Recently Bill Wall sent me 16 of his Jerome Gambit games that were Human + Computer vs Computer encounters. Such teamwork is sometimes referred to as advanced chess, or cyborg chess, or centaur chess. Over the years, I have posted games from Human vs Computer matches (including the legendary 1993 Fisher-Kirshner - Knight Stalker battles, and the rolling 2006 RevvedUp - Fritz 8 - Crafty 19.19 - Hiarcs 8 - Shredder 8 - Yace Paderborn mayhem) as well as many Computer vs Computer games, but I think this is the first centaur chess I have presented. The results are interesting - even if it is difficult to assign the relative impact that the human had on the play. Also, the time controls, which affect the strength of computer programs, are not known. Over all, White scored 4 - 9 - 3 (34%), which would be unimpressive for a normal opening under normal circumstances, but which seems - as with all Jerome Gambit matches - a bit "high" for a many-times-refuted opening. A little more insight is available by breaking the games down into 4-game matches. Crafty vs Stockfish + Wall, for example, yielded 2 wins for Black when played by the team; and, likewise, 2 wins for White when played by the team. With all due respect to Dr. Robert Hyatt's computer engine, it appears it could have been simply outplayed by its stronger computer opponent. Who played what color did not seem to matter. On the other hand, the Komodo 5 vs Rybka + Wall match, which ended with a score of 2 - 2 - 0, was composed of 4 wins by Black. Neither engine, it appears, was able to ovecome the "handicap" of playing the Jerome Gambit. The Hiarcs 9 vs Critter + Wall match seemed a reflection of the comparative strengths of the computer programs, as Hiarcs 9 lost 2 games as White, and could only manage a draw as Black. Interesting, also, was the Fritz 12 vs Houdini + Wall match. The team was 1 - 0 - 1 as White, and 1 - 0 - 1 as Black, suggesting that Houdini was the brighter computer program. Looking at a couple of lines of play, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 scored 2 - 5 - 1, while 6.Qh5+ scored 2 - 4 - 2, not much of a difference. I will be sharing some of the games, taking a look at what "theoretical" enlightenment they bring.
Sometimes I run into a line in the Jerome Gambit that I don't (yet) know what to do with. A good (bad) example is in the following game. I have alluded to Black's 7th move in several posts (see here and here for examples). Here are the games from The Database where the move appears. Maybe readers have some ideas. chessmanjeff - sergbond blitz, FICS, 2013 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nc6 3. Nf3 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
Chessfriend Vlasta Fejfar of the Czech Republic has faced the "annoying defense" to the Jerome Gambit a number of times. In the following game, his most recent, he comes away with the whole point. Vlastous - Idalgit Internet, 2017 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 d6
This is also called the "silicon defense" because it is the choice of many computer chess programs. Black returns a piece and takes a lot of the action out of the position. 8.fxe5 dxe5 9.Qh3+ Kf7 The text is about equal to 9...Ke7 which was seen in Fejfar,V -Goc,P, 2015(1/2 - 1/2, 70), Fejfar,V - Chvojka, correspondence, 2016(0-1, 32) and Vlastous - irinat, Chessmaniac, 2016 (0-1, 38). 10.Qh5+ Ke6 11.Qe2
A tactical slip that drops a piece. Black may have unconsciously decided that his opponent has finished moving his Queen. 14.Qc4+ Ke7 15.Nxc5 b6 16.Nd3 a5 17.Qc3 Ke6
18.Qb3+ Black resigned Perhaps a bit soon, but Black sees he will lose the b-pawn, and White's Queen will escape any danger, so the game may have lost its interest.
I have been sharing games (starting with "Irrational") where Bill Wall has given various chess-playing computer programs "Jerome Gambit odds" - and won. There were some losses, however. Curiously, while I have been wordy and full of "insight" in presenting Bill's wins, I am at a loss for many words concerning the following game. As the "Talking Fritz" program might have said, "Q.E.D." Wall, Bill - Alfil engine Palm Bay, FL, 2015 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
Here we have another human vs computer game (see "Irrational"), one which turns, curiously, on computer "psychology" and a subtle anti-computer strategy. Again, it is the human who applies brutal tactical force to close out the game. Wall, Bill - Comet B50 engine Palm Bay, FL, 2015 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 d6
Ah, yes, back to the "annoying" or "silicon" defense. Black will soon be challenged to decide which pawn(s) it wants to protect, and which one(s) it wants to let go. This is something White can take advantage of, if he pushes it. 8.fxe5 dxe5 9.Qh3+ Ke7
Ten years ago this position proved uneasy for the computer playing the Jerome Gambit, and it quickly decided to save half a point: 9...Kd6 10.Qd3+ Ke7 11.Qg3 Kd6 12.Qd3+ Ke7 13.Qg3 Kd6 14.Qd3+ drawn, Crafty 19.19 - RevvedUp, blitz 2 12, 2006. 10.Qg3 Kd6 11.Qd3+ Bd4
Again, here, in the human - computer supermatch played a decade ago, the computer, with the Jerome Gambit, decided to bail out: 11...Ke7 12.Qg3 Ke6 13.Qh3+ Kf7 14.Qh5+ Ke6 15.Qh3+ drawn, Hiarcs 8 - RevvedUp, blitz 2 12, 2006). Upon reflection, the g7 pawn is probably more valuable than the e5 pawn, despite the Comet B50's evaluations and calculations, and ...Kd6 is not Black's strongest continuation. Here it will cost a piece. (On the other hand, most computers opening with the Jerome Gambit as White would probably love to offer and receive a draw after four moves!) 12.c3 Qg5 Comet B50 goes for wild tactics. It is interesting to recall two historical games that showed the computer (in this case, an early version of Fritz) solidly surrendering the piece: 12...c5 13.cxd4 cxd4 14.b3 Kc7 (14...Nf6 15.Ba3+ Kc7 16.Qg3 Re8 17.Qxg7+ Kb8 18.d3 Qa5+ 19.b4 Qb6 20.O-O Re6 21.Nd2 Qd8 22.Nc4 Qg8 23.Qxg8 Nxg8 24.Rf5 Ne7 25.Rxe5 Rxe5 26.Nxe5 Ng6 27.Nf3 Nf4 28.b5 Kc7 29.Ne5 Ng6 30.Nxg6 hxg6 31.Bc5 Bd7 32.a4 Re8 33.Bxd4 a6 34.bxa6 bxa6 35.a5 Kd6 36.Bb6 Bc6 37.Ba7 Bb5 38.Rd1 Ke5 39.Kf2 Ra8 40.Bb6 Ba4 41.Ra1 Bc6 42.Ke3 Re8 43.d4+ Kd6 44.e5+ Kd7 45.g3 Rf8 46.Rd1 Ke6 47.Rd3 Rf1 48.Rc3 Rf3+ 49.Kd2 Rxc3 50.Kxc3 Kd5 51.h4 Ke4 52.Kc4 Bb5+ 53.Kc5 Kf3 54.d5 Kxg3 55.e6 Kxh4 56.d6 Kg5 57.d7 Kf5 58.d8=Q Kxe6 59.Qg8+ Kf5 60.Qd5+ Kf6 61.Kd6 Kg7 62.Qxb5 axb5 63.a6 b4 64.a7 g5 65.a8=Q g4 66.Qe4 g3 67.Qxb4 Kf7 68.Qf4+ Kg6 69.Qg4+ Kh6 70.Qg8 Kh5 71.Bd8 Kh6 72.Qg5+ Kh7 73.Bf6 g2 74.Qg7 checkmate, Fisher-Kirshner,M - Knight Stalker, Fremont, CA, 1993) 15.Qc4+ Kb8 16.Ba3 Qh4+ 17.Kd1 Qh6 18.Qd5 Bg4+ 19.Ke1 Qh4+ 20.g3 Qg5 21.Bd6+ Kc8 22.Qf7 Bd7 23.Na3 Kd8 24.Rc1 Ne7 25.Rf1 Rc8 26.Rxc8+ Nxc8 27.Nc4 Re8 28.Bb4 Qh6 29.Na5 b6 30.Nc4 Bc6 31.d3 Qc1+ 32.Kf2 Qc2+ 33.Kg1 Qxd3 34.Nd6 Qe3+ 35.Rf2 Nxd6 36.Bxd6 Bd7 37.Kg2 Qxe4+ 38.Kf1 Bh3+ 39.Rg2 Qxg2+ 40.Ke1 Qh1+ 41.Kd2 Qxh2+ 42.Ke1 Qxg3+ 43.Kd2 Qc3+ 44.Ke2 d3+ 45.Kf2 Qb2+ 46.Kg3 Qg2+ 47.Kh4 Qg4 checkmate, Fisher-Kirshner,M - Knight Stalker, Fremont, CA, 1993. 13.cxd4 Qxg2 14.dxe5+
14...Kxe5 The King would be relatively safer on e7. 15.Qd5+ Kf6 The Queen is now lost, but otherwise Black loses her and his King: 15...Kf4 16.d4+ Kf3 17.Nd2+ Kg4 18.h3+ Qxh3 19.Rxh3 Kxh3 20.Qh5+ Kg2 21.Qf3+ Kh2 22.Nf1+ Kg1 23.Be3 checkmate.
The idea of playing the Jerome Gambit against a computer chess engine seems almost as irrational as the Jerome Gambit itself. How is it possible to give the silicon beast a couple of pieces and expect to survive? One doesn't give the computer "Jerome Gambit odds"! Still, four years ago, I noted on this blog
It was not long after I began looking into the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) that I noticed one chess match kept turning up in the databases: in 1993, between the human Micah Fischer-Kirshner and the chess-playing program KnightStalker, an early version of Fritz. As luck would have it, I was able to interview Micah about his experience for this blog.
The Jerome Gambit seemed a natural for matches, especially ones involving computers. Jeroen_61 of the Netherlands ran one with Hiarcs, Junior 7, Shredder Paderdorn (6.02) and Fritz 7.
I tried a few myself, notably a Fritz8 vs Fritz5 encounter and a Delphi vs Wealk Delphi contest. Each attempt had its shortcomings. (Perhaps you read about them here.)
The mysterious "perfesser" played an introductory 4-game match with the Talking LCD Chess Gadget. Like the Jerome Gambit itself, it was good for some chuckles.
Topping all efforts so far, "RevvedUp" and his trusted companions Hiarcs 8, Shredder 8, Yace Paderborn, Crafty 19.19 and Fritz 8 explored the Jerome Gambit in a 30-game encounter. It was simply war.
There is also the earlier summary of Randy Tipton's computer vs computer games, and the more recent adventures of "Ionman vs the Bots". So, when I noticed that the new group of Bill Wall games had some of him playing the Jerome Gambit against some engines, I had to check them out. The following game is very interesting. The human's flurry of tactics to finish off the game is impressive. Wall, Bill - Abrok chess engine Palm Bay, Florida, 2015 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 Qf6
A mild surprise. Computers tend to delight in "the annoying defense" 7...d6. 8.Rf1 g6 9.Qh3+ Bill has a couple of cautions here:9.fxe5? Qxf1+ 10.Kxf1 gxh5 and 9.Qd1? Qh4+ 10.g3 Qxh2 11.fxe5 Qxg3+ 12.Rf2 Qxf2 checkmate. 9...Ke7 Bill has been here before: 9...Ng4 10.Qxg4+ Ke7 11.Nc3 d5 (11...d6 12.Nd5+ Kd8 13.Nxf6 Bxg4 14.Nxg4 h5 15.Nf2 Kd7 16.Nh3 Re8 17.d3 Nf6 18.Ng5 Ng4 19.h3 Nh2 20.Rh1 Black resigned, Wall,B - Guest3164644, PlayChess.com, 2013) 12.Nxd5+ Black resigned, Wall,B - Betarsolta, PlayChess.com, 2015; also 9...Kf7 10.fxe5 Qxf1+ 11.Kxf1 d6 12.Qc3 Black resigned, Wall,B - Guest1690223, PlayChess.com, 2012; and 9...Ke7 10.Nc3 c6 d6 (10...c6 11.fxe5 Qxe5 12.d3 Nf6 13.Qh4Bd4 14.Bg5 Bxc3+ 15.bxc3 Qxc3+ 16.Ke2 Qxc2+ 17.Bd2 Qb2 18.Rxf6 Qxf6 19.Bg5 Rf8 20.Bxf6+ Rxf6 21.e5 Black resigned, Wall,B - XCCY, FICS, 2011) 11.Nd5+ Kd8 12.Qg3 Qe6 13.fxe5 dxe5 14.d4 Ne7 15.dxc5 Nxd5 16.Bg5+ Ke8 17.exd5 Qxd5 18.Rf2 Be6 19.Rd2 Qxc5 20.0-0-0 Rf8 21.Qh4 h5 22.Bh6 Rf5 23.Rd8+ Rxd8 24.Rxd8+ Kf7 25.Rf8+ Qxf8 26.Bxf8 Kxf8 27.Qd8+ Kg7 28.Qxc7+ Kh6 29.h4 Rf1+ 30.Kd2 Rf2+ 31.Ke3 Rf5 32.Qd8 a6 33.Qh8 checkmate, Wall,B - Aburasian, Chess.com, 2010. 10.Nc3 Kd8
The Blackburne Defense to the Jerome Gambit leads to a tense and complicated game for both sides. As Joseph Henry Blackburne demonstrated early in the life of the Jerome, Black can generate a wild counter-attack by returning one sacrificed piece and offering a Rook as well. On the other hand, analysis since has shown that White can draw, and practical play shows he can often do better - in games in The Database White scores 68%. Philidor 1792 - NN 2015 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qd5+
White decides to steer clear of the dangers of 8.Qxh8 and grab another pawn. He hopes to show his three extra pawns will outweigh his opponent's extra piece. Philidor1792 has had significant success with the pawns vs the piece in the Jerome Gambit. 8...Be6 Seen previously was 8...Kg7 inRevvedUp - Fritz 8, 2 12, 2006 (0-1, 19). 9.Qxb7 Or 9.Qd3 Nf6 10.O-O Qe7 11.b3 Ng4 12.Bb2 Ne5 13.Qf3+ Nxf3+ 14.gxf3 Bh3 15.Bxh8 Qg5+ 16.Kh1 Qg2 checkmate, hattta - VictoriaBot, FICS, 2012. 9...Rb8 An anternate idea was 9...Rc8 seen instampyshortlegs - Sir Osis of the Liver, JG Tourney4, ChessWorld, 2009 (1-0, 39). 10.Qa6 Qh4
At first glance it looks like Black is the one playing a gambit, with the subsequent lead in development of pieces. However, if White can consolidate his position behind his pawns, he can eventually put them on the march and look for balance. As the game goes, Black uses his pieces to keep pressuring his opponent, and the point is his. 11.Qe2 Bg4 12.Qf1 Nf6 13.d3 d5 14.Nc3 Rhe8 15.h3 Bd7 16.g3 Qh5 17.f3 Bd4 18.Nd1 Kg7 19.Be3 Bxe3 20.Nxe3 dxe4 21.fxe4 Qa5+ 22. Kd1 Qc5
So far White's pawn cover has held up, but his oppponent's pressure is relentless and his lead in development is crushing. 23.Qf2 Nxe4 24.dxe4 Rxe4 25.Re1 Rxb2 26.Re2 Bxh3 27.Ng2 Qd6+ 28.Kc1 Rbb4 29.Nf4 Bg4 30.Rxe4 Qd1 checkmate.
Immediately after blundering on move 11, I thought about resigning; but I decided to hold on for a move... then another... then another. Eventually, I held on for the win. Blitz games can be very strange, and those featuring the Jerome Gambit even more so. Some of the positions in the following game might make up for the questionable play of both me and my opponent. perrypawnpusher -Toscolano blitz, FICS, 2015 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
Surprisingly a TN according to The Database. Of note, however, is that after 8...d6 9.Qe3 a successful computer choice was 9...Qh4 in RevvedUp - Yace Paderborn, 2 12 blitz, 2006. In the same competition, 7...Kf8 8.Qxc5+ d6 9.Qe3 Qh4 was seen inRevvedUp - Shredder 8, 2 12 blitz, 2006 and Shredder 8 - RevvedUp, 2 12 blitz, 2006. 9.Nc3 d6 An indication of how weird things were going to get is that after the game Houdini recommended, instead, 9...Qg4 10.Rg1 Kd8. 10.Qe3 I probably could have taken the pawn with 10.Qxc7, but it looked complicated. After the game, Houdini agreed with me: 10...Qg4 11.Nb5 Qxe4+ 12.Kf1 Qe7 13.b3 Bf5 14.Ba3 Qxc7 15.Nxc7+ Kd7 16.Nxa8 Nf6 17.Nc7 Kxc7 18.d3 and things would be about balanced between White's extra Rook plus 2 pawns vs Black's two extra Knights.
analysis diagram 10...Nf4 11.g3 A mindless move, after which I immediately thought of resigning. Of course, White needed to be brave and castle. 11...Ng2+ 12.Ke2 Bg4+ Strong, but even stronger would be 12...Qh5+. 13.f3 Qh3
Black is still better after playing the text, but it was time for 13...Nxe3 14.gxh4 Nxc2 15.Rb1 Bh5, when Black would be up a piece for a pawn. 14.Qf2 Bh5 Black appears repelled by the tactical mess too, and continues to play "safe" and "normal" moves instead of doing concrete analysis - understandable in blitz. After the game Houdini suggested that Black wade in and keep his advantage with 14...Ne7 15.d3 Rf8 16.Bf4 Nxf4+ 17.gxf4 Rxf4 18.Qg3 Rxf3 19.Qxh3 Rxh3+ 20.Kf2 Kd7.
analysis diagram 15.d3 This is now good enough for equality, while 15.Rg1 would lead to a White advantage. 15...Nf6 This hands over the advantage - not that I was ready to take it! Black could maintain equality with 15...Ne7 16.g4 Bxg4 17.fxg4 Qxg4+ 18.Qf3 Qxf3+ 19.Kxf3 Nh4+. 16.Bg5 I was still floundering. Instead of this reasonable move White should have played 16. Rg1 with an small edge (2 pieces vs Rook) after 16...Rf8 17. Qxg2 Qxg2+ 18. Rxg2 Nxe4 19. dxe4 Bxf3+ 20. Kf1 Bxg2+ 21. Kxg2 Kd7.
analysis diagram 16...h6 Finally letting White off the hook. Instead, Black should have piled on with 16... Ng4, which wins, for example 17.fxg4 Qxg4+ 18.Kf1 (18.Kd2 Qxg5+ 19.Qf4 Nxf4; 18.Qf3 Qxf3+) 18...Rf8 19.Qxf8+ Kxf8 20.Kxg2 Qxg5. 17.Bxf6 gxf6 18.Rag1 f5 19.Qxg2 Qxg2+ 20.Rxg2 fxe4 21.dxe4 Rf822.Rf2 c6
The smoke has cleared, and White ("It is better to be lucky than good") is up a couple of pawns. 23.Rd1 Kd7 24.Rd3 Rae8 25.Kd2 An ending slip. 25...d5 26.exd5 cxd5 27.Rxd5+ Kc6 28.Rxh5 Rd8+ 29.Kc1 Rfe8 30. Rxh6+ Kc7 31.Re2 Rf8 32.Re7+ Kc8 33.Rhh7 Rxf3 34.Rc7+ Kb8 35.Rxb7+ Kc8 36.Rhc7 checkmate
Okay, say it with me, "Nobody ever won a game by resigning." Lesson learned.
