Jerome Gambit: The Improved Face Palm Variation?!

Having taken a look at what I called the "Face Palm Variation" of the Jerome Gambit, I wondered if there was an "improved" variation, where White played an early d2-d4, so that his Knight could safely move to g5 with the support of his dark square Bishop.

I quickly recalled the game Wright - Hunn, Arkansas,1874, played about a half year after Alonzo Wheeler Jerome published his first analysis of his gambit in the Dubuque Chess Journal. The game began 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4 exd4 5.Bxf7+.

The line was referred to as The Macbeth Attack on the Italian language website Sacchi64. It has a relationship to the Italian Gambit, (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4) as explored by Jude Acers and George S. Laven in their book The Italian Gambit and A Guiding Repertoire for White - 1.e4, (although they were not interested in Bxf7+)  as well as to the Lewis Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.d4) and the Von der Lasa Gambit, (1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Bc4 Bc5).

The Database has 1,413 game examples, with White scoring 37%.

Here is a recent game. Beware: the tactics get out of hand, quickly. White (who has almost 700 games in The Database) shows a number of  practical choices to keep the clock at bay.

drumme - RikTheKing
4 0 blitz, FICS, 2020.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.d4 exd4 

A bit stronger, according to Komodo 10, is 5...Bxd4, although the result for White of the 645 games in The Database was only 26%. 

6.Ng5+ 

By playing an early Bxf7+, White has avoided the Sarratt or Vitzthum Attack, although that's not necessarily a good thing.

6...Ke8 7.O-O h6 

Facing a gambit can be scary, and it's natural to want to kick at the attacking piece - but this dismantles Black's defense, rather than helping it.

8.Qh5+ Ke7 9.Qf7+ Kd6 

Black is now at risk for losing a lot of material.

10.Qd5+ 

White is not feeling very greedy, or perhaps in a 4-minute blitz game there wasn't the time (or need) to dig deeper: 10.Bf4+ Ne5 11.Bxe5+ Kxe5 12.Qxg7+ Nf6 (12...Qf6 13.f4+ Kd6 14.e5+) 13.f4+ Kd6 14.Nf7+ Kc6 15.Nxd8+ would have been painful for Black.

10...Ke7 11.Qxc5+

Grabbing the enemy Bishop, but it was stronger to play 11.Qf7+ Kd6 to return to the line given in the note above, 12.Bf4+ etc.

11...d6 

Do I have to do this all over again? 

Didn't I do it right the first time? 

Do I have to do this all over again? 

How many times do I have to make this climb? 

from Long Title: Do I Have to Do This All Over Again? 

12.Qc4 Ne5 

Black could have grabbed the Knight, and hung on: 12...hxg5 13.Bxg5+ Nf6 14.f4 Qg8 15.Qxg8 Rxg8 16.e5 dxe5 17.fxe5 Nxe5 18.Re1 Ke6 19.Bf4 Nfg4

13.Qxd4 Nf6 14.f4 Nc6 15.Qc3 hxg5 16.fxg5 Nxe4 

Well...

At first glance, Black seems to have played himself out of difficulty. Alas, it is actually a checkmate in 9, for White.

17.Qxg7+ Ke6 18.Qg6+ 

Now, interposing a piece will cost Black a piece. There wasn't time to suss out 18.Qf7+ Ke5 19.Nc3 Qg8 20.Bf4+ Kd4 21.Rfd1+ Kc5 22.Be3+ Kb4 23.a3+ Ka5 24.b4+ Ka6 25.Qf1+ Qc4 26.Qxc4+ b5 27.Qxc6 checkmate 

18...Kd5 

19.Nc3+

Again, development makes the most sense when time is short. Instead 19.c4+ Kc5 20. Be3+ Nd4 21.Qxe4 Kb6 22.Bxd4+ c5 23.Bxh8 was crushing. 

19...Nxc3 20.Qd3+ Ke6 

This might have seemed the safest choice, but it was not. 

21.Qxc3 

I am sure that after the game drumme found 21.Qf5+ Ke7 22.Qf7 checkmate 

21...Ne5 22.Qb3+ Kd7 

Black's uncomfortable King and extra piece is slightly outweighed by White's better development and 2 extra pawns. Although the players' fortunes now go up and down, White keeps the pressure on.

23.Bf4 Qe8 24.Rae1 Kd8 25.Qd5 Qc6 26.Qb3 Re8 

Note, for the umpteenth time, Black's light-squared Bishop at home, blocking his Rook. Typical defense-to-the-Jerome-Gambit "sin".

27.g6 Nxg6 28.Bg5+ Ne7 29.Rxe7 Rxe7 30.Bxe7+ Kxe7 31.Qf7+ Kd8 32.Qf6+ Ke8 33.Re1+ Kd7 34.Qe7 checkmate

Jerome Gambit: Worse vs Best (Part 2)

While I tend to refer to 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ as the Jerome Gambit, the name has been attached to other move orders, especially in earlier years. The issue often comes down to which aspect of the opening, the Bishop sacrifice at f7, or the Queen advance to h5 (after 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+), the annotator is looking at.

For example, Joseph Henry Blackburne, in his Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess (1899) refers to the Jerome Gambit a "the Kentucky Opening". He was clearly focused on the Queen move, as my posts on "The Kentucky Opening" Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and "The Kentucky/Danvers Opening" [1.e4 e5 2.Qh5] argue.

On the other hand, some writer focus upon the Bishop sacrifice. Gerald Abrahams is, perhaps, the most extreme example, coming out of the Bishop's Opening rather than the Giuoco Piano, labeling 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Bxf7+ as The Jerome Gambit, despite no analysis or games by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome focusing on that line. See "The Abrahams Jerome Gambit" Part 1 & 2.

(For that matter, Alessandro Salvio wrote, in the early 1600s, about 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Qe2 Nc6/Nf6 4.Bxf7+, although White's Queen would subsequently go to c4, with check, instead of h5, to pick up the Bishop at c5.)

Similar is the Lewis Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.d4 exd4 4.Bxf7+, and the similar Von der Lasa Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4, 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+. Both, with their focus on the Bishop sacrifice, seem to have escaped the Jerome Gambit label, however, at least as I can tell.

Further extended are lines like 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4 exd4 5.Bxf7+, arising from either the Scotch Opening or the Giuoco Piano. The earliest game that I have with it is Wright - Hunn, Arkansas, US, 1874, which in the Dubuque Chess Journal of November, 1874, was referred to as "an unsound variation of Jerome's double opening." It has also been referred to, later on, as "the Macbeth Attack". (Of course, the first 4 moves have been recently covered in The Italian Gambit and A Guiding Repertoire For White - E4! by Acers and Laven.)

Finally, we come to 1.e4 e5. 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+, which has been referred to, variously, as the Noa Gambit, the Monck Gambit - and, more recently, as the Open Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit. A closer look will probably muddy thing further.

[to be continued]

Fun With the Jerome Gambit

When recently discussing the "Macbeth Attack" I mentioned the early game Wright - Hunn, Arkansas, 1874, which appeared in the November issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal for that year. The game began 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4, garnering the comment  "Brilliant but not sound" from the editor. (I suspect Jude Acers and George Laven, authors of The Italian Gambit and A Guiding Repertoire for White might challenge that "not sound" assessment.)

After 4...exd4 ("The German Handbuch gives as best variation 4...Bxd4 5.c3 Bb6 6.Ng5 Nh6 7.Qh5 O-O 8.f4 exf4 9.Bxf4 d6 10.Rf1 Qe7 and Black should win."), 5.Bxf7+ the editor commented "An unsound variation of Jerome's double opening." Still, he was able to join in the fun. After 5...Kxf7 6.Ng5+ he suggested that Ne5 "a la Jerome" is better than Ng5. That may not be "objectively" true, but capturing the imaginary pawn on e5 certainly is in line with the outlandish play of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's creation.

I was surprised to find 40 games in The Database that, wittingly or unwittingly, followed the DCJ's suggestion. The following blitz game shows some of the fun behind the lighthearted suggestion.


SupremacyPawn - northug
blitz, FICS, 2014

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.d4 exd4 6.Ne5+ 

6...Nxe5 7.Qh5+ Ke6 8.f4 Nf6 

Black is having so much fun "punishing" White for his audacity of early Queen moves - well, you know how those things sometimes go...

9.Qxe5+ Kf7 10.Qxc5 

Black has quickly returned two pieces. He would do best to calm himself, rationally look at his new position, and plot a new strategy. Something like 10...d5 comes to mind, with either 11.Qxd4 Ne4 or 11.e5 Ne4 to follow, and despite his previous misfortunes, Black would not be worse.

Alas for the defender, he is sure that White has erred (a clear assessment that is out of date, however) and still can and should be punished for his transgressions.

10...Nxe4 11.Qd5+ Kg6 12.Qxe4+ Kf7 13.O-O 
Black resigned

InstantChess

A recent internet search brought me to the online site InstantChess.com, where I discovered a player from the United Arab Emirates with the handle SA3OD who plays the Jerome Gambit - and who likes to play Bxf7+ in other circumstances as well. The following very exciting game, with another in the notes, gives an example of his style in lightning chess, which is defined by the site as 1 to 4 minutes per game. (Fast!) His opponent, Zmei Gorinich, is from the Russian Federation.

SA3OD - Gorinich, Zmei
lightning, InstantChess.com, 2016

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4 

The Italian Gambit, highlighted in The Italian Gambit System (2006) by Jude Acers and George Laven. I love the comment on the move in the November 1874 Dubuque Chess Journal: "Brilliant but not sound."

I am still exploring the InstantChess website, and have found one (I am sure that there are more) of SA3OD's Jerome Gambits (also at lightning time control) against Gorinich: 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.d4 (this move scores 38% in 2,154 games in The Database) Bxd4 6.Nxd4 Nxd4 7.Qh5+ Kf8 8.Qd1 {TN} Nf6 9.c3 Ne6 10.O-O d6 11.Na3 Kf7 12.Bg5 Rf8 13.Nc4 Nxg5 14.Ne3 Kg8 15.Nf5 Bxf5 16.exf5 Qe8 17.h4 Nge4 18.g4 Qc6 19.g5 Nd5 20.f6 Nf4 21.fxg7 Kxg7 22.f3 Ng3 23.Kh2 Nxf1+ 24.Qxf1 Nh5 25.Kh3 Rxf3+ 26.Qxf3 Qxf3+ 27.Kh2 Qg3+ 28.Kh1 Qxh4+ 29.Kg2 Qg3+ 30.Kf1 Rf8+ 31.Ke2 Qf2+ 32.Kd3 Nf4+ 33.Kc4 a6 34.Kb3 b5 35.a4 bxa4+ 36.Rxa4 Rb8+ 37.Ka3 Qc2 38.Rb4 Rxb4 39.cxb4 Nd3 40.g6 Qxb2+ 41.Ka4 Qxb4 checkmate.

4...exd4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Ng5+ 

This move is at least as old as Wright - Hunn, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, 1874 (0-1, 18).

6...Kf8 7.Qf3+

Next time he might look (if he hasn't already) at the goofy 7.Qh5 Qf6 8.Nxh7 Rxh7 9.Qxh7.

7...Nf6 8.O-O Ne5 9.Qb3 h6 10.f4

White is thinking: Attack!

10...hxg5 11.fxe5 Qe8

In a lightning tempo game there is not always time to catch subtleties. Here, Black should have first played 11...e3+, putting a road block in front of White's Queen, and then moved his own Queen to e8. After 12.Kh1 Qe8, White could not afford to capture Black's Knight with 13.exf6? - we will see why, shortly. 

12.exf6

White, in turn, misses his opportunity. He needed to play 12.Qg3! when he could then safely capture Black's Knight, e.g. 12...d6 13.exf6. The position would then be unclear, but probably balanced. Stockfish 7 gives the wild continuation: 13...Rh5 14.Bxg5 Qg6 15.h4 d3+ 16.Kh2 dxc2 17.Nc3 Qxg5!? 18.Qxg5 Rxg5 19.hxg5 Be3 20.g6 Be6 21.f7 when Black will eventually regain the exchange for his advanced c-pawn.

12...d3+ 13.Kh1 Rxh2+!

Nice. Forces chekmate. (Or: it should.)

14.Kxh2 Qh5+ 15.Kg3 Qh4+ 16.Kf3 gxf6 

Oh, no! With 16...d5 Black would threaten mate with ...dxe4. Time must have been short. Now White has 17.cxd3! and his defense would hold.

 17.Qxd3 d6

Yikes! White's slip on move 17 gives Black another chance to play...d5. The pawn two-step would help open the d-file, giving the second player strong play against the enemy King: 7...d5 18.Ke2 Bg4+ 19.Kd2 dxe4 20.Qxe4 Rd8+ 21.Kc3 Bd4+ 22.Kb3 Rd6 etc.

18.Nc3

Zeitnot. White's King could, instead, play 18.Ke2 as in the previous note, and survive because of the closed d-file. 

18...Qg4 checkmate

Fun!

A Whole Lot of Information

As the number of posts on this blog approaches 1,900, I realize that I do not remember everything that I have written here.

Take the following game - a "modern" Jerome Gambit variation, so-called because the analyses and games of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome (late 19th century, early 20th century) featured the "classical" move 5.Nxe5, as opposed to the choices of many modern (especially internet) players, which include 5.Nc3, 5.c3, 5.d3 and, as in the following game, 5.d4.

I was not familiar with the line of play when I worked through the game, but it turns out that this blog whole lot of information about it.  

VLDHDZ - KlassAct
standard, FICS, 2013

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.d4

I almost always play 5.Nxe5+, so it surprised me to discover that there are about 1,800 games in The Database with this move. White scores 38%.

This is in contrast with the over 5,100 games with the "classical" line where White scores 53% - if you combine the results of Nxe5+ with or without the additional development of White's and Black's other Knight (i.e. Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit) .

A look at the move 5.d4 can be seen in "A Closer Look at the Big Picture (Part 3)" and the related, historical "Brilliant But Not Sound". 

5...Be7

This is an interesting, but relatively rare response.

More often seen is 5...exd4,  and I have a number of references for Readers: "Play 'em Like You got 'em", "Quick As A Flash", "Nothing Going On", "Still Nothing Going On", "Return of Jerome Gambit for Dummies (Part 6)", "Return of Jerome Gambit for Dummies (Part 7)" and "Utterly Fascinating".

Black also has 5...Bxd4, looked at in "Losing a Half Point / Fog of War" and "Still An Interesting Game".

Finally, there is the not-recommended 5...Nxd4, as seen in "Good to the End", "One More Thing", and "Do Not Wander Too Far From Home".

Similarities to the Italian Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4 - best covered in The Italian Gambit (and) A Guiding Repertoire For White - E4! (2006), by Jude Acers and George Laven - are clear.

6.d5 Nd4 

Probably better is the retreat 6...Nb8, when the game is about even after 7.Nxe5+ Kf8.

7.Nxe5+ Ke8 

8.Qxd4 Bf6 9.Bf4 d6 10.Qa4+ Black resigned

White's Queen escapes from the pin, and when the White Knight withdraws, the first player will be up a couple of pawns with a safer King.

Faster Than The Speed of Thought

Those who play the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) have become comfortable, out of necessity, with a certain level of chaos all over the chess board.

The same is true for those who play Jerome-like (or Jerome-ized) openings – and doubly so for those who play them at blitz or lightning speed.

I was working through some fast games by DragonTail at FICS (Free Internet Chess Server), making some quick assessments and decided that the particular variation that I was looking at was too wild for me. Add the fact that the players were not at their tip-top best (no offense intended), and the whole series seems to have taken place faster than the speed of thought... 

DragonTail - chingching 

blitz, FICS, 2009 

 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4

Now, after 4...exd4 we will have a variation of the Scotch Gambit; and after 4...Bxd4 we will have George Laven's Miami Variation, as presented in Acers and Laven's The Italian Gambit (2004). 

4...Bxd4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Ng5+ Kg6 -+

Yes, after this move Black has a significant advantage, as he would after 6...Ke8, 6...Kf8 or 6...Ke7.

On the other hand, after the careless 6...Kf6, White would have the advantage: 7.Qf3+ Ke7 (7...Kg6 8.Qf5+ Kh5 9.Ne6+ g5 10.Bxg5 Bxf2+ 11.Kxf2 dxe6 12.g4#) 8.Qf7+ Kd6 9.Na3 Nf6 10.c3 Qg8 11.cxd4 Nxd4 12.Be3 h6 13.Nc4+ Kc6 14.Nxe5+ Kb5 15.Bxd4 hxg5 16.Qg6 Qh7± 

7.Qg4 Nf6?

A stronger move is 7...Nh6 -+ , but it has to be followed up properly: 8.Qg3 Bxf2+? 9.Kxf2 ± Rf8+ +- 10.Nf7+? -+ Kxf7 DragonTail - Patrick, FICS 2008 (0-1, 21); Not so good is 7...d5 8.Qg3 (but 8.Ne6+ +-) 8...Bxf2+ (8...Qf6) 9.Kxf2 Qf6+ ± 10.Kg1 = Kh5? +- 11.Nd2? -+ Qxg5 DragonTail - freesok, FICS 2007 (0-1, 23); 7...Qf6 -+ is the computer's choice;

Not 7...d6? giving White the advantage, but wait: 8.Qg3? (8.Ne6+ Kf7 9.Nxd8+ Nxd8 10.Qh5+ g6 11.Qf3+ +-) 8...Kf6? 9.Nf3? (9.Qf3+ Kg6 10.Qf7+ Kh6 11.Ne6+ g5 12.h4 Bc3+ 13.Kf1 Bxe6 14.hxg5#) 9...Kf7 10.Ng5+ Ke7 11.Nf3 Be6? 12.Nxd4? (12.Qxg7+ Ke8 13.Qxh8 +-) 12...Nxd4 DragonTail - chingching, FICS 2009 (0-1,43) 

8.Qg3?

There was the opportunity for 8.Qf5+ Kh5 9.Nf3+ g5 10.Qxg5 checkmate 

8...Nh5 9.Qg4 d5? Instead, 9...Nf6 equalizes. 

10.Ne6+ Kf6 11.Bg5+ Black resigned