Sac a pawn, or a piece, or a...

Why, oh why, do people play such a scary thing as the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+)?

I play the opening myself, and I still ask that question. I found one kind of answer in a recent Chess Cafe book review by Steve Goldberg. He was writing about Timothy Taylor's new Pawn Sacrifice! (Everyman Chess, 2008)

Of course, in the Jerome Gambit White sacrifices more than a pawn, but often his two-pawns-for-a-piece material disadvantage is on the same level of loss.

Chapter 12, titled "Confusion," represents an interesting use of pawn sacrifices. Taylor explains, "Sometimes your opponent is just too smug. You look across the board, and there he is, wearing his Andy Warhol t-shirt, dreamily calm in the midst of his prepared variation/middlegame he’s crushed GMs with/grinding ending, and he just knows he’s going to win, and you’re just going to have to sit there and suffer, and he’s going to enjoy it."

Taylor’s advice is to "rip the gauzy comfort zone right off his smiling face! What do you do? You sacrifice a pawn for no other reason than to confuse your opponent! He says to himself, ‘That can’t be good!’ Then he thinks: ‘But why did he do it? – there must be some idea!’ Then, ‘I can refute this, but I have to leave my beloved comfort zone! Ohhhhh no!’"

Five games are presented in this chapter, and four of these "go from objectively lost, to confused, to winning." Fritz doesn’t approve any of these sacrifices, but Taylor states, "The confusion sacrifice is a very effective weapon against humans … The next time you have a bad position, or a position you simply don’t like, cheer yourself up! Sac a pawn just for confusion, then watch your opponent flounder! You will win many more games this way than if you drearily and unhappily defend."

Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit 2

When it comes to the Blackburne Shilling Gambit – 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4!? – White has several moves that can lead to good play: 4.Nxd4 (followed by 5.c3), 4.c3, or even simply 4.0-0.

Or there is the Jerome Gambit-ish 4.Bxf7+


Master Tim McGrew discussed the latter line in one of his "The Gambit Cartel" columns at ChessCafe, titled "A Shilling in the Mailbag".

Dennis Monokroussos sent a note...

Dennis analyzes 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+, “another fun possibility,” he writes, “when Black has to play very accurately to get even a small edge.”

His analysis runs 5...Ke7! 6.c3 d6! 7.Nc4 Nc6 8.d4 Nf6 9.0-0 Kf7. “White probably doesn't have enough for the piece,” Dennis concludes, “but White is better here than Black is after anything normal but 4.Nxe5.”

Does anybody feel like trying Black’s position after 5...Ke6 instead of Dennis’s 5...Ke7? Truly, this begins to look like a line that only a computer could love!

Believe it or not, this has been tried in a tournament game. Wieteck - Dutschke, Lahnstein, 1999 saw 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Bxf7+!? Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke8? Allowing the check at h5 is unwise. 6.Qh5+ (White could also consider 6.c3 Nc6 7.Qh5+ g6 when both 8.Nxc6 and 8.Nxg6 come into consideration.) 6...g6 7.Nxg6 and now Black committed suicide with 7...Qf6??, but after 7...hxg6 8.Qxg6+ Ke7 9.Qg5+! Nf6 10.Qc5+ d6 11.Qxd4

White has four (!) pawns for the bishop and Black’s king will be exposed long-term.

I cannot resist the opportunity to point out the (distant but discernable) analogy between Dennis’s second line and the Jerome Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+. The Jerome is, of course, completely unsound; it is a kind of miracle, and a tribute to Jerome’s tenacity, that it was analyzed seriously at all.

Dennis has produced a number of chess videos – which I recommend highly, for both their instructional and entertainment value – including "Master Lesson - Improvisation in the Italian Game" which has more recent analysis on the Jerome-ized Blackburne Shilling Gambit.

By the way, I took up Tim's challenge, and gave the position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke6 to the new Rybka 3.0 for a minute or two. (One of these days I'll let it run overnight.)

Rybka suggested that after 6.c3 Kxe5 7.cxd4 Ke6 8.Nc3 d5 things were about equal. Which side would be more comfortable for a person to play, though?

Black could probably eat another pawn with 7...Kxd4 (instead of 7...Ke6) but look at what might happen: 8.Nc3 (8.d3 Ke5 9.Qg4 Ne7 10.Bg5 d5 11.Qh5 Ke6 12.0-0) c6 9.d3 Kc5 10.Bf4 Kb6 11.Qb3+ Ka6 12.a4 b6 13.Nd5 cxd5 14.Qb5 Kb7 15.Qxd5 Ka6 16.0-0 Ne7 17.Qxa8 Nc6 18.a5 bxa5 19.Rfc1 Bb4 20.Rxc6 dxc6 21.Qxc6 and we have a typical drawn position... (Ha!)

All very, very complicated - a line that only a computer could love, as Tim said.

Game examples are very welcome.

Jerome Gambit, Vlad Tepes and... Garlic!

As I've mentioned (see "Jerome Gambit and Vlad Tepes..."), the GameKnot website has always been a good place to find Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) games.


The Vlad-Tepes Mini-Tournament is the most recent example.
splott - mika76
vlad-tepes's mini-tournament
http://www.gameknot.com/, 2008

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8 6.Qh5

The Banks Variation.



6...Qe7 TN

Suggested by International Master Gary Lane in his "Opening Lanes" (see "International Master Gary Lane") column at Chess Cafe. (Readers: when was the last time you heard of an IM making a substantive contribution to Jerome Gambit theory??)
Mika76, however, tells me that he came up with the move on his own.

7.Ng6+



White bites, but it is already a poisonous mistake. His King needs to take cover with something like 7.Qf3+ Nf6 8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.Nc3 d5 10.d3 with castling one way or the other coming up.

7...hxg6 8.Qxh8

White has a Rook and two pawns against a couple of pieces, but he will not live to see sunrise.
8...Qxe4+ 9.Kf1
After this comes mate, but there was no peace in 9.Kd1, either.

9...Qd4 10.Ke1 Qxf2+ 11.Kd1 d6 12.h3 Qxg2 13.Re1 Qf3+ 14.Re2 Bf2 15.d3 Nd4 16.Nc3 Qh1+ 17.Kd2 Nf3 checkmate

Jerome Gambit and Vlad Tepes...

The GameKnot website has always been a good place to find Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) games.

The Vlad-Tepes Mini-Tournament, a double round robin Jerome Gambit rumble, is almost done. It looks like Vlad-Tepes himself will be the top scorer.

The Jerome Gambit has been scoring a bit above 40%, as expected.

Today and tomorrow will feature a couple of interesting games. My apologies to splott, who turns up on the losing side of both encounters. They are not representative of his play – he likely will place third in the tournament.

vlad-tepes - splott
www.GameKnot.com
Vlad-Tepes Mini-Tournament, 2008

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8



This is a reasonable defense, first mentioned by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome in his premier analysis in the March 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal; and first played, as far as I can tell, by William Carrington in the 9th game of his second match with Mexican Champion Andres Clemente Vazquez, two years later.

6.Qh5


The Banks Variation, named for Pete Banks ("blackburne"), modern Jerome Gambit aficianado and member of the Jerome Gambit Gemeinde.

"Yes, it is always nice to threaten checkmate after just six moves" wrote International Master Gary Lane in annotating the game Banks - Rees, Halesowen, 2003, for his "Opening Lanes" column at ChessCafe (see "International Master Gary Lane").

The move 6.Qh5 was mentioned by Brownson in the March 1875 Dubuque Chess Journal, approved by Hallock in the February 1877 American Chess Journal ("Q-KR5 looks promising"), an apparently played by the opening's creator ("The continuation adopted by Jerome") – although I have no record of any of his games with the Queen move played at move 6 .

An alternative move for White would be 6.0-0 Nxe5 7.d4 Bxd4 8.Qxd4 d6 9.f4 Nc6 10.Qd3 Be6 11.e5 Bf7 0-1 as in easy19 - 1dumb, www.GameKnot.com, 2008

Jerome recommended instead that White trade off the advanced Knight, to disrupt Black's pawn structure: 6.Nxc6



6...dxc6 7.0-0 Nf6 8.Qf3 Qd4 9.d3 Bg4 10.Qg3 Bb6 11.e5 Nh5 12.Qh4 Be2 "It seems impossible to prevent the threatened loss of a piece, and no wiser course for Black is apparent from this point than the one chosen. The position is singular, and it is curious that White in so constrained a position should be enabled to regain his lost piece" wrote Brownson in the March 1875 Dubuque Chess Journal. 13.Qxd4 Bxd4 14.Re1 Bxe5 15.Rxe2 Re8 16.g3 Kf7 17.f4 Bd4+ 18.Kf1 Nf6 19.Nd2 Rxe2 20.Kxe2 Re8+ 21.Ne4 a5 22.Kf3 h6 23.c3 Ba7 24.Be3 Bxe3 25.Kxe3 Ng4+ 26.Kf3 Nxh2+ 27.Kg2 Ng4 28.Re1 b6 29.a4 Rd8 drawn by agreement, Jerome - Brownson, Iowa 1875

6...Qf6

Or 6...Nxe5 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qf4+ Qf6 9.Qxf6+ Nxf6 10.d3 Kf7 11.Nc3 Bd7 12.0-0 Rhf8 13.Bg5 Ng4 14.Nd5 Kg8 15.Nxc7 Rac8 16.Nd5 Bxf2+ 17.Rxf2 Kh8 18.Rf4 Rxf4 19.Bxf4 Rxc2 20.Bxd6 a6 21.Rf1 h6 22.h3 Rc6 23.Bf8 Kh7 24.hxg4 Bxg4 25.Rf7 Rg6 26.Rxb7 1-0 blackburne-hollandia, www.ChessWorld.net, 2004

7.Nxd7+ Bxd7 8.Qxc5+


"White now has three pawns for the piece. This is reasonable considering that White has played the Jerome Gambit" – IM Lane.

8...Nge7

International Master Lane wrote about the alternative, 8...Qd6 "Black is probably worried about his exposed king, so offers to exchange Queens. I prefer 8...Nge7, when Black relies on his greater piece activity top maintain the advantage" 9.Qxd6+ cxd6 10.c3 Nf6 11.f3 Kf7 12.0-0 Rhe8 13.d4 Kg8 14.Bf4 d5 15.e5 Nh5 16.Bg5 Nxe5 17.dxe5 Rxe5 18.Bc1 Bb5 19.Rd1 Rae8 20.Bd2 Re2 21.Na3 Bd3 22.Re1 Nf4 23.Rxe2 Nxe2+ 24.Kf2 Rf8 25.b4 Nf4 26.Bxf4 Rxf4 27.Ke3 Rh4 28.Kxd3 Rxh2 29.Rg1 Kf7 30.Nb5 Rh6 31.Re1 a6 32.Nd4 g6 33.a4 Rh2 34.g4 Ra2 35.a5 Ra3 36.Re5 Ra2 37.Rxd5 Rh2 38.Rd7+ Kf6 39.Rxb7 h5 40.gxh5 gxh5 41.Rb6+ Kg5 42.Rxa6 h4 43.Ne6+ Kf5 44.Ke3 Rc2 45.Nd4+ 1-0 Banks - Rees, Halesowen v Lucas BS 2003

9.Nc3 Qg6

Another Banks/blackburne game continued instead: 9...Kf7 10.d3 Rhf8 11.0-0 Kg8 12.f4 Qd4+ 13.Qxd4 Nxd4 14.Rf2 b5 15.Be3 b4 16.Ne2? Nxc2 17.Rc1 Nxe3 18.Rxc7 Rad8 19.Rf3 Nd1 20.b3 Ng6 21.Kf1 Bg4 22.Rg3 Bxe2+ 23.Kxe2 Nc3+ 24.Ke3 Rc8 25.Rb7 a5 26.f5 Rb8 27.Ra7 Ra8 28.Rb7 Rfb8 29.Rc7 Nb5 30.Rd7 Ra7? 31.Rxa7 Nxa7 32.fxg6 Nc6 33.gxh7+ Kh8 34.Rh3 Rd8 35.g4 Ne5 36.d4 Nxg4+ 37.Kd3 Nf2+ 0-1 blackburne - Rail2Rail, JG2 thematic www.chessworld.net 2008.

10.g3 Bg4 11.f4 Bf3 12.f5 Qg4 13.0-0 Bxe4


In a relatively even game Black overlooks a tactic. He should probably have looked into the idea of using his Rook at h8 to attack the White King, by advancing the h-pawn to attack the one at g3.

14.Rf4 Qh5 15.Nxe4 Qd1+


Black's game continues to falter, and soon Vlad-Tepes is swooping in for the kill.

16.Rf1 Qe2 17.d3 Rd8 18.f6




18...gxf6 19.Bh6+ Ke8 20.Nxf6+ Kf7 21.Ng4+ Ke8 22.Qh5+ 1-0






Oh, my aching neck!

A Few Words With... Tim McGrew

Readers interested in the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) and other exciting opening sacrifices are likely familiar – or should become familiar – with Tim McGrew, past author of "The Gambit Cartel" columns for ChessCafe.

Tim has always been supportive of my work with the duck-billed platypus of chess openings, although he maintains an objective attitude:

The Jerome is, of course, completely unsound; it is a kind of miracle, and a tribute to Jerome’s tenacity, that it was analyzed seriously at all.

I was planning to do a short interview with Tim, when I discovered that Michael Goeller, host of The Kenilworthian blog, had already done so, and in great style.

Check it out. Michael said it was fine to make the link.

Pour yourself a cup of coffee first, though. You'll not only find the interview, you'll find links to all of Tim's "Gambit Cartel" columns plus a downloadable zipped file of them. And, as they say in the commercials: But wait! There's more!

I'll wait for you to come back...

Here's some of Tim McGrew's wisdom on adventurism in the opening

When you select an opening, you are not selecting the position that arises at move 20 after best play by both sides. You are selecting the whole opening with all of its traps and twists, its side lines and main lines.

And you are selecting it to play against flesh-and-blood opponents who will very frequently deviate from best play – probably early.

Which raises a very important question, supposing they do deviate from best play, what will happen then?

The answer depends on what I will call the “Caltrop Coefficient,” or CC for short. For readers not familiar with military history, I should explain that caltrops are mid-sized pieces of metal shaped rather like gigantic jacks with sharpened points. Canny soldiers camping just on the other side of a river from their enemies would sow the riverbed liberally with caltrops so that an enemy cavalry charge across the river would be demolished as the horses stepped on the caltrops and went down.

Mutatis mutandis, every wild-eyed gambiteer uses this strategy in chess as well. The more caltrops the better, particularly at blitz or bullet time controls! Let’s agree to say that an opening with a high proportion of moderately well-hidden traps has a high CC.

Of course, if our opponent has studied up on the opening, life will be very hard.

--The Gambit Cartel "Dimensional Analysis" 6/20/2004

graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"

International Master Gary Lane

International Master Gary Lane's "Opening Lanes" column at ChessCafe is a constant source of information and merriment for club players looking to add lines that are a bit unusual (or more than a bit) to their opening play.
In two recent columns, IM Lane took a look at the Jerome Gambit, with the encouragement of Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member Pete Banks, who provided an introduction via several games. In fact, he began coverage in the second column with the note

Finally, last month’s feature on the bizarre Jerome Gambit prompted a flood of e-mails; the majority of which were delighted to see this wacky opening.

Surprisingly, the Jerome Gambit can have that effect on people.
Go figure.

I was intrigued because this gambit was unknown to me, but after some research I think it is has an interesting history. The opening is named after the American player Alonzo Wheeler Jerome (1834-1902) of Paxton, Illinois, which was analysed in the American Chess Journal 1874.
It has to be remembered that over 100 years ago people liked to attack and never defend, but even so his gambit is extraordinary.

IM Lane then annotates a game (given in "My Jerome Gambit Database" as "blackburne - karmmark") and it's hard not to at least give his jumping-off points...

Let us first look at the perfect example: Pete Banks-Karmmark Internet 2007 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 Bxf7+? The starting point of the Jerome Gambit. The great benefit of playing this on the Internet is that it is the last move your opponent is expecting. 4…Kxf7 5 Nxe5+ Yes, this really is an established line. I think anyone with good manners playing Black would now kindly ask their opponent if they wanted to take their move back.

When White wraps the game up quickly and in good style, the annotator wryly comments

Yes, the Jerome Gambit does look like a forced win, but Black has one or two defences at his disposal. I think Mr. Banks benefits from being stronger than his opponent, but it is a fun way to test the opening.

That is some of what makes International Master Gary Lane such a hit with the average player: he's willing to consider ideas off of the beaten path, and he rarely overlooks the critical ingredient, "fun," which makes chess such a tasty dish!
graphic compliments Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"

"...as long as they spell your name right"

P.T. Barnum liked to say that “there’s no such thing as bad press, as long as they spell your name right.”

Barnum was also a contemporary of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome.

With that short intro, I bring you a quote from National Master Eric Schiller, who has probably been the highest-rated player writing the most (something [anything!]) about the Jerome Gambit until International Master Gary Lane recently brought the opening up in his ChessCafe column.

From Schiller's Gambit Chess Openings (2002)

The High-Risk Gambits

The following gambits are considered terrible for the gambiteer, as far as computer evaluations are concerned...

One might think that they are entirely unsound but it is not always so. Some of these are generally considered playable in the books, others are acknowledged as refuted. In a few cases, the computer evaluation seems way off because experience has shown good results...
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
This is another cyberspace gambit.
Virtually no attention was paid to this reckless move until its supporters started talking about it on the Internet. It can't be found in recent tournament games, and there is a good reason: It stinks.

White whips up a brief attack, easily parried, and then spends a long time trying to justify the sacrifice. A popular gambit in cyberspace, but in the real world, it only succeeds in games where Black is a very weak player.

Uh, thanks Eric.
I think.