Jerome Gambit Refuted by A 1140 Player

I have enjoyed email from players around the world who have discovered the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+). Some send games and analysis, which I always find helpful, even when it labeled, as a recent missive from Michael Dunagan, "Jerome Gambit refuted by a 1140 player: Me".

Let me share his note, as well as my response. (He sent position screenshots; I have replaced them with the underlying moves and my standard diagrams.)

Hi,

I first learned of the Jerome Gambit when YouTube suggested GM Amen Hambelton's episode.

I have been looking at it for four days since I first was shown it:

Essentially, I think Black just slips into a "Fried Liver" Defense with 6...Ke6, and it's good night ladies.

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

I do not have a chess engine but I thought White's best response is 7.f2-f4 attacking Black's Knight on e5.

7.f4

I guess chess.com has a little "scoreboard" to the left of the board.  The scoreboard likes 7...d7-d6 for Black. 

7...d6

White does get a Knight back with 8.f4xe5 and after 8...d6xe5  9.O-O controls the "F* file.

8.fxe5 dxe5 [Here White cannot castle, as suggested.]

If the White Queen checks instead with 7.Qh5-f5+, the King saunters to d6, 7...Ke6-d6 8.f2-f4 Qd8-e7.  Gotta take the Knight before it moves away to safety 9.f2xe5,  with the reply Qxe5 offering a.trade of Queens.

[From second diagram, above] 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Qe7

Whether White trades Queens or not, he does not get Black's Dark Square Bishop, at least not in the opening as I have seen in other lines of play.

White would love to Castle but the c5 Bishop controls g1, the King's landing square.  White could "harrass a check" on f8, but as the Black King electric slides to c6, now she is under attack from the c5 Bishop and she must retreat with 4 escape landing spots: d8, f1, f3 f5 where the latter put the trade in play again.

I intuitively, down a Bishop for a Pawn, save the Queen with escaping to f3.  Chess.com agrees with this is the beat for White with (-5.38) as opposed to going back to e5 offering a trade (-6.25).

++++++

And now we are some 7-9 moves from the opening and white is going to have its head spin on how fast Black will develope with move like Ng8-f6 closing the "F" file and doubling up pressure on the d4 Pawn.

The best I could do for both sides

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Qe7 9.fxe5+ Qxe5 10.Qf8+ Kc6 11.Qf3 Nf6 12.Nc3 d5 13.d3 Bg4

And now white has to trade Queens in order to not drop the pinned e4 Pawn.

Needless to say that chess.com believes this position is scores at (-5.81) or just short of a rook and a pawn or just short of two minor pieces.

And after this position,  I cannot find any chess.com good scoring moves for White.  I would think knocking the Black  bishop around with h2-g4 so a Queen side Castle would be good but it only increased Blacks score on chess.com...

Regards,

Michael P. Dunagan

Hi Mr. Dunagan,

Thank you for taking the time to analyze the Jerome Gambit, and then share what you have found with me.

It must have taken a good bit of time and effort to put all of that in, from your phone. I appreciate the effort.

It is not clear from GM Ambleton's hysterically funny video that I never said the Jerome Gambit was a great opening, or even a good one. Of course, my blog is approaching its 3,000th post, so there is no way that Aman would ever have read it all...😊

I do admit that I waited to the 5th blog post, back in 2008, to mention Henry Joseph Blackburne's fantastic crush of the Jerome Gambit:  Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1884 (0-1, 14). Most likely, if anybody has ever heard of the Jerome, they have seen this beauty.

It was probably blog post #17 when I first asked the question, "But - Is this stuff playable?" You might be surprised that my response was an immediate 

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.

However, I wasn't finished.

     Maybe a more useful question would be --
     Under what conditions might the Jerome Gambit be playable?

     In casual or blitz games among "average" players , perhaps -- when Grandmaster Nigel Davies' words from his Gambiteer I (2007) are relevant:

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 is the gist of my work, right there. I was led by the question "Who is this Jerome guy, and why are they blaming this terrible opening on him?" The answers were fascinating.

I have published on my blog every refutation that I have found, and would be happy to publish yours. I have published almost every Jerome Gambit that I have played (I keep finding a few I missed) - won or lost. Especially lost.

While examining the history of "Jerome's Double Opening" I discovered something curious: there are players who have won a majority of their games with the Jerome Gambit, despite its refuted status. Some (including me) have won over 75% of the time. That's downright weird.

So, the blog also became an exploration for me into what I called "errors of thinking". I was fascinated: how did anyone ever lose to the Jerome Gambit?

All the while, people all over the world have sent me their games. Mostly club players - but some stronger players, too. I now have a database of Jerome and Jerome-related games containing over 62,000. Only 15,256 come directly from the line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+, but that's still more than I ever thought I would find.

I think it's fun to have a chess "secret weapon". As defenders get stronger and wiser, the Jerome Gambit becomes, more than ever, a school for tactics. Sometimes, a school for defense. Always, a school for being aware of opportunities. At some point, the Jerome brings more pain to the user than it does to the defender, and it will be set aside.

Whew. That was a bit long. I would love to share with you my specific thoughts on your analysis, but I think I've taken up enough of your time right now.

Again, thank you for the work you have done. I look for the whole story of the Jerome Gambit, not just the dashing wins.

Best wishes,

Rick

Let me also add that Mr. Dunagan has also sent me "Improving the Jerome", but I am going to hold off on that one for a while.

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...

The Chess Improver

I know that I have mentioned GM Nigel Davies website "The Chess Improver" at least in passing on this blog, but I wanted to specifically encourage Readers to stop by and enjoy the varied and always informative content that he has assembled. Recently video clips from the BBC program The Master Game have been posted: interesting, top-level chess with comments by the players themselves. Great stuff!

I have also enjoyed Davies' books, and this link will take you to a number of reviews.

(One last thing: "The Chess Improver" contains a link to this blog; but, of course...)

Reversed BSG: A Closer Look

Still in the hunt for more information on the reversed Blackburne Shilling Gambit (see "Through the Looking Glass: A Reversed BSG" and "Looking Deeper: The Reversed BSG"), I tracked down another expert to help me out.

Dr. Michael Goeller's site "The Bishop's Opening" is a great resource at http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/bishops/index.html 

Here are several of his comments

I like analyzing old and obscure lines as much as you do, but I try to confine myself to strategically sound openings that are based on some principle (even if that principle is just speedy development). Almost always, the lines I look at have been played by GMs or other strong players, who obviously agreed there was something to it...

I was just reading GM Nigel Davies's blog this morning, which seems quite appropriate: http://chessimprover.com/2011/03/19/openings-for-post-beginners/

I took a quick look with Fritz -- see results below. I do not think it's something I'd try myself as White. And I think I'm prepared now to face it as Black.... :-)

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nd5

4...Nxe4!?

Remember: as Tim McGrew shows [see McGrew's two "Gambit Cartel" columns from ChessCafe.com on the Blackburne Shilling Gambit: 1 & 2], this move is better than its reputation in the regular Blackburne Shilling Gambit, so long as you are willing to sac a piece for Cochrane Gambit type play. [Readers interested in 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7!? should check out Dr. Goeller's work on the Cochrane at his Kenilworthian site] Here it may even be better because of Bc4 for White, which sets up some nice shots with c6 and d5 coming.

Black has a number of perfectly good alternatives, of course:

a) 4...b5!? 5.Bb3 (5.Bxb5?? c6 6.Nxf6+ Qxf6+-) 5...Nxd5 6.exd5 Qg5!? 7.Qf3 Qg6 unclear;

b) 4...0-0 5.b4 (5.d4?! exd4 6.Bg5 Be7 =/+) 5...Bb6 6.d3 Nxd5 7.exd5 e4!? with the idea of Qf6;

c) 4...c6 5.Nxf6+ Qxf6 6.Nf3 d6=


5.d4!

Probably best.

5.Qg4 Bxf2+ 6.Kf1 0-0! ["This is certainly a lot more fun than most of the lines" - Tim McGrew, on the related line in the regular BSG ]7.Qxe4 Bxg1 8.Rxg1 c6 9.Bd3 (9.Ne3 d5 10.Nxd5 cxd5 11.Bxd5 Nd7 -/+) 9...f5 10.Qxe5 d6 11.Qd4 cxd5 12.Qxd5+ Kh8 =/+ and I think you have to prefer Black slightly here, though I admit it is about equal and probably playable for White.

5...Bxd4 6.Qg4 c6!

6...0-0?! 7.Bh6±.

7.Qxg7

7.Qxe4 Qa5+ 8.Bd2 cxd5 9.Bxd5 Qb6 unclear

7...cxd5 8.Qxh8+ Ke7 9.Qxd8+

9.Qxh7!? Qa5+ -/+

9...Kxd8 10.Bxd5 Nxf2 11.Nf3 Nxh1=

Interesting enough, all by itself – but things were about to get even  more interesting... (to be continued)

It's just really that important

In a recent book review at Chessville that I wrote about GM Nigel Davies' 10 Great Ways to Get Better at Chess (Everyman Chess, 2010), I mentioned

For an alternate “great way” – or as an addition – Chapter Two suggests Study the Endgame. Again, Davies gives game examples from his students, but this should not be necessary to persuade readers of the truth of his suggestion: most club players unconsciously imitate the play of early chess-playing computers, memorizing opening moves, concentrating on tactics at the expense of long-term planning, and playing the endings like duffers…

Davies would have been justified in giving a Chapter Three (“Study the Endgame Some More”) and a Chapter Four (“Keep Studying the Endgame”) just to reinforce the topic. It’s just really that important.

I wish I had taken more of my own advice before playing the following game.

perrypawnpusher - BEEB
blitz, FICS, 2011

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

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 Bxf2+

A "calming variation", but still a side line to watch.

8.Kxf2 Qf6+

8...Qh4+ was played unsuccessfully in annicks - Ribosome, Dos Hermanas Internet, 2002, (1-0, 23).

9.Qxf6+ Nxf6

By returning the sacrificed piece, Black has moved play into a Queenless middlegame or early endgame where he is simply down a pawn.

He no longer faces the Bashi-Bazouk attack of the Jerome Gambit. However, he also no longer has an objectively won game.

Sometimes, chess is a strange game.

10.Nc3

I have also tried 10.d3, as in perrypawnpusher - ScudRocket, blitz, FICS, 2009 (1-0, 24)

10...Re8

Black could play 10...Rf8 as in blackburne03 - bobby-pisher, Internet Chess Club, 2003, (1-0, 23) or perrypawnpusher - Edvardinho, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0,42); or in a delayed manner such as 10...b6 11.d3 d6 12.Rf1 Rf8 in blackburne - Bullit52, ChessWorld thematic tournament, 2007 (1-0, 32),


He also could start with 10...d6 and after 11.d4 c6 12.h3 play 12...Re8 as in brianwall - maten8, Internet Chess Club, 2004 (1-0, 21).

11.d3 d6 12.Rf1 Ng4+ 13.Kg1+ Kg7

Tactics can hide even in "boring" positions. For example, now 14.Nd5

14.h3

Laziness on my part. "The game will play itself."

The possible Knight fork at c7 remains "on" for a number of moves, despite my overlooking it.

14...Ne5 15.Be3 Be6 16.b3 c5 17.a4 a6 18.Rf2 Rf8 19.Raf1 Rxf2 20.Rxf2 Rb8 21.d4 Nd7 22.dxc5 dxc5 23.Nd5 b5

Like two zombies dancing a waltz, my opponent and I push the pieces around the board and pretend that we are playing chess...

24.axb5

If someone had whispered "Pssst. This is a middlegame" I might have looked for and found the tactical 24.Bf4 Rb7 25.Nc7 Bf7 26.Rd2 Nf6 27.Nxa6 bxa4 28.Nxc5 Rb5 29.Nxa4 Nxe4 30.Re2

analysis diagram







24...axb5 25.Nf4 Bg8 26.Nd3 c4 27.bxc4 bxc4 28.Bd4+ Kh6 29.Ne5 Rb1+ 30.Rf1 Rxf1+ 31.Kxf1 Nf6

For all of my shuffling, the e-pawn will now be lost.

32.Be3+ Kh5

My opponent has grown complacent, too, or he would have played the wiser 32...Kg7

33.c3

Readers who enjoy tactical endgames surely saw the better 33.g4+  which merely threatens checkmate after 33...Kh4 34.Kg2, costing Black his Knight.

Playing on "auto-pilot" was hurting both of us.

33...Nxe4 34.Bd4

The checkmate was still on, in a slightly longer version, with 34.g4+.

34...Ng3+ 35.Kf2 Nf5

This slip costs a piece.

36.g4+ Kh4 37.gxf5 gxf5 38.Kg2

With a piece for a pawn, White is now winning – but how exactly does he win?

If he can get his King to d4 and then attack the Black pawn at c4 a second time (with the Knight) he can win it. For that to happen, it might be best to trade White's weak h-pawn for Black's f-pawn. Then, with the help of the extra piece, White's c-pawn can be "faster" than Black's h-pawn.

38...Bd5+ 39.Kh2

Protecting the pawn for now. After the game Rybka suggested 39.Nf3+, since 39...Kh5 40.Kg3 Be4 41.h4 Bd5 42.Kf4 Be6 43.Bf2 Kg6 44.Ne5+ Kh5 45.Nc6 Bd7 46.Ne7 would allow White to win the f-pawn. If Black exchanges off the Knight instead with 39...Bxf3+ 40.Kxf3 then after 40...Kxh3 41.Kf4 White's King will wander over and win the Black c-pawn and Queen his own; the Black h-pawn will not be an issue.

39...Be6 40.Nf3+ Kh5 41.Kg3 f4+

A mistaken offer to exchange pawns that I should have accepted.

42.Kh2 Kg6 43.Kg2 Kf5 44.Ne5 Bd5+ 45.Nf3 Bg8

Black is content to sit and wait.

It is not clear to me that there is a win any more for White, as Black's advanced King and h-pawn make it dangerous for White's King to leave that area to help win the c-pawn.

My "winning try" falls to the inevitability of the Bishops-of-opposite-colors endgame.

46.Kf2 Ke4 47.Nd2+ Kd3 48.Nxc4 Kxc4 49.Kf3 Be6 50.h4 Kd5 51.Kxf4

The position is drawn now, and a dozen moves later, too.

51...Bf7 52.Kg5 Bg6 53.h5 Bd3 54.Kf6 Ke4 55.Kg7 Kf4 56.h6 Kg5 57.Bf6+ Kh5 58.Bd4 Kg5 59.Be3+ Kh5 60.c4 Bxc4 61.Kxh7 Bd3+ 62.Kg7 Kg4 63.h7 Bxh7 drawn

This game contained plenty of wasted opportunities.