I thought that Jon Speelman had had the last, friendly, justifiable, Grandmaster laugh at the Jerome Gambit four years ago, in his "Agony Column #24" over at chessbase.com, where he dissected a couple of my games that I had shared with him - but it turns out that I was wrong. YouTube.com has recently posted a video by Canadian GM Aman Hambleton (aka TOMMYFOOKINSHELBY, at Chess.com, see the previous blog posts "Jerome Gambit: Smash Finish" and "Unasked Questions") that hilariously gives the Jerome Gambit, this blog, and me, our just due - and then some. All in good fun. It is must viewing for all Readers. In the meantime, especially to those new to this blog, let me quote from a post from the first month of this blog, a dozen years ago, titled "But - Is this stuff playable? (Part 1)"
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?
Perhaps in friendly games, in bullet games, in blitz games, in games where you are giving "Jerome Gambit odds" to a weaker player - the opening might just be playable. (It is helpful to keep in mind Geoff Chandler's whimsical "blunder table" in this regard.) I am reminded of Gary Kasparov's response, when someone suggested 1...g5!? as a response to 1.c4 - "Chess isn't skittles". Certainly he was right - at the grandmaster and master level of play. But, for many club and amateur players, chess is skittles; and the Jerome Gambit fits right in. By the way, from an academic point of view, the Jerome Gambit is often a study of "errors in thinking" - exactly how does someone lose to "the worst chess opening, ever"?
Foolishly chasing A. G. Johnson's claim, in The Oregon Daily Journal, that Wilhelm Steinitz "in the zenith of his career as world's champion succumbed in his first attempt to defend the [Jerome] gambit", I searched through ChessBase's Big Database for any possibly relevant Steinitz game. I turned up a couple of games that appeared to be distant relations to the Jerome Gambit - and immediately tumbled upon a dissertation by Steinitz on one of his opponents, in, among others, Deacon - Steinitz, match game, London, 1863. Planning, also, to share the other discovery, Robey - Steinitz, London, 1865, I tripped over the following anecdote, concerning both Deacon and Robey, from George Alcock MacDonnell's The Knights and Kings of Chess (Horace Cox, 1894).
The following incident in his game with Mr. F.Deacon(at that time reputed to be one of the strongest players in England) is, I think, not unworthy of record. In the course of the fight, which took place at St. James's Hall, Mr.Deaconleft the table, and sought out his friend, the late Mr. Staunton. Finding that gentleman surrounded by a host of admirers— myself included—he invited all of us to come and witness the grandfinalewith which he was going to crown his victory over James Roby. We at once accepted the invitation, and crowded round his board. "You see," saidDeacon,in a whisper, to Staunton, "he must take the pawn or the bishop; if he takes the pawn I sacrifice the exchange and mate in four; and if he takes the bishop I sacrifice the queen, the queen, sir, and mate in seven." "Indeed," muttered the British autocrat.
Scarce had this little scene been enacted when Roby looked up from the board, on which he had been gazing for a long time, and surveying the increased concourse of spectators, smilingly looked atDeacon,who was standing opposite to him, and exclaimed, "Won't you take your seat, Mr.Deacon?" The politeDeaconat once sat down.
"It's mate in five," said Roby, still looking at his opponent. "No," repliedDeacon; "if you make the best move I cannot mate you in less than seven."
"It's mate in five," rejoined the hardhearted Roby. "It is I who give the mate, notyou."Then followed rapidly a series of brilliant moves, and in two minutes Roby arose from the table triumphant, leaving his opponent to sit on there, utterly amazed and chapfallen.
Another fine chess story! Dr. Tim Harding, in his British Chess Literature to 1914: A Handbook for Historians (McFarland, 2018), dates its first appearance to MacDonnell's chess column in the February 20, 1866 issue of the Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News, and, in considering Deacon - Robey, B.C.A. Grand Tournament, London, 1862, suggested that "the facts somewhat spoil the story". Nonetheless... Oh? The chess games? The not-quite Jerome Gambit games that A. G. Johnson was probably not referring to? That will have to wait until the next blog post...
Just ran across Jerzy Konikowski's Polish language blog "Chess in my life" that provides the additional "We provide information that is successful or not, but always true!" His post on the Jerome Gambit has a link to Jonathan Speelman's "Agony" column #24, at the chessbase website, that covers a couple of my Jerome Gambit games. Nice to be causing mischief the world over!
I was wandering the internet the other day, looking for some Jerome Gambit references that were new to me, when I decided to visit theChessBase Live Database.
There I found the game Fejfar, Vlastimil - Chvojka, Jaroslav, CZE-Cup32 final email ICCF, 2015 which did not appear in The Database. Success! Not really, as you will see. Of course, Vlastimil Fejfar is familiar to readers of this blog - see "Correspondence Play Parts 1, 2, and 3", "Climbing Sněžka" and "A Fierce Jerome Gambit Battle" for starters. But I think there is something mixed up in the ChessBase Live Database... 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Ke7
The first clue that something might be amiss. The Database has 44 games with this position, out of 13,090 games starting 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+. That turns out to be about 1/3 of 1% - a very rare move, indeed! Of course, Black might be "experimenting", too, but it seems unlikely that he would turn his "won" game after White's move to a slightly worse game after his own move. 5.Nxe5 Suspicious. White would have a comfortable "pull" after either 5.Bxg8 or 5.Bb3. I could see this move in a lightning game... maybe. In a serious correspondence game? No. 5...Nxe5 6.Qh5
Again, raising eyebrows. Why not the straight-forward 6.Bxg8 Qxg8 7.d4 when 7...Qc4 8.dxc5 Qxe4+ 9.Qe2 Qxe2+ 10.Kxe2 is clearly good. Feeling adventurous? Then 6.Bb3 was the move, and after 6...Nc6 or 6...Bd4 or 6...Bb6 White could test Stockfish 9's contention that the first player has an edge. 6...d6 Strangeness from the other side of the board. Black is rated at 2295, and should have seen 6...Bxf2+ 7.Kxf2 Nxf7, with a better game, easily. 7.Qh3 No, I don't think so. 7...Kxf7 Missing something. More likely, the "game" is bogus. 8.Qh4 No. Not even blindfolded. 8...Qe7 Consistent, but absurd. 9.Qxe7+ Nxe7
And Black went on to win - in whatever alternate universe the battle was fought. 10.h3 Be6 11.d3 Rhf8 12.Ke2 Kg8 13.Be3 Nc4 14.d4 Rae8 15.e5 b5 16.dxc5 b4 17.Kd3 Rb8
Very strange, indeed. I went to ICCF website, looked up the event, and studied the crosstable: Fejfar came in 2nd to Chvojka, with 20.5 points to his opponent's 21.5. When I downloaded the PGN file of what appeared to be the game, however, it had only the outcome, not the moves. I checked my copy of ChessBase's Big Database and could not find the game. Another blow to the argument "But I saw it on the internet!" (Years ago, when chess game databases began to proliferate, publishers were known to "seed" their databases with imaginary games, the better to use them as markers to show if others - publishers, players - later copied their work. I suppose that is one possibility, here.)
This previous post is worth repeating for those who may have missed it. I mean, how often do you see "balderdash in the highest sense" to describe a chess opening?
Grandmaster Jon Speelman's "Agony Column" at the ChessBase news site presents games submitted by average players. Each week he shows one player's "agony" game, where the outcome was not a happy one; and the same player's "ecstacy" game, where the result was more enjoyable. GM Speelman's analysis is, as always, instructive, enlightening, fair and enjoyable. This week he takes a look at two of my Jerome Gambit games. Wow. "And lived to tell the tale", as they say. Be sure to stop by the site and read the column! Be sure to check out the "Discuss"comments as well.
Grandmaster Jon Speelman's "Agony Column" at the ChessBase news site presents games submitted by average players. Each week he shows one player's "agony" game, where the outcome was not a happy one; and the same player's "ecstacy" game, where the result was more enjoyable. GM Speelman's analysis is, as always, instructive, enlightening, fair and enjoyable. This week he takes a look at two of my Jerome Gambit games. Wow. "And lived to tell the tale", as they say. Be sure to stop by the site and read the column! [Hmmmm..... I posted this on October 19, as GM Jon Speelman said that is when it would go up. I have seen the column, with a link provided in an email by Frederic Friedel of ChessBase. But - as of the morning of October 20, it does not seem to be up on the ChessBase News site. As they used to say on TV: PLEASE STAND BY. - Rick] [Aha! There it is: At last! - Rick]
Jon Speelman former world championship candidate has started a new column and was asking for readers games. So I sent him one of my Jerome gambit games for a bit of fun and here is his response.
Hi Dave, Many thanks, What a splendidly purulent gambit which nevertheless must be horrible to face in a five minute game and quite tough at slower time limits. Cheers, Jon
cheers
Dave
I think Dave is referring to GM Speelman's new "Agony Column" at ChessBase.com. It should be very, very interesting.
Even when I can not play the Jerome Gambit, I can sometimes find echoes of it in the play of the game. perrypawnpusher - TheAlbatros 5 12 blitz FICS, 2014 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nh6
Wow. That certainly is one way of saying "No. Jerome. Gambit." I mentioned the move on this blog about 5 years ago. Recently, I was astonished to find that the online ChessBase database has 330 games with this position. The oldest example of the line that I could find, at the online ChessCube site, is Frazer - Taubenhaus, Paris, 1888: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nh6 4.d4 Bd6 5.Bg5 f6 6.Bxh6 gxh6 7.Nxe5 fxe5 8.Qh5+ Kf8 9.Qf7 checkmate. Echoes, here, of Damiano's Defense. The most recent example I turned up is Heverson Silva Pereira - Erika Figuei Toledo Martins, Juiz de Fora op Juiz de Fora (3), 27.09.2014: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nh6 4.d3 g5 5.Bxg5 f6 6.Be3 b6 7.Qd2 Rg8 8.Bxh6 Bxh6 9.Qxh6 d6 10.Bxg8 Ne7 11.Qxh7 Nxg8 12.Qxg8+ Ke7 13.Qg7+ Ke8 14.Nc3 Bd7 15.Nd5 Rc8 16.Nxf6+ Qxf6 17.Qxf6 Rd8 18.Ng5 b5 19.Qf7 checkmate. Odd.
4.d4 I was not surprised to see that Bill Wall had faced the line before: 4.0-0 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ Nxf7 6.d3 0-0 7.Nc3 Nd4 (7...d6 8.Nd2 Nh6 9.Nb3 Bg4 10.Qd2 Qh4 11.Nxc5 dxc5 12.f3 Be6 13.b3 Qf6 14.Rb1 a5 15.a3 Qg6 16.Rb2 Ra6 17.Qe3 Bh3 18.Rf2 Ne7 19.Kh1 Raf6 20.gxh3 Qh5 21.Qg5 g6 22.Qxh6 Black resigned, Wall,B - Chair, Chess.com 2010) 8.Na4 Nxf3+ 9.Qxf3 Bd4 10.c3 Bb6 11.Qg3 d5 12.b3 dxe4 13.dxe4 Ba5 14.Ba3 Re8 15.Rad1 Qe7 16.Bxe7 Black resigned, Wall,B - Jag, Chess.com 2010; 4.d3 Bc5 5.Bxh6 gxh6 6.Bxf7+ Kxf7 7.Nc3 Qf6 8.Nd5 Qd6 9.Nh4 b6 10.Qf3+ Ke8 11.Nf5 Qg6 12.Nxc7+ Kd8 13.Nxa8 Bb7 14.Nxb6 Bxb6 15.0-0-0 d5 16.d4 Bxd4 17.exd5 Bxb2+ 18.Kxb2 Nd4 19.Nxd4 exd4 20.Qf4 Qb6+ 21.Ka1 Kd7 22.Rb1 Qa6 23.Qg4+ Kd6 24.Qe6+ Kc5 25.Qe7+ Black resigned, Wall,B - Alexaantic, Chess.com, 2010. 4...exd4 My one game with the line continued 4...Nxd4 5.Nxe5 Qf6 6.Qxd4 d6 7.Nf3 Qxd4 8.Nxd4 Be6 9.Bxe6 fxe6 10.Nxe6 Kd7 11.Nxf8+ Rhxf8 12.Nc3 c6 13.Be3 Ng4 14.0-0 h5 15.Bg5 b5 16.Rad1 a5 17.f3 Ne5 18.f4 Nc4 19.f5 Nxb2 20.Rd4 b4 21.Nd1 c5 22.Rd5 Nc4 23.Ne3 Nxe3 24.Bxe3 a4 25.Bxc5 Ra6 26.Rfd1 Kc8 27.Rxd6 Rxd6 28.Rxd6 Re8 29.Rd4 h4 30.Bxb4 Rg8 31.Ba3 g6 32.fxg6 Rxg6 33.Rxa4 h3 34.g3 Rc6 35.Ra8+ Kb7 36.Rh8 Ra6 37.Bb4 Rxa2 38.Rxh3 Rxc2 39.e5 Rb2 40.Bd6 Kc6 41.g4 Rb1+ 42.Kg2 Rb2+ 43.Kg3 Rb3+ 44.Kh4 Rb7 45.g5 Rh7+ 46.Kg4 Kd5 47.Rxh7 Black resigned, perrypawnpusher - Xasquete, blitz, FICS, 2009. Black does not have to take White's d-pawn. For example, 4...Bd65.Bg5 f6 6.Bxh6 gxh6 7.Nxe5 fxe5. 8.Qh5+ Kf8 9.Qf7 checkmate, from Wall,B - Kerazag, Internet 1996 (and Frazer - Taubenhaus, Paris, 1888) 5.Nxd4 Bc5 6.Nxc6 bxc6
The two "Italian Bishops" give an echo of the Jerome Gambit - if only that Knight were not on h6... 7.Bxh6 gxh6 Interestingly enough, Black has a better defense in 7...Qh4!? with his own threat of checkmate. White can keep an edge with 8.Bxf7+ Kxf7 9.Qf3+ Kg6 10.Bf4. 8.Bxf7+ This is an improvement over 8.Qh5 of Patrick Gregoire - Gauthier Lille, Loire-ch op 2005, which continuedQf6 9.0-0 Bb7 10.Qxc5 Qxb2 11.Nc3 d6 12.Qd4 d5 13.Qxh8+ Ke7 14.Nxd5+ cxd5 15.Qxb2 Bc8 16.Bxd5 Bb7 17.Qxb7 Rd8 18.Qxc7+ Rd7 19.Qe5+ Kd8 20.Rab1 Kc8 21.Rb8 checkmate 8...Kxf7 9.Qh5+ Kg7 10.Qxc5
Down a pawn, with an exposed King, my opponent resigned a few moves later.
I have the ChessBase online app for my smart phone, giving me access to a large games database. Every once in a while, I can find a new Jerome Gambit or Jerome-ish game. The following over-the-board clash was initiated by a 15-year old Lithuanian player. Jelisejevas, Rokas - Diciunas,Vladas 2nd Mikenas Memorial, Taujenai , 06.08.2014 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.0-0 White opts for a "modern" Jerome Gambit variation, one without 5.Nxe5+. He figures he has done enough sacrificing by drawing Black's King out, and so protects his own. He will take his chances as they come. The Database has 1128 such games, in which White scores 38%. 5...d6 6.d3 Bg4 7.h3 Bxf3 8.Qxf3+ Nf6
White has played his thematic f2-f4, but Black has gotten his King to safety by castling-by-hand, and there is little to show, beyond an extra pawn, for White's piece sacrifice. The gambiteer is going to need some cooperation from his opponent, and in this game it is not forthcoming. 15.f5 Rad8 16.c4 c6 17.b4 Ncd7 18.a4 Nb8 19.Qb3 Kh8
Chess Base has come out with a new Opening Encyclopedia for 2013. Albert Silver, in his review, was quite impressed, noting "It quite literally comes with more material than you could view in a lifetime, or several lifetimes..." and reassuring readers "it has material to answer your questions in every chess opening there is." He continues
Don’t think this is only about mainline theory either. Although you will assuredly find every nook and cranny of the Najdorf, Gruenfeld and QGD being scrutinized, you will also find a wealth of material on offbeat lines such as the Fajarowicz Gambit (two articles), the From Gambit, the Evans, the Snake Benoni, the Keres Defense, the Latvian Gambit, the Elephant Gambit (eight articles) and every oddball line that may tickle your fancy. Someone played a gambit or line at your club or online and you had no idea what to do? Rest assured, there is an article here to enlighten you.
Wow. I wrote ChessBase immediately
I was impressed by Albert Silber's review of Opening Encyclopedia 2013. Tell me that it covers the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ and I'll reach for my wallet.
While it is interesting to look over the Jerome Gambit lines selected by the ChessBase "Opening Report" (the last three posts) based upon the games in The Database, it is important to remember that the collected "wisdom" presented is drawn from mostly amateur play - what is popular may not be what is "best".
History can be misleading.
For example, the main line of play, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 has always seemed to me to be easier for White to play (if subjectively less scary for Black to endure) than the lines after 6...Ke6.
Furthermore, do not be impressed by the "100%" score for White that shows up for the line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.f4. After 6...Qh4+ 7.g3 Qg4 8.Qxg4 Nxg4 White will have a hard time whipping up any kind of attack with Queens off of the board and only two pawns in return for his two sacrificed pieces.
Finally, the recommendation for Black after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.0-0 - 6...Nc6 - Allows 7.Qh5+, winning the defender's dark-squared Bishop. Better is 6...Qf6, as 7.d4 is no threat, easily answered by 7...Bxd4! since 8.Qxd4 would lose to 8...Nf3+.
We continue (see the earlier "Opening Report" parts 1, 2, and 3) to uses ChessBase's Opening Report function to take a look at the games in The Database. As a reminder, the Report gathers what lines are being played, and what lines are being used by the top players in the database. It gives a good "real life" view of the play of the Jerome Gambit, even if it does not always identify the objectively best move or line. Opening Report 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+
It's time again (see the earlier "Opening Report" parts 1, 2, and 3) to use ChessBase's Opening Report function to take a look at the games in The Database. The Report gathers what lines are being played, and what lines are being used by the top players in the database. It gives a good "real life" view of the play of the Jerome Gambit, even if it does not always identify the objectively best move or line. (That would require a process called backsolving, which is not available in my ChessBase8.)
The Opening Report again also highlights a number of games from an interesting 2008 30-game human vs computers match (starting with "Jerome Gambit: Drilling Down (1)" This post starts an extended series (which may be interrupted from time-to-time for news, games or analysis) wherein the intrepid "RevvedUp" (a good chess player) and his trusted companions Hiarcs 8, Shredder 8, Yace Paderborn, Crafty 19.19 and Fritz 8 explore the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) by taking turns playing the White and Black pieces.
The human moves first, and takes notice of the defense the computer plays. In the next game, where he moves second, the human plays that defense against a new computer – and sees how it attacks. In the third game, the human plays the recent attack against his new computer foe. Collectively, the players drill deeper and deeper into the Jerome Gambit.
