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"?

Rybka Plays the Jerome Gambit

Here is the game from the Kasparovchess forum mentioned by Philidor1792 in the previous post, with Rybka matched against a player from the site.

Rybka - Mustitz
10 5 casual game, 2010

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 d6

I have nicknamed this line "the annoying defense" as Black gives back a piece and drains the position of much of its dynamism.

It is ironic that White, a computer in this game, must face a variation very popular with computer defenders.

8.fxe5 dxe5 9.Qh3+ Kf7 10.Qh5+  Ke6 11.Qh3+ Kf7 12.Qh5+ g6

Rybka would be content with a draw by repetition. Mustitz would not.

13.Qxe5 Qe7 

This move is new to The Database.

14.Qxe7+ Nxe7 15.c3 Nc6 16.d4 Nxd4 

17.cxd4 Bxd4 18.Nc3 Re8 19.Bd2 Bxc3 20.O-O+ Kg8 21.Bxc3 Rxe4 

This is an interesting position for both sides. White can be "happy" it is only a pawn down in a Jerome Gambit, while Black can be pleased to still be a pawn ahead. Certainly the signs of a possible draw via Bishops-of-opposite colors are present.

22.Rae1 Bf5 23.Rxe4 Bxe4 24.Rd1 Bf5 25.h3 Re8 26.Kf2 Be6 27.b3 Kf7 28.g4 c6 29.Kg3 Bd5 30.Rf1+ Ke7 31.Re1+ Kd7 32.Rxe8 Kxe8 

33.Kf4 h5 34.Kg5 hxg4 35.hxg4 Be4 36.Be5 Kd7 37.b4 Ke6 38.Bb8 a6 39.Bc7 Kd5 40.Kf4 Bb1 41.a4 Kc4 42.Bd6 b6 43.a5 bxa5 44.bxa5 Kd4 45.Be5+ Kd3 46.Bd6 Kd4 47.Be5+ Kd5 48.Bc3 c5 49.Be1 Kd4 50.Bf2+ Kc4 51.Ke5 Kd3 52.Bxc5 Kc4 53.Bf2 Drawn

The Italian Party Stunt

With the help of Google.com, I recently stumbled over a discussion of the Jerome Gambit, and the game Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1885, at KasparovChess.

Not familiar with the Russian language, I took advantage of Google's offer to translate the internet site's pages, and had several good laughs - starting with the title of the discussion in the forum, "The Italian Party Stunt 4.Sf7+". Indeed!

The site has an English translation, which has to be better than Google's. (I know, I know, "party" means "game", but it's hard not to laugh - there and elsewhere - anyhow.)

Of additional interest in the forum is the comment: 
В той же книге Вайнштейна "Ловушки ферзьбери"было доказано,что в этой позиции Белые играют 10.д4!(а не 10.с3?)и отбивают атаку.

This seems to refer to a book on traps by Weinstein - with an analytical suggestion for the Jerome Gambit / Blackburne game. Can anyone (other than Google) help with the translation of this Russian comment to English? Is any Reader familiar with the referred-to book? Is it an early work by Kasparov?

The suggestion of 10.d4 (!) is interesting in light of the earlier (5 1/2 years ago) discussion in "A Question of Theory and Practice" and "Sources".

Book Review: Blackmar Diemer Gambit, Method of Operating (Part 1)

Eric Jégo has come out with a second, English-language edition of his Blackmar Diemer Gambit, Method of Operating, Accepted - Declined - Avoided.

Today I want to share my review (from Chessville) of his first, French-language edition. Tomorrow, I will address what improvements he has made in the new edition.

Gambit Blackmar-Diemer Modus Operandi

by Eric Jégo


TheBookEdition (2010)
ISBN: 978-2-9536013-0-5
softcover, 188 pages
figurine algebraic notation
http://ericlediemerophile.blogspot.com/
http://gambit-blackmar-diemer.cabanova.fr/


Serious chess players are always looking for an edge. Bobby Fischer learned Russian to keep up with magazines coming out of the U.S.S.R. Later, grandmasters grabbed each issue of Chess Informant as it came out – as they do today with New In Chess.


The advent of computer chess game databases meant getting the largest and the newest – and keeping it up-to-date with games from internet sources such as "The Week in Chess." Internet sources like "Chess Vibes Openings" and "Chess Publishing" keep subscribers up-to-date on the latest opening wrinkles.

Serious followers of the Blackmar Diemer Gambit are no different. As Ken Smith wrote:

For every White initiative a better defense always seems to present itself for Black, and for every refutation the Black side recommends improvements are found for White.

Where do you find those improvements?

While it’s nice to have FM Eric Schiller’s Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, for example, it’s important to have IM Gary Lane’s The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit as well. Have Tim Sawyer’s Blackmar Diemer Gambit Keybook? His The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Keybook II is much bigger! You say you have Tom Purser’s entire run of “BDG World” magazine on CD? What about Tejler’s and Kampars’ “Blackmar Diemer Gambit / Opening Adventures” magazine?

And so it goes.

How far will the members of the Blackmar Diemer Gemeinde go in pursuit of esoteric knowledge? Brush up on their German so they can read Diemer’s original Vom Ersten Zug An Auf Matt! ? Freshen up their French, so they can appreciate Dany Sénéchaud’s, Emil J. Diemer, missionnaire des échecs acrobatiques ?

Actually, if you are a BDG fanatic, that’s not a bad idea. And I have just the place for you to start: Eric Jégo’s new Gambit Blackmar-Diemer. Even if you speak French like a Spanish cow, it’s time to get out your Petite Larousse English-French dictionary (or download a free copy to your iPhone) and start discovering.

Or you can simply bypass the language for now and just play over the 287 games that Jégo presents in figurine algebraic notation. More than half of them were played in 1999 or more recently – check your bookshelf, how many BDG titles do you have from the new millennium?

Eric Jégo is a serious member of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Gemeinde, as even a few minutes on his web pages (given at the top of this review) will show you. His enthusiasm is contagious.

Several things set Gambit Blackmar-Diemer apart (aside from being the only whole book in French devoted to the opening). For starters, it is one of the most attractive and well-laid out books that I have seen on the BDG, easily bypassing the efforts of Schachverlag Rudi Schmaus, for example, in their Das moderne Blackmar-Diemer-Gambit series. Props must be given to the author and the people at TheBookEdition (a print-on-demand publisher) for their efforts toward perfection.

Inside a glossy cover with a picture of the Black King lying on its side, signifying surrender, the book arranges its games in 28 chapters, by variation. Each chapter starts with the title, the opening moves, and a short strategic description. A “thermometer”-style bar is then given, showing the percentage of wins by White, draws, and wins by Black in the author’s database.

There is a diagram of the starting position for the variation, and then the games follow, with words for annotations, not merely Informant symbols. (Each game “starts” from the diagram, so that the initial moves are not given; this accommodates transpositions from other openings into the BDG, and likely saves space as well.)

At the beginning of Gambit Blackmar-Diemer, after a striking "Preface" by Dany Sénéchaud (it’s not often that you see Jean Paul Sartre referred to in a chess book; my comparison of IM Ilya Odessky’s writing to Fyodor Mikhaylovich Dostoyevsky hardly counts) and a "Preamble" by the author, readers encounter Jégo’s 14 “Elementary Principles” of play in the Blackmar Diemer Gambit.

For example, “After Black castles, the White King Bishop will to to c4 against …g6, or d3 against …e6” and “White’s Queen Bishop will ideally be placed on g5, to pin or eliminate the Black Knight on f6.” Thereafter, the author can simply refer in a discussion in his annotations to the relevant principle, e.g. “PE8.” (BDG enthusiast Rev. Tim Sawyer lists all 14 Elementary Principles in his review on Tom Purser’s blog – another fine BDG resource.)

At the end of the book there is a short list of BDG references (here is a long, albeit incomplete, list) and a very nice list of internet resources.

I have a few, basic, suggestions for a second edition of Gambit Blackmar-Diemer. I know that it was probably done to conserve space, but identifying a game solely by the players’ names and the year it was played – e.g. “Le Goff F. X. – Guinovart J. 2005” – is too spare; at least the location of the match, if not the name or kind of tournament, would be informative additions. A Players’ Index would be nice, as well.

In the meantime, here is one of the 287 games in the book – the only one that doesn’t start from a diagram, but has all of its moves; and given that White was played by Gary Kasparov, no wonder...

Kasparov – Carneiro
2004

(I discovered that this game was played in a simultaneous exhibition in Sao Paolo, Brazil - RK)

1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3.Bf4 d5 4.f3 Nf6 5.e4 dxe4 6.Nc3 exf3 7.Nxf3 Bg4

(Via the Trompowsky Attack, Kasparov has made his way to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, Teichmann Defense – actually, a move up for White.

A little research shows that if instead 7…e6, we would transpose to Jansa – Sosonko, Amsterdam 1975 – a BDG, Euwe Defense, again a move up. For that matter, 6…e3, instead of 6…exf3, would have transposed to Milov – Gelfand, Biel, 1995 – a BDG declined, Langeheinecke Defense, likewise a move up.

Perhaps the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit is just a tempo away from making it big with the Grandmasters? - RK)

8.h3 Bxf3 9.Qxf3 c6 10.O-O-O e6 11.Bc4 Nbd7 12.d5 cxd5 13.Nxd5 Nxd5 14.Bxd5 a5 15.Bxb7 Ra7 16.Rxd7 Qf6 17.Rhd1 Be7 18.Rxe7+ Qxe7 19.Qc6+ Kf8 20.Bd6 g6 21.Bxe7+ Kxe7 22.Qc5+ Kf6 23.Qxa7 Rf8 24.Qd4+ e5 25.Qd6+ Kg7 26.Qxe5+ Kg8 27.Qf6 h5 28.Bd5 Kh7 29.Bxf7 1-0

So: if you’ve made the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit your secret weapon, go one more step and make Eric Jégo’s Gambit Blackmar-Diemer your ultra super secret weapon – only your opponents will regret that you did so!

Not Yet the Sunday Book Review

Consistent with the theme of past Sunday Book Reviews (and references; see Catalog of Chess Mistakes, Why You Lose At Chess, Surprise in Chess, and Sense of Danger) a  trio of relevant quotes, pro, con and general:


One of the important ways of conducting a chess game is to develop in such a way that the opponent will slightly overrate his position, that he will feel obligated to attain something, that his expectations will be somewhat greater than justified. When such is the case, the opponent tends to omit in his calculations considerationf of any and all continuations which give results inferior to his expectations.

Grandmaster Larry Evans, Chess Life, 1961

When your opponent complicates things, there is a strong temptation to look for a refutation of his idea, to pick up the gaunlet, to rise to the challenge. Of course, this is exactly what he wants and why such distractions must be resisted. If you have already decided on a good strategy, why drop it for something that suits your opponent? This requires strong self control, as pressure to switch can be both internal and external. Your ego wants to prove you can beat him at his own game as well as to quiet your critics - actual or potential.

Gary Kasparov, How Life Imitates Chess, 2007 

Abstract
Expert chess players, specialized in different openings, recalled positions and solved problems within and outside their area of specialization. While their general expertise was at a similar level players performed better with stimuli from their area of specialization.* The effect of specialization on both recall and problem solving was strong enough to override general expertise – players remembering positions and solving problems from their area of specialization performed at around the level of players one standard deviation above them in general skill.** Their problem solving strategy also changed depending on whether the problem was within their area of specialization or not. When it was, they searched more in depth and less in breadth; with problems outside their area of specialization, the reverse. The knowledge that comes from familiarity with a problem area is more important than general purpose strategies in determining how an expert will tackle it...

Merim Bilalić and Peter McLeod, "Specialization Effect and its influence on Memory and Problem Solving in Expert Chess Players"

[* I guess this is why we study our favorite chess openings, especially our "pet lines" as GM Alburt calls them – RK]
 
[** After posting "A Slice of Jerome Gambit" I asked ChessBase8 to check, and it seems that when I play the Jerome Gambit online my performance rating is about 225 points above my actual (mostly-FICS) internet rating. I do not know how that translates into standard deviations for FICS (and elsewhere), but if the United States Chess Federation standard deviation is around 200 points, the 225 points of improvement seems to be about what Bilalić and Peter McLeod were suggesting. – RK]

Sunday Book Review: The Future of Post-Human Chess

The Future of Post-Human Chess

Peter Baofu, PhD
Cambridge International Science Publishing Ltd. (2010)
hard cover, 440 pages
http://www.cisp-publishing.com/



[Having received a communication from the author that "there are a few comments in the reviews which are not correct or questionable" I have removed the review. - Rick]