Jerome Gambit: Discussion Crasher

The Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) continues to show up in the oddest places. The other day I was reading an interesting post by John Torrie, at chesstalk.com. It started out with a reference to Bobby Fischer, but quickly moved on to an interesting game that featured what is sometimes called the Nachmanson Gambit (see a reference in my post "Kaissiber!"). In the middle of the game - Torrie reflected upon the Jerome Gambit, because of a tactical similarity. (It seems likely that Mr. Torrie is familiar with this blog.) 

I have posted the earliest example of the Nachmanson Gambit that I have been able to find, at the end of this discussion; although I have found no information on Nachmanson, himself. I also dug up an earlier game with a different opening line, but with a similar tactical theme, which you will also find at the end.  

John Torrie  

Wednesday, 21st November, 2018, 11:20 AM 

Apparently the Fischer vs Allan encounter is not the only memorable game from Montreal, Feb. 1964. Dan Elman says that he also squared off with Mr. Allan at the Montreal Chess Club. The first game, with Mr. Allan venturing his Two Knight's Defence, went like this: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.O-O Nxe4 6.Nc3 (Dan picked up this peculiarity in the early '60s while he was 'resident chess player' at a Belgium cafe. The owners of the cafe had a deal with Dan, if he played chess with the patrons for wagers of liquor, he could have free lodgings with light fare. Usually the patrons drank beer, while Dan drank ginger ale disguised as 'whisky'. Dan drank a lot of ginger ale while making a lot of whisky sales for the cafe.) 6...dxc3 7.Bxf7+ (Hey Jerome! Jerome! Will the real Jerome please stand up: The 150 year old Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 with attacking chances for white, was the brainchild of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome who also had the distinction of proposing - not without merit - that a pawn be allowed to promote to a king when it reached the 8th rank.) 7...Kxf7 8.Qd5+ Ke8 9.Re1 Be7 10.Rxe4 d6 11.Bg5 cxb3 12.Rae1 h6 13.Bxe7 Nxe7 14.Qh5+ Kf8 15.Ng5 g6 16.Qf3+ Nf5 (Dan points out that if the bishop blocks, Ne6+ forks the queen.) 17.Qc3 Rg8 18.Re8+ Qxe8 19.Qf6+ resigns. (After 19...Qf7, 20.Nh7 makes a model mate.)...

Trajkovic, Mihajlo - Trifunovic, Petar

Belgrade, 1952
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.O-O Nxe4 6.Nc3 Nxc3 7.bxc3 d5 8.Bb5 Be7 9.Nxd4 Bd7 10.Bd3 Ne5 11.Nf5 Bxf5 12.Bxf5 Nc4 13.Rb1 O-O 14.Bd3 Nb6 15.Qg4 Re8 16.a4 a5 17.Be3 Bf6 18.Bxb6 cxb6 19.c4 d4 20.Rfe1 Qd6 21.g3 Rxe1+ 22.Rxe1 g6 23.Qf3 Rb8 24.Qf4 Qxf4 25.gxf4 Kf8 26.Kg2 Re8 27.Rxe8+ Kxe8 28.Be4 Ke7 29.Bxb7 Kd6 30.Kf3 Kc5 31.Ke2 Kxc4 32.f5 g5 33.h3 Kc3 34.Ba6 Kxc2 35.Bd3+ Kc3 36.Bb5 Be5 37.Bd3 h5 38.f3 Bg3 39.Bb5 f6 40.Ba6 Bh2 41.Bb5 Bg1 42.Ba6 Kb4 43.Bb5 Kc5 44.Be8 h4 45.Bb5 Kd5 46.f4 gxf4 47.Kf3 Bh2 48.Bd3 Kc5 49.Ke4 Kb4 50.Bb5 Kc3 51.Be2 f3 52.Bxf3 b5 53.axb5 a4 54.Bh5 d3 55.b6 a3 White resigned

McConnell, James - Zukertort, Johannes Hermann
New Orleans, 1884
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.a3 Bxc3 6.dxc3 Nxe4 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qd5+ Ke8 9.Qxe4 d5 10.Qa4 Rf8 11.Nxe5 Qe7 12.f4 Bd7 13.O-O Nxe5 14.Qd4 Nc6 15.Qxd5 Be6 16.Qb5 a6 17.Qxb7 Qc5+ 18.Be3 Qxe3+ 19.Kh1 Qb6 20.Qxb6 cxb6 21.Rae1 Kd7 White resigned

Jerome Gambit: Time Bomb (Part 1)

Some thoughts, previously posted

I have long subscribed to the "time bomb" notion in club chess: that players are apt to play reasonable chess until, suddenly, a cognitive "time bomb" goes off, and they make a blunder. The frequency of these "explosions"/blunders depends upon the level of skill of the player: strong players may slip only once a game (or even less often) while more "average" club players can have their "time bombs" go off much more often, even every other move.
The following game shows Black defending reasonably well (and White, solidly) until - Boom! The unbalanced and unbalancing Jerome Gambit is the kind of opening that increases the likelihood of such a slip. 

Recently, in the first round of the "Italian Game Battlegrounds" tournament at Chess.com, I tried my hand at playing the Noa Gambit, otherwise known as the Monck Gambit, otherwise known as the Open Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

I don't think that my play was anything special, but the historical sidelines are interesting.

Unfortunately, for my opponent, a few poorly-timed "time bomb" moves spoiled his game.

perrypawnpusher - RemoveKubab1
Italian Game Battlegrounds, Chess.com, 2019

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 

The Two Knights Defense.

4.Nc3

Hoping for 4...Bc5, when 5.Bxf7+ would be the Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

4...Nxe4 

The Database says that I have reached this position two times previously, each time responding, with 5.Nxe4 - perrypawnpusher - aborigen, blitz, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 20) and perrypawnpusher - aquitanus, blitz, FICS, 2016 (1-0, 42).

5.Bxf7+ 

It seemed like a good idea at the time.

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe4 d5 7.Ng3 

There is a lot of history in the alternative moves, as the following notes will show. I had originally intended to play 7.Neg5+, just because Bobby Fischer once played it. (When he was young.)

7.Neg5+ Kg8 8.d3 (8.d4 h6 9.Nh3 Bxh3 (9...Bg4 10.dxe5 Nxe5 11.Nf4 (11.Nhg1 Bc5 12.Bf4 Ng6 13.Bg3 Kh7 14.Qd3 Re8+ 15.Kf1 Re4 16.Re1 Qe7 17.Qxd5 Rxe1+ 18.Nxe1 Rd8 19.Qc4 Black mates in two moves, Blanchard - Pollock,W, Chicago, 1890) 11...c6 (11...Bxf3 12.gxf3 c6 13.Be3 Bd6 14.Rg1 Kh7 15.Rxg7+ Kxg7 16.Ne6+ Black resigned, Archer,R - Parkins,J, corr, 1908) 12.h3 Nxf3+ 13.gxf3 Bf5 14.Be3 Bb4+ 15.c3 Ba5 16.Rg1 Qe8 17.Nxd5 Qf7 18.Nf4 Re8 19.Qb3 Bc7 20.Qxf7+ Kxf7 21.Nh5 g6 22.Ng3 Bxh3 23.O-O-O Rd8 24.Rxd8 Bxd8 25.Rh1 Bg2 26.Rxh6 Rxh6 27.Bxh6 Bxf3 28.Be3 draw, Fischer,R - Ames,D, Lincoln ch-US jr, 1955) 10.gxh3 exd4 11.O-O Qf6 12.c3 Bc5 13.Qd3 Rd8 14.Re1 dxc3 15.bxc3 Kf7 16.Bb2 Qg6+ 17.Qxg6+ Kxg6 18.Rad1 Rhf8 19.Kg2 Rxf3 20.Kxf3 Rf8+ 21.Kg4 h5+ 22.Kg3 Bxf2+ 23.Kg2 Bxe1 24.Rxe1 Rf5 25.Bc1 Re5 26.Rg1 Rf5 27.Re1 Ne5 28.Be3 b6 29.Bd4 Kf7 30.h4 c5 31.Be3 Nf3 White resigned, Kelemen - Charousek,R, corr, 1893) 8...h6 9.Nh3 g5 (9...Bg4 10.c3 Qf6 (10...Bc5 11.Be3 d4 12.Bc1 Qd7 13.Nhg1 Kh7 14.h3 Be6 15.Ne2 Rhf8 16.b4 Bd6 17.b5 Ne7 18.c4 a6 19.bxa6 Rxa6 20.Ng3 Ng6 21.Ne4 Be7 22.h4 Bf5 23.h5 Bxe4 24.dxe4 Nf4 25.Nxe5 Bb4+ 26.Kf1 Qe8 27.Bxf4 Rxf4 28.Ng6 Rxe4 29.g3 Re1+ 30.Qxe1 Bxe1 31.Rxe1 Qc6 32.Rh4 Qxc4+ 33.Kg1 Qxa2 34.Re8 Rxg6 35.hxg6+ Kxg6 36.Rf4 c5 Black queened in a few moves and White resigned Bird,H - Mills, simul, British CC, London, 1886) 11.Nhg1 Re8 12.Qb3 e4 13.dxe4 Qf7 14.Be3 dxe4 15.Nd4 Ne5 16.Nge2 Nd3+ 17.Kd2 c5 18.Qxf7+ Kxf7 19.Nb3 Rd8 20.f3 Ne5+ 21.Ke1 exf3 22.gxf3 Bxf3 23.Rf1 Be7 24.Ng3 Kg6 25.Bf4 Nd3+ 26.Kd2 Nxf4+ 27.Ke3 Rd3+ 28.Kxf4 Bd6 checkmate, Neidich,G - Marshall,F, Atlantic City, 1920) 10.Nd2 Rh7 11.f3 Bxh3 12.gxh3 Rf7 13.Nb3 Qf6 14.Rf1 Re8 15.Qe2 Re6 16.Bd2 Nd4 17.Qd1 Nxf3+ White resigned, Lenzer -Lasker,E, 1913; and

7.Nfg5+ Kg6 8.Qf3 dxe4 9.Qf7+ Kxg5 White now mates in ten moves 10.d4+ Kh4 11.h3 Bb4+ 12.Kf1 g6 13.g3+ Kh5 14.g4+ Kh4 15.Qb3 Bc3 16.Qxc3 e3 17.Qxe3 Bxg4 18.hxg4+ Kxg4 19.Qh3 checkmate, Pollock,W - Amateur, Dublin, date unknown

7...e4 8.Ng1 g6 

Or 8...h5 9.d4 h4 10.Nf1 Qf6 11.c3 Ne7 12.Ne3 Kg8 13.Ne2 c6 14.h3 g5 15.Rf1 Bh6 16.f3 exf3 17.Rxf3 Qg6 18.b3 Rh7 19.Ba3 g4 20.hxg4 Bxg4 21.Nxg4 Qxg4 22.Ng3 Rf7 23.Bxe7 Rxe7+ 24.Ne2 Qxg2 25.Rf2 Qg1+ 26.Rf1 Qg3+ 27.Rf2 Rf8 White resigned, Noa,J -  Makovetz,G, Dresden, 1892; 

Or 8...Bc5 9.N1e2 Qf6 10.O-O h5 11.Nc3 h4 12.Nxd5 Qe5 13.Nxe4 Qxe4 14.Nxc7 Nd4 15.d3 Qc6 16.Be3 h3 17.f3 hxg2 18.Rf2 Qxc7 19.Rxg2 Nxc2 White resigned, NN-Lasker,E, London, 1900. 

If you are looking for a wild attacking position for White - it hasn't arrived, yet. Black's pawns own the center, and his one developed piece seems better placed than White's one developed piece.

As often happens in a Jerome Gambit, White has to rely on his comfort in unusual positions to make some headway.

[to be continued]

Jerome Gambit: More or Less (Part 1)

I still haven't had many opportunities to play chess lately, and when I have had the chance, I haven't been able to reach the Jerome Gambit. This has been a bit frustrating, as I know that in the earlier years of this blog I was able to share my adventures - good and bad - and trace out a path, as it were, sharing history, perspective and analysis, through this strange chess land.

Fortunately, readers of this blog have shared their games and analysis, and that has kept things moving. I hope you have appreciated their play. I certainly have.

Just the other day I was finally able to play an online blitz Jerome Gambit. As with many of my matches, there is both more and less there than meets the eye. Let me see if I can explain... 

Certain themes show up over and over in the game, the notes, and earlier games, and choosing among them is the challenge.

perrypawnpusher - scarsetto

blitz 5 5, FICS, 2017

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ 

I know that Alonzo Wheeler Jerome initially preferred 6.d4, but he never ran into the "pie-in-the-face variation" 6...Qh4!?.

I think I have tried 6.d4 only once, and, managed to swindle my way to a draw, after, of course, 6...Qh4. - perrypawnpusher - 4xe1, Chess.com, 2017 (1/2-1/2, 29).

For the record, The Database has 3,850 games with 6.Qh5+ (White scores 55%) and 1,608 games with 6.d4 (White scores 54%). Pretty even results.

6...Ke6 

The only other time that I have played scarsetto, a few years ago, he tried 6...Ng6 here. A dozen moves later, I hung my Queen: 7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qe3 Nf6 10.O-O Kf7 11.f4 Rf8 12.f5 Ne5 13.d4 Neg4 14.Qd3 Kg8 15.h3 Bxf5 16.Rxf5 d5 17.hxg4 dxe4 18.Qxe4?? Nxe4 White resigned, perrypawnpusher - scarsetto, FICS, 2014. Ouch.

7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Nh6 

Black develops a piece, attacking White's Queen, making room for his Rook to come to f8, and not preventing his Queen from coming, if she wishes, to f6. Taken separately, these are good things, but they do not fit well in the current position - a sign of a defender who has either been surprised by the Jerome Gambit, knows little about it, or treats it with disdain.

Those who play the Jerome Gambit should take a look at the diagram and decide what they would do next. For encouragement, I can point out that there are 8 examples of this position in The Database. White scored 100%.

(It should be pointed out that there are only 3 games in The Database that contain Stockfish 8's recommendation, 8...Kc6, simply giving up the Black Knight. However, Black won all of them.)

9.Qxe5+ Kc6

Here perrypawnpusher - GPP, blitz, FICS, 2010 was awarded to White by ajudication. I was surprised, acutally, as previous ajudications that I had encountered seemed to have been based on simply counting up the material each side has - and here Black still has a piece for two pawns. That raises a couple of important questions: What is White's advantage? How does he win? 

10.Qd5+ Kb6 

It seems pretty clear at first glance that White has the advantage - Black's unsafe King is more significant than White's small material deficit. But does White have a checkmate, or will he merely win back another piece and hold a small advantage? In a blitz game, it is important to know which goal you are chasing after.

11.Nc3 

I was betting on "checkmate", although I hadn't analyzed how.

If Bobby Fischer ever said "Long analysis, wrong analysis" he probably also said "No analysis - you better have a ton of experience in that position and an awesome memory" (or, maybe not).

The computer places its bet on "win back another piece". Best according to Stockfish 6 is 11.Qb3+!?

To understand the recommendation move (beyond "patzer sees check, patzer gives check") it is only necessary to look at Black's possible response, 11...Kc6, when a reasonable continuation would be 12.Nc3 d5 13.Qb5+ Kd6 14.e5+ Ke6 15.Qxc5 and White is up a couple of pawns while Black's King is still uneasy.

A steadier response for Black is 11...Ka6, when White has to find 12.Qa4+ Kb6 13.b4!?, threatening to win the Bishop outright and making it possible to put his dark-squared Bishop on the long a1-h8 diagonal. Stockfish 8 recommends the return of the piece immediately with 13...Bxf2+, which shows a pretty good sense of humor for a computer.

Bishop retreats for Black complicate the position, and one example will show how. After 11...Ka6 12.Qa4+ Kb6 13.b4!? Be7 White has a whole lot to figure out, in a short amount of time: 14.Qa5+ Kc6 15.Nc3 a6 16.b5+ Kd6 17.Qb4+ Ke6 18.Qb3+ d5 19.Nxd5 Kf7 20.Nxc7+ Kg6 21.f5+ Nxf5 (returning the piece is best) 22.exf5+ Bxf5 

analysis diagram




Here, White is a couple of pawns up, and should continue to pressure Black with 23.Qg3+, or at least 23.0-0. He should not grab the a8 Rook, as that would be a delightful blunder, leading to immediate crushing pressure on his own King, starting with 23.Nxa8? Bh4+ 24.g3 Re8+, etc, and if White's King survives, his Queen won't. 


Eight years ago I played, instead of 11.Nc3 or 11.Qb3+, the central push 11.d4 - but that leads down another road, so perhaps that is best looked at in the next post.

[to be continued]

5% New (Part 1)

I am always looking for something new in the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ and friends) universe. Before I share any discoveries, though, I check to make sure that I haven't already passed the information along. With over 2,200 blog posts, I can't keep everything in my head. Here's a good example.

Let's start with a Jerome-ish line from the Two Knight's Defense (or the Italian Game, or the Four Knights Game):  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ . It, and similar positions, are discussed under the "fork trick" in Pawn Power in Chess, by Hans Kmoch (1949).

For a brief introduction as it relates to the Jerome, see the post "Jerome Gambit vs Two Knights Defense (Part 3)". Follow that up with "Further Explorations" (Parts 1, 2, 3,  4 & 5). 

A few years ago, Tim Sawyer, a Blackmar Diemer Gambit expert, on his blog, gave the line that we are looking at today the descriptive name the "Open Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit". He was influenced by a game where "jeromed" played the OIFKJG against him.

Tim mentioned that Bill Wall - no stranger to the Jerome Gambit - instead calls the line the "Noa Gambit".

I am guessing that Bill is referring to the following game (there are probably others) by the Hungarian Chess master:

Noa, Josef - Makovetz, Gyula
DSB-07.Kongress, Dresden, 1892
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe4 d5 7.Ng3 e4 8.Ng1 h5 9.d4 h4 10.Nf1 Qf6 11.c3 Ne7 12.Ne3 Kg8 13.Ne2 c6 14.h3 g5 15.Rf1 Bh6 16.f3 exf3 17.Rxf3 Qg6 18.b3 Rh7 19.Ba3 g4 20.hxg4 Bxg4 21.Nxg4 Qxg4 22.Ng3 Rf7 23.Bxe7 Rxe7+ 24.Ne2 Qxg2 25.Rf2 Qg1+ 26.Rf1 Qg3+ 27.Rf2 Rf8 White resigned

I am happy to now add that Examples of Chess Master-Play (1894), by Charles Thomas Blanshard, says of 5.Bxf7+ "The text move, a hobby of Dr. Noa, develops Black's game." (I have not turned up any more examples, however.)

It turned out, however, that I was able to identify a precursor to Noa's play:

Zoltowski, E - Zukertort, Johannes
Berlin, 1869
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe4 Be7 7.Nfg5+ Bxg5 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxg5 d5 10.Qxd8 Rxd8 11.Ng5+ Kg7 12.d3 Nd4 13.O-O Nxc2 14.Rb1 Re8 15.b3 Bf5 16.Rd1 Nb4 17.Ba3 Nxd3 18.g4 Nxf2 19.Rxd5 Nxg4 20.Rbd1 Ne3 21.Rd7+ Bxd7 22.Rxd7+ Kh6 23.Nf7+ Kh5 24.Bc1 Nf5 25.Ng5 h6 26.Rh7 Rad8 White resigned

To date, I have not found any references to the "Zoltowski Gambit".

I also shared a game which was about as close as any sort of Jerome Gambit was going to get to a World Champion:

Fischer, Robert James - Ames, D.
USA, 1955
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bc4 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe4 d5 7.Neg5+ Kg8 8.d4 h6 9.Nh3 Bg4 10.dxe5 Nxe5 11.Nf4 c6 12.h3 Nxf3+ 13.gxf3 Bf5 14.Be3 Bb4+ 15.c3 Ba5 16.Rg1 Qe8 17.Nxd5 Qf7 18.Nf4 Re8 19.Qb3 Bc7 20.Qxf7+ Kxf7 21.Nh5 g6 22.Ng3 Bxh3 23.O-O-O Rd8 24.Rxd8 Bxd8 25.Rh1 Bg2 26.Rxh6 Rxh6 27.Bxh6 Bxf3 28.Be3 drawn

Of course, Bobby wasn't even a teenager when he played that game.

So - what's new?

I recently discovered, in Pollock Memories: A Collection of Chess Games, Problems, &c., &c., Including His Matches with Eugene Delmar, Jackson Showalter, and G.H.D. Gossip (1899), by William Henry Krause Pollock, edited by F. F. Rowland, an undated/unplaced game between Pollock and an Amateur, with the introduction: "The following is a very fine example, known in Dublin years ago as the 'Monck Gambit' ." 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe4 d5 7.Nfg5+ Kg6 8.Qf3 dxe4 9.Qf7+ Kxg5

"White now mates in ten moves."

10.d4+ Kh4 11.h3 Bb4+ 12.Kf1 g6 13.g3+ Kh5 14.g4+ Kh4 15.Qb3 Bc3 16.Qxc3 e3 17.Qxe3 Bxg4 18.hxg4+ Kxg4 19.Qe4 checkmate

I will have more on the Monck Gambit next post. For now, it will suffice to recall Monck's comment about the Jerome Gambit from the Preston Guardian, April 26, 1882, concerning the game Lowe,E - Cudmore,D, correspondence, 1881

Every form of the Jerome Gambit is, I believe, unsound and this is no exception.

[to be continued]

Appearance and Reality

In the following game, Black leaps upon what he considers an error by White, only to find that he has attacked thin air, while, on the other side of the board, he allows a deadly attack!


Wall,B - Guest1468045 
PlayChess.com, 02.04.2015

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

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 7.Qxc5 d6 8.Qc3

A similar position including the "nudge", after 7.Qd5+ Kf8 8.Qxc5+ d6 9.Qc3 was seen in Wall,B - Boris, SparkChess.com, 2012 (1-0, 32),  Wall,B -Guest4149739, PlayChess.com, 2013 (1-0, 30) and Wall,B - Guest428245, PlayChess.com, 2014 (1-0, 20). 


The alternative, 8.Qd5+, looking for mischief, was seen in Wall,B-Guest4395, Microsoft Internet Gaming Zone, 2001 (1-0, 18);  Wall,B - Seven11, Chess.com, 2008 (1-0, 51); Wall,B - Chung,J, Chess.com, 2010 (1-0, 25);  Wall, Bill - CheckMe, www.Chess.com, 2010 (1-0, 23); and Wall, Bill - Guest249301, playchess.com, 2013 (1-0, 30).

8...Nf6 9.d3 Re8 

10.0-0 h6 11.f4 Kg8 12.Nd2 c6 

Houdini rates Black about a half point better here; while Stockfish sees Black as maybe nine-tenths of a pawn better. That's plenty for White to work with.

13.b4!? 

Bill and I have exchanged emails about this move. I like it - a lot. It reminds me both of the comment attributed to Bobby Fischer - "I don't believe in psychology, I believe in strong moves" - and one by Nimzovich - that a particular move was strong, because it appeared weak...

Notice how Black jumps all over the move. Notice how Black loses.

13...Qb6+ 14.Kh1 Ng4 15.Bb2 Re7 

As Bill points out, Black pauses for some defense: not 15...Nf2+? 16.Rxf2 Qxf2?? 17.Qxg7#

16.d4

Likewise, avoiding 16.Qc4+? Be6 17.Qd4 Ne3.

16...a5 

Here we go again: attacking the White b-pawn.

17.Qg3 

Which White abandons!

17...Qxb4

Black has the pawn in the bag, and forks two of White's pieces. What's not to like?

18.Bc3

Bill was aware of 18.f5? Qxb2 19.Qxg4 Qxd4 20.Qxg6 Qxd2.

18...Qb5 19.f5 

We will come back to this position.

19...Bxf5 

This looks like the beginning of panic. Black's Knights are at risk.

20.Rxf5 N4e5 21.dxe5 Nxe5 22.Raf1 Rae8

Collapse.

23.Bxe5 dxe5 24.Qg6 Qe2 25.Rf7 Rxf7 26.Rxf7 Qe1+ 27.Nf1 Re7 28.Qxg7 checkmate

Going back to the diagram after White's 19th move let's ask: What would have happened if Black had admitted that his "advantage" had evaporated, that his "right to attack" had therefore disappeared, and he had retreated with 19...Nf6?

As I had emailed Bill

Funny how 19...Nf6, admitting Black's mistake, would have mostly set things to rights.. : 20.Qxg6 Qxb4 21.e5 Nd5 22.Nb3 a4 23.f5! Bxf5 24.Rxf5 axb3 25.c3! Nxc3 26.exd6 Re2 27.d7! Nd5 28.Raf1 Re1! 29.axb3 Ne3 30.Bc3! Qxc3 31.Rf7 Rxf1+ 32.Rxf1 Nxf1 (what else?) 33.Qe8+ Rxe8 34.dxe8/Q+ Kh7 35.Qe4+ and it was a draw, after all... But even in this line White has almost all of the fun!