In the following Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) game, the same player from the previous post again tries his best against the "annoying" or "silicon" defense. The line the players explore looks simple, but it is not.
Anonymous - Anonymous
1 move / 3 days, Chess.com, 2020
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
White has one pawn for his sacrificed piece.
Black's King is annoyingly safe in the center, but White will try batting him around a bit.
This defense was seen as early as the 1993 match between Micah Fisher-Kirshner and the computer program KnightStalker (an early version of ChessBase's Fritz, marketed in the US).
9.Qh3+ Kd6 10.Qd3+ Ke7 11.Qg3 Kf6
Up until Black's last move, we have been following games where Black was played by computer programs Comet B50, Demon 1.0, Fritz 8, Junior 7, Knightstalker, La Dame Blanche 2.0c, Rybka (v.1 and 2.3.2a), and Zarkov 4.7. None of them chose the move in the game.
What's the problem with the move? Because Black does not want to give up a pawn (11...Kf7 12.Qxe5) he allows the Rook to come to f1, with a check that requires another King move.
12.Rf1+ Ke6
What is going on?
Well, it's probably not a good idea for White to go pawn-grabbing with 13.Qxg7, as Black not only has the development 13...Nf6, with an even game, he has the sharp riposte 13...Qh4+, when 14.Kd1 Qh5+ 15.Ke1 Qg6 forces the exchange of Queens, and Black's development, activity and Bishop pair give him a clear advantage.
Because computers almost always see White as worse in the Jerome Gambit opening, they constantly look for drawing lines as "best", and, here, Komodo 10 offers one: 13.Qb3+ Kd7 14.Qb5+ Kd6 15.d4 Qh4+ (necessary to move the Queen, otherwise 15...Bxd4 16.Qd5+ Ke7 17.Rf7+ wins it) 16.Rf2 Bxd4 17.Qd5+ Ke7 18.Qf7+ Kd6 19.Qd5+, etc.
So, it's not surprising that White, instead, gives the enemy King another kick, even if it's not objectively the best move.
13.Qg4+ Kd6 14.Qxg7
This capture has its risks. The Queen would probably be safer on g3, but White is not seeking out safety.
14...Ne7
Protecting the safe Rook. However, after 14...Qh4+ 15.Kd1 Bg4+ White's position would be a mess.
15.d4 Bxd4 16.c3
White is still playing with only a couple of pieces, but Komodo 10 rates him as having a slight edge, especially after the recommended return of a piece with 16...Ng6. The reasonable alternative, which Black plays, leads to a difficult position for the defender.
16...Bb6 17.Bg5
You can almost hear White saying "Gotcha!"
17...Re8 18.Na3
This Knight means trouble.
18...Be6
Black needed to try 18...Bg4, but 19.Nc4+ Kc6 (other moves are worse) 20.Qf7 would force him to return a couple of pieces, i.e. 20...Bf2+ 21.Rxf2 b6 22.Nxe5+ Kb7 23.Nxg4.
White's next move settles everything.
19.O-O-O+ Kc6 20.Rxd8 Raxd8 21.Qxe5 Bxa2 22.Qb5+ Kd6 23.Rf6+ Be6 24.e5 checkmate
Here is the latest Jerome Gambit from Vlasta Fejfar, featuring two wandering Queens. White's Queen successfully attacks, while Black's Queen is a few steps slow in defending. In a surprise twist, the player who loses his Queen, wins the game!
vlastous - Marwan 86
internet, 2018
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4
This move is at least as old as D'Aumiller - AP, Livorno, 1878 (1-0, 19), appeared in 2 of the Jerome - Charles correspondence games in their 1881 match (both games incomplete), and appeared in 6 of the games in the legendary (to Jerome Gambit players, anyhow) Fisher-Kirshner - KnightStalker match of 1993.
4...Qf6 8. Rf1 g6
We have seen a couple of Vlasta's opponents try other ideas:
8...Nd3+ "creatively returning a piece" in Vlastous - Kombe, internet, 2017, (1-0, 22); and
8...Nc6 "cold-blooded, but playable" in Fejfar,V - Vins, corr Czech Republic, 2015, (1-0, 23).
9.Qh3+ Ke7 10.fxe5 Qxe5 11.Qf3 Qf6
A common criticism of the Jerome Gambit is that White moves his Queen too early and too often. So far in this game, however, Black has kept pace with White.
Vlastous 2344 -Daboa 1799, Chessmaniac.com, 2016, (1-0, 42) saw the alternative, 11...Nf6.
12.Qe2 Qa6
You can almost hear Black sigh "Enough, already!". The threat to exchange Queens is easily parried, though, and Her Majesty soon finds that she needs to get back in the fray.
13.d3 Ke8 14.Nc3 Ne7 15.Nd5 Qc6
To protect against the threatened Knight fork at c7.
Black's best defense was 15...Kd8, when a typical messy game can continue with 16.Bg5 c6 17.b4 cxd5 18.bxc5 dxe4 19.Rf7 Re8 20.Qxe4 Qe6 21.Qxe6 dxe6 22.Rxh7 when White clearly has compensation for his sacrificed material, although the game is about even. (Who is more comfortable, though?)
16.Qf3 Nxd5
Opening the e-file with the enemy Queen facing the King is pretty risky, but the best move, 16...Nf5, still loses. (And it turns out that White doesn't need the e-file after all.)
17.Qf7+ Kd8 18.Bg5+ Be7
Black does not want to give up his Queen with 18...Qf6.
White decides to give up his.
19.Qf8+ Rxf8 20.Rxf8 checkmate
Very nice.
I received a couple of Jerome Gambit games from chessfriend Vlasta Fejfar. The first involves a complicated, frustrating, and, ultimately, philosophical defense. The second is almost off-the-road adventuring.
Let's dive into the tough stuff first. After a theoretical opening "discussion" and "scientific" middle game, there follows a textbook attack and a pleasant checkmate.
vlastous - franciscoribeiro
internet, 2017
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 d6
The annoying "annoying defense" (see 1 and 2 for starters). Computers love it. Vlasta has a lot of experience facing it.
Black offers to return one of the two sacrificed pieces. Although his King appears a bit precarious, much of the dynamism in the game is drained off.
White need to go into the line with a plan - and a decision about what kind of outcome he is looking for.
8.fxe5 dxe5 9.Qh3+ Kd6 10.Qd3+ Ke7 11.Qg3
Here the game Fejfar,V - Pressl, corr Czech Republic, 2015 was drawn.
Is a draw acceptable to White, who started the game with a Bashi-Bazouk attack, sacrificing two pieces? Is a draw acceptable to Black, who, only a few moves ago, had an "objectively" won game?
It is a typical Jerome Gambit irony that could be expressed in the idea: Both sides stand better (or worse).
11...Kf8
A little bit better is 11...Kf7, although Vlasta has experience with that line, too: 12.Qxe5 Bd7 (12...Bd4 13.Rf1+ Nf6 14.Qh5+
Kg8 15.Qe2 Be6 16.c3 Be5 17.g3 c5 18.d3 Qd6 19.Bf4 Bg4 20.Qe3 Bh3 21.Rf3
Bg4 22.Rf1 Re8 23.Nd2 Bxf4 24.gxf4 b5 25.e5 Nd5 26.Qg3 Qg6 27.Ne4 c4 28.Kd2 Bf5 29.Nd6 Rd8 30.dxc4 bxc4 31.Rae1 Qxg3 32.hxg3 Ne7 33.Ke3 Bd3 34.Rg1 Nf5+ 35.Nxf5 Bxf5 36.Rd1 Kf7 37.Rd4 h5 38.Rgd1 Rc8 39.Rh1 g6 40.Rh2
Ke7 41.a4 Rc6 42.Rd5 Be6 43.Rb5 Rc7 44.Rd2 h4 45.gxh4 Rxh4 46.Rd4 Rh3+
47.Kf2 Rd3 48.a5 Rxd4 49.cxd4 Bd7 50.Rb8 Ke6 51.Ke3 Kd5 52.a6 c3 53.bxc3
Rxc3+ 54.Kf2 Bc8 55.Ra8 Rc7 56.Ke3 Rc3+ 57.Kf2 Kxd4 58.Rxa7 Ke4 59.Rg7
Kf5 60.a7 Ra3 61.Rf7+ Kg4 62.Rf8 Bb7 63.e6 Rxa7 64.e7 Bc6 65.e8=Q Bxe8
66.Rxe8 Kxf4 67.Rf8+ Kg4 68.Rc8 g5 69.Rc3 Kh4 70.Kg1 Ra2 71.Rb3 g4 draw, Fejfar,V - Goc,P) 13.Qh5+ g6 14.Qxc5 Qh4+ 15.Qf2+ Qxf2+ 16.Kxf2 Nf6
17.d3 Rhf8 18.Nc3 Kg7 19.Ke2 Bg4+ 20.Ke3 Be6 21.h3 Nh5 22.Ne2 Rae8 23.b3
Nf6 24.Ba3 Rf7 25.c4 Rd8 26.Raf1 Rfd7 27.Nf4 Bg8 28.Bb2 Rf8 29.e5 Re7 30.Kd2 Ne8 31.e6+ Black resigned, Fejfar,V - Svoboda, corr Czech Cup, 2016
He has also seen 11...Ke8 12.Nc3 Bd4 13.Rf1 Qd7 14.Nd5 c6 15.Ne3 Nf6 16.d3 Qc7 17.c3 Bxe3 18.Bxe3 Qe7 19.O-O-O
Rf8 20.Rf3 Bd7 21.Rdf1 c5 22.Bxc5 draw, Fejfar - Kyzlink, corr Czech
Republic, 2015.
You may have noticed in some of these games Vlasta was testing the Jerome Gambit in correspondence play - like Alonzo Wheeler Jerome did with his gambit over a century ago. A draw is a reasonable outcome.
12.Qxe5
For comparison, a couple of other games:
12. Rf1+ Nf6 13. Qxe5 Bd6 14. Qg5 Bxh2 15. Nc3 Be6 $2 16. e5 h6 17. Qe3 Qe7
18. exf6 gxf6 19. d3 c5 $6 20. Bd2 Rd8 21. O-O-O b6 $6 22. g3 Kg7 23. Rh1 Rd4
24. Rxh2 h5 25. Re1 Kf7 26. Rhe2 Rd6 27. Ne4 Rc6 28. Qf3 Kg6 29. Ng5 fxg5 30.
Qxc6 Kh7 31. Rxe6 Black resigned, Wall,B - Shah,V, chess-db, 2015; and
12.d3 Nf6 13.Rf1 Qe7 14.Nc3 c6 15.Bg5 Kf7 16.O-O-O Rf8 17.h3 Kg8 18.Rf3 Qe6
19.Rdf1 Be7 20.Kb1 Bd7 21.Nd1 Rae8 22.Qh4 b5 23.Ne3 Qd6 24.Qf2 Be6 25.g4
c5 26.Nf5 Bxf5 27.gxf5 Nh5 28.Bc1 Nf4 29.h4 c4 30.d4 Nh5 31.d5 b4 32.Qe2
c3 33.b3 a5 34.a4 bxa3 35.Rxc3 Black resigned, Wall,B - ubluk, Chess.com, 2012.
12...Qh4+
The alternative, 12...Bd6, was seen in a number of games in the legendary Fisher-Kirshner - KnightStalker match in 1993. When people send me Jerome Gambit games, they usually start with Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1884, and then follow with the Fisher-Kirshner - KnightStalker games.
The text is sharp and relatively unexplored. The only other game with it in The Database is the computer game WB Nimzo 2000b - La Dame Blanche 2.0c, Jerome Gambit thematic tournament, 2009 - which was a 109 move draw!
13.g3 Qe7 14.Qxe7+ Kxe7
The game has left the path of the computers (which contained 14...Nxe7) and has transposed to 3 games played by Philidor1792 in 2012.
15.Nc3
Alternately, d2-d3 was seen in Philidor1792 - NN, 5 0 blitz, 2012 (1-0, 30) and c2-c3 was seen in Philidor1792 - NN, 5 0 blitz, 2012 (1-0, 22) and Philidor1792 - NN, no time control, 2012 (0-1, 27).
15...c6
Played to keep White's Knight off of d5. Probably better was 15...Nf6, but Black seems to have been nervous about a possible Bishop pin at g5 (see move 17).
16.Na4 Bd6 17.d4 h6 18.O-O
Bh3 19.Rf3 Nf6
A puzzling move. Black gives back his extra piece and secures what should be an even position. Stockfish 8, instead, suggests castling-by-hand on the Queenside, 19...Rf8 20.Bf4 Kd8 21.Nc5 Kc8, with advantage.
It must be said that Black is employing the "scientific" idea (as he did on move 7) of accepting the sacrificed material, and then giving it back some time later.
20.e5 Bxe5 21.dxe5 Nd7
Vlasta suggested that 21...Ng4 would have led to an even game.
22.b3
Nxe5
Black is in too much of a hurry to capture the pawn. It will cost him another piece.
23.Re3 Kd6 24.Ba3+ Ke6 25.Rae1 b5 26.Rxe5+ Kf6 27.Bb2 Kg6 28. Nc5 Rad8
White is winning now - he has an advantage in material and a developing attack on the enemy King.
29.Re7 Rhg8 30.Ne6 Bxe6 31.R1xe6+ Kh7 32.
Rxc6 Rd1+
One last Hurrah. White's pressure on g7 is deadly.
33.Kg2 Rb1 34.Bf6 a5 35.Rcc7 Kg6 36.Bxg7 Rd1
37.Rc6+ Kg5 38.Re5+ Kg4 39.h3 checkmate
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.
analysis diagram
16.e5+ Black resigned
The idea of playing the Jerome Gambit against a computer chess engine seems almost as irrational as the Jerome Gambit itself. How is it possible to give the silicon beast a couple of pieces and expect to survive? One doesn't give the computer "Jerome Gambit odds"!
Still, four years ago, I noted on this blog
It was not long after I began looking into the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) that I noticed one chess match kept turning up in the databases: in 1993, between the human Micah Fischer-Kirshner and the chess-playing program KnightStalker, an early version of Fritz. As luck would have it, I was able to interview Micah about his experience for this blog.
The Jerome Gambit seemed a natural for matches, especially ones involving computers. Jeroen_61 of the Netherlands ran one with Hiarcs, Junior 7, Shredder Paderdorn (6.02) and Fritz 7.
I tried a few myself, notably a Fritz8 vs Fritz5 encounter and a Delphi vs Wealk Delphi contest. Each attempt had its shortcomings. (Perhaps you read about them here.)
The mysterious "perfesser" played an introductory 4-game match with the Talking LCD Chess Gadget. Like the Jerome Gambit itself, it was good for some chuckles.
Topping all efforts so far, "RevvedUp" and his trusted companions Hiarcs 8, Shredder 8, Yace Paderborn, Crafty 19.19 and Fritz 8 explored the Jerome Gambit in a 30-game encounter. It was simply war.
There is also the earlier summary of Randy Tipton's computer vs computer games, and the more recent adventures of "Ionman vs the Bots".
So, when I noticed that the new group of Bill Wall games had some of him playing the Jerome Gambit against some engines, I had to check them out.
The following game is very interesting. The human's flurry of tactics to finish off the game is impressive.
Wall, Bill - Abrok chess engine
Palm Bay, Florida, 2015
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 Qf6
A mild surprise. Computers tend to delight in "the annoying defense" 7...d6.
8.Rf1 g6 9.Qh3+
Bill has a couple of cautions here: 9.fxe5? Qxf1+ 10.Kxf1 gxh5 and 9.Qd1? Qh4+ 10.g3 Qxh2 11.fxe5 Qxg3+ 12.Rf2 Qxf2 checkmate.
9...Ke7
Bill has been here before:
9...Ng4 10.Qxg4+ Ke7 11.Nc3 d5 (11...d6 12.Nd5+ Kd8 13.Nxf6 Bxg4 14.Nxg4 h5 15.Nf2 Kd7 16.Nh3 Re8 17.d3 Nf6 18.Ng5 Ng4 19.h3 Nh2 20.Rh1 Black resigned, Wall,B - Guest3164644, PlayChess.com, 2013) 12.Nxd5+ Black resigned, Wall,B - Betarsolta, PlayChess.com, 2015; also
9...Kf7 10.fxe5 Qxf1+ 11.Kxf1 d6 12.Qc3 Black resigned, Wall,B - Guest1690223, PlayChess.com, 2012; and
9...Ke7 10.Nc3 c6 d6 (10...c6 11.fxe5 Qxe5 12.d3 Nf6 13.Qh4 Bd4 14.Bg5 Bxc3+ 15.bxc3 Qxc3+ 16.Ke2 Qxc2+ 17.Bd2 Qb2 18.Rxf6 Qxf6 19.Bg5 Rf8 20.Bxf6+ Rxf6 21.e5 Black resigned, Wall,B - XCCY, FICS, 2011) 11.Nd5+ Kd8 12.Qg3 Qe6 13.fxe5 dxe5 14.d4 Ne7 15.dxc5 Nxd5 16.Bg5+ Ke8 17.exd5 Qxd5 18.Rf2 Be6 19.Rd2 Qxc5 20.0-0-0 Rf8 21.Qh4 h5 22.Bh6 Rf5 23.Rd8+ Rxd8 24.Rxd8+ Kf7 25.Rf8+ Qxf8 26.Bxf8 Kxf8 27.Qd8+ Kg7 28.Qxc7+ Kh6 29.h4 Rf1+ 30.Kd2 Rf2+ 31.Ke3 Rf5 32.Qd8 a6 33.Qh8 checkmate, Wall,B - Aburasian, Chess.com, 2010.
10.Nc3 Kd8
This is a small slip.
It must be noted that in a Jerome Gambit computer vs computer tournament over a decade ago, Hiarcs 9 chose 10...Kd8 three times:
Junior 7 - Hiarcs 9
Jerome Gambit, The Jeroen Experience, 2003
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 Qf6 8.Rf1 g6 9.Qh3+ Ke7 10.Nc3 Kd8 11.fxe5 (11.Nd5 d6 12.Qc3 Qh4+ 13.g3 Qxh2 14.fxe5 Bg4 15.Qd3 Ne7 16.Nf4 Nc6 17.Ne6+ Bxe6 18.exd6 Ne5 19.Qe2 Qxg3+ White resigned, Fritz 8 - Hiarcs 9, The Jeroen Experience, 2003) 11...Qxe5 12.d4 (12.d3 Bb4 13.Qh4+ Ne7 14.Bd2 d5 15.0-0-0 d4 16.Bf4 Qe6 17.Nd5 Bd6 18.Bxd6 cxd6 19.Rf6 Qe5 20.Nxe7 g5 21.Qh6 Qxe7 22.Rxd6+ Bd7 23.Rxd4 Kc7 24.Rc4+ Bc6 25.Qh3 b5 26.Rc3 Kb7 27.d4 Bxe4 28.Re1 Rad8 29.Qd3 Rhe8 30.Qxb5+ Ka8 31.Rce3 Qd6 32.Rxe4 Rxe4 33.Rxe4 Qxh2 34.Qf1 h5 35.c3 g4 36.Qe2 Rc8 37.Re8 Rxe8 38.Qxe8+ Kb7 39.Qe4+ Kb6 40.c4 Qg1+ 41.Kd2 Qf2+ 42.Kc3 Qg3+ 43.Kb4 Qf2 44.Qe6+ Kc7 45.Qe7+ Kc8 46.Kc5 Qxb2 47.Qe8+ Kc7 48.Qc6+ Kb8 49.a4 Qb6+ 50.Qxb6+ axb6+ 51.Kd5 h4 52.Ke4 Kc7 53.Kf4 h3 54.gxh3 gxh3 55.Kg3 h2 56.Kxh2 Kd7 57.Kg3 Kc7 58.Kf4 Kc6 59.Ke5 Kc7 60.Ke6 Kb7 61.d5 Kc8 62.Ke7 Kc7 63.d6+ Black resigned, Fritz 5.32 - Hiarcs 9, The Jeroen Experience, 2003) 12...Bxd4 13.Rf8+ Ke7 14.Qf3 g5 15.Rf5 Bxc3+ 16.bxc3 Qg7 17.Rxg5 Qf6 18.Bf4 d6 19.e5 dxe5 20.Qe3 h6 21.Bxe5 Qxg5 22.Bf4+ Kf7 23.Bxg5 hxg5 24.Qxg5 Nf6 25.0-0-0 Rh5 26.Qf4 Rc5 27.Rf1 Rf5 28.Qxc7+ Kg6 29.Re1 b6 30.h4 Rc5 31.Qg3+ Kf7 32.Qd6 Bg4 33.Re7+ Kg6 34.Qd3+ Rf5 35.c4 Rh8 36.Qg3 Rc5 37.Re6 Kg7 38.Rxf6 Kxf6 39.Qxg4 Rhc8 40.Qd4+ Ke6 41.Qe4+ Kf6 42.Qf3+ Ke6 43.g4 Rxc4 44.Qf5+ Ke7 45.g5 R4c5 46.Qe4+ Kd6 47.Kb2 b5 48.g6 Rc4 49.Qf5 R4c5 50.Qf6+ Kd7 51.g7 Rxc2+ 52.Kb3 R2c4 53.g8R Rxg8 54.Qf7+ Kd6 55.Qxg8 a6 56.Qxc4 bxc4+ 57.Kxc4 Ke5 58.Kb4 Kf4 59.a4 Kg4 60.Ka5 Kxh4 61.Kxa6 Kg3 62.Kb5 Kf4 63.a5 Ke5 64.a6 Kd6 65.a7 Ke5 66.Kc5 Ke4 67.a8Q+ Ke3 68.Qd5 Ke2 69.Kd4 Kf2 70.Qe4 Kf1 71.Ke3 Kg1 72.Kf3 Kh1 73.Qc2 Kg1 74.Qg2 checkmate
11.fxe5 Qxe5
This mistake costs the game. Black had to overprotect f8 with 11...Qg7.
12.d4
The move that the computer either overlooked or incorrectly evaluated.
12...Bxd4 13.Rf8+ Ke7 14.Qf3 Qc5 15.Nd5+ Kd6 16.c3 Bg7 17.Be3 Qc4
18.e5+
If the computer could groan, it would.
18...Bxe5 19.Rd1 Bg7 20.Nb6+ Black resigned
It was not long after I began looking into the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) that I noticed one chess match kept turning up in the databases: in 1993, between the human Micah Fischer-Kirshner and the chess-playing program KnightStalker, an early version of Fritz. As luck would have it, I was able to interview Micah about his experience for this blog.
The Jerome Gambit seemed a natural for matches, especially ones involving computers. Jeroen_61 of the Netherlands ran one with Hiarcs, Junior 7, Shredder Paderdorn (6.02) and Fritz 7.
I tried a few myself, notably a Fritz8 vs Fritz5 encounter and a Delphi vs Wealk Delphi contest. Each attempt had its shortcomings. (Perhaps you read about them here.)
The mysterious "perfesser" played an introductory 4-game match with the Talking LCD Chess Gadget. Like the Jerome Gambit itself, it was good for some chuckles.
Topping all efforts so far, "RevvedUp" and his trusted companions Hiarcs 8, Shredder 8, Yace Paderborn, Crafty 19.19 and Fritz 8 explored the Jerome Gambit in a 30-game encounter. It was simply war.
And then there is that as yet untold tale of two expert-to-master-level American players who played a Jerome Gambit match 5 years ago, but the games remain hidden from public view, pending the players' release of a monograph on the opening...
Perhaps that will show up on this blog one of these days.
http://jeromegambit.blogspot.com/2008/11/jerome-gambit-and-perfesser-part-i.html
iv
