live to fight on.

13. Nc3 g5


Never say die!

Still, Black's best try, leading to a relatively stable position two pawns down, was 13... b6 14. exd6+ cxd6 15. Re1+ Kd8 16. Qxd6

14.exf6+

This move is good enough to win, although Rybka prefers 14. Qxc7 Nde8 15. exf6+ Kf8 16. Qd8 Qe6 17. fxg5 as stronger.

14... Kxf6

Short-sighted, or greedy? This makes matters worse.

15. fxg5+

If I'm going to point out Chess Challenger 7's failings, I might as well point out mine: Rybka calculates checkmate: 15. Qe5+ Kg6 16. fxg5 Qe6 17. Rf6+ Kh5 18.Rh6+ Qxh6 19. gxh6+ Kg6 20. Qxh8 c5 21. d4 cxd4 22. Qg8+ Kf6 23. Bg5+ Kf5 24.Rf1+ Kg4 25. Rf4+ Kh5 26. Rh4#

15... Kg7


Shortening the pain, which would have continued a bit longer after 15... Kg6 16. Qe5 Qd8 17. Rf6+ Kg718. Rxd6+ Kg8 19. Rf6 c6 20. Nd5 Qxf6 21. gxf6 Kf7 22. Qe7+ Kg6 23. g4 Kg5 24.d4+ Kh4 25. Qd6 Kxg4 26. Qf4+ Kh3 27. Qg3#

16. Qe5+ Kg6 17. Qf6+ Kh5 18. Qh6+Kg4 19. h3+ Kg3 20. Ne2 checkmate



graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"