Louis Morin
Location: Montréal
Re : Re: Gambiteers Unite
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Pacey
Even against much weaker players, I would just use the Evans, or possibly the KG, nowadays if I was in the mood to gambit against 1.e4 e5.Why not the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+)? There is a very entertaining blog dedicated to it: http://jeromegambit.blogspot.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------Kevin Pacey
Re: Re : Re: Gambiteers Unite
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis Morin
Why not the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+)? There is a very entertaining blog dedicated to it: http://jeromegambit.blogspot.com/
Oddly or not, I don't think I have any books that mention this gambit.
I visited your given linked blog briefly, and I saw that the author was interested in the Jerome Gambit as White, but even the analysis given there seemed to show that Black is quite fine in theory, if he plays properly, despite the ultimate result of the games given.
As I mentioned in a comment on the Goring Gambit in an earlier post, I gave that one up as soon as I convinced myself Black could equalize by force. I'm sure that, like with the Jerome Gambit, I could beat a weaker/much weaker player with it, or almost any opening, but usually, if the game matters at all, I'd stick to my principles and play an opening that has a better theoretical status for White. In the case of the Jerome Gambit, White probably shouldn't even get equality if Black plays well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Pacey
Re: Re : Re: Gambiteers Unite
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis Morin
Why not the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+)? There is a very entertaining blog dedicated to it: http://jeromegambit.blogspot.com/This blog mentions the sequence 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6. To show that people play just about anything, an expert-strength player in my old Brampton club (then not CFC rating its games) played this 'opening' now and then. Apperently it had some theory devoted to it, at least back in his homeland.
White needs to play precisely, it would seem, to make the most out of his position. My own analysis (without a computer or books, etc.) would go:
4.d4!
(if 4.0-0 Black has 4...Nf6 and after 5.d4 he can play 5...d6 without dropping a pawn; if 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 then possible is 5...exd4 [5...d6 is 'solid'] with the idea 6.cxd4 Bb4+ and Black has the extra move ...h6 included in an otherwise normal mainline, or 6.e5 with the idea 6...d5 7.Bb5 Ne4 and if 8.Nxd4 White almost has a mainline position, except Black has traded ...h6 for c2-c3, which may not be too much of a gain for White)
4...exd4
(4...d6? drops a pawn after 5.dxe5)
5.0-0!
(not 5.Nxd4 when Black can play 5...Nf6 or the more adventurous 5...Ne5)
and White has a favourable version of a normal mainline, where Black has substituted ...h6 for the more useful ...Nf6. Play might continue 5...Bc5 6.c3! and if 6...dxc3 (better is 6...d3, but White stands better after 7.b4) 7.Bxf7+! (a familiar trick for Italian/Evans Gambit players) 7...Kxf7 8.Qd5+, intending Qxc5 with advantage.
For example, now 8...Ke8 (to avoid Qxc5 with check) could be answered by 9.Qxc5 anyway, with advantage in spite of ...cxb2 since the displacement of the Black king is worth more than the pawn. However 9.Qh5+ works, as 9...g6 10.Qxg6+ Kf8 (10...Ke7 11.Qg7+) 11.Qf5+ Qf6 (or ...Nf6) allows 12.Qxc5 with check anyway, followed by Qxc3.
(Thanks to Louis for suggesting the Jerome Gambit. A note for Kevin: GM Pavel Blatny has played 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 with Black, a number of times, with success. Thanks for your analysis, too! -- RK)
