Jerome Gambit: His Trap Was Part of My Trap

The following game again brings up a topic of concern

I have previously mentioned FIDE Master Dennis Monokroussos' thoughtful website, The Chess Mind, and his down-to-earth query, Is there even a single trap for Black to fall into in the Jerome Gambit?
My response has been

With due respect to Dennis, at the club level the entire Jerome Gambit can be considered a "trap" - especially if we consider psychological aspects. Black must pay attention, even as he treasures his advantages, or they will evaporate. 

My recently-completed game against AndrewLLL, in the third round of the "Italian Game Battlefield" tournament at Chess.com, is an example of the defender setting a nefarious trap, only to discover that his trap was part of my trap...


perrypawnpusher - andrewLLL
Italian Game Battlefield, Chess.com, 2020

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ 

The Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit. The Database does not contain any games by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome with this line. I have played the line 60 times, scoring 74%.

 5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.d4 Bd6

8.dxe5 Bxe5 

There is definitely something strange about this opening line of play - at least as far as I am concerned.

I recently posted a game where I now played 9.f4 -  perrypawnpusher - joseluizlopez, blitz, FICS, 2012 (0-1, 55) - that I had somehow overlooked posting 8 years ago.

In preparing for this post, I noticed that I had also not posted perrypawnpusher - lixuanxuan, blitz, FICS, 2014 (1-0, 22), where I explored 9.Bg5. I will fix that oversight soon. (The Database has 12 games with the move with White scoring 42%)

9.Ne2

After the suffering at the hands of joseluizlopez (see "Jerome Gambit: Another Historical 'Oversight' "), I made a note to try something that would keep my pawn structure intact. Little did I realize how odd the pawns would become.

9...c6 10.f4 Bc7 11.e5 Nd5 12.O-O Re8 

Black begins to castle-by-hand and is better, having a piece for a pawn.

White focuses on Blacks backward d-pawn, that blocks the light-squared Bishop, which, in turn, hems in the Rook. It is not enough compensation, but it is something to work on.

13.c4 Ne7 14.c5 b6 15.b4 a5 

My pawns are trying to gang up on the enemy d-pawn. If I only had an extra move, I could put my Bishop on b2, and then play a2-a3, with the ability to keep my pawn chain intact. Of course, I can't play 16.a3 directly, as it would fall to the simple 16...axb4. I decided to develop my Bishop and hope for the best.

16.Bb2 axb4 17.Qd4 

The attacking battery along the a1-h8 diagonal has potential. It will take a little cooperation to become dangerous, but it's not chopped liver.

In the meantime, the Queen threatens to capture the pawn at b4.

She also threatens to blunder, which Black notices quickly.

17...bxc5 

Guarding the pawn at b5, and offering the one at c5, instead. Of course, 18.Qxc5? would now be punished by 18...Bb6, pinning and winning the Queen. 

Black had stronger defensive ideas available - after the game, Komodo 10 recommended the consistent 17...Kg8, completing castling and maintaining the advantage - but I suspect that the "Negative halo effect" took hold of AndrewLLL at this point, and he figured, "If this guy is dumb enough to play the Jerome Gambit, he's probably dumb enough to hang his Queen". So he set his trap.

18.e6+ 

Black resigned

I had not worked out the attack completely, but it is clear that Black must now play 18...Kxe6, when, after 19.f5+ Nxf5 20.Qe4+ Kd6 21.Rad1+, the end would be near. After 21...Nd4, the exchange sacrifice is easy to find (the time limit for this game was 3 days per move), and, with 22.Rxd4+ cxd4 23.Qxd4+ Ke6 Black's King will not be long for the world.

Yes, The Jerome Gambit Is Playable (Part 2)

[continued from previous post]

Morin, Louis (1900) - Guipi Bopala, Prince Eric (1900)
Quebec Open, Quebec, 2018
40 moves / 90 minutes, then 30 minutes

So far, we have seen a few surprises. First, White played the Jerome Gambit in a serious over-the-board tournament. Second, Black, a youngster, has been holding his own - until a bit of a surprising (second-and-a-half?), if "scientific", return of the sacrificed material.

As the game progresses, I am reminded of some points made by Dennis Monokroussos, of the chess blog The Chess Mind, in a review of Hannes Langrock's The French Defense: The Solid Rubinstein Variation (2014). The perspective can be helpful in understanding "slow" Jerome Gambits.

A couple of practical drawbacks for [those playing the variation]: if you win, it’s going to take you at least 40 moves and possibly longer. That’s not so bad if you’re playing in a civilized tournament, but here in the U.S. at least you might be playing two full-length games in one day. If you’re young and full of energy then go for it (though if you’re young and full of energy you should play sharp openings instead!), but otherwise it may be a dubious tournament strategy. It’s also not very satisfactory if you’re in a must-win situation, unless you’re a big believer in your technical abilities or your opponent’s technical shortcomings... 

To his credit, he acknowledges early on some of the criticisms readers might offer; indeed, he relates asking the very strong German grandmaster Georg Meier if he isn’t concerned about the drawish tendencies of this line. Meier’s reply was that he has been able to win many kinds of endgames with it. And that’s the key: you have to have good technique and be willing to grind out points over the long haul. Meier is young and a great technician who is able to defeat lesser lights with remarkable regularity in this opening. Our mileage may vary, but by learning the types of endings that can arise via this opening we can replicate some of his successes in our own games. 

Now: back to our game.

34.Nd4 Rb7 35.Rfe1 Rxe1 36.Rxe1 Kf7 37.Re6 Be7

Perhaps the Bishop would be better placed at f6.

38.Nc6

Louis points out that, in time trouble, he missed the winning move, 38.f5! It looks like Black must avoid taking the pawn, as 38...gxf5 39.Nxf5+ leads to the fall of Black's d-pawn. On the other hand, after 38...g5, White's Rook can go after the h-pawn, i.e. 39.Rh6 g4+ (isolating White's f-pawn) 40.Kg2. Then, the computers like 40...a4 41.Rxh6 axb3 42.axb3 when things are still pretty complicated, but White has that extra pawn.

The computers also recommend 38.g4!?, which seems counter-intuitive, opening lines for the enemy Bishop, but, after 38...hxg4+ 39.Kxg4 it becomes clear that Black's minor piece is stuck in place, and 39...Rc7 might be the best chance, pursuing activity, even at the cost of a pawn after 40.Nxb5.

Remember, though: time trouble had reared it's fearsome head. Plus: even after the text move, White is better. And: the endgame is a difficult one.

38...a4 39.b4

Continuing to cramp the enemy Bishop, although 39.bxa4 bxa4 40.g4!? might have been playable, similar to the previous note. 

39...Rc7 40.f5 gxf5 

The first time control has been reached, and White's well-posted Knight dominates Black's troubled Bishop. The extra pawn means nothing. The game is even. (It is important to remember that in difficult situations, "even" does not equal "drawn".)

41.Rh6 Bf6

The Bishop can breathe! Also, the move limits the actions of White's Rook.

42.Rh7+ Bg7 43.Rxh5 Kg6 

44.Rh4

Possibly better was 44.g4!?. taking the chance to liquidate the Kingside pawns and preparing to hang on for the draw. Of course that's easy for me to say, as I was not playing the game.

44...Bf6 45.Rf4 Rh7+ 46.Kg2 Kg5 47.Rf3 Be5 48.Re3 f4

49.gxf4+

Reasonable, but it should allow Black's King to creep closer. Tougher was 49.Re1!? keeping it all in balance.

49...Bxf4

Keeping it even. Dizzying. Tick tock!

50.Rh3

According to the computers, this is the losing move, but how would I know? It makes perfect sense to me to exchange off the major pieces, but apparently this allows Black's King greater activity. On the other hand, 50.Re8!?, which supposedly leads to the half point after mad complications, would require incredible vision.

50...Rxh3 51.Kxh3 Kf5 

The problem is that while White can trade pawn-for-pawn, Black's King gets into the action, while White's is left out.

52.Nd4+ Ke5 53.Nxb5 Bd2 54.Na7 

Black has the game in hand. Impressive.

54...Kxd5 55.b5 Kc5 56.Kg2 Bb4 57.Kf3 Kb6 58.Nc8+ Kxb5 59.Ke4 Bc5 60.Ne7 Kb4 61.Kd3 Ka3 62.Kc2 Kxa2 63.Nd5
Ka3 64.Kc3 Bf2 65.Nf4 Bg3 66.Kc2 White resigned

Hats off to young Prince Eric Guipi Bopala, for playing such a fine game!

Jerome Gambit: The Whole Line Is A Trap

I have mentioned before National and FIDE Master Dennis Monokroussos' thoughtful website, The Chess Mind, where he once asked "Is there even a single trap for Black to fall into in the Jerome Gambit?"

With due respect to Dennis, at the club level the entire Jerome Gambit can be considered a "trap" - especially if we consider psychological aspects. Black must pay attention, even as he treasures his advantages, or they will evaporate. 

Wall, Bill - Guest5436627
PlayChess.com, 2018

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Bxd4 7.Qxd4 d6

8.O-O Be6

Or 8...Nf6. See "Jerome Gambit: Tactic Fatigue" for a discussion.

9.f4 Nc6 10.Qa4 Nf6 

Black is doing well. He has attended to his development, and can protect his King in short order.

White, on the other hand, has to continue to find ways to sow disorder.

11.f5 Bd7 12.Qb3+ Ke7

I am not sure about this. Perhaps the King should go to f8.

13.Nc3 Re8 14.Nd5+ Nxd5

Of course, Black should have moved his King away, instead, with 14...Kf8, but it's no big deal, right?

15.exd5 Ne5

Suddenly Black's King feels a draft along the e-file, and so he blocks it off with his Knight. Sadly, to keep the position about level (White would have an edge) he needed to give up his extra piece with 15...Nd4 16.Qe3+ Kf8 17.Qxd4).

Now, danger comes from another direction. 

16.Bg5+ Black resigned

Tidying Up - Or Messing Up?

Recently I was looking through long-time friend of this blog IM Gary Lane's 2012 "Trash or Treasure?" column, part of his at "Opening Lanes" efforts at Chess Cafe.

(Actually, I was looking at an old pdf file, stored on my phone - a phrase that would probably have been nearly meaningless when I first started this blog.)

I spotted some apparent confusion related to a Jerome Gambit game, and as I may have had a hand in causing it, I thought I'd try to do some unraveling.

From "Trash or Treasure?" 

...Finally, Mr. Kennedy pointed out a fairly recent game played by Scottish player Geoff Chandler. I have never met him, but I do know that Mr. Chandler has an excellent sense of humour and his old chess blog at Chandler Cornered was zany, thought provoking, and usually very funny. Therefore, the following game looks like a fabrication, but I am happy to be corrected in the future. Here is another Jerome Gambit game that is spectacular as always!

Chandler, Geoff - Dimitrov Todor

Blitz, Edinburgh, 2004

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

This opening is ideally suited to blitz where you don't care whether you win or lose, but want to play something memorable.  

6...g6 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.O-O Nf6 10.Qd8!

Geoff is a decent club player and could have found this himself if the game was really played.* I still think it was more likely he was following the advice given in the previous Blackburne game, which has been copied up to this point. However, I did look up his old blog and found this comment "I recall about a year ago Todor and me had a dozen or so games playing 4.Bxf7+ at 5 minute chess in Bells." If you think he played a game inside an actual bell, then think again. He is referring to his chess club hosted at a local bar.  

10...Bh3 11.Qxc7+ Kg8

Here IM Lane gives 12.gxh3 and says

Instead 12.Qxb7 is winning, because12...Qg4 can be met by 13.Qb3+! (13.Qxa8+ Kf7 14.Qb7+ Kf8 15.e5? White should keep on checking, but this winning attempt backfires spectacularly upon 15...d5 and it turns out that Black wins.) 13...Kg7 Qxh3 and it is time for Black to put the pieces back into the box.  

Then 12...Qxh3 13.Qxb7 Qg4+ A draw by repetition beckons, but Mr. Kennedy assures me that Geoff went on to win.

 Actually, the game continued 12.Qxb7 Qg4 13.Qb3+ Kg7 14.Qxh3 and according to Chandler, White won.

How did the mixup in the moves of the game occur? I could have jumbled them when I emailed the game to IM Lane - if I actually sent it, as I can't find any record of that amongst our correspondence. (Gary might have made the slip, but is that likely? He's the professional, I'm the amateur.)

Anyhow, the Chandler - Dimitrov game and analysis can get pretty messy, so perhaps that was part of it.    

In support of that possibility, and a possible clue, it is worth looking at "Updating the Blackburne Defense (Part 2)" where I reference, among a number of things, Dennis Monokroussos's thoughts from about 7 years earlier about Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1884, after 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.O-O 

Dennis M's Chess Site
February 2, 2005

...But now, here's the puzzle. After 9...Nf6, Black has a substantial lead in development and several well-placed pieces ready to commence a feeding frenzy on the White kingside, yet had White found 10.Qd8, pinning the Black Nf6 to the queen on h4, it would have been Black needing to fight for his life! The following might be best play for both sides: 10.Qd8! Bh3 11.Qxc7+ (11.Qxa8? Qg4 12.g3 Qf3 forces mate) Kf8! (11...Kg8? 12.Qxb7 Qg4 13.Qb3+ and 14.Qxh3) 12.Qxb7 Qg4 13.Qxa8+ Kf7 14.Qb7+ Kf8 14.Qa8+ with a draw by perpetual check.  

When I first saw this game and was told about 10.Qd8, it seemed to me that Black just had to have something, but neither I nor my silicon friends have succeeded in proving a win or even an advantage for Black. Can any of my readers find something better for Black?

I can sympathize with Dennis - how can Black not win against the Jerome Gambit?? In a responding comment on his blog I shared

The line gets some analysis by Geoff Chandler and Todor Dimitrov on the former's hilarious website, Chandler Cornered http://www.chessedinburgh.co.uk/index.htm
It goes like this. (Notes by Chandler.)

10.Qd8 Bh3 Threatening simply Qg4 and Qg2 mate. 11.Qxc7+ Kf8 This is best. [In my Game v Todd he played the natural 11...Kg8 which allows a check on b3 12.Qxb7 Qg4 13.Qb3+ Kg7 14.Qxh3] 12.gxh3 forced [If 12.Qxb7 Qg4 13.Qxa8+ Kf7 (13...Kg7 14.e5 d5 15.exf6+ Kxf6 16.Qxd5) 14.e5 d5 15.e6+ (15.Qb7+ Be7 16.e6+ Kg7 17.Qxe7+ Kh6 18.d4+ Kh5) 15...Kg7 16.Qb7+ Kh6 17.d4+ Kh5 and Black mates on g2] 12...Qxh3 This appears to be the best. It keeps the attack rolling and keeps the draw in hand. Remember we are seeing if 10.Qd8 beats the Blackburne line. 13.Qxb7 Ng4 [Or 13...Qg4+ and ...Qf3+ drawing.] 14.Qxa8+ Kg7 15.Qb7+ Kg8 16.Qc8+ Kg7 17.Qd7+ Kg8 18.Qe8+ Kg7 19.Qe7+ Kg8 Black has to allow the draw else 18.Qe8+ Kg7 19.Qf7+ kh6 10.d4+ wins. So it appears 10.Qd8 draws.

Note in the above that the conclusion is that the game is drawn -- the same conclusion as you came to, although the particular line you give (12.Qxb7 instead of Chandler and Dimitrov's 12.gxh3) seems to tilt toward White.

In a later post Monokroussos added

(2) In my main line, Kennedy, citing analysis by Geoff Chandler and Todor Dimitrov, varies from my 12.Qxb7 with 12.gxh3, showing that it likewise draws after 12...Qxh3 13.Qxb7 Qg4+ 14.Kh1 Qf3+ etc. or 13...Ng4 14.Qxa8+ etc. (Note that Black can't escape the checks with 14...Ke7 15.Qb7+! Kf6?? [15...Kd8/e8/f8=] because of 16.e5+ followed by 17.Qg2.) 

(3) Chandler & Dimitrov also mention 12.Qxb7 and suggest it loses, but the culprit is not 12.Qxb7 but their 14.e5?, after which Black has a forced mate. 

Very interesting and I'm grateful to Kennedy for his comment...but my dream remains unfulfilled - can't Black win after 10.Qd8, somehow?

Readers, is this confusing enough for you? Above, I quote Monokroussos quoting me quoting Chandler...

I have put the moves to Chandler - Dimitrov, cited by Chandler, above, in italics. The move 12.gxh3, which IM Lane gives as part of the game, is actually part of Chandler's analysis after 11...Kf8, not 11...Kg8, as played in the game - although Chandler says in his note that the move 12.gxh3 is "forced" which may have made it look like it was played.

I muddied things even more by referring, in my comment to Monokroussos, to "Chandler and Dimitrov's 12.gxh3" - the move was from their analysis, as presented by Chandler, above, not their game; andy by referring to 12.Qxb7, the actual move in the game, as "the particular line you give". Monokroussos seems to catch this, as indicated in his (2) note in the later post.

By the way, Monokroussos is right in note (3) in correcting Chandler's analysis (which I had provided) that after 10.Qd8 Bh3 11.Qxc7+ Kf8 12.Qxb7 White does not lose - after 12...Qg4 13.Qxa8+ Kf7 the move 14.e5 is "the culprit... after which Black has a forced mate". Instead, 14.Qb7+ Kf8 15.Qa8+ draws by repetition - as Monokroussos mentioned in his first post, after "...Now here's the puzzle." 

Still, Monokroussos doesn't escape completely. The later post, note (2), above, gives the sideline 12.gxh3 Qxh3 13.Qxb7 Ng4 [instead of 13...Qg4+, drawing] for Black, suggesting that after 14.Qxa8+ etc. the game is drawn as well - but White has, instead of grabbing the Rook, the forced Queen exchange after 14.Qb3+ (how un-Jerome-ish) 14...Qxb3 15.axb3 which leaves him a Rook and 3 pawns better.

Ah, yes, now everything now is as clear as... trash. 

(*- Chandler commented in Chandler Cornered about 10.Qd8 "This is my over the board improvement that I have since learnt was first suggested in 1951." I had told Chandler that P. Wenman mentioned the move in his Master Chess Play (1951). I later learned that the move had been played in Harris, S - Quayle, E., correspondence, 1944, although, of course, the move had been first suggested in the August 1885 issue of the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle.)

Jerome Gambit - Lost and Found

Last year, when John Watson and Eric Schiller's Taming Wild Chess Openings came out (New In Chess, 2015), I expressed disappointment on this blog that the Jerome Gambit did not appear to the authors to fit their sorting of A) Good B) Bad and C) Ugly chess openings and defenses. (Especially the "Bad" and the "Ugly".)

I am a bit behind in reading Dennis Monokroussos' "The Chess Mind" blog, and I just discovered - in Dennis' past review of Taming Wild Chess Openings, that the Jerome Gambit actually does appear.

My mistake. I had looked in the book's "Contents" without success. I had checked out the "Index of Moves and Variation Names" without discovering either the Italian Game, the Giuoco Piano - or the Jerome Gambit. Ditto the "Opening Index".

Ah, but Dennis pointed out - the Jerome is covered in the "Evans Gambit: Lasker Defense (C52)" chapter!

4.Bxf7+? Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ is the Jerome Gambit, which, however, is refuted by 5...Nxe5 6.Qh5+ (6.d4 Qh4! 7.0-0 Nf6 8.dxc5 Qxe4) 6...Kf8, or here 6...g6 7.Qxe5 Qe7, winning.

Regular readers are no doubt familiar with the "pie-in-the-face" (6...Qh4), Jerome (6...Kf8) and Whistler (7...Qe7) defenses.

My apologies to John and Eric, and my thanks to Dennis.