Jerome Gambit for Dummies (5)

The study mentioned in "Jerome Gambit for Dummies (4)" used Candidate Masters and Masters for its subject pool, and the two openings that one group or the other specialized in were the Sicilian Defense and the French Defense.

While it is reassuring to think that specializing in the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) might give the Jerome-player a 200 point advantage when playing someone familiar with the Gambit, it is important to share information from a study I did last year, published in Unorthodox Openings Newsletter #21, June/July/August 2008, "Nobody Expects the Jerome Gambit",

Before diving into some of the lessons to be learned from the 156 games of the Jerome Gambit Tournament, 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.”

- GM Nigel Davies

This wisdom is relevant to the tournament under consideration, where players ranged from the1200s to the1800s according to chessworld's rating system, and where knowledge of the “book” lines of the Jerome Gambit ranged from a good bit to not very much at all. We are not going to be looking at masters searching out the ultimate truth of the opening, we are going to see how it is played at club level.

Please remember, too, that we are not looking at the Ruy Lopez, or even the Blackmar Diemer Gambit. We are looking at the duck-billed platypus of the chess opening world.

In fact, I have to say that my first prediction for the result of the competition was a 13-way tie for first place, with the players losing all of their games with the white pieces and winning all of their games with the black pieces. After all, the Jerome Gambit has a number of clear refutations – how could it be otherwise?

After some thought, however, I realized that there was more to consider than just White vs Black. As I wrote in UON #17, the Jerome Gambit "is playable in the way that 'giving odds' is playable.” So I looked at all of the match-ups in the tournament, and when White was rated several hundred points above Black, I predicted a win for the first player.

Carrying this reevaluation through all of the games, I estimated that the tournament winner would score 18 points out of 24.

As it turns out, blackburne (Pete) scored 18 ½ points, winning 10 out of 12 times with white!

This was only good enough for fourth place, however, as SIRMO, who won a still-impressive 8 times with white and drew twice, won every game he played with the black pieces, for a total of 21 points! This allowed him to place ahead of savage13 and drewbear, each who won 9 times asWhite, scoring 20 and 19 points each.

Contrary to my initial impressions, White won 63 games in the Jerome Gambit Tournament, lost 90, and drew 3, for a score of 41% – this is unimpressive in comparison with “legitimate” chess openings, but a bit surprising for an opening that GM Keene once wrote “should never be played.”

Jerome Gambit Tournament 2007-2008
-------------------------1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--0--1--2--3--Total
1 SIRMO 1857 +13-------- ** 01 01 ½1 1½ 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 21.0/24
2 savage13 1712 +109---- 10 ** 10 01 11 11 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 20.0/24
3 drewbear 1562 +222---- 10 01 ** 01 11 10 11 11 11 10 11 11 11 19.0/24
4 blackburne 1795 -51--- ½0 10 10 ** 10 01 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 18.5/24
5 Nestor250168 1684 -106 0½ 00 00 01 ** 01 10 10 11 10 11 11 11 13.5/24
6 Ratscales 1383 +158--- 00 00 01 10 10 ** 01 11 1½ 10 00 10 11 11.5/24
7 AAlekhine 1607 -130--- 00 01 00 00 01 10 ** 01 00 10 01 11 11 10.0/24
8 Bullit52 1541 -58----- 00 00 00 00 01 00 10 ** 01 10 11 11 11 10.0/24
9 BrainFreeze 1594 -164- 00 00 00 00 00 0½ 11 10 ** 01 01 01 11 8.5/24
10 karmmark 1373 +59---- 00 00 01 00 01 01 01 01 10 ** 01 10 00 8.0/24
11 plummy 1463 -38------ 00 00 00 00 00 11 10 00 10 10 ** 01 11 8.0/24
12 NMTIGER 1292 +72----- 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 10 01 10 ** 11 6.0/24
13 manago 1202 -65------ 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 11 00 00 ** 2.0/24

Analysis of the results shows that the difference in ratings between White and Black (ratings rose and fell during the tournament after wins and losses) was a significant factor in the outcome of the games, with the correlation being about .7 (that is to say about ½ of the variance in the results was due the difference in strength of the players).

Charting each win and loss against a range of strength differences between the players – White is 0-100 points higher (or lower) than Black, White is 101-200 points higher (or lower) than Black, White is 201-300 points higher (or lower) than Black, etc. shows that in this Jerome Gambit Tournament, White needed to be rated only 200 points higher than his opponent to overcome the handicap of “giving Jerome Gambit odds” and have strong winning chances.

But – Is this stuff playable?? (Part II)

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "playable"...

Stop by Chessworld these days and you are likely to see three Jerome Gambit thematic tournaments in progress.

Somebody is still playing this stuff!

(Me, for example. I should take top honors in one tournament with a 16-2 score. That would be 7-2 with the Gambit and the White pieces –but 9-0 with the Black pieces, which should say something, but I'm not sure what.)


In the current issue of the Unorthodox Openings Newsletter (tirelessly and
ably edited by Gary K. Gifford)
I have an article on a recently concluded Jerome Gambit tournament.

.

I made reference to Nigel Davies' comments on club play (see "But – Is this stuff playable?? (Part I)") and then described the games:

This wisdom is relevant to the tournament under consideration, where players ranged from the 1200s to the 1800s according to chessworld's rating system, and where knowledge of the “book” lines of the Jerome Gambit ranged from a good bit to not much at all.

We are not going to be looking at masters searching out the ultimate truth of the opening, we are going to see how it is played at club level.

Please remember, too, that we are not looking at the Ruy Lopez, or even the Blackmar Diemer Gambit. We are looking at the duck-billed platypus of the chess opening world.

Some surprises were inevitable, including this one:

Contrary to my initial impressions, White won 63 games in the Jerome Gambit Tournament, lost 90, and drew 3, for a score of 41% – this is unimpressive in comparison with “legitimate” chess openings, but a bit surprising for an opening that GM Keene once wrote “should never be played.”

So: at the right time (and time control), with the right opponent, playing in the right mood – perhaps the Jerome Gambit is a bit playable...

But – Is this stuff playable?? (Part I)

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?

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.

I like the sound of that.

Also, what do you make of the following position?

White, down two pieces without compensation, is lost, right?

Actually, the game is Morphy - T. Knight, New Orleans 1856, which ended in the first player announcing checkmate in 17 moves.

And this position?

Morphy - Maurian, New Orleans, 1858, a win for White in 15 moves..

Ok, you're catching on. It's possible for a stronger player to give a weaker player odds of a piece or more and still have a fighting chance.

Just like someone could give "Jerome Gambit odds" in the right situation..

One more position: White is lost, right??

This is a trick position.

Vazquez - Giraudy
Mexico, 1876
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.d4 Bxd4 9.c3 Bb6 10.f4 Qf6 11.fxe5+ Qxe5 12.Bf4 Qxf4 13.Qxf4+ Ke7 14.Rf1 Nh6 15.Qe5+ Kd8 16.Qxg7 Re8 17.Qg5+ Re7 18.Rf8 mate

Andres Clemente Vazquez, the Mexican Champion and editor of La Estrategia Mexicane gave both Knight's and Jerome Gambit odds -- and still managed a checkmate in under 20 moves!