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.

LAPOC

Just bumped into the website LAPOC - Learn and Play Online Chess, where players are encouraged to "Trip up your opponent with a clever gambit".

Examples are given such as:

"Fry White's Liver in the Two Knights Gambit"

"Fried Liver Attack - Drag the Black King to the Center"

"Counter Attack White with the Dangerous Wilkes-Barre"

"Steal Moves in the Evans Gambit"

and, or course

"Build Rapid Attacks in the Jerome Gambit"

Check it out.

Italian Game Anti-Fried Liver Defense (Part 1)

Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member Welton Vaz sends us a Chess.com link to an enjoyable discussion on the play of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 – known on this site as the "Semi-Italian Opening" (after Euwe) – as a way of avoiding the Fried Liver Attack 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Nxf7

Although one of the Chess.com posters complained about 3...h6 "I hate when players play this as it is an insult to the Italian" there was no suggestion on the website, either in the discussion or the related 21 games given, that White could return the "insult" of 3...h6 by transposing to the Jerome Gambit with, say, 4.0-0 Bc5 5.Bxf7+.

Of course Welton sent one of his games where he provided that "insult" – which we will see in "Italian Game Anti-Fried Liver Defense (Part 2)".

By the way, Grandmaster Boris Alterman has a 6-part series on the Fried Liver Attack on his website, along with instruction on a whole list of gambits, including the Danish, Evans, Max Lange and Morra.

I note that Alterman has two books forthcoming, one on gambits with White and one on gambits with Black. Of the first, he writes

The Alterman Gambit Guide: White Gambits is both an opening book and an instructive manual. Sharpen your tactics and learn to play dynamic attacking chess while studying the most entertaining gambits. Lines covered include:Evans Gambit, Panov Attack, Morra Gambit, Philidor, Danish Gambit, Urusov Gambit, Morphy Attack, Cochrane Gambit, Max Lange Attack, Fried Liver Attack and Milner-Barry Gambit

For those who like their liver fried, there is also a book by NM Dan Heisman on The Computer Analyzes the Fried Liver / Lolli.

London Calling... Ten Months of Blog

Dear Jerome Gambit Gemeinde,

It's time to note that jeromegambit.blogspot.com has had daily posts (over 300 of them) for ten months now – an infant compared to many wonderful chess sites, but almost a toddler beside them. And there is still much room to grow!

We've not only explored the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) on these pages, but thanks to the creativity of many members, we've also taken on a host of loosely-named Jerome Gambit "relatives":

Abrahams Jerome Gambit

Bishop's Opening Jerome Gambit

Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit

Boden-Kieseritzky Jerome Gambit

Danvers Jerome Gambit

Evans Jerome Gambit

Fried Jerome Attack

Jerome Elephant Gambit

Philidor Jerome Gambit

Semi-Italian Jerome Gambit

Sicilian Jerome Gambit

Best wishes, all!

Rick Kennedy ("perrypawnpusher")

Fried Jerome Attack

Not everyone is interested in facing the Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ (see, for example "It's a good thing I read this blog"). One way to avoid it is to play Philidor's Defense, 2...d6, instead of allowing the Italian Game with 2...Nc6. Still, one shouldn't provoke too much of an attacking spirit in the heart of the Jerome Gambiteer...


perrypawnpusher - azzaonnet
blitz 5 12 FICS, 2009

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 Nf6
An unusual, but playable, variation of the Philidor.

4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5

With this move Black allows his opponent to play an attack similar to the Fried Liver Attack in the Two Knights Defense: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxe5 6.Nxf7 – only in this case Black has not developed his Queen's Knight.

In one of his Gambit Cartel columns for ChessCafe, "Going Fishing," Tim McGrew (see "A Few Words With...Tim McGrew") points out that the proper move in this line of the Philidor is 5...h6, after which "The similarities to the Elephant [Gambit] line [which he discusses] are striking."

6.Nxf7

Of course. Never mind that the last time I played the Fried Liver Attack was 30 years ago. Or that the move 6.d4, similar to the Lolli Attack in the Two Knights (not to be mistaken for the Wild Muzio Gambit, mind you: see "Wild!", "Wilder!" and "Wildest!") was probably stronger.
6...Kxf7 7.Qf3+ Ke6

Black's King must venture into danger to hold onto the piece: 7...Ke8 8.Qxd5 Qxd5 9.Bxd5, as in perrypawnpusher - xPOGOx, FICS 2009, simply leads to a Queenless middlegame a pawn down.

8.Nc3

An alternative was 8.0-0 c6 9.d4 Qf6 10.Qe2 Ke7 11.dxe5 Qf5 12.f4 Be6 13.Bd3 Qg4 14.Rf3 g6 15.h3 Qh5 16.Bd2 Kd8 17.c4 Bc5+ 18.Kf1 Ne7 19.b4 Bd4 20.Bc3 Bxc3 21.Nxc3 a6 22.Rd1 Kc7 23.b5 axb5 24.cxb5 Nd7 25.a4 Rhf8 26.Qd2 g5 27.Be4 Nd5 28.Nxd5+ Bxd5 29.Bxd5 Nxe5 30.fxe5 Rfd8 31.Rf7+ Qxf7+ 32.Bxf7 Rxd2 33.Rxd2 Rxa4 34.e6 Black resigned, Eliason - Leow, Berlin 1856.

8...c6 9.d4 exd4

Or 9...b5 10.Bb3 b4 11.Nxd5 cxd5 12.dxe5 Nc6 13.c4 Ne7 14.cxd5+ Nxd5 15.0-0 h5 16.Rd1 Bb7 17.Bg5 Qxg5 18.Bxd5+ Bxd5 19.Qxd5+ Kf5 20.Qxa8 Qe7 21.Qf3+ Kg6 22.Rd6+ Kh7 23.Qf5+ Kg8 24.Rad1 g6 25.Rxg6+ Bg7 26.Rd7 Qf8 27.Rgxg7+ Qxg7 28.Rd8+ Black resigned, abhailey-vkroll, net-chess.com 2007.


10.Qe4+

Rybka 3 turns its nose up at this move, preferring the further piece sacrifice: 10.Bf4 dxc3 11.0-0-0 after which it sees White as having a winning game. Amazing!

10...Kd6

This is not accurate, either: the King should be one step further back.

11.Nxd5

I admit that I was at a bit of a loss for a plan, here. Later Rybka 3 suggested capturing with the other minor piece: 11.Bxd5 Kc7 12.Qxd4 b6 13.Nb5+ Kb7 and White has the advantage.

11...Be6

Wow. Clearly my opponent was seeing something that I wasn't seeing. Later the computer suggested that Black would be better after 11...cxd5 12.Qxd5+ Kc7 13.Bf4+ Bd6 14.Qxd4 Qe7+ 15.Be2 Rd8 16.0-0-0 Nc6.

Now the game ends quickly.

12.Bf4+ Kc5


Or 12...Kd7 13.Nc7, which turns out badly.


13.b4+ Kxc4 14.Qd3+ Kxd5 15.c4 checkmate