I just won my latest Jerome Gambit game, in the "Italian Game Classic" tournament at Chess.com. I am still trying to figure out how I did it.
Since my opponent and I entered what I call the "Optical Illusion" variation of the Jerome Gambit - see "Optical Illusion (1)", "Optical Illusion (2)" and "Disdainful Defender Defense" - I am inclined to see my last move in the game as giving a false impression of strength, another illusion.
This was a fortunate outcome for me, to a game that started off with ominous tones. Ever since I started posting on this blog, over a decade ago, I have worried (mostly, needlessly) that an opponent might simply come here and look up a line of play or refutation and throw it at me.
The fact is, you could get a good sense of my game by simply looking at my post on perrypawnpusher - PDX84, Italian Game Classic, Chess.com, 2019 (1-0, 15), and its notes, through move 12, as recounted less than 2 weeks ago in "Jerome Gambit: History in Play".
Really. Go read the post. It contains some good analysis and a good amount of Jerome Gambit history.
(For that matter, you could wander on back 6 years to "Who's the 'Expert'?", which contained perrypawnpusher - vz721, Italian Game thematic, Chess.com, 2013 (0-1, 29), which anticipated the current game through move 13. We will get back to that.)
Still, I don't want to give a bare game score, today. Since I had so much fun sharing the analysis of an earlier game that the Chess.com computer provided (see "Jerome Gambit: A Way Out of the Woods [Part 1 and 2]) I decided to consult that oracle again, and share its conclusions. I dipped into The Database a bit, too.
perrypawnpusher - schnappa
Italian Game Classic, Chess.com, 2019
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+
The Chess.com computer post-game analysis rated this move as "excellent", but still considered 6.d4 to be "best".
As I wrote in "Jerome Gambit: A Way Out of the Woods (Part 1)",
For the record, The Database has 4,442 games with 6.Qh5+ (White scores 56%) and 2,024 games with 6.d4 (White scores 55%). So, 6.Qh5+ is twice as popular as 6.d4, but both moves score similarly.
6...Ke6
"Best" according to the Chess.com analyst.
7.Qf5+
This move was "good", while 7.f4 was "best".
The Database shows my clear preference for 7.Qf5+: I have 80 games with the move, scoring 86%. As for 7.f4, I have 2 games - although I did win both of them (see "Jerome Gambit: Unfinished Symphony Part 1 and 2" and "Return of the Negative Halo Effect in the Jerome Gambit").
7...Kd6 8.f4
"best" according to the computer. It was first suggested in Jerome's analysis in the "New Chess Opening" article in the April 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal.
8...Qf6
This was an "inaccuracy" according to the Chess.com post game analysis. Instead, 8...Kc6 was seen as "best".
This evaluation is mildly supported by The Database, that has 75 games with the natural move 8...Qf6, with White scoring 53%; while it has only 3 games with 8...Kc6, although Black won them all.
(It is interesting that this main line shows up in "Jerome Gambit Secrets #5", which takes a look at the relatively unknown 8...Ne7: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Ne7 - although the "secret" comes a couple of moves later).
9.fxe5+
The computer analysis saw this move as "excellent", although it considered exchanging Queens with 9.Qxe5+, as "best".
9...Qxe5 10.Qf3
Of course, the Chess.com engine considered this move as an "inaccuracy", because swapping Queens with 10.Qxe5 would have been "best"
10...Nf6
I my notes to perrypawnpusher - PDX84, I said that this move made a lot of sense. The Chess.com analysis referred to it as "best"
[to be continued]
My first win with the Jerome Gambit, in the second round of the "Italian Game Classic" tournament at Chess.com, was a bit of a journey through the opening's history.
An unfortunate slip by my opponent allowed me a tactical shot that brought the game to an early conclusion.
perrypawnpusher - PDX84
Italian Game Classic, Chess.com, 2019
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6
Black courageously thinks of holding onto both sacrificed pieces. The compter chess analysis at Chess.com, after the game, identified the move as "best".
7.Qf5+
Alonzo Wheeler Jerome first suggested this move in the April 4, 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal. He also played 7.f4 and 7.O-O in correspondence games against S.A. Charles, and suggested 7.b4 "for analysis"; this was covered in the October, 1881 issue of Brentano's Chess Monthly.
A check of The Database shows 507 games with 7.Qf5+, with White scoring 48%, as opposed to 517 games with 7.f4, with White scoring 61%. There are no games with 7.b4.
7...Kd6 8.f4 Qf6 9.fxe5+ Qxe5 10.Qf3
Not 10.Qxe5+ this time. That move has given me mixed results, and a loss most recently: perrypawnpusher - djdave28, Italian Game Tournament, Chess.com, 2014, (1-0, 22); perrypawnpusher - djdave28, Italian Game Tournament, Chess.com 2015, (1-0, 32); and perrypawnpusher - Altotemmi, Giuoco Piano Tournament, Chess.com, 2016, (0-1, 51).
The Queen exchange is at least as old as Jerome, A - Jaeger, D, correspondence, 1878 (0-1, 68).
10...Nf6
This move makes a lot of sense.
Jerome faced 10...Ne7 in a correspondence game against Jaeger in 1878 (0-1, 68).
Lowe,E - Cudmore,D, correspondence, 1881, continued 10...b5 (½-½, 48).
Keeble,J - Cubitt,J, Norwich 1886, continued 10...c6 (1-0, 17).
11.d3 Ke7
Black dodges the crudest of threats - 12.Bf4, pinning his Queen to his King. The idea is at least as old as Vazquez - Giraudy, Mexico, 1876 (remove White's Queen Rook) 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.d4 Bxd4 9.c3 Bb6 10.f4 Qf6 11.fxe5+ Qxe5 12.Bf4 Qxf4 13.Qxf4+ Ke7 14.Rf1 Nh6 15.Qe5+ Kd8 16.Qxg7 Re8 17.Qg5+ Re7 18.Rf8 checkmate. Still, I've scored points from this "Optical Illusion" variation of the Jerome Gambit - see "Optical Illusion (1)", "Optical Illusion (2)" and "Disdainful Defender Defense".
Instead, 11...Kc6 was seen in Jerome, A - Colburn, correspondence 1879 (0-1, 34) and Jerome, A - Charles, S.A., correspondence, 1881 (unfinished).
12.Nc3 Bb4
Pinning the White Knight to keep it off of d5.
Instead:
12...g5 was seen in Jerome, A - Shinkman, W, Iowa, 1874 (0-1, 21);
12...d6 was seen in Jerome, A - Brownson, O, Iowa, 1875 (1-0, 43);
12...c6 was seen in Jerome, A - Amateur, off hand game, 1876 (1-0, 20); and
12...d5 was seen in Jerome, A - Pane, M, correspondence, 1878 (1-0, 41).
13.Bd2
I was amused to see that I had played 13.O-O here, years ago, in perrypawnpusher - PREMK, blitz, FICS, 2005. The idea was that 13...Bxc3 14.bxc3 Qxc3 15.Qg3!? would give White good play for the sacrificed pawn.
13...Rf8 14.O-O d6
Instead, in the post mortem, Komodo 10 recommended the brutal 14...Bd6, with the idea of forcing exchanges to eliminate White's attacking chances and highlight Black's piece-for-a-pawn advantage, e.g. 15.g3 c6 16.Bf4 Bc5+ 17.Kg2 Qh5 18.Na4 Qxf3+ 19.Rxf3 d6 20.Nxc5 dxc5 21.Raf1 Bg4 22.R3f2 Be6
15.Nd5+ Black resigned
White will recover his sacrificed piece. He will be a pawn up, with better development and King safety. Black decided not to play on.
The second round of the Italian Game Classic tournament at chess.com has started. I am in Group 5, along with FedeMamut, stur_lindberg and PDX84.
To start, I have White against FedeMamut and PDX84 - and have been fortunate to be able to play 2 Jerome Gambits.
As always, I will keep you informed of my progress, win, lose or draw.
