Jerome Gambit: In the Meantime

When the third round games in the "Italian Battleground" tournament at Chess.com began to wind down (two left to complete, one a Jerome Gambit) I went looking for action in the "Italian Game Classic" tournament on the same site.

Round 1, Group 2 matched me with 4 other players - and I was able to construct a Jerome. I admit that I benefitted from giving "Jerome Gambit odds", as well as from my opponent's quick moves, despite the 3 days/move time control. Still, the game had its moments, especially the "throw in the kitchen sink" ending.  

perrypawnpusher - Al-der
Italian Game Classic, Chess.com, 2019

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8 

As I posted about this move, some time ago

As early as his first article with analysis (Dubuque Chess Journal 4/1874), Alonzo Wheeler Jerome considered the possibility that Black might refuse to capture the second piece, and play for King safety instead with 5...Kf8.  

This was, in fact, the defense that Jerome, himself, credited to G. J. Dougherty, ("a strong amateur, against whom I first played the opening") of Mineola, New York, in a yet unfound game; that O.A. Brownson, editor of the Dubuque Chess Journal, played against Jerome in an 1875 game (Dubuque Chess Journal3/1875); that magazine editor William Hallock used against D.P. Norton in an 1876 correspondence game played “by special request” to test the gambit (American Chess Journal 2/1877); that William Carrington tried in his 1876 match vs Mexican Champion Andres Clemente Vazquez (Algunas Partidas de Ajedrez Jugadas en Mexico, 1879); and which Lt. Soren Anton Sorensen recommended as “more solid and easier to manage” in his seminal Jerome Gambit essay (Nordisk Skaktidende 5/1877). 

As I noted: early in the Jerome's Gambit's life, there were players willing to accept one "gift", but who were skeptical of accepting two "gifts".

6.Nxc6

Probably the strongest move, although Bill Wall has experimented with 6.0-0!?, intending to meet 6...Nxe5 with 7.d4.

The Banks Variation, 6.Qh5!?, has scored 18-20-1, but is well met by 6...Qe7!?. See "Jerome Gambit Secrets #4".

6...dxc6

The better pawn capture, as 6...bxc6 would allow 7.d4, right away.

7.O-O

I considered both this move and 7.d3, and decided that castling was going to be necessary, in any event, while, perhaps, it wasn't yet time to give up on the opportunity to play d2-d4. My judgement was almost immediately rewarded.

7...Qh4 8.d4 Bg4 

Played quickly, probably with the idea that you don't always have to defend against an opponent's threat if you can come up with a greater threat. In this case, however, Black has overlooked a resource that White has.

9.f3 Bxf3 10.Qxf3+ Qf6 11.Qd3 

Black's game has come off the rails, quickly.

11...Qxf1+ 12.Kxf1 Rd8 13.Qf3+ Ke8 14.dxc5 Ne7

White has a Queen, Bishop and pawn for a Rook, but he still needs to be careful.

15.Kg1 Rf8 16.Qe2 Ng6 17.Nc3 b5 18.Bg5 Rd7 19.Rd1 Ne5

White's pieces are developed. Now it is time to put them to use: nothing subtle, just throw the pieces at him, especially the Queen and Bishop.

20.Qh5+ g6 21.Qh3 Rff7 22.Qe6+ Kf8 23.Bh6+ Rg7 24.Rf1+ Rdf7 25.Qc8+ Ke7 26.Bg5+ Black resigned

The finish would have been 26...Rf6 27.Bxf6+ Kf7 28.Bg5+ Nf3+ 29.Rxf3 checkmate.

Jerome Gambit: Take the Half-Point (Part 1)

I have finished my first Jerome Gambit game in the third round of the "Italian Battleground" tournament, online at Chess.com. It was a curious game, with creative and challenging opening play by my opponent. I was able to squeeze out the win by relying on a greater familiarity with the Jerome Gambit, by utilizing some psychology - and by recognizing some of the tactical opportunities available to me.

perrypawnpusher - Abhishek29
"Italian Battleground", Chess.com, 2019

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

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Kf8

The Jerome Defense was first suggested by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome in an article in the Dubuque Chess Journal of July, 1874, and seen, initially, in Jaeger - Jerome, correspondence, 1880 (1-0, 40).

My opponent had played 6...Ng6 against me in our first round game, so I was expecting something different this time. Because I read this blog, myself, I wasn't totally surprised by 6...Kf8, as I had written elsewhere

The biggest trouble I have had, in terms of main Jerome Gambit opening lines, has been with 6...Kf8, where I scored only 77% in 33 games.

In 647 games with the Jerome Defense in The Database, White has scored 49%. That's not a very exciting figure, but it compares well with the 46% that White scores in the 14,390 games with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ in The Database.

7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qg3 Nf6 9.Nc3

Varying from 9.d3 in my most recent game against the defense in perrypawnpusher - Sarantes, "Let's Play The Italian Game" tournament, Chess.com, 2018 (1-0, 37).

In all, I have scored 5 - 1 previously with 9.d3, compared to 1 - 1 with 9.Nc3. I can't remember why I chose 9.Nc3 for this current game. 

9...Be6 10.O-O Kf7 

Wisely, Black intends to castle-by-hand.

11.d3 Rf8 12.Na4 

The game is developing slowly, so I decided to exchange off Black's annoying dark square Bishop, to allow me to later get in the thematic f2-f4 move. In light of my opponent's response, I think I will try a different move, next time.

12...Bd4

This move is a novelty, according to The Database. I was certainly unhappy to see it played in a slightly different position in my other Jerome Gambit game (ongoing) in the 3rd round of the tournament.

13.c3 Bb6 14.Nxb6 axb6 15.a3 Kg8

16.Bg5 

This move is thematic in the Jerome Gambit, but, perhaps 16.f4 was a bit better.

16...Qe8 

Breaking the pin on the Knight, and making ...Qh5 possible, especially if White, unwisely, captures on f6.

17.f4 Nd7 

White's Bishop now looks a bit silly.

18.Rae1 Nc5 

Black has confidently developed all of his pieces, and, with a piece for two pawns, has the advantage. 

[to be continued]

The Jerome Gambit Article (Part 1)

Ten years ago I wrote a substantial article on the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) and submitted it to the German language chess magazine, Kaissiber.  The editor, Stefan Buecker, was supportive, and tried, over the years, to somehow make the submission work. His was a serious and well-respected magazine, however, and even a well-written (and revised) piece on a highly suspect chess opening could not find a place in its pages. 

Kaissiber ceased publication 8 years ago. If you have any interest, at all, in creative chess explorations or chess history - even if German is not your first language - you would do well to track down an issue. I guarantee you will not stop at one.

In the meantime, I thought it might be time to share my Jerome Gambit explorations. (I have occasionally sampled from it, but never shared the whole thing.) The article is a bit long, and will take up a number of blog posts, but, believe it or not, there is a lot of ground to cover.

Jerome Gambit theory has progressed since the article was written, but it is important to learn the opening's history.

The Jerome Gambit

Introduction

If you page through Raymond Keene’s The Complete Book of Gambits (1992) you will find a short entry for the Jerome Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 and a dour assessment “This is totally unsound and should never be tried!”

Keene’s warning notwithstanding, the Jerome Gambit has an interesting history.

History

The April 1874 edition of the Dubuque Chess Journal (also known as the American Chess Journal, or the Journal) contained a small article titled "New Chess Opening.” It began “We have received from A.W. Jerome of Paxton, Ford county, Illinois, some analyses of a new move in the Giuoco Piano, first played by him, which we offer our readers as: Jerome's Double Opening.”

            There followed a brief analysis:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ This is the first move, if

now Black reply 4...Kxf7 he continues 5.Nxe5+ and we have the moves

that constitute Jerome's Double Opening.

Suppose in the first place 5...Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4
Qf6 9.fxe5+ Qxe5 10.Qf3 Nf6 11.d3 compelling either K or Q to move

as White threatens Bf4; or Black can play ...g5. If 11...Ke7 12.Nc3 g5

13.Rf1 c6 14.g3 We have space only for a few of Black's best moves,

leaving our readers to test the opening over the board.

            If 5...Kf8 6.Nxc6 dxc6 (if 6...bxc6 White plays 7.d4 putting

Black's KB out of play) 7.0-0 Nf6 8.Qf3 Qd4 9.d3 Bg4 10.Qe3 Qxe3

11.Bxe3 Bxe3 12.fxe3 Ke7 and White should draw by the judicious use

of his pawns.

             The editor of the Dubuque Chess Journal, O. A. Brownson, found the Double Opening interesting enough, or amusing enough, to run further analyses (and a game) by Jerome in the July 1874 issue and in the January 1875 issue. In the March 1875 issue Brownson published two games he had played against A. W. Jerome, and in July 1875, he published one more game, all involving Jerome’s Gambit. (In all, White won 2, drew 1, lost 1.)

The Jerome Gambit was apparently well received by the average chess player. Some indication of this was reflected the “Our Portfolio” section of the Dubuque Chess Journal for May 1874, which contained a “Chess Challenge” which looked a lot like a chess duel

George J. Dougherty, of Mineola, Queen’s County, New York,

hereby respectfully invites John G. Belden, Esq., of Hartford, Conn.,

to play him two games of chess by Postal Card, at his convenience,

Mr. Belden taking the attack in one game and Mr. Dougherty in the other;

the object being to test the soundness of JEROME’S DOUBLE OPENING,

published in the April No. (50) of this CHESS JOURNAL.

            It is not likely that any of the Journal’s readers were aware that the player issuing the challenge was the first person against whom Jerome had played the Double Opening!

            As early as July 1874 it was clear that Alonzo Wheeler Jerome had no illusions about his gambit, as the Dubuque Chess Journal noted

It should be understood that Mr. Jerome claims in this New

Opening "only a pleasant variation of the Giuoco Piano, which may

win or lose according to the skill of the players, but which is capable

of affording many new positions and opportunities for heavy blows

unexpectedly."

            This modesty did not prevent Jerome from debating for months with William Hallock, who produced the American Chess Journal in the years following the demise of the Dubuque Chess Journal. While testing his invention in over-the-board and correspondence play, Jerome claimed

                        …that the opening has a “reasonable chance of winning,”

            which is sufficient to constitute a “sound opening.” It is not required

            that an Opening shall be sure to win. There is no such opening

            contained in chess; at least none that I know of.

            In the exchanges of games and analysis that appeared in the ACJ in 1876 and 1877, Hallock progressed from referring to “Jerome’s Double Opening” to “Jerome’s Gambit” to “Jerome’s Absurdity.”

[to be continued]

Jerome Gambit: Odd Turns (Part 1)

I just finished a Jerome Gambit game in an Italian Game tournament at Chess.com. It took a couple of odd turns - played as well as unplayed.

Then, again, that's the Jerome Gambit for you.

perrypawnpusher - Sarantes

"Let's Play The Italian Game" tournament
Chess.com, 2018

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Kf8 

Jerome's Defense, appearing in his analysis of "Jerome's Double Opening" in the July 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal, and seen, initially, in Jaeger - Jerome, correspondence, 1880 (1-0, 40).

7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qg3 Nf6 9.d3 Be6 10.O-O Nh5 

Black has a number of choices, as can be seen from some earlier games:

10...Qd7 11.Be3 Bb6 12.Nd2 Ng4 13.Bxb6 axb6 14.h3 Nf6 15.a3 h6 16.f4 Rg8 17.f5 Bf7 18.Qe3 Re8 19.g4 Nd5 20.Qd4 c5 21.Qf2 Nf6 22.b3 b5 23.Qf4 Qc7 24.a4 bxa4 25.Rxa4 b5 26.Ra6 Rd8 27.Rfa1 Ke7 28.Ra7 Black resigned, mrjoker - PhlebasP, Internet Chess Club, 2009;

10...Qe8 11.Be3 Bxe3 12.fxe3 Qg6 13.Qe1 c5 14.Nc3 Ke7 15.Nb5 Bd7 16.Nc3 Bc6 17.Rf3 Raf8 18.Rg3 Qf7 19.Rf3 g6 20.Qh4 Qg7 21.Raf1 g5 22.Qg3 Nd7 23.Rf5 h6 24.Qf2 Rf6 25.d4 b6 26.d5 Bb7 27.e5 dxe5 28.d6+ Ke6 29.Rxf6+ Qxf6 30.Qe2 Qg6 31.Qg4+ Kxd6 32.Rd1+ Kc7 33.Qxd7+ Kb8 34.e4 Qe8 35.Qd6+ Ka8 36.Nd5 Bxd5 37.Rxd5 Qb8 38.Qc6+ Qb7 39.Qf6 Qb8 40.Rd7 Qc8 41.Qg7 Rd8 42.Rxa7+ Kb8 43.Rf7 Rd1+ 44.Kf2 Rd2+ 45.Kg3 h5 46.Qxe5+ Ka8 47.Qxg5 Qg4+ 48.Qxg4 hxg4 49.Rf2 Rxf2 50.Kxf2 Black resigned, Wall,B - Milsrilion, Chess.com, 2010; 

10...Bf7 11.Be3 Bb6 12.Nd2 Qd7 13.h3 Qb5 14.b3 Re8 15.a4 Qe5 16.Qxe5 Rxe5 17.Bxb6 axb6 18.f4 Re8 19.g4 h6 20.Kg2 Ke7 21.Kg3 Kd7 22.Rae1 Re7 23.c4 Rhe8 24.h4 Nh7 25.Nf3 Kc6 26.Nd4+ Kc5 27.Nf5 Rd7 28.Nxg7 Rg8 29.Nf5 Rg6 30.h5 Rf6 31.d4+ Kb4 32.Rf3 Be6 33.e5 dxe5 34.dxe5 Rxf5 35.gxf5 Bxf5 36.e6 Re7 37.Rfe3 Nf6 38.Re5 Nxh5+ 39.Kh4 Ng7 40.Rxf5 Nxf5+ 41.Kg4 Ng7 42.f5 Ne8 43.Kh5 Kxb3 44.Kxh6 Kxc4 45.Kg6 Kd5 46.Rd1+ Kc6 47.Rc1+ Kd6 48.Rd1+ Kc6 49.Rd8 Nd6 50.Kf6 Rh7 51.e7 Rf7+ 52.Ke6 Rxe7+ 53.Kxe7 Nxf5+ 54.Ke6 Nd6 55.Rd7 Nc4 56.Rh7 Nb2 57.Rh4 b5 58.axb5+ Kxb5 59.Kd7 c5 60.Kc7 b6 61.Rh6 Nc4 62.Rh1 Ka4 63.Ra1+ Kb3 64.Rb1+ Kc2 65.Rb5 Kc3 66.Kc6 Kd4 67.Rb1 Kc3 68.Rxb6 Nxb6 69.Kxc5 Game drawn because neither player has mating material, MrJoker - horatius, Internet Chess Club, 2011; 

10...Kf7 11.Be3 Bb6 12.Nc3 Rf8 13.f4 Kg8 14.f5 Bxe3+ 15.Qxe3 Bd7 16.h3 a6 17.g4 c6 18.Rae1 b5 19.Kg2 b4 20.Ne2 a5 21.Qf4 Bc8 22.Ng3 Bb7 23.g5 Ne8 24.d4 c5 25.d5 Nc7 26.h4 Ba6 27.Rf2 Nb5 28.Ne2 a4 29.c4 bxc3 30.bxc3 Na3 31.Qc1 Bxe2 32.Rfxe2 Nc4 33.Qf4 Ne5 34.Rb1 Rb8 35.Reb2 Rxb2+ 36.Rxb2 White resigned, MrJoker - rgiblon, Internet Chess Club 2012; 

11.Qf3+ Nf6 

The placement of White's Queen is problematic. On g3 it is vulnerable to attention by Black's Knight. On f3 it can be harassed by Black's Bishop. It tends to keep Black's King on f8, but that is not, necessarily, a bad thing.

12.Be3 Bb6

Another issue in this kind of position: to exchange Bishops or not. It's probably safe to comment on any exchange with "shouldn't have" and on any non-exchange with "should have exchanged".

13.Nc3 

The Knight has a good "present" here, but I wonder if it would have a better "future" at d2.

13...Kg8 14.Qe2 Qd7 15.f4 Bf7 16.Rae1 Re8 

Black has the extra piece (vs 2 pawns) and the two Bishops. He is not even worried about his Rook at h8. 

White has developed his pieces, and has to find a way to use his "Jerome pawns".

17.Qf3 

I have played over many Jerome Gambits by those much stronger than myself. Sometimes patience is the key. 

17...Qg4 18.Qf2 h5 19.Bxb6 axb6 20.b3 

I admit that this is an odd-looking move. I wanted to be able to play d4 without being bothered by ...Bc4. It just didn't seem to be the time for 21.e5 yet.

20...h4 21.Qf3

I did not like Black's developing action along the h-file, and reluctantly agreed that it was time to swap the Queens.

21...Qxf3 22.Rxf3 Nd5 23.Nxd5 Bxd5 24.Rfe3 Bc6 

Looking at the position, it is clear that White will play d4, and maybe even c4 and g4. He is going to need some help, however.

Black has a solid, attacking Bishop on c6, and both Rooks are in good position. Clearly, he is better.

[to be continued]

Jerome Gambit: Balderdash

Not everything that I have discovered in my recent forays into historical research has been of enduring value.

For example, the "CHESS" column ("Conducted by A. G. Johnson") of The Oregon Daily Journal  of Portland, Oregon, for  October 25, 1914 (page 29) has the following

Of the many chess openings in vogue, two are particularly interesting because they are of American origin. The "Jerome Gambit" was first developed in Cincinnati about 40 years ago. S. A. Charles of that city made a thorough analysis of the opening and met with great success in playing the "Jerome" against prominent players. Even Steinitz, then in the zenith of his career as world's champion succumbed in his first attempt to defend the gambit. Although the opening is theoretically unsound, and involves the sacrifice of two pieces for two pawns, the adversary's king is displaced and drawn into the center of the board where all kinds of complications may arise. The following variation of the Jerome, which is rather favorable to white, reveals some of the possibilties of the gambit: 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.Na3 Ne7 10.Qh3 Qf8 11.Nb5+ Kc5 12.Nxd4 Kxd4 13.Qe3+ Kc4 14.a4 with slight advantage to white.

Where to begin??

Of course, the Jerome Gambit was "first developed" 40 years before the ODJ column was written, by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome of Paxton, Illinois, having published his first analysis of the "New Chess Opening" in the April 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal.

S. A. Charles, of the Cincinnati, Ohio, Chess Club, wrote opening analyses, first for the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, then later for the Pittsburgh Telegraph. It is in the latter newspaper that in 1881 he presented his examination of the Jerome Gambit, which later found itself in different chess magazines (e.g. the October 1881 issue of Brentano's Chess Monthly) and opening books (e.g. Cook's Synopsis of Chess Openings, 3rd edition, 1882).
In 16 years of researching and analyzing the gambit, I have not uncovered any game examples (or references) of Charles meeting "with great success" while playing the Jerome Gambit "against prominent players"- or any games of his with the gambit at all. I have found a half-dozen correspondence games where Charles defended against the Jerome Gambit - played by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome. Of course, it is possible that there is much more to be discovered, and I have missed it all, but, still...
By the way, it can be fairly said that Charles regularly acknowledged his games and exchanges of ideas with Jerome; it was only the passage of time that seems to have stripped the inventor's name from certain analyses of his invention.

I was absolutely gobsmacked by columnist conductor A. G. Johnson's contention that Steinitz, "in the zenith of his career as world's champion" actually "succumbed in his first attempt to defend the gambit." With all due respect to Blackburne, whose Queen sacrifice leading to checkmate is probably the best known repudiation of the Jerome Gambit, and to Emanuel Lasker, who - I recently discovered - summarily dispatched the Jerome Gambit in a simultaneous display, a loss by a reigning world champion (not to mention a defensive genius) to the Jerome would be one of the most amazing (and horrible) master games played to date. (There was a note in the Oregon Daily Journal that Johnson, after two years of work, was going to be stepping down after 100 columns, so there is always the possibility that his Steinitz story was a parting little joke; although it did not read that way.)

The analysis that Johnson presents in his column goes back to Freeborough and Ranken's Chess Openings, Ancient and Modern, 1st edition, (1889), although he is more likely to have had the 3rd edition (1903, reprinted 1905) lying around. The move 11.Nb5+ is an improvement over Jerome's 11.0-0 in his analysis in the January 1875 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal. The concluding evaluation, "slight advantage to white" is too modest - White has a forced checkmate in 6 moves. (It was Black's faulty 10th move that reversed his fortunes.)

Jerome Gambit: Historical Precedent

My historical discoveries continue...

From the Western Mail, Thursday, March 31, 1932 (page 12) chess column, noting

THE JEROME GAMBIT.A good specimen of the little-known Jerome Gambit, played at Norwich. 

[Move notation changed to algebraic; notes remain in the article's descriptive format; diagrams added - Rick]

Temple, W. - Thornton, F.
Norwich, 1932

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6

Black could interpose Kt when White would ch at Q 5 and then take B. This gambit is, of course, unsound, but productive of brilliant play against a weaker opponent.

7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Qf6

Best.

9.fxe5+ Qxe5 10.Qf3 c6

Weak. Kt to KB3 was the proper move.

11.d3

White finishes prettily.

11...g5 12.c3 Qf6 13.Qg3+ Ke6 14.Rf1 Qe5 15.Qg4+ Ke7 16.Bxg5+ Ke8 17.Qh5 checkmate

[A couple of additions:

The game begins the same as Jerome - Shinkman, Iowa, 1874, (0-1, 21), according to the July 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal (the earliest example that I have of Jerome playing his gambit) although in that earlier game Black varied with 10...Nf6.

The Temple - Thornton game had been anticipated. The Chess Player's Chronicle of November 10, 1886 (p. 116)  quoting from the "Leeds Mercury", gave identical moves, noting

A brilliant specimen of the Jerome Gambit, played on the 16th September 1886, between Messrs J Keeble and J W Cubitt, two strong amateurs of Norwich.

"All is new that has been forgotten."]

Jerome Gambit "opportunities for heavy blows unexpectedly"

As early as July 1874 the Dubuque Chess Journal noted

It should be understood that Mr. Jerome claims in this New Opening "only a pleasant variation of the Giuoco Piano, which may win or lose according to the skill of the players, but which is capable of affording many new positions and opportunities for heavy blows unexpectedly."

The following game serves as a fine example.

Wall, Bill - NN
lichess.org, 2016

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Bxd4 7.Qxd4 d6 

8.Nc3 Nf6 9.Bf4

Bill has also played 9.O-O, e.g. in Wall,B - Guest4809124, PlayChess.com, 2013 (0-1, 41) and Wall,B - Guest5111265, PlayChess.com, 2014 (1-0, 48).

9.Bg5 was seen in two unfinished 1881 correspondence games between gambit inventor Alonzo Wheeler Jerome and chess columnist S. A. Charles.

9...Qe7 10.O-O-O Rf8 11.Rhe1 Bg4 12.f3 

Black is convinced that he has the advantage (he does) and therefore should be able to unleash an unexpected "heavy blow" himself. At first glance his sacrifice looks scary, but it proves to be his own undoing, not White's.

12...Bxf3 13.gxf3 Nxf3 

Black's idea. Now, if, say, 14.Qb4, then 14...Nxe1 15.Rxe1 Rfb8!? looks like the start of a scary attack against White's King.

However, as in the previous blog post, it appears that Black has gone about his business, but has left the water running... He has overlooked something.

14.Qc4+ 

The Queen escapes the fork with check.

14...d5

This move is often the remedy to White's check along the diagonal, but not in this situation. Black should go with 14...Qe6 and after 15.Qxc7+ Kg8 16.Re2 Rf7 17.Qxd6 White will have the advantage - but the game would still be complicated.

Black's game now comes undone.

15.Nxd5 Nxd5 16.Re3 Rae8 17.exd5 Black resigned

Very nice. Black's Knight is hanging, and the discovered check from a possible d5-d6 also looms.