The Macbeth Attack

I recently discovered a page on the Italian language website Sacchi64 devoted to what it calls "the Macbeth Attack" (after Shakespeare's "Macbeth") 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ which the site also refers to as "the Crazy Attack". It includes a file of 56 computer-vs-computer games in a 2013 thematic tournament.

This line was seen (by transposition) as early as Wright - Hunn, Arkansas, 1874, referred to in the November 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal as "An unsound variation of Jerome's double opening."

Sacchi64 also has a page on the Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ as well as a file of 56 computer-vs-computer games in another thematic tournament (from 2009). I am playing through them, and am pleased to see that a few of the computers appear to  have included the Jerome Gambit in their "books". As I noted in an earlier post

Given that the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) is not likely to be deemed "best" play for White by the analysis of any competent computer, any time the opening is played by a program, it is likely that the Jerome has been included in the opening "book".

I will share relevant games in future posts.

LPDO Revisited

In "My House! My House! My Kingdom for a House!" I mentioned Grandmaster John Nunn's acronym, LPDO, as a reminder that "Loose Pieces Drop Off". In the following game, Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member HauntedKnight takes that notion into account when planning his play, and it helps him grab a "loose" Knight. Black's resignation, only a pawn down, might be a bit early, but it is easily understood.

HauntedKnight - OneNoTrump
blitz, FICS, 2011

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

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Bb4+

Computers tend to like this move, for their own computer-ish reasons. For examples, see "Jerome Gambit: Drilling Down (1)" for RevvedUp's 2008 tag-team match against Hiarcs 8, Shredder 8, Yace Paderborn, Crafty 19.19 and Fritz 8, where this move showed up, played by Crafty. It also appears in Jeroen's earlier 2003 Jerome Gambit computer tournament in the game Deep Sjeng 1.5 - Hiarcs 9.

If the computers are given enough time they often find the recommended 6...Qh4!? as well.

Has OneNoTrump examined the Jerome Gambit with a computer, or is this a knee-jerk reaction (my Bishop is attacked, move it and attack White)?

7.c3 Bxc3+

A clue: this looks like a human decision. The 75 games that have this move in The Database all have a person playing Black.

Computers realize, of course, that Black must return a piece, and suggest something like 7...Ng6/c6 8.cxb4 to mess up White's pawns a bit; or they let White choose which piece he wants by playing 7...Qh4. 

8.bxc3

Bolstering White's center, but 8.Nxc3 was probably a bit better: development and all that.

8...Nc4 9.Qh5+ g6

Reflex. 

Better was 9...Kf8 and Black keeps his edge, even against 10.Qc5+ Nd6 11.e5, because he has 11...b6 12.Qb4 Qe7 when after 13.0-0 the Knight escapes with 13...Nf7. 

10.Qd5+ Black resigned

The loose piece at c4 will drop.

My House! My House! My Kingdom for a House!

Passing the following game along to me with the note "Another Jerome Gambit swindle," Bill Wall explained the crux of the game in one sentence, and the psychology of the contest in another: My opponent tried to castle by hand, but dropped a rook. Opponents seem to panic when their king is in the center.

Wall,B - Yunfan
chess.com, 2011

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.Qb5+

This is something new: in almost 24,000 games in The Database, this position does not show up at all!

The closest thing to it seems to be a 2006 FICS game, PierreKurdy - NLockwood (0-1, 58), which began: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 7.Qxc5 d6 8.Qd5+ Ke8 9.d3 Nf6 10.Qb5+ c6 11.Qb3. Of course, if you do a search on that position at move 11, you find that Bill Wall - Seven11, Chess.com, 2008 got there, too.

Giving "Jerome Gambit odds" requires alert, strong play. Familiarity with basic stratagems (Bill has studied The Database) is very useful.

So is the proper use of psychology. Here White asks (just like he does when his Queen checks from d5 in analogous situations) Black: is it worth the b-pawn to block the check with the Bishop? The answer is: probably not, but arriving at that conclusion takes time, as, Black reasons, surely, there must be some way to punish that impertinent Queen...

9...c6 10.Qb3

Posing the questions, Where will Black's Bishop go?, Where will Black's King go? and How will he get there?

10...Nf6 11.d3 Qa5+

12.Nc3 Rb8

You would almost expect Black to try something like 12...Qh5, but he is still worried about the White Queen at b3 and its attack on the pawn at b7.

The Rook move should give White some ideas based on GM John Nunn's warning: "LPDO, Loose Pieces Drop Off."

13.Bd2 Qb6

Another "solution" to the b7 pawn problem. That's three by my count: 9...c6, 12...Rb8 and now 13...Qb6.

It's all very reasonable, and the computer still gives Black the edge, but it is an indication that Black is uncomfortable with his position (instead of cheering himself: More than a dozen moves and I'm still better!)

14.Qa3 Ke7 15.f4 Re8

Having shored up Pb7, Black now goes about castling-by-hand to safeguard his King. That will make him feel a whole lot better. Multi-tasking will take its toll, though.

16.0-0-0 Kf8 17.Qxd6+ Kg8 18.Qxb8 Black resigned

Black can win the exchange with 18...Bg4, but that would leave him still three pawns down.

A Discouraging Word

Oh, give me a home

Where the buffalo roam

Where the deer and the antelope play'

Where seldom is heard

A discouraging word,

And the sky is not cloudy all day.

     – from the poem "Oh give me a Home" by Dr. Brewster M. Higley; later set to music as "The Western Home" by Clarence and Eugene Harlan, and Dan Kelley; known better today as the song "Home on the Range"

From Secrets of Practical Chess, by Grandmaster John Nunn:

When looking through "dubious opening" analysis, look out for the following:

1) "nothing moves" by the opponent (i.e. the one facing the dubious opening), which only waste time

2) Lines in which the opponent pretends he is in the nineteenth century, co-operatively brabs all the material on offer, and allows a brilliant finish

3) Lines which are given without any assessment

4) Secret code words

5) "Winning With" authors display great ingenuity in finding resources for "their" side, but often overlook even quite simple tactical defenses for the "other" side.

6) Do not trust lines that are not based on practical examples. The more examples there are, and the higher the standard of the players, the more trust you can place in the line.

I feel comfortable with Dr. Nunn's wisdom, as from the earliest days of this blog I have been straight-forward – 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!

"But – Is this stuff playable??" is a question that has been addressed a number of times. I have tried to be fair in my analysis of chances for both sides.

Still, I like the opening, it's fun to play in fun games, and it is an enjoyable way to give "odds".

If I ever face Grandmaster Magnus Carlsen in a simultaneous exhibition, I'll surely use a more appropriate opening.

Hah! Who am I kidding?? I'd never pass up the chance to see what the number one rated chessplayer in the world would play against the Jerome!