Jerome Gambit: Folie a Deux (Part 1)

I won my third round game - an Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit - in the "Italian game Classic" tournament at Chess.com, when my opponent and I seemed to have the same "hallucination" about a tense, tactical position. Up until then, I had been awkwardly struggling to lurch my way back to equality - only to be smacked around by a violent return of my sacrificed material.

Given the distracted level of my play, I consider myself quite lucky.

perrypawnpusher - Sp1derR1c0
Italian Game Classic, Chess.com, 2020

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

Whew! My game against Winawer99 in the same round continued 4...Nxe4, and I decided to avoid my past suffering with the Noa Gambit / Monck Gambit / Open Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit - 5.Bxf7+ - and played, instead, 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Bd3 dxe4 7.Bxe4 Bd6 8.Bxc6+ bxc6 9.d4, a line that I also have struggled with. It showed: on my way to a possibly drawn Bishops-of-opposite-colors endgame, I overlooked a checkmate in 2 moves (0-1, 21).

5.Bxf7+ 

The Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

What difference does the addition of Knights at c3 and f6 make, when compared to the regular Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+)?

Komodo 10 shows it to improve Black's position by about 3/4 of a pawn.

The Database has 2,731 games with the Four Knights version, with Black scoring 61%. This compares to 15,157 games with the Jerome, proper, with Black scoring 54%.

I have to admit, in my own games, Black scores 25% in my Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit games (62) versus scoring 17% in my regular Jerome Gambit games (336). 

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.d4 Re8

I like this move. Instead of worrying which piece to save, Black develops another one, on a crucial file. Let White figure it out!

8.dxc5 

In preparing this post, I was amused to discover that Komodo 10's second choice, here, was not a capture, but 8.0-0, fully relying on the fact that not all of the pieces will be able to escape, e.g. 8...Bd6 9.f4!? Nc6 10.e5, etc. 

That line, in turn, raised a question for me: Has anyone ever tried moving the f-pawn right away, i.e. 8.f4 ? It turns out that The Database has two examples - Svirfneblin - cosmoo, blitz, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 24) and Mvskoke - Panico, blitz, FICS, 2012 (1-0, 36). It is an example of going too far, however, as Black has 8...Bxd4 9.Qxd4 Nc6 and he is doing better than in the normal lines.

By the way, The Database has 6 games with 8.0-0 (Black scores 56%) - and in 3 of them, Svirfneblin had the White pieces. I will have to look at more of his games...


8...Kg8 

Finishing castling-by-hand. I have noted

This is an improvement over 8...Nc6 of perrypawnpusher - hudders, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 13) and 8...Nc4 of the tragic perrypawnpusher - TrentonTheSecond, blitz, FICS, 2010 (0-1, 9),

9.O-O d6 10.cxd6 cxd6 

This is probably an improvement over 10...Qxd6, which I faced a couple of times perrypawnpusher - hklett, blitz, FICS, 2013 (1-0, 31) and perrypawnpusher - strandskatan, blitz, FICS, 2013 (1-0, 38). I was prepared, sort of

After the game Houdini recommended the dull 11.Qxd6 cxd6 12.Rd1 with pressure against Black's d-pawn, although Black is still better.

11.Be3 

An odd move; the Bishop usually goes to g5. I was planning to play f2-f4, but, for some reason I was worried about ...Qb6+ at some point, so I protected the a7-g1 diagonal. Of course, White's b-pawn is not vulnerable to that enemy double attack, until the Bishop moves. I suspect Caffeine Deficiency Disorder.

11...Be6 12.f3 

This is the move that White sometimes plays when he gives up on his plan to attack, and decides to hunker down and challenge Black to do something with his material advantage. Suddenly - comparatively, as the time control was 3 days per move - that became my plan.

The word "collywobbles" comes to mind.

[to be continued]

A GM Faces the Jerome Gambit (Part 1)

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 😭... 

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 😉. 

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 😉. 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! 😉 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...] 

Jerome Gambit: Three Way Tactical Battle

The following game, a 1-minute, no increment example of the Noa Gambit, otherwise known as the Monck Gambit, otherwise known as the Open Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit, quickly becomes what appears to be a tactical battle among White, Black, and the clock. The game is entertaining, but, please, don't ask me to explain it all; I have shared some of Stockfish 10's ideas, but I think they mostly make things more complicated. 

The end of the game reminds me of the story of two guys who are walking in the forest, when they are suddenly discovered by a large animal. One of the guys opens his backpack, takes out his running shoes, and begins to put them on. "What do you think you are doing?" his companion asks. "You will never outrun that animal." "I don't have to outrun the animal," said the first guy, "I only have to outrun you."

In the following game, the time clock is the animal.  

angelcamina - florianschreib
1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2019

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe4 d5 7.Nc3 e4 8.Ng1 Bc5 

It is hard to believe that White volunteered for this position. The best that can be said is that he did not sacrifice 2 pieces to get there, which often happens in a Jerome Gambit.

9.d4 Bxd4 10.Nge2 Bb6 11.O-O Rf8 12.Nxd5 Kg8 

White has castled. Black has castled-by-hand. The game is just about balanced, and whoever comes up with some good ideas - quickly - will gain the advantage.

13.Nxb6 axb6 14.Qe1 Ne5 15.Qc3 Qf6 16.Bf4 Ng4 17.Qxf6 Nxf6 18.Bxc7 Bg4 19.Ng3 Rac8 

20.Bxb6 Rxc2 21.Bd4 Rd8 22.Bc3 b5 23.a3 Rd3 24.h3 Be6 25.Rad1 

Okay, Readers. The players have 1 or 2 seconds to find each move. What would you play here?

25...Bb3

It is not immediately clear, but 25...Bc4, protecting the Rook at d3 against the threat Nxe4, would be better.

The complications begin to pile up.

26.Rxd3

Now, 26.Nxe4 would work, but you would have to see - in a second or two - that 26...Rcxc3 27.Nxc3 Bxd1 28.Rxd1 Rxd1+ 29.Nxd1 would be the outcome, leaving White up a couple of pawns in a technical endgame. (I think White had 15 seconds left on his clock!)

26...exd3

27.Rd1 

Immediately targeting the passed d-pawn.

Strongest, though, if still losing, for White, was 27.Nf5 Nd5 28.Ba5 Rxb2 29.Nd4 Ba4 30.Nf3 b4!? which is a nifty line that you could work out if you were playing correspondence - not bullet - chess.

27...Bc4

Black, in turn, misses the killer 27...Rxc3. (It looks like he had 7 seconds left on his clock.)

28.Ne4 

Stockfish 10 suggests 28.Bd4!?, with the idea that 28...Nd5 29.Kh2  Nf4 30.Ne4 Bb3 31.Nd2 Rxb2 32.Bxb2 Bxd1 33.f3 Kf7 gives White a defense against the passer, with an even game. But even Stockfish took longer than a second to find that line.

28...Nd5

Black did not trust - or did not find - 28...Nxe4.

29.Nd2 Nxc3 30.Nxc4 

Bypassing the ordinary recapture, 30.bxc3, although the game would be equal if he could find 30...Rxc3 31.a4!?. (10 seconds left on the clock.)

30...Rxb2 

This has to be the clock (5 seconds left), as Black bypasses the win of a Rook (31...Nxd1) in order to lose one. But the game is not over yet!

31.Rxd3 

Oh, no, same problem.

31...Nd1 

Instead, 31...Ne2+, safeguarding the Knight - with check - would allow him to then grab the Rook.

32.Kh2

White sees the Knight threat. But not the Rook.

32...Rc2

33.Rd8+ Kf7 34.Ne3 Nxe3 35.fxe3 Rf2 36.Rd7+ Kg6 37.Ra7 Black lost on time (in a roughly equal position)

Amazing game. I had to relax after simply playing it over...

Jerome Gambit: Worst vs Best (Part 3)

As mentioned in the previous post, the line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ (5.0-0 would be the Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit) had been called the Noa Gambit or the Monck Gambit - before picking up the moniker the Open Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

It is easy to find two games defended by Emanuel Lasker, in this line, from a mondern games database but neither appear to be the game referred to by the Pittsburgh Press on October 18, 1906. 

NN - Lasker, Emanuel
consultation game, London, 1900
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe4 d5 7.Ng3 e4 8.Ng1 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 0-1

Lenzer - Lasker, Emanuel
simultaneous exhibition, Germany, 1913
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 g5 10.Nd2 Rh7 11.f3 Bxh3 12.gxh3 Rf7 13.Nb3 Qf6 14.Rf1 Re8 15.Qe2 Re6 16.Bd2 Nd4 17.Qd1 Nxf3+ 0-1

Recent correspondence with chess historian John Hilbert confirms the outlines of the Pittsburgh Press story - the simultaneous exhibition, the location, the city, the date, Lasker's opponent - but, alas, not the game, itself. To that, Richard Forster, who co-edited Emanuel Lasker Volume 1: Struggle and Victories: World Chess Champion for 27 Years (which, by the way, included Hilbert's chapter, "Lasker: The American Views"), unfortunately can add nothing.

It is the old story: defeat the master, and submit your game for publication; fall to the master, and keep your gamescore to yourself.