Jerome Gambit: A New Game In An Old Line

Sometimes the best way to understand a recent game is to reflect upon past games with the same line of play. The following game is a good illustration.

Yohannessen - saumilpradhan
5 5 blitz, Chess.com, 2020

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6

The Two Knights Defense. 

Jerome Gambit players have to deal with it - see "Jerome Gambit vs Two Knights Defense (Part 1), (Part 2), (Part 3) and (Part 4)" for starters.

Recently, I have been seeing a lot of games featuring 4.Bxf7+, a variation I have loosely referred to as an "impatient Jerome Gambit" because White does not wait for ...Bc5 before sacrificing.

4.Qe2

White has a different idea. To put it into context, see "No Way A GM Plays the Jerome Gambit! (Part 1)". There is also the historical perspective reflected in "Proto-Jerome Gambits? (Part 3)".

The earliest example that I have seen with this move is Pollock, W.H.K. - Vernon, J.E., Bath vs Bristol match, 1883: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Qe2 Be7 5.d4 d6 6. d5 Nb8 7.Nc3 Nbd7 8.Bd2 Nb6 9.Bb3 Bd7 10.Nd1 a5 11.a3 c6 12.c4 c5 13.O-O O-O 14.Ne1 Ne8 15.f4 Bf6 16.f5 Bg5 17.Ne3 Bxe3+ 18.Bxe3 g6 19.Bh6 Ng7 20.f6 Nh5 21.Bxf8 Kxf8 22.Qe3 Nxf6 23.Nf3 Ng4 24.Qd2 Kg7 25.Ng5 Nh6 26.Rf2 Qe7 27.Raf1 Rf8 28.h4 a4 29.Ba2 drawn

It was also played in Gunsberg - Burn, 6th American Chess Congress, 1889 (1/2-1/2, 27) and Bird - Chigorin, 6th American Chess Congress, 1889 (0-1, 53).

4...Bc5 5.Bxf7+

For the earliest example that I have found of this move, see "Adolf Albin Plays the Jerome Gambit (Part 1 & 2)", which focuses on the game Albin,A - Schlechter,C, Trebitsch Memorial Tournament Vienna, 1914 (0-1, 31).

5...Kxf7 

The game has transposed into a possible Jerome Gambit line: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Qe2 Nf6.

6.Qc4+ Ke8 7.Qxc5 b6 

Black pushes back. If he were able to castle, the pawn deficit would not matter much.

By the way, the alternative, 7...Nxe4 is met by 8.Qe3 d5 9.d3 Nf6 10.Nxe5 and White has recovered the pawn, while opening the dangerous e-file.

8.Qe3 Ba6 9.d3 Nb4 10.Na3 Ng4 

The time control for the game is 5 5 blitz, and a flurry of active pieces is a good strategy. White responds by exchanging Queens. 

11.Qg5 Qxg5 12.Bxg5 h6 13.Bd2 Rf8 

An oversight.

14.Bxb4 Rf4 15.Bd2 Rf6 16.Bc3 d6 17.d4 c5 18.dxe5 dxe5 

19.Nxe5 Rxf2 20.Nxg4 Re2+ 21.Kd1 Rxg2 22.Ne3 Rd8+ 23.Kc1 Re2 24.Nf5 Rd7 25.Bxg7 Rf2 26.Re1 Rdd2 

Black continues to pressure the White King.

27.Bxh6 Rde2 28.Rxe2 Rf1+ 29.Kd2 Rxa1 30.Re1 Rxa2 31.b3 Rxa3 

Play continues in a rowdy fashion, but now White turns to his passed "Jerome pawn".

32.e5 c4 33.bxc4 Bxc4 34.e6 b5 35.e7 a5 36.Ng7+ Kf7 37.e8=Q+ Kf6 38.Qf8+ Kg6 39.Nf5 

Black resigned

 What would happen next: 39...Kh5 40.Qg7 Rd3+ 41.cxd3 a4 42.Qg5 checkmate

Jerome Gambit: Down the Rabbit Hole, Again (Part 1)

I admit that after assembling the latest blog post concerning some chess history (see "Jerome Gambit: History Reset") I tumbled down the rabbit hole, again, concerning A. G. Johnson's claim, in The Oregon Daily Journal of Portland, Oregon, for  October 25, 1914, that Wilhelm Steinitz, while world chess champion, had lost to the Jerome Gambit the first time he had faced it.

Such a claim is outrageous on its face - a master playing the Jerome Gambit successfully, or, even worse, an Amateur doing so against the great Steinitz - and it could hardly have been hidden from the chess world, nor would the victor of such a game have been able to keep from sharing it with every player he knew!

Contrast this, as one example, with the report on Emanuel Lasker's simultanous exhibition, as reported in the October 18, 1906 Pittsburgh Press, where he defeated E. H. Miller's Jerome Gambit. Apparently neither player was interested in sharing the game score; or, if either did, the chess columnist could not be bothered to publish it. Ho-hum...

Still, how hard could it be to do one more check?

I fired up my copy of ChessBase, peered into the Big Database, and Filtered Games, looking for "Steinitz" playing Black, an outcome of "1-0", ECO of C50, and a game Position featuring Black's King on e8 and White's Bishop on f7.

Nothing.

So, I removed the ECO requirement.

Four games appeared, two of which could immediately be discarded: Blackburne - Steinitz, match game, London, 1863, and Chigorin - Steinitz, World Championship match game, 1889  - known games, and, certainly, not Jerome Gambits (they were Evans Gambits). What remained was Deacon - Steinitz, match game, London, 1863, and Robey - Steinitz, London, 1865. 

This immediately provided me with another distraction.

Frederick Deacon is alleged to have published spurious game accounts of wins against Paul Morphy (who claimed never to have played him) and Steinitz. The 1863 Deacon - Steinitz match game from my database seems to be legitimate, and has certain "Jerome-like" qualities, so it might be worth a peek, with the caveat: we think of Jerome Gambits as primarily arising from the move order 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ and often continuing 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+; the Bishop sacrifice and the Queen excursion are markers, although sometimes the label of "Jerome Gambit" has been mis-applied.

First, though, let us have a look at the thoughts of Wilhelm Steinitz, as he considers Mr. Deacon.

[to be continued]

Jerome Gambit vs Two Knights Defense (Part 2)

Readers of this blog may remember that in the 2009 ChessWorld Jerome Gambit Thematic Tournament, GladToMateYou played 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Qe2 fourteen times, winning eight of those games (see "Home Cooking").

Five of those games (GladToMateYou won four of them) continued with 5...Nf6, transposing to a Jerome Gambit / Two Knights Defense line that can arise from the play mentioned in yesterday's post: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Qe2, which can be followed by 4...Bc5 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Qc4+ and 7.Qxc5. 

The earliest game that I have in my database with 4.Qe2 meeting the Two Knights is Bird - Chigorin, Sixth American Chess Congress, New York, 1889 (although the related 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Qe2 probably goes all the way back to Ruy Lopez), about which Wilhelm Steinitz briefly wrote, in the tournament book, "Not as strong as the authorized move Ng5".

The earliest game in my database with 4.Qe2 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ as mentioned previously (see "Adolf Albin Plays the Jerome Gambit (Part 1)" and "(Part 2)"), is Albin - Schlechter, Trebitsch Memorial Tournament, Vienna, 1914.

The line has surprise value, and, as NiceToMateYou showed, some practical use in club play, but Black has resources (if he can find them) in 6...Kxf7 7.Qc4+ d5! 8.Qxc5 Nxe4! when after 9.Qe3 Re8 Black is somewhat better, and White is scrambling for playable ideas.

Still, none of this dissuaded Bill Wall from playing and winning with the opening this year:

Wall,B - Asesino
Chess.com, 2010

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

4...Kxf7 5.Qe2 Nf6 6.Qc4+ d5 7.Qxc5 dxe4

8.Nxe5+ Nxe5 9.Qxe5 Re8 10.Qb5 Qd4 11.0-0 c6 12.Qb3+ Nd5

White has already achieved an edge in the game.

13.Nc3 Be6 14.Qxb7+ Ne7 15.Re1 Bd5 16.b3 Kg8 17.Bb2 Rf8

For the illusion of an attack, Black surrenders a piece.

18.Qxe7 Qxf2+ 19.Kh1 Rae8 20.Qg5 e3 21.Nxd5 exd2 22.Qxg7 checkmate

Bright Ideas From Silicon

While drawing up my first list of online Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) resources (see "Jerome Gambit Scrapbook") I decided to review some games from the computer vs computer Jerome Gambit tournament that Randy Tipton of Baltimore, Maryland, ran a while back, as mentioned on his blog HANGING PAWN :: Tip's Chess Blog, subtitled A Patzer's experiments with Engines and Unorthodox Chess Openings (see "We are not alone...").

HIARCS 11.1, Deep Shredder 10 and Rybka 2.3.1 participated in the event in which White won 239 (31%), drew 76 (10%), and lost 450 (59%).

Tipton made available the 239 games won by White – won by either Hiarcs 11.1 or Deep Shredder 10, as it turns out. Hiarcs 11.1 lost 7 games; Deep Shredder 10 lost 19 games; and Rybka 2.3.1 lost 223. ("Something fishy is going on here. Very unlike Rybka, maybe its book learning was off. ")

What can we learn from these encounters between master or grandmaster level engines? A little – but, surprisingly not a whole lot.

Here is a summary of the games, and the choices the silicon giants made.

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

As noted, coming out of this line there were 239 White wins, played by Hiarcs 11.1 or Deep Shredder 10.

5.Nxe5+

In the games won by White, the computers showed a clear preference for the "classical" second piece sacrifice, playing it in 231 games, 97% of the time.

5.0-0 Nf6 6.c3 was seen in 4 games; 5.c3 Nf6 6.d4 exd4 7.cxd4 Bb4+ 8.Bd2 Qe7 9.e5 Ne4 was seen in 2 games; 5.d4 exd4 6.Ng5+ Ke8 7.0-0 d6 8.c3 was seen in 1 game; and 5.d3 Nf6 6.Nc3 appeared in 1 game.

5...Nxe5 6.d4

Surprisingly, this was White's choice over 6.Qh5+ by a 3 to 1 margin (in the games that the first player won).

6.Qh5+ was seen in only 52 games, which amounts to only 23% of the games with 5.Nxe5+; or 22% of the games in the whole tournament.

For the record, all of the games with 6.Qh5+ continued 6...Ke6 7.f4 d6, since they all were played by Rybka 2.3.1. This line, returning a piece to reach a more settled game, is as old as D'Aumiller - A.P., Livorno 1878 (see "My Jerome Gambit Database").

6...Qh4 7.0-0 Nf6

This move, a "TN" as far as I can tell, was the overwhelming choice in the tournament, appearing in 166 games (all played by Rybka 2.3.1.)

7...Ng4 was seen in 11 games (see "Jerome Gambit Tournament: Chapter X"); 7...Qxe4 8.dxc5 Nf6 was seen in 1 game, transposing to the main line below; and 7...d6 was seen in 1 game

8.dxc5 (144 games)

8.dxe5 was seen in 22 games

8...Qxe4 9.Nc3

Alternately, 9.Re1 was seen in 3 games

9...Qb4

9...Qc6 showed up in1 game

10.Nd5 (118 games, all Deep Shredder 10 - Rybka 2.3.1 32-bit)

10.Be3 was seen in 23 games.

10...Qxc5 11.Nxf6 Kxf6 12.Be3 Qc4 13.Bd4 c5 14.Bxe5+ Kg6

So, here we have a main line that shows up in almost half of the games in the whole tournament. After some reflection, what can we conclude?

1) 7...Nf6 is a new way to return a piece in the 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Qh4 line, although it is not as strong as the traditional 7...Ng4;

2) Black still had an advantage in the main line until the error 11...Kxf6, while the alternative 11...gxf6 would have maintained that advantage (as Deep Rybka 3.0 Aquarium has confirmed);

3) The overwhelmingly chosen line of play of the tournament – the main line, above – is largely the artifact of one program's (Rybka 2.3.1) predelection for an inferior line of defense (recall Steinitz's defense vs the Evans Gambit in his games against Chigorin);

4) Whatever enlightening bits of wisdom ("new and good" as it were) that the computers have uncovered about the Jerome Gambit must be hidden in the sidelines – or in the games that White managed to lose with later moves (and which are still unavailable from HANGING PAWN).