Recently Bill Wall sent me 16 of his Jerome Gambit games that were Human + Computer vs Computer encounters. Such teamwork is sometimes referred to as advanced chess, or cyborg chess, or centaur chess. Over the years, I have posted games from Human vs Computer matches (including the legendary 1993 Fisher-Kirshner - Knight Stalker battles, and the rolling 2006 RevvedUp - Fritz 8 - Crafty 19.19 - Hiarcs 8 - Shredder 8 - Yace Paderborn mayhem) as well as many Computer vs Computer games, but I think this is the first centaur chess I have presented. The results are interesting - even if it is difficult to assign the relative impact that the human had on the play. Also, the time controls, which affect the strength of computer programs, are not known. Over all, White scored 4 - 9 - 3 (34%), which would be unimpressive for a normal opening under normal circumstances, but which seems - as with all Jerome Gambit matches - a bit "high" for a many-times-refuted opening. A little more insight is available by breaking the games down into 4-game matches. Crafty vs Stockfish + Wall, for example, yielded 2 wins for Black when played by the team; and, likewise, 2 wins for White when played by the team. With all due respect to Dr. Robert Hyatt's computer engine, it appears it could have been simply outplayed by its stronger computer opponent. Who played what color did not seem to matter. On the other hand, the Komodo 5 vs Rybka + Wall match, which ended with a score of 2 - 2 - 0, was composed of 4 wins by Black. Neither engine, it appears, was able to ovecome the "handicap" of playing the Jerome Gambit. The Hiarcs 9 vs Critter + Wall match seemed a reflection of the comparative strengths of the computer programs, as Hiarcs 9 lost 2 games as White, and could only manage a draw as Black. Interesting, also, was the Fritz 12 vs Houdini + Wall match. The team was 1 - 0 - 1 as White, and 1 - 0 - 1 as Black, suggesting that Houdini was the brighter computer program. Looking at a couple of lines of play, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 scored 2 - 5 - 1, while 6.Qh5+ scored 2 - 4 - 2, not much of a difference. I will be sharing some of the games, taking a look at what "theoretical" enlightenment they bring.
Sometimes I run into a line in the Jerome Gambit that I don't (yet) know what to do with. A good (bad) example is in the following game. I have alluded to Black's 7th move in several posts (see here and here for examples). Here are the games from The Database where the move appears. Maybe readers have some ideas. chessmanjeff - sergbond blitz, FICS, 2013 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nc6 3. Nf3 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
Here is another look at the 6...Qh4 defense in the Jerome Gambit, discussed in the previous blog post. Again, Bill Wall has the White pieces. This is pretty heavy going, and there is plenty to study in the notes, too. Or, you can just enjoy the main game, as, after a dozen moves, Bill decides enough is enough and goes after the enemy monarch. Wall, Bill - IraHaru lichess.org, 2016 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
It is time for White to start putting the pressure on. Curiously, Stockfish 8 prefers 13.Nd5 and recommends that Black sacrifice the exchange to keep an edge in the game: 13...Rg8!?14.Nxc7 Ne5 15.Nxa8 Bb7 16.f3 Qxc5+ 17.Kh1 Bxa8. Going after the King makes more sense to me. 13...Ke7 Now it's time for the Knight to step in. 14.Nd5+ Kd8 15.cxb6 axb6 16 Qf7 Qd4
Centralizing the Queen, stepping out of the possible exposed attacks by White's Queen (after the Knight moves), and protecting the f6 pawn. Alas, it leads to disaster. 17.Rad1 Qxb2 18.Rfe1 Ne5 19.Qe7 checkmate
perrypawnpusher - Nivaethan2000 Giuoco Piano Thematic Tournament, Chess.com 2016
In the previous post I suggested that White's last move, 10.Nc3, might not be best, as compared to the direct 10.fxe5, as it allows Black a move to prepare for the capture. Black cannot withdraw his Knight from e5, because of the threat Nd5+, forking King and Queen, but he can either counter-attack on White's Queen, or withdraw his King. The following illustrative games (there are a lot, but they are worth playing over for a better understanding of the position) primarily feature two players well-known to the Jerome Gambit Gemeinde - MrJokerandBill Wall - and a player who worked with a series of computers that I introduced years ago in "Jerome Gambit: Drilling Down (27)"
In 2006 I heard from Jeroen_61 of the Netherlands, who emailed me
Some time ago when Hiarcs 8 was released after receiving my copy I ran some small tournaments to see how things would go with Hiarcs. Other participants were Junior 7, Shredder Paderdorn (6.02) and Fritz 7. One of the tournaments I conducted with - the Jerome gambit as opening. They are games 40/40' + 40/40' + 40' (round robin two rounds, so 12 games in all). Only two were won by the white side.
...All were posted at a website that Jeroen_61 gave, although an attempt to use the url today got me the message De pagina is niet gevonden, which probably means just what it looks like.
White has some positional pressure - on the dark squares, along the f-file - and an advantage in development, although not (yet) full compensation for his sacrificed piece. He can finally castle, then plan to double his Rooks. 16.0-0-0 Be6 17.Rf3 Black forfeited on time
Quite a surprise. As my opponent subsequently forfeited on time his game with the White pieces - and forfeited games to other players as well - something in the "outside world" must have intervened. By the way, after the game, Stockfish 7 suggested that instead of doubling Rooks, I consider 17.d4!? Bxd4 18.Rxd4!? (eliminating the dark square Bishop) with the following possibility 18...Qxd4 19.Qf4 Qg7 20.Qxd6Bc4 21.Rd1 when Black is still in a bind, although the computer still puts him ahead by only about 3/4 of a pawn. A deep idea, not anything I had considered.
Here we have another human vs computer game (see "Irrational"), one which turns, curiously, on computer "psychology" and a subtle anti-computer strategy. Again, it is the human who applies brutal tactical force to close out the game. Wall, Bill - Comet B50 engine Palm Bay, FL, 2015 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 d6
Ah, yes, back to the "annoying" or "silicon" defense. Black will soon be challenged to decide which pawn(s) it wants to protect, and which one(s) it wants to let go. This is something White can take advantage of, if he pushes it. 8.fxe5 dxe5 9.Qh3+ Ke7
Ten years ago this position proved uneasy for the computer playing the Jerome Gambit, and it quickly decided to save half a point: 9...Kd6 10.Qd3+ Ke7 11.Qg3 Kd6 12.Qd3+ Ke7 13.Qg3 Kd6 14.Qd3+ drawn, Crafty 19.19 - RevvedUp, blitz 2 12, 2006. 10.Qg3 Kd6 11.Qd3+ Bd4
Again, here, in the human - computer supermatch played a decade ago, the computer, with the Jerome Gambit, decided to bail out: 11...Ke7 12.Qg3 Ke6 13.Qh3+ Kf7 14.Qh5+ Ke6 15.Qh3+ drawn, Hiarcs 8 - RevvedUp, blitz 2 12, 2006). Upon reflection, the g7 pawn is probably more valuable than the e5 pawn, despite the Comet B50's evaluations and calculations, and ...Kd6 is not Black's strongest continuation. Here it will cost a piece. (On the other hand, most computers opening with the Jerome Gambit as White would probably love to offer and receive a draw after four moves!) 12.c3 Qg5 Comet B50 goes for wild tactics. It is interesting to recall two historical games that showed the computer (in this case, an early version of Fritz) solidly surrendering the piece: 12...c5 13.cxd4 cxd4 14.b3 Kc7 (14...Nf6 15.Ba3+ Kc7 16.Qg3 Re8 17.Qxg7+ Kb8 18.d3 Qa5+ 19.b4 Qb6 20.O-O Re6 21.Nd2 Qd8 22.Nc4 Qg8 23.Qxg8 Nxg8 24.Rf5 Ne7 25.Rxe5 Rxe5 26.Nxe5 Ng6 27.Nf3 Nf4 28.b5 Kc7 29.Ne5 Ng6 30.Nxg6 hxg6 31.Bc5 Bd7 32.a4 Re8 33.Bxd4 a6 34.bxa6 bxa6 35.a5 Kd6 36.Bb6 Bc6 37.Ba7 Bb5 38.Rd1 Ke5 39.Kf2 Ra8 40.Bb6 Ba4 41.Ra1 Bc6 42.Ke3 Re8 43.d4+ Kd6 44.e5+ Kd7 45.g3 Rf8 46.Rd1 Ke6 47.Rd3 Rf1 48.Rc3 Rf3+ 49.Kd2 Rxc3 50.Kxc3 Kd5 51.h4 Ke4 52.Kc4 Bb5+ 53.Kc5 Kf3 54.d5 Kxg3 55.e6 Kxh4 56.d6 Kg5 57.d7 Kf5 58.d8=Q Kxe6 59.Qg8+ Kf5 60.Qd5+ Kf6 61.Kd6 Kg7 62.Qxb5 axb5 63.a6 b4 64.a7 g5 65.a8=Q g4 66.Qe4 g3 67.Qxb4 Kf7 68.Qf4+ Kg6 69.Qg4+ Kh6 70.Qg8 Kh5 71.Bd8 Kh6 72.Qg5+ Kh7 73.Bf6 g2 74.Qg7 checkmate, Fisher-Kirshner,M - Knight Stalker, Fremont, CA, 1993) 15.Qc4+ Kb8 16.Ba3 Qh4+ 17.Kd1 Qh6 18.Qd5 Bg4+ 19.Ke1 Qh4+ 20.g3 Qg5 21.Bd6+ Kc8 22.Qf7 Bd7 23.Na3 Kd8 24.Rc1 Ne7 25.Rf1 Rc8 26.Rxc8+ Nxc8 27.Nc4 Re8 28.Bb4 Qh6 29.Na5 b6 30.Nc4 Bc6 31.d3 Qc1+ 32.Kf2 Qc2+ 33.Kg1 Qxd3 34.Nd6 Qe3+ 35.Rf2 Nxd6 36.Bxd6 Bd7 37.Kg2 Qxe4+ 38.Kf1 Bh3+ 39.Rg2 Qxg2+ 40.Ke1 Qh1+ 41.Kd2 Qxh2+ 42.Ke1 Qxg3+ 43.Kd2 Qc3+ 44.Ke2 d3+ 45.Kf2 Qb2+ 46.Kg3 Qg2+ 47.Kh4 Qg4 checkmate, Fisher-Kirshner,M - Knight Stalker, Fremont, CA, 1993. 13.cxd4 Qxg2 14.dxe5+
14...Kxe5 The King would be relatively safer on e7. 15.Qd5+ Kf6 The Queen is now lost, but otherwise Black loses her and his King: 15...Kf4 16.d4+ Kf3 17.Nd2+ Kg4 18.h3+ Qxh3 19.Rxh3 Kxh3 20.Qh5+ Kg2 21.Qf3+ Kh2 22.Nf1+ Kg1 23.Be3 checkmate.
Alonzo Wheeler Jerome developed and defended his gambit in both across-the-board and correspondence games in the late 1800s and early 1900s. He even arranged to play the Jerome Gambit against readers of the Literary Digest. In modern times, however, the Jerome is most likely to show up in internet games, often blitz; although the occasional face-to-face contest still can be found. Recently, I received an email from Vlastimil Fejfar, of the Czech Republic, who shared three of his Jerome Gambit correspondence games - a pleasant return to the days of AWJ. Fejfar,V - Pressl corr Czech Republic, 2015 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 d6
White faces what I have called "the annoying defense", where Black calmly gives back a piece and avoids any risky misadventures, remaining up a piece for a pawn. The idea is at least as old as D'Aumiller, A.D. - A.P., Livorno, 1878(1-0, 19). It is the choice of many computer programs in games in The Database, including Fritz, Hiarcs, Junior, Rybka, Shredder and Spike; so I have also referred to it as "the silicon defense". Also, 7...d6 isthe move recommended by many authorities, including IM Gary Lane in his The Greatest Ever Chess Tricks and Traps. Vlasta proceeds calmly against it. 8.fxe5 dxe5 9.Qh3+ Kd6 10.Qd3+ Ke7 11.Qg3 Ke6 12.Qb3+ Ke7 13.Qg3 Ke6 14.Qb3+ Ke7 15.Qg3
Drawn It is not clear who came out "ahead" in this encounter, Black, who was able to split the point, or White, who was able to play a "refuted" opening and not lose. I am sympathetic. Thesecond roundof the Chess.com Italian Game Tournamenthas concluded for me, again (like in the first round) without being able to contest a single Jerome Gambit, which my opponents dodged. With White I scored two wins (one on time), four draws and no losses. Did more than half of my opponents "succeed" in "winning half a point" against me, or did they miss out on strolling to victory?
[This is blog post number 2,150, for those who might wonder. - Rick]
