Jerome Gambit: The Science of the Draw?! (Part 2)

[continued from previous post]

Part 1, the last post, ended with my computer assistant, Stockfish 9, in a rage at foolish human behavior...

In the above position I captured Black's Knight on d5. The silicon choice for White was, instead, 17.Qh3+!?, preferring to capture the Bishop after 17...Kb8 with 18.Rxf7. This doesn't gain a pawn immediately, as Black has 18...Nb4 19.Nc3 Nc2 20.Rb1 Qd4+ 21.Kh1 Qxc4. 

Analysis diagram





Stockfish 9 now sees White as almost 4 pawns better - it took me a while to see that it does not think that Black's Knight on c2 will escape. Yet the computer rates lines without the mischief-making 18...Nb4 followed by 19...Nc2 as even worse.

By the way, in the analysis diagram the Knight at e7 is not hanging, due to the threat of checkmate at f1. White's best is 22.e6!? - but then I am back trying to figure out why the first player is "clearly" winning.

Oh, well, back to the game. From the first diagram on this page:

perrypawnpusher - Krisstianes_017

"Italian Battleground", Chess.com, 2018

17.cxd5 Bxd5 18.Nc3 Bc6 

White's development is better, but he has that nagging pawn on e5 that looks more weak than strong. Stockfish 9 sees an advantage for the first player after 19.Qh3+!? Kb8 20.Be3 b6 21.e6!? but, during the game, I didn't see it - and began to look for a draw. Clearly a failure of nerve!

Consider that: the "psychology" of the Jerome Gambit had been turned on its head. Again, props to Krisstianes_017.

19.Qg5 Ng6 

My opponent is no fool. His King will be safer after an exchange of Queens, even if his Rook is still trapped at a8.

20.Qxd8+

This is silly, but according to my plan.

20...Rxd8 21.Bg5 Rf8 22.Rad1 Rxf1+ 23.Kxf1 b6 24.Rd8+ Kb7 25.Rxa8 Kxa8

By dint of brute force (and ignorance) I have turned a won position into a (probably) drawn one. My next goal was to get rid of the pesky Knights.

26.e6 Kb7 27.Ne2 h6 28.Bd2 Bd5 29.Nf4 Bc4+ 30.Kf2 Nxf4 31.Bxf4 Bxe6 

My opponent has reached a pawn-up endgame, and was pleased. I could tell, because in a few moves I offered a draw, and he declined.

32.a3 c5 33.h4 Kc6 34.Be5 g6 35.Ke3 Kd5 36.Bg7 h5 37.Kd3 Bf5+ 38.Kc3 b5 

Black can advance his pawn majority, but White's King and Bishop (which can operate on the intersecting a1-h8 and b8-h2 diagonals) have the blockades in place.

39.g3 a5 40.Bf8 b4+ 41.axb4 axb4+ 

Or 41...cxb4+ 42.Kb3 Kc6 43.Ka2 Be6+ 44.b3 and the game will still be drawn.

42.Kd2 Kd4 43.Be7 b3 Drawn (my opponent offered)

Jerome Gambit: The Science of the Draw?! (Part 1)

I just completed my second Jerome Gambit game in the ongoing "Italian Battleground" tournament at Chess.com. It put me very much in mind of the questions raised in the recent post "Jerome Gambit: The Eternal Question of Draws".

It felt, at first, like I was dropping 1/2 a point, but by the end of the game it appeared like I had won 1/2 a point. In any event, it is appropriate to speak well of my opponent, Krisstianes_017, whose scientific approach to defending against the opening was successful - if you call achieving a draw against a "refuted" opening a success. (Another "eternal question".)

(Although my "escape" into a drawn endgame a pawn down was very much "scientific" as well, as it involved knowledge and experience with Bishops-of-opposite-colors.)  

perrypawnpusher - Krisstianes_017

"Italian Battleground", Chess.com, 2018

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 

The same line chosen by Abhishek29 in my other Jerome Gambit (so far) in the same tournament. For a short while I was worried that I would be playing the same game, twice.

7.Qd5+

Again, the "nudge".

7...Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qe3 Nf6 10.O-O Be6

Black is developing his minor pieces, but this move is probably not best, as it summons the move f2-f4 (threatening a pawn fork with f4-f5) from White.

After the game, in preparing this blog post, I asked Stockfish 9 to evaluate the move 10...Be6. At a depth of 30 ply, it saw the resulting position as equal. That is worth thinking about. Should Black be happy? Should White be happy?

It is funny to note, however, that after White plays 11.f4, Stockfish 9 - again, at 30 ply analysis depth - recommends returning the Bishop with 11...Bc8!? and evaluates the result as a slight edge to Black!

I have just recently begun using version 9 of Stockfish to help me understand my completed games, and this is not the only quirky output it has provide me.  

In any event, the computer prefers 10...Nh5!? (preventing f2-f4?) instead of the text.

11.f4 Ne7 

Interesting and good.

I faced 11...Bc4 in perrypawnpusher - avgur, blitz, FICS, 2009 (1-0, 43) as well as 11...Ng4 in perrypawnpusher - Verlen, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 23) and 11...Kd7 in perrypawnpusher - dirceu, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 16).

12.d4

Stockfish 9's recommendation is 12.f5 Bc8 13.c4 Nc6 14.d3, apparently seeing ...d7-d5 as worth preventing.

12...Kd7 

Courageously planning to castle-by-hand on the queenside. I can see why my opponent would not want to strike at the center until his King was safe.

Still, the computer's suggestion is 12...d5, and I faced that move in perrypawnpusher - nmuffjgp, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 22).

13.d5 Bf7 14.c4 Kc8 

15.e5 

My plan was to open the center and use my "Jerome pawns" to cause havoc amongst Black's minor pieces.

Amazingly, after the game Stockfish 9 recommended the line 15.Bd2 Kb8 16.Nc3 h5 17.Rae1 a5. I was reminded of my ancient Fidelity Chess Challenger 7, that, when it assessed its King to be safe (wherever it was) and the position balanced, couldn't "think" of what to do, and so would advance its Rook pawns...  

15...dxe5 

This seems natural to me, but the computer doesn't like it, and prefers 15...Ng4 with an even game.

16.fxe5 Nfxd5 

Again, in the post mortem Stockfish 9 had a fit with this idea. I thought it was rather "scientific" to give back the sacrificed material and leave me with an isolated pawn.

17.cxd5 

Sigh. After the game, the compter had a fit with this move, too. I am glad I wasn't working with the old "talking" Fritz computer program that had a whole CD full of insults and sarcasm!

[to be continued]