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.

Jerome Gambit: New Games Coming

GM Aman Hambleton, of CHESSBRAHS, over at chess.com, also at Twitch, has stirred up a good bit of interest in the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) in the last few days, due to his video (mentioned in the previous post) concerning the Jerome (it can be found on YouTube.com).

I also have to credit GM Eric Hansen, who I watched on the CHESSBRAHS site try for two hours to get a Jerome Gambit game going, but was frustrated in his attempts. 

As a result, I have received many emails and messages, as well as a good selection of new Jerome Gambit games - including one by the computer program Leela Chess Zero, rated over 3600!  

I plan to share those games, although it may take me a few days to get them posted on this blog. Please be patient - and keep an eye out.

In the meantime, it is always possible to use the "search this blog" function to explore this site further. I have also found that if I use an internet search engine (like Google, Bing, or DuckDuckGo) for a string of moves - say, "6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 Qe7" it will turn up links to relevant posts on this blog.

Thank you - Rick   

Jerome Gambit: All In Good Fun

I thought that Jon Speelman had had the last, friendly, justifiable, Grandmaster laugh at the Jerome Gambit four years ago, in his "Agony Column #24" over at chessbase.com, where he dissected a couple of my games that I had shared with him - but it turns out that I was wrong.

YouTube.com has recently posted a video by Canadian GM Aman Hambleton (aka TOMMYFOOKINSHELBY, at Chess.com, see the previous blog posts "Jerome Gambit: Smash Finish" and "Unasked Questions") that hilariously gives the Jerome Gambit, this blog, and me, our just due - and then some. All in good fun.

It is must viewing for all Readers.

In the meantime, especially to those new to this blog, let me quote from a post from the first month of this blog, a dozen years ago, titled "But - Is this stuff playable? (Part 1)"

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. 

Maybe a more useful question would be -- Under what conditions might the Jerome Gambit be playable?

Perhaps in friendly games, in bullet games, in blitz games, in games where you are giving "Jerome Gambit odds" to a weaker player - the opening might just be playable. (It is helpful to keep in mind Geoff Chandler's whimsical "blunder table" in this regard.)

I am reminded of Gary Kasparov's response, when someone suggested 1...g5!? as a response to 1.c4 - "Chess isn't skittles". Certainly he was right - at the grandmaster and master level of play. But, for many club and amateur players, chess is skittles; and the Jerome Gambit fits right in.

By the way, from an academic point of view, the Jerome Gambit is often a study of "errors in thinking" - exactly how does someone lose to "the worst chess opening, ever"?