I Guess A Bad Trap Is Better Than No Trap At All

I have been away from the Jerome Gambit (see"Reliable") long enough that Bill Wall questioned if I had given it up. Not so, not so. That doesn't mean that all of my new games are gems - although the following one brought a smilt to my face.

perrypawnpusher - grosshirn
2 19 blitz, FICS, 2016

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

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qe3 Nf6

10.O-O Kf7 11.f4 Re8 12.f5 

This position appeared as early as Vazquez,A - Carrington,W, Mexico, 2nd match (1), 1876 (1-0, 34).

This is my 14th game with this position, having won 9, drawn 1, and lost 4 to date (68%).

From here, four times my opponents made it easy for me, as in  this game - and, sadly, I only won 3 of those games.

12...Rxe4

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?

If Black believes that White is making it up as he goes along, the defender is not likely to pay attention close enough to avoid stepping in a small trap.

13.fxg6+ 

Black resigned.

I think my opponent was unhappy at having slipped. His position isn't "objectively" all that bad after 13...Kg8 14.gxh7+ Kh8! (14...Kxh7 15.Qd3 will win the exchange) 15.Qf2!? (15.Qd3 Bd7! 16.Rxf6? Qxf6 17.Qxe4 Re8!) and White will have to be happy to be just a pawn up (the White pawn at h7 is doomed) while lagging in development.

Updating the Blackburne Defense (Part 2)

Here we continue from our previous post, "Updating the Blackburne Defense (Part 1)", a look at the Blackburne Defense and what is new (or newer). 

For earlier efforts, see also "Update: Old Dog Can Still Bite","Junk Openings", "A Closer Look (Part V)", "Update: Blackburne Defense" and "Traps and Zaps".

perrypawnpusher - lfcanales
blitz, FICS, 2014

9...Nf6 10.Qd8 Qxe4 

Black's move allows White's Queen to escape and counter-attack. There are a number of alternative moves for Black, two of which bear attention.

Not 10...a6?, as in piratebopper - MiloBot, FICS, 2010, (1-0, 24).

Nor 10...a5? as in perrypawnpusher - MiloBot, blitz, FICS, 2010, (1-0, 24).

Played, if in a stumbling manner, is 10...Bd7?. The core game continued 11.Qxc7 (instead, 11.Qxa8? Nxe4? [Black should finish Blackburne-style: 11...Ng4 12.h3 Bxf2+ 13.Kh1 Qg3 14.Rxf2+ Nxf2+ 15.Kg1 Nxh3+ 16.Kh1 Nf4 17.Qf8+ Kxf8 18.d3 Qxg2#] 12.d4 Bxd4 13.Be3 Bxb2 14.Qxb7 Bxa1 15.Qxc7 Nf6 16.Qxd6 Kg7 17.Qc5 Ne4 18.Bd4+ Bxd4 19.Qxd4+ Kh6 20.f3 Black resigned, UNPREDICTABLE - choron, FICS, 2009) 11...Bb6? (instead, 11...Rc8 12.Qxb7 Ke7 is "gloriously obscure" according to Dr. Andrew Walker, University of Nottingham, personal communication, 2001. Probably 13.Qb3 with the idea of Qg3 is White's answer - not 13.Nc3? Ng4 when Black mates)  12.g3?! (12.Qxd6) 12...Qh3 13.Qxd6? Bc6 14.g4 Qxg4+ White resigned, Harris,S - Quayle,E, Los Angeles, CA, 1944.

Certainly solid, and Rybka's recommendation, is 10...Bb6. White should spring his Queen with 11.e5 dxe5 12.Qd3. The earliest reference that I have seen to this line is from The Art of the Checkmate by Renaud and Kahn (1953), which says White has the advantage. This proved true in Wall,B - Foo,N, Palm Bay, FL, 2010 (1-0, 33).

The most exciting move in the position is Chandler's 10...Bh3!?, when White has to temporarily forego the Rook at a8 and focus on checking Black: 11.Qxc7+ (11.g3? Qxe4 12.Qxc7+ Kf8 White resigned, Siggus -toe, FICS, 2007; 11.Qxa8? Qg4 12.Qe8+ Nxe8 13.g3 Qf3 14.Re1 Qg2#) 11...Kf8! (11...Kg8 lost in Chandler,G - Dimitrov, T/5 minute special game 2004; in Hiarcs 8 - RevvedUp, blitz 2 12, 2006 [1-0, 17]; and AsceticKingK9 - blackburne, ChessWorld JG6, 2011 [1-0, 22] ) and analysis by Geoff Chandler and, later, Dennis Monokroussos (see the two posts on his blog) show that the outcome is a draw, as it is too dangerous for either player to look for more.

11.Qxc7+

This is an improvement over 11.Nc3 Qe7 (11...Qxc2 12.Qxc7+ Nd7 13.Nd5 Qe4 14.Nc3 Qe5 15.d3 Qd4 16.Re1 Qxf2+ White resigned, ionman - GriffyJr, FICS, 2005 (0-1,16); Interested readers should check out "Ionman vs The Bots" ) 12.Qxe7+ Kxe7 as in RevvedUp - Shredder 8, blitz 2 12, 2006 (0-1, 25).

11...Kg8

radicalmove played over a dozen games against LuigiBot on FICS in 2012, testing the somewhat weaker 11...Bd7 (see "Poor, Poor Computer" for a couple of examples). The games are in The Database.

Likewise, ionman took on the computer GriffyJr a couple of times at FICS in 2005, over the somewhat weaker 11...Qe7 (the games are also in The Database). White triumphed in Shredder 8 - RevvedUp, blitz 2 12, 2006 (1-0, 28).

12.Nc3

Maybe a little better was 12.Qd8+ Kf7 13.d3 Qe5 14.Bh6 Qe8 15.Qxe8+ Nxe8.

12...Qxc2

The pawn is poison.

13.Qd8+ 

After the game Houdini preferred 13.d4!? Bb6 (13...Bxd4 14.Bh6 Bd7 15.Qc4+ d5 16.Qxd4) 14.Qe7 when White steals the Knight in broad daylight.

13...Kg7 14.Qe7+ Kh6 15.Qxf6 Black resigned

"The Worst Chess Opening Ever" – Warning or Menace??

 A number of months ago (see "The Worst Chess Opening Ever") I mentioned to readers that I had submitted an article on the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+), titled "The Worst Chess Opening Ever", to the United States Chess Federation's magazine Chess Life for Kids, which runs my regular "Arabian Knights" stories.

If the editor doesn't die laughing, I'll let you know if he accepts it for publication.

Let me assure you that Chess Life for Kids Editor Glenn Petersen is very much alive, and he has a great sense of humor.

So – the June 2010 issue of the magazine is out, and within its pages is the first part of my article.

Oh, yes, as it says

In Part 2 we will take a closer look and analyze the Jerome Gambit

Is exposing young chess-playing minds to such folly a good idea? Will it teach them bad habits and steer them away from studying the Catalan Opening? Or will they learn to crush such outrageous violations of chessic common sense?

Only time will tell...

My Turn Again

Publishing my wins with the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) on this blog only seems fair if I also include my losses. That means not just the ones where I get out-played, but the ones where I am doing just fine – and then blunder.

I've shared this lament before ("My Turn to Blunder") and surely will do so again. At least I can be sure that my opponents mostly understand.

After all, as we say in the Jerome Gambit Gemeinde, "Black wins by force; White wins by farce."

Here, the disaster comes against the Blackburne Shilling Gambit.
perrypawnpusher - vlas
blitz, FICS, 2009
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd44.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ 5...Ke7

Mentioned by Tim McGrew in 2004 in his "Gambit Cartel" article on the Blackburne Shilling Gambit, and by Dennis Monokroussos on his "Chess Mind" website in 2005. I have a dozen games in my database, and White has scored 8-4.

6.Qh5

Not the right follow-up. White should play 6.c3 d6 7.cxd4 dxe5 with about an even game.

6...g6

What Black misses is the defensive 6...Qe8, driving White's Queen back to d1. After that, White would have the Jerome-style two pawns compensation for his piece, but Black's counterplay after 7...Kd8 would be annoying.

7.Nxg6+ hxg6 8.Qxh8 Nxc2+

Black had better chances for equality by playing to trap the White Queen and then playing against it: 8...Nf6 9.Kd1 Kf7 10.Nc3 Qe7 11.Nd5 Nxd5 12.Qxd4 Nb6 13.d3 Bg7 14.Qe3 d5 15.exd5 Bg4+ 16.f3 Qxe3 17.Bxe3 Nxd5 18.fxg4 Nxe3+ 19.Kd2 Nxg4. White has a Rook and two pawns against two pieces.

9.Kd1 Nxa1 10.Qxg8 Qe8 11.b3 Kd8 12.Bb2 Be7

13.Qxe8+ Kxe8 14.Bxa1 d6 Things have settled down, and White is ahead two pawns. It's not a very complicated position.

15.d4 Bd7 16.Nd2 Rd8 17.h4 Kf7 18.h5

Looking for – or overlooking – trouble. Simpler was 18.d5

18...gxh5 19.Rxh5 Bg4+


Ouch.

Just drops a Rook.

The rest of the game was unnecessary.
20.f3 Bxh5 21.Ke2 c5 22.g3 cxd4 23.Bxd4 Bf6 24.Bxa7 Re8 25.Kd3 Bg6 26.f4 d5 White resigned

Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit 2

When it comes to the Blackburne Shilling Gambit – 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4!? – White has several moves that can lead to good play: 4.Nxd4 (followed by 5.c3), 4.c3, or even simply 4.0-0.

Or there is the Jerome Gambit-ish 4.Bxf7+


Master Tim McGrew discussed the latter line in one of his "The Gambit Cartel" columns at ChessCafe, titled "A Shilling in the Mailbag".

Dennis Monokroussos sent a note...

Dennis analyzes 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+, “another fun possibility,” he writes, “when Black has to play very accurately to get even a small edge.”

His analysis runs 5...Ke7! 6.c3 d6! 7.Nc4 Nc6 8.d4 Nf6 9.0-0 Kf7. “White probably doesn't have enough for the piece,” Dennis concludes, “but White is better here than Black is after anything normal but 4.Nxe5.”

Does anybody feel like trying Black’s position after 5...Ke6 instead of Dennis’s 5...Ke7? Truly, this begins to look like a line that only a computer could love!

Believe it or not, this has been tried in a tournament game. Wieteck - Dutschke, Lahnstein, 1999 saw 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Bxf7+!? Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke8? Allowing the check at h5 is unwise. 6.Qh5+ (White could also consider 6.c3 Nc6 7.Qh5+ g6 when both 8.Nxc6 and 8.Nxg6 come into consideration.) 6...g6 7.Nxg6 and now Black committed suicide with 7...Qf6??, but after 7...hxg6 8.Qxg6+ Ke7 9.Qg5+! Nf6 10.Qc5+ d6 11.Qxd4

White has four (!) pawns for the bishop and Black’s king will be exposed long-term.

I cannot resist the opportunity to point out the (distant but discernable) analogy between Dennis’s second line and the Jerome Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+. The Jerome is, of course, completely unsound; it is a kind of miracle, and a tribute to Jerome’s tenacity, that it was analyzed seriously at all.

Dennis has produced a number of chess videos – which I recommend highly, for both their instructional and entertainment value – including "Master Lesson - Improvisation in the Italian Game" which has more recent analysis on the Jerome-ized Blackburne Shilling Gambit.

By the way, I took up Tim's challenge, and gave the position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke6 to the new Rybka 3.0 for a minute or two. (One of these days I'll let it run overnight.)

Rybka suggested that after 6.c3 Kxe5 7.cxd4 Ke6 8.Nc3 d5 things were about equal. Which side would be more comfortable for a person to play, though?

Black could probably eat another pawn with 7...Kxd4 (instead of 7...Ke6) but look at what might happen: 8.Nc3 (8.d3 Ke5 9.Qg4 Ne7 10.Bg5 d5 11.Qh5 Ke6 12.0-0) c6 9.d3 Kc5 10.Bf4 Kb6 11.Qb3+ Ka6 12.a4 b6 13.Nd5 cxd5 14.Qb5 Kb7 15.Qxd5 Ka6 16.0-0 Ne7 17.Qxa8 Nc6 18.a5 bxa5 19.Rfc1 Bb4 20.Rxc6 dxc6 21.Qxc6 and we have a typical drawn position... (Ha!)

All very, very complicated - a line that only a computer could love, as Tim said.

Game examples are very welcome.

Junk Openings

Thinking chess players everywhere (even those of us in the Jerome Gambit Gemeinde) should stop by (although perhaps many have, being thinking chess players, after all) National and FIDE Master Dennis Monokroussos' thoughtful website, The Chess Mind.

Dennis produces the instructive and entertaining ChessBase shows and ChessVideos shows, which I can highly recommend.

Dennis' thoughts on the Jerome Gambit are rather dismissive -- although he has been more than polite in his exchanges with me at his site.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+??... leaves White a piece down for no compensation whatsoever. Is there even a single trap for Black to fall into in the Jerome Gambit?

Interested readers might want to take a look at some of my earlier posts: this one on junk openings, and see here and here on the Jerome Gambit with the follow-up 5.Nxe5+, as in a well-known Blackburne game.

Of course, I certainly wasn't going to argue with a philosopher at the University of Notre Dame (where, by the way, "Kennedy Kid" Jon attends, although he and Dennis have neither crossed paths nor pawns).

Ah, yes, Dennis, you are of course completely correct: on a good day the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+??) aspires to be known as a "junk opening," but likely still over-reaches!

It's value, such as it is, can be found in the enjoyment (mixed with horror) that some players have experienced while employing the Jerome in blitz, or using it as a way of giving odds to a weaker player.

It is in the latter case that the "justification" of the opening is found: no traps, just the acute discomfort the second player feels (until he reaches a certain level of skill, of course; then he is brimming with confidence and a desire to pocket the gifted full point) with a King out of place and that Big, Bad Queen on the prowl...

The position after 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ is no more "objectively" lost than the starting position in a game where White gives Knight, Rook or Queen odds.

My interest in the JG over the last few years has been of a historical nature — where did such a thing come from and in what manner did it survive?