Instead of the Sunday Book Review

Four days ago (see "GM Larry Evans and the Jerome Gambit"), Guido de Bouver, author of a rowdy, rollicking and bodacious book on the Blackmar Diemer Gambit, had a Comment to make on the post, which, of course, I took time to answer.

Guido De Bouver said...

Great work Rick ! Really great. I replayed the Evans game and it feels good to see also grandmasters are only human after all. But by curiousity, what do you play after 6...g6 7.Qxe5+ Qe7. I guess 8.Qf4+ but then black has both 8...Qf6 and 8...Kg7 ?

guido


Rick Kennedy said...

Hi Guido,

Here, as with an earlier comment (readers should check out "Slaughter" from 6/22/2011), you have touched on a very difficult defense for White to handle, Whistler's Defense, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 Qe7! played by Lt. G.N. Whistler, Secretary of the Lexington, Kentucky Chess Club, against Alonzo Wheeler Jerome, in a set of correspondence games in 1876.

The Database contains 37 games with this defense, including one of the Jerome - Whistler games (0-1, 15) and a Jerome - D.P. Norton game (1/2-1/2, 20) from the same year. (I have a win from each side of the board.)

White scored 51% in The Database games, which seems a bit optimistic to me.

White's best response is 8.Qf4+, as you suggest.

8.Qxh8?? is, of course suicidal for the first player, although The Database has White scoring 55% in 29 games!

It looks like it is time for me to post an update on the status of the Whistler Defense.

Thanks for your comments.

Rick

So, I guess it is time to have another "Update", this time on the Whistler Defense, which runs

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5+ 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 Qe7

As it turns out, only a few hours after I posted my response to Guido's Comment, I played a Jerome Gambit game at FICS – and somebody played the Whistler against me!

My opponent played his moves quickly, especially his 6th and 7th. Not for the first time did I suspect that I had found a defender who had been reading this blog...

So, I have jumped this most recent game to the top of the list (I usually present my games in the order that they were played) and will use it as the backbone of the Update.

Let me start by saying that, unless you are someone like Bill Wall, who can "bend steel in his bare hands" or who has the power to "cloud men's minds," don't play 8.Qxh8.

The game UNPREDICTABLE - sharepointme, blitz, FICS, 2010 (0-1, 26) is a lesson hard-learned (although I do not know if UNPREDICTABLE has learned it, as he has played 8.Qxh8 seven times, with a 4-3 record, at that).

Black can play 8...Qxe4+ and very bad things (Tyrin Price and Brian Wall have done a comprehensive analysis of the brutality, right down to the very last coffin nail, but I can't find a url to reference) can happen to White's King...

To Be Continued...

GM Larry Evans and the Jerome Gambit

I just received an interesting email from Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) Gemeinde member Bill Wall. Below is his discovery, with some notes that he has added (in blue). I've added a few things (in red) as well.


Rick,

I just noticed a Jerome Gambit in Chess Catechism by Larry Evans. I had not seen it before or paid attention. On page 42-43, he writes:

3. Trying for a First-Round Knockout

Where angels fear to tread, the slugger rushes in. He is "head-hunting" from the sound of the gong. Pawns, pieces, material – they are so much clutter! He throws everything at you – one sacrifice after another – often without follow-up. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't.

The important thing to remember is that a premature attack must fail against proper defense. A rather crude example:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5

So far, so good. Both sides have developed their pieces toward the center with economy. But now, for some reason, the slugger feels that he "has something" in the position and decides to sacrifice.

4. Bxf7+!?

4...Kxf7

White keeps punching.

5.Nxe5+!? Nxe5 6.Qh5+

Now we see White's "idea." He figures that, on 6...Ng6 7.Qxc5, he regains one piece and, even though he is still a Knight down, has two Pawns for it, with the semblance of an attack. Then, again, Black might always stumble into 6...Kf6?? 7.Qf5+ Ke7 8.Qxe5+ Kf7 9.Qxc5, regaining all the loot plus two Pawns. But no such luck!

6...g6! 7.Qxe5 d6!

Black sacrifices his Rook and lures his hunter on to destruction.

8.Qxh8 Qh4! 9 O-O

Now White looks safe enough.

9...Nf6!

White's Queen may as well be behind bars now.

10.Nc3 Bh3! 11.Qxa8 Qg4 12.g3 Qf3

White resigns; he cannot avert mate. His "attack" has boomeranged.

Well, here are my comments.

If 6...Ng6, 7.Qd5+ seems stronger than 7.Qxc5.

6...g6 may not be the best move. 6...Ke6 seems stronger, or even 6...Kf8.

Evans gives 6...Kf6 two question marks, but that may be too much. Black may be able to hold in some variations after 6...Kf6 7.Qf5+ Ke7 8.Qxe5+ Kf7 (or 8...Kf8) 9.Qxc5 Nf6, with some advantage to White, but not an overwhelming advantage.

Evans gives 7...d6 an exclamation point. But 7...Qe7 seems stronger for Black.

Evans says that after 9...Nf6! "White's Queen may as well be behind bars now." Well, White can escape with advantage after 10.Qd8, since 10...Bh3? allows 11.Qxc7+ and Qxb7, and White is probably winning.

After 9...Nf6 10.Nc3? Black has a stronger move than 10...Bh3. He can play 10...Ng4!, threatening 11...Qxh2 mate. If 11.h3, then 11...Bxf2+ 12.Kh1 Bf5! 13.Qxa8 Qg3! 14.hxg4 Qh4 mate.

In Evan's analysis, after 10...Bh3, 11.Qxa8?? does lose, but White can offer more resistance with 11.Qxf6+ Kxf6 12.gxh3 Qxh3 13.d3 or 13.Nd5+ perhaps.

Bill




Both Evans and Wall pay homage to the notorious Jerome Gambit game, Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1885: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.0-0 Nf6 10.c3 Ng4 11.h3 Bxf2+ 12.Kh1 Bf5 13.Qxa8 Qxh3+ 14.gxh3 Bxe4 checkmate.

Evans' 10.Nc3? (instead of the 10.c3 played against Blackburne) is a curious move, showing up only once in the 24,500-game collection The Database – and White won when Black misplayed Blackburne's "mating attack": 10.Nc3 Ng4 11.h3 Bxf2+ 12.Kh1 Bf5 13.Qxa8 Qxh3+ 14.gxh3 Bxe4+ 15.Nxe4 Black resigned, KONB - elmflare, standard, FICS, 2011.


Rick

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]