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.
While it is nice to surprise an opponent with the Jerome Gambit, more and more often defenders are showing that they have an idea about how to defend - if not outright refute - the opening. What's an attacker to do?
Well, play on, of course!
Wall,B - Guest1839713
PlayChess.com, 2013
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 d6 8.fxe5 dxe5
The so-called "annoying defense" (see "Philidor1792 vs the Annoying Defense" Parts 1, 2 and 3; "Further Exploration" and "Theory from the Thematic Tournament" Parts 3 and 4), the refutation choice of most computers, which has even given Bill trouble from time to time.
It is interesting to put this in perspective, however, in light of the previous post on "refutation".
The Database has over 10,000 games starting with the Jerome Gambit sequence 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+, with White scoring 45%. Interestingly enough, against the "annoying defense" White has scored 58%.
Bill has scored 70% against the "annoying defense" which looks good until you realize that his over-all Jerome Gambit score is 96%.
It is as if a sage has warned players: After the refutation, the gods have placed the rest of the game...
9.Qh3+ Kf7 10.Qh5+ Kf8 11.Qxe5
11...Bd6
This certainly looks aggressive enough, but Bill recommends, instead,11...Qh4+ 12.g3 Qe7.
12.0-0+
Wise. As Bill points out, there is more danger in 12.Qd5? Qh4+ 13.Ke2 Qg4+ 14.Ke1 Qxg2 15.Rf1+ Nf6.
12...Nf6 13.Qg5 Kg8
Instead, 13...h6 14.Qh4 g5 was seen in Colossus - Spike1.2, Jerome Forced Computer Chess Match, 2006 (0-1, 43); while 13...Be6 was seen in several games in the legendary Fisher-Kirshner,M - Knight Stalker, Mission San Jose, Fremont, CA, 1993 match.
14.e5
White needs to push on, as Bill demonstrates. Not 14.Nc3? Bxh2+ 15.Kxh2 Ng4+
14...Bc5+ 15.Kh1 Be7 16.exf6 Bxf6
What can I say?
Bill Watterson said it best when he titled one of his Calvin and Hobbes books:
To wit, Black has "scientifically" returned the sacrificed material to calm the storm. True, he is a pawn down, but he hopes that the "two Bishops" will compensate in an open position.
17.Qc5 h6 18.Nc3 c6 19.Ne4 Bd4 20.Qc4+ Kh7
Black has castled by hand.
21.c3 Be5?
Instead, Bill recommends 21...Re8 22.cxd4 Rxe4 with about an equal game, although 22.Ng3!? might be a way for White to maintain an edge.
22.d4 Bc7 23.Qd3
This is a strong move, but Bill points out 23.Nf6+! gxf6 (23...Kg6 24.Qd3+ Kf7 25.Ne8+ kills) 24.Qf7#
23...Rf8 24.Nf6+
Better late than never: a nice discovered double check.
24...Kh8 25.Qh7 checkmate
Clever!
