One More Thought

Musing over the earlier post, "Unasked Questions", which concerned itself with a sort of an "impatient Jerome Gambit" - 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 (the Two Knights Defense) 4.Bxf7+ (not waiting for Black to play ...Bc5) - I remembered a tangential question that I had asked about what impact further developing a Knight for each side - creating the Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ - would have, compared to the regular Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+.

It turned out that Komodo 10 evaluated the Four Knights version as improving Black's position 3/4 of a pawn over Black's position in the regular Jerome. Furthermore, The Database showed that Black scored 61% in the Four Knights variation, versus 54% in the regular Jerome Gambit line.

So, I had one more thought: Might that mean, analagously, that the line that we looked at in the earlier post would be stronger for Black than if we stripped away a Knight from each side, i.e. if we had Komodo 10 look at 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Bxf7+ ? (Would I dare to call it a sort of "accelerated impatient Jerome Gambit"? I hope not.)

It turns out that Komodo 10, at 30 ply, sees only about 3/100th of a pawn's difference between 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Bxf7+ and 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Bxf7+. Not much at all, as far as computer evaluation goes.

However, checking The Database, I noted 479 games with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Bxf7+ and 443 games with 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Bxf7+. In the first case, Black scored 61%; in the second case, 52%. From a practical point of view, that may be significant - even if you take into account that The Database is not as statistically representative for these two lines, because my data collection has not been as rigorous.

In both cases, it seems that Black's practical chances are improved as his development increases, even though White increases his development equally.

Curious.

Should White abandon the Jerome Gambit for 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Bxf7+? No, I wouldn't go that far.

But I would refer Readers to "Jerome-Knight Gambit" for a collection of those accelerated, impatient games.

Jerome Gambit: I Am Not As Smart As Bill Wall (Part 1)

I just resigned my Jerome Gambit game in the third round of the Italian Game Classic tournament at Chess.com. Truth be told, I ran out of ideas, in a bad position.

That's just one way that I am not as smart as Bill Wall - he never seems to run out of ideas. There are other ways, to be sure, and I will get to them.

In the mean time, I have to congratulate my opponent, who steadily and clearly out-played me, even more than I had feared.

Most likely I will finish in 3rd place in the tournament, out of 5 players, behind the undefeated Winawer99, and LttlePrince.

perrypawnpusher - LttlePrince
Italian Game Classic tournament, Chess.com, 2020

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ 

The Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

For the record, I had played this line against AndrewLLL earlier this round, winning in 18 moves. I was a bit worried that LttlePrince might notice, and learn from that game - as well as my blog notes.

This headache was just recently compounded, when I advanced to the fourth round of the Italian Game Battlegrounds tournament at Chess.com, along with TamasHK - and AndrewLLL (we had tied for top in our section and both moved on). So I can expect both of them to stop by and peruse this game coverage, too. (Hi, guys.)

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.d4 Bd6 8.dxe5 Bxe5 

9.Ne2

Previously, I had played 9.f4 in perrypawnpusher - joseluislopez, blitz, FICS, 2012 (0-1, 55) and 9.Bg5 in perrypawnpusher - lixuanxuan, blitz, FICS, 2014 (1-0, 22). I did not like how Black damaged my Queenside pawns in that first game, so I chose the text as a way of avoiding the Bishop-for-Knight swap.

According to The Database, 9.Ne2 was a novelty when I played it against AndrewLLL. I hadn't come up with anything better - so I played it again, against LttlePrince. 

9...c6 10.f4 Bc7 11.e5 Ne4 

A slight improvement over 11...Nd5, which AndrewLLL had played. This Knight seems to be floating in air, but, once it is cemented in place, it becomes a dominating force.

12.Qd3

Ah, yes. A decade ago, Wall, B - Stevanovic, R, Chess.com, 2010 had continued, instead, 12.O-O Bb6+ 13.Nd4 Bxd4+ 14.Qxd4 Qb6 15.Be3 Qxd4 16.Bxd4 and Black had succeeded in swapping Queens, exaggerating his Knight-for-a-pawn material edge. Since the game was a rare thing - a loss by Bill - I had figured that I could "improve" on his play by avoiding similar excitement along the a7-g1 diagonal. Fair enough; but, as I have pointed out, I am not as smart as Bill Wall...

12...d5 13.Be3 Bf5 14.Qb3 Bb6 15.O-O-O Bxe3+ 16.Qxe3 Qb6

This was my preparation for the line - no need to search for the game, it hasn't been posted on the blog, see "Do I Share Everything? No" - I even had an "answer" to "save" my Queen.

17.Nd4 g6 

Well, my King has castled, and my Rooks are linked - but his Rooks are linked, too. White's chances must lie in mobilizing his "Jerome pawns", starting with h2-h3, perhaps preparing this with g2-g3 in order to counter-act Black's possible prophylaxis with ...h7-h5 and ...h5-h4.

Instead, I decided upon a joke plan that probably would have worked in 1-minute bullet chess, and might have worked in 5-minute blitz chess, but had no place in a 3-days-per-move tournament. 

18.Nxf5 gxf5 19.Qh3 

See? Who could possibly resist 19...Nf2, forking both of my Rooks and my Queen?

Is this chess or stand up comedy?

[to be continued]

Jerome Gambit: Folie a Deux (Part 1)

I won my third round game - an Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit - in the "Italian game Classic" tournament at Chess.com, when my opponent and I seemed to have the same "hallucination" about a tense, tactical position. Up until then, I had been awkwardly struggling to lurch my way back to equality - only to be smacked around by a violent return of my sacrificed material.

Given the distracted level of my play, I consider myself quite lucky.

perrypawnpusher - Sp1derR1c0
Italian Game Classic, Chess.com, 2020

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bc5 

Whew! My game against Winawer99 in the same round continued 4...Nxe4, and I decided to avoid my past suffering with the Noa Gambit / Monck Gambit / Open Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit - 5.Bxf7+ - and played, instead, 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Bd3 dxe4 7.Bxe4 Bd6 8.Bxc6+ bxc6 9.d4, a line that I also have struggled with. It showed: on my way to a possibly drawn Bishops-of-opposite-colors endgame, I overlooked a checkmate in 2 moves (0-1, 21).

5.Bxf7+ 

The Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

What difference does the addition of Knights at c3 and f6 make, when compared to the regular Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+)?

Komodo 10 shows it to improve Black's position by about 3/4 of a pawn.

The Database has 2,731 games with the Four Knights version, with Black scoring 61%. This compares to 15,157 games with the Jerome, proper, with Black scoring 54%.

I have to admit, in my own games, Black scores 25% in my Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit games (62) versus scoring 17% in my regular Jerome Gambit games (336). 

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.d4 Re8

I like this move. Instead of worrying which piece to save, Black develops another one, on a crucial file. Let White figure it out!

8.dxc5 

In preparing this post, I was amused to discover that Komodo 10's second choice, here, was not a capture, but 8.0-0, fully relying on the fact that not all of the pieces will be able to escape, e.g. 8...Bd6 9.f4!? Nc6 10.e5, etc. 

That line, in turn, raised a question for me: Has anyone ever tried moving the f-pawn right away, i.e. 8.f4 ? It turns out that The Database has two examples - Svirfneblin - cosmoo, blitz, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 24) and Mvskoke - Panico, blitz, FICS, 2012 (1-0, 36). It is an example of going too far, however, as Black has 8...Bxd4 9.Qxd4 Nc6 and he is doing better than in the normal lines.

By the way, The Database has 6 games with 8.0-0 (Black scores 56%) - and in 3 of them, Svirfneblin had the White pieces. I will have to look at more of his games...


8...Kg8 

Finishing castling-by-hand. I have noted

This is an improvement over 8...Nc6 of perrypawnpusher - hudders, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 13) and 8...Nc4 of the tragic perrypawnpusher - TrentonTheSecond, blitz, FICS, 2010 (0-1, 9),

9.O-O d6 10.cxd6 cxd6 

This is probably an improvement over 10...Qxd6, which I faced a couple of times perrypawnpusher - hklett, blitz, FICS, 2013 (1-0, 31) and perrypawnpusher - strandskatan, blitz, FICS, 2013 (1-0, 38). I was prepared, sort of

After the game Houdini recommended the dull 11.Qxd6 cxd6 12.Rd1 with pressure against Black's d-pawn, although Black is still better.

11.Be3 

An odd move; the Bishop usually goes to g5. I was planning to play f2-f4, but, for some reason I was worried about ...Qb6+ at some point, so I protected the a7-g1 diagonal. Of course, White's b-pawn is not vulnerable to that enemy double attack, until the Bishop moves. I suspect Caffeine Deficiency Disorder.

11...Be6 12.f3 

This is the move that White sometimes plays when he gives up on his plan to attack, and decides to hunker down and challenge Black to do something with his material advantage. Suddenly - comparatively, as the time control was 3 days per move - that became my plan.

The word "collywobbles" comes to mind.

[to be continued]

Jerome Gambit: Another Recovered Game

In the previous post (see "Jerome Gambit: His Trap Was Part of My Trap") I noted that I had stumbled over another one of my blitz games that I had not yet posted on this blog. (With over 600 of my games in The Database, that seems quite possible.)

Playing over the game, it is hard to figure out why it did not appear: it is not an embarassing loss - or an interesting win, either. Play simply continues until Black errs, wherupon he resigns. 

perrypawnpusher - lixuanxuan
blitz, FICS, 2014

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ 

The Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.d4 Bd6 

In the main line Jerome Gambit, retreating the Bishop this way can lead to trouble, but, in the Four Knights variation, Black has protected against annoying Queen checks from d5.

8.dxe5

Back in 2011 - 2013, Philidor1792 experimented with the extravagant 8.f4!? in blitz play, scoring 7 - 2 - 1.

8...Bxe5 9.Bg5 

Often the Bishop goes to g5 in the Jerome Gambit, to put pressure on the enemy Knight, possibly in conjunction with Nc3-d5. Previously, I had played 9.f4 in perrypawnpusher - joseluizlopez, blitz, FICS, 2012 (0-1, 55), and, just recently, I had played 9.Ne2 in perrypawnpusher - AndrewLLL, Italian Game Battlefield, Chess.com, 2020 (1-0, 18).

8...h6 10.Bh4 Qe7 

11.Nd5 Qd6 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.O-O c6 14.Nxf6 Qxf6 15.c3 d5

16.exd5 cxd5 17.Qxd5+ Kg6 18.Rad1 Be6 19.Qe4+ Bf5 

White has 2 pawns for his sacrificed piece, but they are on either side of the board, and whatever passers they promise to produce are a long way into the future - if ever.

20.Qe3 h5 21.Qg3+ Bg4 

A strange slip - given that the time control was 14 minutes, no increment, and he had 9 minutes left on the clock - as it allows his Bishop and Queen to be pinned to his King. I chose the Queen

22.Rd6 Black resigned

Jerome Gambit: Not So Drawish Line

The Four Knights Opening has a reputation for being somewhat drawish, so Black, in the following game, might have relaxed a bit when his offer of an Alekhine's Defense turned into a Four Knghts.

Of course, White's plans were anything but peaceful. 

angelcamina - marcldk
1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2020

1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e5 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ 

The Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.d4 Neg4 

The Knight escapes danger, while thinking of aggression.

Best was probably 7...Bd6, which, in the regular Jerome Gambit line (minus Nc3 and ...Nf6), would be an error. With enough time, all this can be worked out; but, in a one minute game, who has enough time? 

8.dxc5 c6 

This creates a bit of a hole at d6 in Black's position, which White will eventually exploit.

9.O-O Re8 10.Bg5 Ne5 

The Knight seems to have lost its sense of direction. It will eventually sacrifice itself for a couple of pawns, as a "scientific" response to the gambit, but things never work out quite right.
  
11.f4 Ng6 12.e5 Nxe5 13.fxe5 Rxe5 14.Bxf6 gxf6

Material is even, and the pawn at c5 looks about ready to fall, but the first player's lead in development is what really matters.

15.Qd3 Qg8 

Protecting the h-pawn, but there is not time for that. Best was 15...Qe7, although the game would quickly slide downhill, anyhow: 16.Qxh7+ Ke8 17.Qg8+ Qf8 18.Qg6+ Kd8 19.Ne4!? another classic case of retarded development, Black's d-pawn blocking his light-squared Bishop, which, in turn, blocks in his Rook.

16.Rae1

This is a solid move, and White trades off his opponent's defender. With more time to calculate, he would have found (but didn't need) 16.Rxf6+ Kxf6 17.Re1+ and he would quickly recover his sacrificed Rook.

16...Rxe1 17.Rxe1 b6 

Struggling to free the Queenside - too late.

18.Qd6 bxc5 19.Re7+ Kg6 20.Qg3+ Kh6 21.Qxg8 Bb7 22.Rxh7 checkmate

Jerome Gambit: Another Historical "Oversight"

My game against AndrewLLL in the third round of the "Italian Game Battlegrounds" tournament at Chess.com (see the previous post) has already progressed enough that I can now correct a historical "oversight": despite my commitment to share all of my Jerome Games, regardless of outcome, on this blog, I sort of "overlooked" the game perrypawnpusher - joseluislopez, blitz, FICS, 2012 (0-1, 55).

You might notice that I lost that game against joseluislopez, and that maybe I was too embarassed to share it. That is not quite right: I did post an endgame position from our game that featured a double blunder, before my eventual loss by checkmate.

Yet, fair is fair, so here is the game - with a couple of lessons to learn.

perrypawnpusher - joseluislopez
blitz, FICS, 2012

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ 

The Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.d4 Bd6 8.dxe5 Bxe5 

9.f4

Starting the advance of the "Jerome pawns".

9...Bxc3+ 10.bxc3 d6 

I willingly traded my Queenside pawn structure for some time - Black's Bishop moved 4 times before leaving the board, while my Knight moved once. This was probably a mistake. A master would find active play to compensate, but I am not a master. Well on into the endgame, you will still be able to see the effect of the different Queenside pawn structures.

11.O-O Bg4 12.Qd3 Re8 13.h3 Bh5 14.g4 Bg6 

So far, White is playing aggressively, in true blitz style. Black probably should have returned material with 14...Bxg4!? which would have led to some danger to White's King.

15.f5 Nxe4 

This is a mis-reading of the position, as it allows White to open the f-file. Instead, Komodo 10 suggests the bizarre 15...Bh5!?, and has Black holding on to a small advantage.

16.fxg6+ 

This move leads to White's advantage, but the alternative, 16.Qd5+, would have led to checkmate: 16...Kf8 17.fxg6+ Qf6 18.Rxf6+ Ke7 19.Rf7+ Kd8 20.Qxb7 Re7 21.Rxe7 Kxe7 22.Qxc7+ Ke8 23.gxh7 Nf6 24.h8/Q+ Ng8 25.Qxg8 checkmate..

16...Kxg6 17.Qf3 

Looking to put more pressure on the enemy King, but overlooking Black's response, which is an effective remedy. More accurate would have been 17.Qd5, when 17...Nf6 (the only move to prevent checkmate) 18.Qf5+ Kf7 19.g5 would have led to a clear advantage.

17...Qf6 

White's dynamic compensation for his structural defects has been wasted. Black now grinds his opponent down - and a significant part of his plan is to take advantage of White's isolated Queenside pawns.

18.Qxf6+ Nxf6 19.Bd2 Re4 20.Rab1 b6 21.Rb4 Rae8 22.Rxe4 Rxe4 23.Kg2 Re2+ 24.Rf2 Rxf2+ 25.Kxf2 Ne4+ 26.Ke3 Nxd2 27.Kxd2 Kg5 28.Ke3 h5 29.gxh5 Kxh5 30.Kf3 Kh4 31.Kg2 g5 32.c4 c6 33.c3 b5 34.cxb5 cxb5 35.Kh2 a5 36.Kg2 b4 37.cxb4 axb4 38.Kh2 d5 39.Kg2 d4 40.Kf3 Kxh3 41.Ke4 g4 42.Kxd4 g3 43.Kc4 g2 44.Kxb4 g1=Q 45.a4 Qb6+ 46.Ka3 Kg4 47.Ka2 Kf4 48.Ka3 Ke4 49.Ka2 

I do not remember why I was playing on, a Queen down; most likely, my opponent was short of time. Only a miracle would save me - and I was not ready, when it came.

49...Qb5?? 50.Ka3?? 

Capturing the Queen would have led to a draw, even a pawn up. Probably I was short of time, too.

50...Qa5 51.Kb3 Kd4 52.Ka3 Qc3+ 53.Ka2 Qb4 54.Ka1 Kc3 55.a5 Qb2 checkmate

(My personal notes to this game suggested that I avoid 9.f4, and try something like 9.Ne2 - which I did, against AndrewLLL. We shall see how that works out.)

Jerome Gambit Fun

I have been playing through new and unexamined games in the updated The Database. There are many entertaining and educational games - and one player (among many) who caught my eye was DANNYALBERTO, at FICS. He shows up mostly with Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambits (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Bxf7+) with the occasional Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.Bxf7+) thrown in, from 2015 to the present. (He scores a very decent 64%.)

Check out the following end-of-the-game positions, just a few among many. The kind of fun that they represent is what draws many club players to the Jerome Gambit and various Jerome-ish lines.

DANNYALBERTO - Tseatsy, blitz, FICS, 2016

DANNYALBERTO - boggus, blitz, FICS 2016

DANNYALBERTO - NightEagle, blitz, FICS, 2017

DANNYALBERTO - fluters, blitz, FICS, 2019