Showing posts with label Marshall. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marshall. Show all posts

Monday, October 7, 2019

A GM Faces the Jerome Gambit (Part 1)

Image result for free clip art chess players

How many players of grandmaster strength have faced the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+)?

I can think of Joseph Henry Blackburne, author of the notorious 1884 dismantling of the opening.


(Please, let's not revisit the "urban legend" that Alekhine lost to the Jerome. Thank you.)


Of course, if we step outside the main lines and include the Open Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit (otherwise known as the Noa Gambit, or the Monck Gambit- 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ - then we can add , Charousek, Euwe, Lasker, Marco, Marshall, Tarrasch, Teichmann, and Zukertort, for starters.


For today, let's not go there, either.


Still, I have just learned of a Jerome Gambit, played at bullet speed, online, against a grandmaster.


Let me share some recent exchanges of email with the legendary Australian "Cliff Hardy", player of the white pieces. There will be some move references, but do not let them distract you - I will be presenting the game, with annotations, in due time.

Hi Rick! 
Sorry to inundate you with another game but, after playing the Jerome Gambit for years, I finally got my first chance to play a Jerome Gambit against a GM! It was GM Yasser Quesada Perez, from Cuba.  
Unfortunately, I didn't win ðŸ˜­... 
Because GM Quesada Perez is quite new to Lichess - our game was only his 15th bullet game on the site - his bullet rating on Lichess is comparatively low for his standard of chess (his standard FIDE rating is much higher at 2572) and so I expect it will soon probably go a lot higher than it was at the time of this game.
Of course, I replied quickly
Hi, Cliff, 
Very glad to receive your game against Quesada Perez! 
Certainly provides one answer to the question "How would a GM respond to the Jerome Gambit??" 
Of course, it still leaves unanswered things like "How can you play such a coherent game with 1 second a move thinking time?" 
I have been going over the game, and will try to treat it with both a sense of respect and wonder when I post it on my blog - with you, your opponent, and my good pal, Stockfish 10, playing way over my head, it's a bit of a challenge to make sense of, and then share with readers. But, that's the whole point, I guess. 
[Black's 9th move] gave me a chuckle. It's a novelty, according to The Database, although your game later could transpose into a couple of online games from 2017. I can imagine the GM thinking: The only thing wrong with my position is that White may think he has an attack; so, let's exchange queens, and the rest will work itself out. No need for concrete analysis, especially in a bullet game.
Chances are, similar thinking produced [Black's 6th move]. It would be scary think a GM actually had a refutation to the Jerome Gambit in his repertoire. Most likely he thought (or just reacted) he'd settle for something reasonable, and figure the rest out later. I have seen that kind of thinking in numerous defenses to the Jerome - but the players were not super strong, and the "figuring" was much less effective.Stockfish 10 raises it's eyebrows only at [Black's 17th move], and its recommended followup for White is complicated and not at all clear to me, at least at this point - reaching =/+ in some lines, which has got to be the same as "=" in a bullet game (unless I'm playing, when it would be "-++" )
Nice game. Good to see you taking it to "the man". I mean - why not? I would do the same - although the comment was never truer than, for me, "After 1.e4, White's game is in its final throes". 
Thanks for sharing. 
I hope to learn more, and it'll show up in the blog. 
Rick
And Cliff came back with
Hi Rick! 
I was initially afraid you might not want to see the game, as it was a loss where I never really even got a great position, but I was quite excited to finally get a chance to play a GM with the Jerome. I was also quite glad I didn't botch it by just hanging a queen on move 8 or so ðŸ˜‰. 
Yes, I think he made it all up because he seemed to spend a bit more time on the first few moves. Now that Lichess shows move times, I can see that he took a "whopping" 2.0 seconds to play [his 6th move] 😉 , so it was one of his slowest moves in the game ðŸ˜‰. He spent even longer on [his 9th move]  (2.9 seconds on that move) so I guess he was trying to work out some sort of defence that would work best for him, like you said. Unfortunately, I tried to move too quickly and played [my 10th move] there - although who knows, technically [an alternate 10th move] is not that much better a move anyway... 
Yes, I noticed with the analysis that the computer didn't like [Black's 17th move] - but that was way over my head too! ðŸ˜‰ It was good fun to try against the GM and I will try to remember to throw in [the alternate 10th move] next time [his 9th move] is played. 
Also, it shows how there are so many GM's in the world - there's always some you've never heard of - or, at least, I'd never heard of this guy before this game! 
Bye
Me


[To be continued...] 

Thursday, July 25, 2019

Jerome Gambit: Time Bomb (Part 1)



Some thoughts, previously posted
I have long subscribed to the "time bomb" notion in club chess: that players are apt to play reasonable chess until, suddenly, a cognitive "time bomb" goes off, and they make a blunder. The frequency of these "explosions"/blunders depends upon the level of skill of the player: strong players may slip only once a game (or even less often) while more "average" club players can have their "time bombs" go off much more often, even every other move.
The following game shows Black defending reasonably well (and White, solidly) until - Boom! The unbalanced and unbalancing Jerome Gambit is the kind of opening that increases the likelihood of such a slip. 
Recently, in the first round of the "Italian Game Battlegrounds" tournament at Chess.com, I tried my hand at playing the Noa Gambit, otherwise known as the Monck Gambit, otherwise known as the Open Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

I don't think that my play was anything special, but the historical sidelines are interesting.

Unfortunately, for my opponent, a few poorly-timed "time bomb" moves spoiled his game.

perrypawnpusher - RemoveKubab1
Italian Game Battlegrounds, Chess.com, 2019

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 

The Two Knights Defense.

4.Nc3

Hoping for 4...Bc5, when 5.Bxf7+ would be the Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

4...Nxe4 

The Database says that I have reached this position two times previously, each time responding, with 5.Nxe4 - perrypawnpusher - aborigen, blitz, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 20) and perrypawnpusher - aquitanus, blitz, FICS, 2016 (1-0, 42).

5.Bxf7+ 

It seemed like a good idea at the time.

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe4 d5 7.Ng3 



There is a lot of history in the alternative moves, as the following notes will show. I had originally intended to play 7.Neg5+, just because Bobby Fischer once played it. (When he was young.)

7.Neg5+ Kg8 8.d3 (8.d4 h6 9.Nh3 Bxh3 (9...Bg4 10.dxe5 Nxe5 11.Nf4 (11.Nhg1 Bc5 12.Bf4 Ng6 13.Bg3 Kh7 14.Qd3 Re8+ 15.Kf1 Re4 16.Re1 Qe7 17.Qxd5 Rxe1+ 18.Nxe1 Rd8 19.Qc4 Black mates in two moves, Blanchard - Pollock,W, Chicago, 1890) 11...c6 (11...Bxf3 12.gxf3 c6 13.Be3 Bd6 14.Rg1 Kh7 15.Rxg7+ Kxg7 16.Ne6+ Black resigned, Archer,R - Parkins,J, corr, 1908) 12.h3 Nxf3+ 13.gxf3 Bf5 14.Be3 Bb4+ 15.c3 Ba5 16.Rg1 Qe8 17.Nxd5 Qf7 18.Nf4 Re8 19.Qb3 Bc7 20.Qxf7+ Kxf7 21.Nh5 g6 22.Ng3 Bxh3 23.O-O-O Rd8 24.Rxd8 Bxd8 25.Rh1 Bg2 26.Rxh6 Rxh6 27.Bxh6 Bxf3 28.Be3 draw, Fischer,R - Ames,D, Lincoln ch-US jr, 1955) 10.gxh3 exd4 11.O-O Qf6 12.c3 Bc5 13.Qd3 Rd8 14.Re1 dxc3 15.bxc3 Kf7 16.Bb2 Qg6+ 17.Qxg6+ Kxg6 18.Rad1 Rhf8 19.Kg2 Rxf3 20.Kxf3 Rf8+ 21.Kg4 h5+ 22.Kg3 Bxf2+ 23.Kg2 Bxe1 24.Rxe1 Rf5 25.Bc1 Re5 26.Rg1 Rf5 27.Re1 Ne5 28.Be3 b6 29.Bd4 Kf7 30.h4 c5 31.Be3 Nf3 White resigned, Kelemen - Charousek,R, corr, 1893) 8...h6 9.Nh3 g5 (9...Bg4 10.c3 Qf6 (10...Bc5 11.Be3 d4 12.Bc1 Qd7 13.Nhg1 Kh7 14.h3 Be6 15.Ne2 Rhf8 16.b4 Bd6 17.b5 Ne7 18.c4 a6 19.bxa6 Rxa6 20.Ng3 Ng6 21.Ne4 Be7 22.h4 Bf5 23.h5 Bxe4 24.dxe4 Nf4 25.Nxe5 Bb4+ 26.Kf1 Qe8 27.Bxf4 Rxf4 28.Ng6 Rxe4 29.g3 Re1+ 30.Qxe1 Bxe1 31.Rxe1 Qc6 32.Rh4 Qxc4+ 33.Kg1 Qxa2 34.Re8 Rxg6 35.hxg6+ Kxg6 36.Rf4 c5 Black queened in a few moves and White resigned Bird,H - Mills, simul, British CC, London, 188611.Nhg1 Re8 12.Qb3 e4 13.dxe4 Qf7 14.Be3 dxe4 15.Nd4 Ne5 16.Nge2 Nd3+ 17.Kd2 c5 18.Qxf7+ Kxf7 19.Nb3 Rd8 20.f3 Ne5+ 21.Ke1 exf3 22.gxf3 Bxf3 23.Rf1 Be7 24.Ng3 Kg6 25.Bf4 Nd3+ 26.Kd2 Nxf4+ 27.Ke3 Rd3+ 28.Kxf4 Bd6 checkmate, Neidich,G - Marshall,F, Atlantic City, 1920) 10.Nd2 Rh7 11.f3 Bxh3 12.gxh3 Rf7 13.Nb3 Qf6 14.Rf1 Re8 15.Qe2 Re6 16.Bd2 Nd4 17.Qd1 Nxf3+ White resigned, Lenzer -Lasker,E, 1913; and

7.Nfg5+ Kg6 8.Qf3 dxe4 9.Qf7+ Kxg5 White now mates in ten moves 10.d4+ Kh4 11.h3 Bb4+ 12.Kf1 g6 13.g3+ Kh5 14.g4+ Kh4 15.Qb3 Bc3 16.Qxc3 e3 17.Qxe3 Bxg4 18.hxg4+ Kxg4 19.Qh3 checkmate, Pollock,W - Amateur, Dublin, date unknown

7...e4 8.Ng1 g6 

Or 8...h5 9.d4 h4 10.Nf1 Qf6 11.c3 Ne7 12.Ne3 Kg8 13.Ne2 c6 14.h3 g5 15.Rf1 Bh6 16.f3 exf3 17.Rxf3 Qg6 18.b3 Rh7 19.Ba3 g4 20.hxg4 Bxg4 21.Nxg4 Qxg4 22.Ng3 Rf7 23.Bxe7 Rxe7+ 24.Ne2 Qxg2 25.Rf2 Qg1+ 26.Rf1 Qg3+ 27.Rf2 Rf8 White resigned, Noa,J -  Makovetz,G, Dresden, 1892

Or 8...Bc5 9.N1e2 Qf6 10.O-O h5 11.Nc3 h4 12.Nxd5 Qe5 13.Nxe4 Qxe4 14.Nxc7 Nd4 15.d3 Qc6 16.Be3 h3 17.f3 hxg2 18.Rf2 Qxc7 19.Rxg2 Nxc2 White resigned, NN-Lasker,E, London, 1900. 



If you are looking for a wild attacking position for White - it hasn't arrived, yet. Black's pawns own the center, and his one developed piece seems better placed than White's one developed piece.

As often happens in a Jerome Gambit, White has to rely on his comfort in unusual positions to make some headway.


[to be continued]

Saturday, August 11, 2018

Jerome Gambit: Chaos in a Two Knights (Part 1)


The May, 20, 1899 issue of The Daily Telegraph, of Sydney, New South Wales, carried what it called "lively game from the recent tourney".

Presenting the contest gives me an opportunity to share some of the delights of doing Jerome Gambit research. It also gives Readers a number of opportunities to try their analytical skills - playing the Jerome, after all, is very much about taking advantage of opportunities as they arise.

(I have changed the newspaper's descriptive notation to algebraic.) 

Dr. Finlay - Elliott, H. E
Dungog, NSW, Australia, 1899

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 



If Dr. Finlay had been looking to play the Jerome Gambit, he got derailed (at least temporarily) by the Two Knights Defense.

This is enough of an issue that it has been discussed a number of times on this blog. For ideas, you could try "Jerome Gambit vs Two Knights Defense" Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4Follow that up with "Further Explorations" (Parts 1234 and 5).

4.Nc3

Opening books recommend against this move, as Black has a reasonable response in 4...Nxe4 (temporary piece sacrifice) 5.Nxe4 d5 (recovering the piece), what Hans Kmoch called the "fork trick" in his Pawn Power in Chess (1949). 

4...Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ 

This is may not have been what Black expected.

The Bishop sacrifice goes by different names.

It has been referred to as the Noa Gambit. Charles Thomsas Blanshard, in his Examples of Chess Master-Play (1894) said of 5.Bxf7+ "The text move, a hobby of Dr. Noa, develops Black's game." See Noa,J - Makovetz,G, DSB-07 Kongress, Dresden, 1892 (0-1, 27).

It has also been called the Monck Gambit. In Pollock Memories: A Collection of Chess Games, Problems, &c., &c., Including His Matches with Eugene Delmar, Jackson Showalter, and G.H.D. Gossip (1899)William Henry Krause Pollock gave a crushing 19-move miniature ending in checkmate as "[A] very fine example, known in Dublin years ago as the 'Monck Gambit' ." 

More recently, Rev. Tim Sawyer, of Blackmar Diemer Gambit fame, applied the very apt name "Open Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit".

It is worth mentioning some early games by players whose names have not been attached to the line -

Zoltowski, E. - Zukertort, Johannes, Berlin, 1869: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe4 Be7 7.Nfg5+ Bxg5 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxg5 d5 10.Qxd8 Rxd8 11.Ng5+ Kg7 12.d3 Nd4 13.O-O Nxc2 14.Rb1 Re8 15.b3 Bf5 16.Rd1 Nb4 17.Ba3 Nxd3 18.g4 Nxf2 19.Rxd5 Nxg4 20.Rbd1 Ne3 21.Rd7+ Bxd7 22.Rxd7+ Kh6 23.Nf7+ Kh5 24.Bc1 Nf5 25.Ng5 h6 26.Rh7 Rad8 White resigned;

Bird, H.E. - Mills, simultaneous exhibition, British Chess Club, London, 1887: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe4 d5 7.Neg5+ Kg8 8.d3 h6 9.Nh3 Bg4 10.c3 Bc5 11.Be3 d4 12.Bc1 Qd7 13.Nhg1 Kh7 14.h3 Be6 15.Ne2 Rhf8 16.b4 Bd6 17.b5 Ne7 18.c4 a6 19.bxa6 Rxa6 20.Ng3 Ng6 21.Ne4 Be7 22.h4 Bf5 23.h5 Bxe4 24.dxe4 Nf4 25.Nxe5 Bb4+ 26.Kf1 Qe8 27.Bxf4 Rxf4 28.Ng6 Rxe4 29.g3 Re1+ 30.Qxe1 Bxe1 31.Rxe1 Qc6 32.Rh4 Qxc4+ 33.Kg1 Qxa2 34.Re8 Rxg6 35.hxg6+ Kxg6 36.Rf4 c5 Black queened in a few moves and White resigned;

Marshall, Frank James - Pollock, simultaneous exhibition (22 boards) Montreal Chess Club, Montreal 1894: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe4 d5 7.Neg5+ Kg8 8.d3 h6 9.Nh3 Bxh3 10.gxh3 Qd7 11.Qe2 Qxh3 12.Bd2 Bd6 13.Rg1 Kh7 14.Rg3 Qf5 15.O-O-O Rhf8 16.Bxh6 gxh6 17.Ng5+ Kh8 18.Rdg1 e4 19.Qh5 Bxg3 20.Qxh6+ Kg8 21.Rxg3 Rf6 22.Nxe4+ Kf7 23.Rg7+ Ke6 24.Nxf6 Rh8 25.Nh7+ Ke5 26.Rg5 Nd4 27.Qf6+ Kf4 28.Qxd4+ Qe4 and White mates in two moves, Black resigned

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+

Wow.

"Making a sort of Jerome Gambit; interesting, but of course quite unsound" wrote the chess columnist of The Daily Telegraph, properly focused on the Knight capture/sacrifice as well as the subsequent Queen sally.

The Database has only 11 game examples of this move - usually played is 6.Nxe4 - with White scoring 28%. Don't let that discourage you - the current game quickly develops chaotic elements like the traditional Jerome Gambit.  

6...Nxe5 7.Qh5+ Ng6 8.Nxe4



White wants to get his Knight into play. Instead, 8.Qd5+ Ke8 9.Qxe4 might have been a bit stronger, but White might also have wanted to avoid the exchange of Queens that would have followed 9...Qe7

8...d6

The Daily Telegraph suggested that 8...Be7 followed by 9...d5 was preferrable, but Black could probably have played 8...d5 directly, or even on the next move.

9.O-O Be7 10.f4 Kf8 

Suddenly, the game is equal.

How can that be? The Jerome Gambit themes are strong: Black's King is on the same file as White's Rook, and the dangerous "Jerome pawn" at f4 is about to advance.

11.f5 Ne5 12.d4 

White could have played 12.f6!? directly, ultimately transposing to the line played.

12...Nd7 

Black has protected the f6 square (four times) from an advance of the White pawn - but it is not enough. He would have done best to retreat the Knight to the f-file, where it would provide some shelter from the enemy Rook: 12...Nf7 13.f6 Bxf6 14.Nxf6 gxf6 15.Bh6+ Nxh6 16.Qxh6+ Kf7 17.Rf3!? and the pressure will force Black to give back a piece, e.g. 17...Bg4 18.Rg3 Qg8 19.h3 Qg5 20.Qxg5 fxg5 21.hxg4 Rae8 with an even game.

[to be continued]

Friday, March 13, 2015

A Bluffer Bluffed?


White and Black square off in the following contest, tossing suspect openings against each other. If the Blackburne Shilling Gambit is (like the Jerome) more a bluff than a solid opening, then clearly here the second player gets out-bluffed.

nalder - Pinckman
blitz, FICS, 2014

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 

The Blackburne Shilling Gambit. 

Black hopes White doesn't know the opening, or doesn't give his next move much thought and quickly grabs the e-pawn with 4.Nxe5? only to be met with the gamy 4...Qg5!?

4.Bxf7+ 

The Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit. Meeting "tricky" with "tricky" - although the BSG is rated "objectively" better for White, while the BSJG is rated "objectively" even.

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke6 6.Qg4+


This is scary, but a bluff. The proper way to continue is 6.c3

6...Kxe5 7.f4+ 

More bellicosity.

7...Kxe4 

The "Exit" sign pointed to 7... Kd6.

8.Nc3 checkmate

This one was over so fast, it reminded me of the Marshall - Burn game from Paris 1900.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012


In my post "On the Other Hand..." the other day, I mentioned Abby Marshall's "The Openings Explained" column at ChessCafe, where she recently took on "The Two Knights Defense, Center Fork Trick" (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Nxe4 d5)

I also alluded to Yury V. Bukayev's analysis as well, which I sent to Abby.

Ms. Marshall had selected and added my email to the bottom of her column as "pertinent response."

Rick Kennedy from the USA – Abby, I never miss your column at ChessCafe, and love the hard work you put into each one. Here's an interesting Fork Trick resource. Please keep up the great work.

Sunday, October 14, 2012

On the Other Hand...


When I wander over to the ChessCafe website, I like to read the monthly column by Abby Marshall (USCF Candidate Master, currently rated 2192) "The Openings Explained". She's a hard worker, she's not afraid of playing gambits (the King's Gambit is her specialty) – and she used to be from my home town.

This week's topic is "The Two Knights Defense, Center Fork Trick" [1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Nxe4 d5], something that has been discussed on this blog a number of times before (like when you play 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 looking for a Jerome, and your opponent plays 3...Nf6; can your 4.Nc3 get him to cough up 4...Bc5, so you can play 5.Bxf7+ ?). For just a sample of posts, try "Jerome Gambit vs Two Knights Defense (Part 3)" and "Further Explorations (Part 1 and Part 2)"

Don't forget to review Yury V. Bukayev's analysis as well, which I will be sending to Abby.

Monday, October 17, 2011

Delusions of Grandeur


Years before starting this Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) blog, I had researched the history of the opening and its inventor, and put what I had found into an article that I then brazenly submitted to Stefan Bücker, for his Kaissiber magazine.

Much to my amazement (and delight) Stefan showed interest. As I reported in the first week of JeromeGambit.blogspot.com, in "To Infinity... And Beyond! (Part II)"

Some time this year, perhaps in the fall issue, Kaissiber will publish an article outlining the history of the Jerome Gambit, based on my researches.
The idea of having an article published in the world's #2 chess magazine was not a complete pipe dream: Kaissiber 27 actually included my article on the game Alekhine - Marshall, Baden-Baden, 1925, which featured 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6!?.

Still, I probably amused and annoyed a lot of people with my predictions of publication.

In June of 2008, I was still optimistic about the Jerome Gambit article, as I mentioned in "Breaking News"

He's still interested in publishing an article on the Jerome Gambit, based on all the information I've been sending him. In the fall. In a much more succinct format than what I've written.
A couple of months later ("Jerome Gambit Blog: Tidying Up") I could still report "Current speculation is there may be a short article in the October 2008 issue."

However, October came and went, and at the end of 2008 I could only report ("Jerome Gambit Blog: More Tidying Up") "I'm still hopeful."

Toward the middle of the next year, that optimism expired ("Jerome Gambit Blog: Still More Tidying Up") 
I'm not hopeful any more. It's unlikely that my history of the Jerome Gambit will appear in the pages of Stefan Bücker's amazing chess magazine, Kaissiber. While the audacity of such an opening appealed to the editor, the story of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's creation is a history of questionable analysis and even more questionable play. Although Kaissiber does not shy away from creative chess notions, its focus on an accurate assessment of things would require massive corrections and/or footnoting – to start.

Will the Jerome Gambit ever get its due in the pages of Kaissiber? Some skeptics would say that if it is never, ever mentioned, that is what is due. (Occasionally, I am inclined to agree.)

Since then, though, Stefan has made occasional mentions in emails. He is probably just being polite.

But, hope has not completly vanished. (If it ever does, I'll probably switch to the Ruy Lopez, too.)