A) Good B) Bad C) Ugly D) None of the Above

IM John Watson and NM Eric Schiller's new Taming Wild Chess Openings Good, Bad, and Ugly (New In Chess, 2015) is a revised and expanded print version of their 2014 same-titled EPlus ebook; which, in turn was an updated version of their Big Book of Busts (Hypermodern Press,1995).

Alas, call the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bx5 4.Bxf7+) "good", "bad" or "ugly" - it does not appear "wild" enough or in need of "taming" as it does not appear in Taming Wild Chess Openings.

One can certainly make the case that the Jerome Gambit is "annoying," however, so it is not suprising to find it in the authors' earlier Survive and Beat Annoying Chess Openings The Open Games (Cardoza, 2003),

As the Jerome can be thought of as both "unorthodox" and a gambit, it is understandably found in Schiller's Unorthodox Chess Openings (Cardoza, 1998, 2002) and his Gambit Chess Openings (Cardoza, 2002).

Jerome Gambit - Over the Board??

In a comment to the previous post on this blog, Quckturtle asked if I played the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) in over-the-board games.

I responded in the negative, mostly because I rarely play face-to-face games these days; instead, I play blitz and turn-based games on the internet.

Indeed, Eric Schiller, in his 2002 Gambit Chess Openings, referred to the Jerome Gambit as a "cyberspace gambit".

Yet, I wonder along with Quickturtle: who plays the Jerome Gambit in over-the-board play these days?

I have known for years that Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member Pete Banks ("blackburne") from Great Britain used to play it regularly - but, who else?

If you know someone, or if you play the Jerome otb yourself, please drop me a quick note (richardfkennedy@hotmail.com) or add a comment to this post, and let us know.

Joker's Wild (conclusion)

We conclude an article (see "Joker's Wild (1)" and "Joker's Wild (2)") by Louis Morin ("mrjoker") of Montreal, Canada, a long-time Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) Gemeinde member. He completes his response to the "Bashing the Jerome Gambit" chapter in Schiller and Watson's Survive & Beat Annoying Chess Openings (2003), and your editor has a few words to add.

17.b5! Kb6

17...Kxb5?? 18.Qd3+ is completely hopeless for Black. Try it!

18.Qd3! c6

19.Nc4+ Kc7 20.Nxd6

with much the better game for White. So after their suggested 6...Ke6 7.f4 Qf6! Schiller and Watson should have seen the obvious 8.Rf1 and analyzed reasonable moves such as 8...g6 or 8...Nd3+ (best in my opinion). But as it is their "piece of analysis" does not teach us very much. One can only wonder if the rest of the book has the same pedagogical value.

Louis Morin (mrjoker)
Montreal, Canada

It is likely that the analysis in "Bashing the Jerome Gambit" is Eric Schiller's work, as it is largely a repeat of his analysis given in Unorthodox Chess Openings (1998, 2002) and Gambit Chess Openings (2002). Other analysis in Survive & Beat Annoying Chess Openings is more reliable – I am thinking of the coverage of the Danish Gambit, for example.

Here's a game that shares the first 8 moves with the above analysis, although Black varies with 8...g6: mrjoker - jmt (1516), blitz, ICC, 2008,1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 Qf6 8.Rf1 g6 9.Qh3+ Ng4 10.Qxg4+ Ke7 11.Qe2 Qd4 12.c3 Qg7 13.d4 Bb6 14.g4 d6 15.f5 g5 16.e5 dxe5 17.dxe5 Kd8 18.f6 Qf7 19.Bxg5 h6 20.Bh4 Be6 21.Nd2 Kc8 22.b3 a6 23.Ne4 Kb8 24.0-0-0 Ka7 25.c4 Ba5 26.Kb2 Rb8 27.Bf2+ Ka8 28.Nc5 Bb6 29.Qe4 Black resigned

A Conspiracy of Silence?

Yesterday's post ("Travelling a Dangerous Path") showed a line in the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) that was challenging enough to give even one of the premier players of the Jerome – Pete Banks ("blackburne") – enough to keep him on his toes.

It can be hard playing against a line recommended by either International Master Gary Lane – The Greatestest Ever Chess Tricks and Traps (2008) – or FIDE Master Eric Schiller – Unorthox Chess Openings (1998, 2002), Gambit Chess Openings (2002), and Survive and Beat Annoying Chess Openings (with John Watson, 2003): 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke3 7.f4 and either 7...d6 (Lane) or 7...Qf6 (Schiller).

But what about the alternative 7th move, 7.Qf5+ ? It turns out that blackburne has played that move, too, for example: 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Bd4 9.fxe5+ Bxe5 10.d4 Qh4+ 11.Kd1 Nh6 12.Qxe5+ Kc6 13.Qc5 checkmate, blackburne - Temmo, Chessworld, 2008.

Hope you didn't blink: that was a fast win, there.

I have to admit that although more than half of my losses with the Jerome Gambit have come after playing 7.Qf5+, I have a few wins with it, as well. Over a dozen.

So, what do our friends IM Lane and FM Schiller have to say about that alternative to 7.f4, 7.Qf5+ ?

Nothing.

That's right: nothing.

It's almost as if the two, each of whom enjoys writing about and playing offbeat openings, are announcing the death of the Jerome Gambit (for the umpteenth time) to the chess world at large when it comes to 7.f4 – and then giving a wink and a nod to the Jerome Gambit Gemeinde when it comes to 7.Qf5+.

Editorial oversight, or Conspiracy of Silence?

You decide.

Another nail in the coffin...

Readers are aware that I have not shied away from presenting refutations of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) when I run into them (or am run over by them). It's time to give Master Eric Schiller credit (again) for both writing about the Jerome Gambit and providing a reasonable refutation for one of the main lines.

His Unorthodox Chess Openings (1998, 2002), Gambit Chess Openings (2002) and Survive & Beat Annoying Chess Openings (2003) have the following line:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7

This rather extravagant gambit is included by popular request, as the Internet newsgroup rec.games.chess.analysis had quite a bit of discussion on it in the summer of 1997 and several of the participants asked me to include it. White sacrifices a piece just to draw the enemy king into the game... (Unorthodox Chess Openings)

5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+

This too ambitious gambit has a following in some gambit circles, but it is totally unsound and Black has very little cause for concern. Just play aggressively and don't fall into passive cowardice. (Survive & Beat Annoying Chess Openings)

6...Ke6 7.f4

White will win back one of the sacrificed pieces. Black should react calmly be developing and protecting the king. It is useful to keep in mind that for an attack to succeed the attacker usually requires greater force than that which defends the king. Here the Black king is surrounded by pieces, and White has only the queen and a pair of pawns. The Black king can retreat to e7, but this would confine the Black queen. Therefore the correct move suggests itself. (Unorthodox Chess Openings 2)

7...Qf6! 8.Nc3 Ne7 9.Rf1 g6 10.Qh3+ Ng4 11.Qxg4+ Kf7

Black can easily defend with ...Rf8 and ...Kg8, and can also move the d-pawn, attacking the enemy queen. (Gambit Chess Openings)

My Jerome Gambit Database

I have over 950 Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) games in my database, allowing for transpositions.

I'm always looking for more.

Some are historical

D'Aumiller - A. P.
Livorno, 1878
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 d6 8.d4 Bxd4 9.c3 Bb6 10.fxe5 dxe5 11.Na3 Nf6 12.Qf5+ Kd6 13.Nc4+ Kc5 14.Qxe5+ Kxc4 15.b3+ Kd3 16.Bf4 Kc2 17.Rc1+ Kb2 18.c4+ Ka3 19.Rc2 Re8 1-0

Some are tragic modern over-the-board games

Banks - Rees
Wolverhampton Summer League
Division 3S
Halesowen v Lucas BS, 2003
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8 6.Qh5 Qf6 7.Nxd7+ Bxd7 8.Qxc5+ Qd6 9.Qxd6+ cxd6 10.c3 Nf6 11.f3 Kf7 12.0-0 Rhe8 13.d4 Kg8 14.Bf4 d5 15.e5 Nh5 16.Bg5 Nxe5 17.dxe5 Rxe5 18.Bc1 Bb5 19.Rd1 Rae8 20.Bd2 Re2 21.Na3 Bd3 22.Re1 Nf4 23.Rxe2 Nxe2+ 24.Kf2 Rf8 25.b4 Nf4 26.Bxf4 Rxf4 27.Ke3 Rh4 28.Kxd3 Rxh2 29.Rg1 Kf7 30.Nb5 Rh6 31.Re1 a6 32.Nd4 g6 33.a4 Rh2 34.g4 Ra2 35.a5 Ra3 36.Re5 Ra2 37.Rxd5 Rh2 38.Rd7+ Kf6 39.Rxb7 h5 40.gxh5 gxh5 41.Rb6+ Kg5 42.Rxa6 h4 43.Ne6+ Kf5 44.Ke3 Rc2 45.Nd4+ 1-0

Some are internet beasties

blackburne - karmmark
Jerome Gambit thematic tournament
www.chessworld.net, 2007
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 Nc6 8.Qxc5 Qe7 9.Qd5+ Kf6 10.Qf5 mate

Some are sleepy affairs

Brescak - Hefti
EU-ch U10 Girls, 1998
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ draw agreed.

In all about 7% are over-the-board games, 12% involve computers (person vs computer or computer vs computer), 2% are traditional (snail mail) correspondence games and 79% are games played on the internet (various time controls).

These statistics reflect the explosion of chess in general on the internet – as well as the continued challenge of unearthing historical games, as reflected in the two smallest per centages above. With good reason National Master Eric Schiller includes the Jerome Gambit, despite its untamed early life, among those he calls a "cyberspace gambit" in his Gambit Chess Openings (2002).

In fact, a ChessBase-generated graph of the games, distributed by year played, looks like a very skinny Bozo the Clown taking a nap on his back: his nose beeps up in the mid-1870s to mid-1880s and then there's very little in the sillouette until his large clown shoes explode in the 2000 to present era...

"...as long as they spell your name right"

P.T. Barnum liked to say that “there’s no such thing as bad press, as long as they spell your name right.”

Barnum was also a contemporary of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome.

With that short intro, I bring you a quote from National Master Eric Schiller, who has probably been the highest-rated player writing the most (something [anything!]) about the Jerome Gambit until International Master Gary Lane recently brought the opening up in his ChessCafe column.

From Schiller's Gambit Chess Openings (2002)

The High-Risk Gambits

The following gambits are considered terrible for the gambiteer, as far as computer evaluations are concerned...

One might think that they are entirely unsound but it is not always so. Some of these are generally considered playable in the books, others are acknowledged as refuted. In a few cases, the computer evaluation seems way off because experience has shown good results...
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
This is another cyberspace gambit.
Virtually no attention was paid to this reckless move until its supporters started talking about it on the Internet. It can't be found in recent tournament games, and there is a good reason: It stinks.

White whips up a brief attack, easily parried, and then spends a long time trying to justify the sacrifice. A popular gambit in cyberspace, but in the real world, it only succeeds in games where Black is a very weak player.

Uh, thanks Eric.
I think.