The Jerome Gambit Article (Part 2)

From the previous post:

Ten years ago I wrote a substantial article on the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) and submitted it to the German language chess magazine, Kaissiber.  The editor, Stefan Buecker, was supportive, and tried, over the years, to somehow make the submission work. His was a serious and well-respected magazine, however, and even a well-written (and revised) piece on a highly suspect chess opening could not find a place in its pages.

My presentation of the article continues. 

This light-hearted approach found full form in the May 1877 issue of the Danish chess magazine Nordisk Skaktidende, where Lieutenant Soren Anton Sorensen, analyzed the Jerome Gambit in his “Chess Theory for Beginners” column:

With this answering move of the Bishop [1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6

3.Bc4 Bc5] we have the fundamental position for that good old game

which the Italians, hundreds of years ago, when they were masters of

the Chessboard, called "Giuoco Piano," even game, but the later age,

for generality of explanation, the "Italian game." On this basis the

usual continuation is 4.c3, whereby the QP at the next move threatens

to advance, and the White middle Pawns to occupy the centre. In the

next articles we will make mention of that regular fight for the

maintenance or destruction of the center, which is the essential point

of the Italian game; in this, on the contrary, we will occupy ourselves

with a Bashi-Bazouk attack, over which the learned Italians would

have crossed themselves had they known it came under the idea of

piano, but which is in reality of very recent date - 1874, and takes it

origin from an American, A.W. Jerome. It consists in the sacrifice of a

piece by 4.Bxf7+. Naturally we immediately remark that it is unsound,

and that Black must obtain the advantage; but the attack is pretty sharp,

and Black must take exact care, if he does not wish to go quickly to the

dogs. A little analysis of it will, therefore, be highly instructive, not to

say necessary, for less practiced players, and will be in its right place

in our Theory, especially since it is not found in any handbook. The

Americans call the game "Jerome's double opening," an allusion,

probably, to the fresh sacrifice of a piece which follows at the next

move, but we shall prefer to use the short and sufficiently clear

designation, Jerome Gambit.

This nomenclature was examined earnestly in the Huddersfield College Magazine of July 1879

            We do not well know why this opening, (a branch of the

“Giuoco”) is styled a gambit, as it consists in White sacrificing a

piece on the fourth move, and Staunton in his Handbook defines a

gambit as a sacrifice of a Pawn.

            The Americans recognize the force of this by styling the

Opening “Jerome’s double opening,” although we don’t quite see

the meaning of this. How “double”? We think that the simple and

natural definition of Jerome’s Attack – as Cochrane’s Attack in

the “Petroff” where a piece is also given up by White on his fourth

move – would suffice)

           

The August 1877 issue of the British Chess Player’s Chronicle and the December 1877 issue of the Italian Nuova Rivista Degli Scacchi, reprinted Sorensen’s article (in English and Italian, respectively), introducing the Jerome Gambit to an even wider audience. Almost every Jerome Gambit analyst since has leaned heavily on Sorensen.

Hallock reconciled with Jerome in the September & October 1877 issue of the American Chess Journal

            We are pleased to note that the daring and brilliant debut

invented by our friend Jerome, of Paxton, Ill, is receiving

recognition abroad, both among players and analysts. Sr. Vazquez,

the Mexican Champion, plays it with fine success when yielding

the odds of a Knight, while Mr. Charlick, a strong Australian

player, has been giving us some fine specimens of his chess skill in

the new opening; some time since the Italian Chess Magazine published

a game at this opening with favorable comments on the “new departure,”

and in the May number of the Nordisk Skaktidende, S. A. Sorensen

gives us a sparkling analysis of the “Americanism,” a translation of

which we herewith present. The MSS was submitted to Mr. Jerome,

who expresses himself highly pleased with the thoroughness and ability

with which our Danish contemporary has presented the subject…

            Now that chess players abroad are investigating the merits of

the Jerome we would suggest that our magnates at home give it some

attention…

               Interest in the Jerome Gambit did not remain just among beginning chess players. 

A couple of years later, Andres Clemente Vazquez included three wins with the Gambit, from 

his 1876 match against carrington, in his Algunas Partidas de Ajedrez Jugadas in Mexico por 

Andres Clemente Vazquez.

G. H. D. Gossip’s 1879 book, Theory of the Chess Openings, included an analysis of the Jerome Gambit,
“substantially the same” as that which appeared in the Chess Player’s Chronicle, as the latter noted in a review of the work. At about the same
time, the American daily newspaper, the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, in its chess column, struck the right tone in its review of Theory,
noting gleefully

...the Jerome Gambit, which high-toned players sometimes affect 

to despise because it is radically unsound, finds a place, and to this it is certainly entitled.”

The next year, in 1880, when the 6th edition of the illustrious Handbuch des Schachspiels was published, the Commercial
Gazette’s chess columnist was again ready to “complain” about the state of affairs 

…that the"Jerome Gambit" should be utterly (even if deservedly) ignored.



 [to be continued]

Jerome Gambit: Overlooking Something

One of the scariest defenses to the Jerome Gambit is what I have called a pie-in-the-face variation. After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 comes 6...Qh4!?, first seen, as far as I can tell, in Sorensen - Anonymous, Denmark, 1888 (see "Jerome Gambit Tournament: Chapter X").

By the way, I do not think that Alonzo Wheeler Jerome ever faced 6...Qh4, or covered it in his published analysis.

The following game shows the power of the counter-attack, as well as at least one of its weaknesses. After all, Bill Wall is playing White; and, for the record, he has faced 6...Qh4 34 times, scoring 87%.

Wall, Bill - Guest8885375
PlayChess.com, 2018

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 

This was originally A.W. Jerome's choice, although he later moved on to 6.Qh5+.

6...Qh4 

Here we go. White has sacrificed, but Black attacks.

7.O-O Ng4 8.h3 d6 

Black's light-squared Bishop now hungrily eyes g4 and h3. How sad to see that Komodo 9 (welcome to the analysis team) sees the game as even.

9.dxc5 N8f6 

More development! White isn't the only player who can sacrifice a piece.

10.hxg4 Nxg4 11.Bf4 

White's Bishop arrives in time to protect h2.

The computer now suggests that Black retreat his Knight, and after 11...Nf6 12.Bg3 Qxe4 13.cxd6 cxd6 14.Qxd6 things have settled down, and White has an extra pawn. But why should Black's Knight retreat?

11...Rf8 12.cxd6 Kg8 13.Qd5+ 

Oh, okay, I get it: 11...Nf6 would have prevented this check.

13...Kh8 14.dxc7 Rxf4 

Overlooking White's snappy response.

15.Qd8+ Black resigned

I suspect in his analysis Black saw that the d8 square was covered by his Queen, and so White's check would be harmless, but he missed the fact (in his chess vision?) that White's Queen would be protected by the pawn at c7, waiting for its chance to promote, i.e. 15...Qxd8 16.cxd8/Q+, with mate to follow.

Jerome Gambit Secrets #4

One of my favorite Jerome Gambit "secrets" has actually been solved, but the story is always a good one to tell. And tell again.

Let's look at a line.

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

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8

About 4 1/2 years ago I posted about this move

As early as his first article with analysis (Dubuque Chess Journal 4/1874), Alonzo Wheeler Jerome considered the possibility that Black might refuse to capture the second piece, and play for King safety instead with 5...Kf8.  

This was, in fact, the defense that Jerome, himself, credited to G. J. Dougherty, ("a strong amateur, against whom I first played the opening") of Mineola, New York, in a yet unfound game; that O.A. Brownson, editor of the Dubuque Chess Journal, played against Jerome in an 1875 game (Dubuque Chess Journal3/1875); that magazine editor William Hallock used against D.P. Norton in an 1876 correspondence game played “by special request” to test the gambit (American Chess Journal 2/1877); that William Carrington tried in his 1876 match vs Mexican Champion Andres Clemente Vazquez (Algunas Partidas de Ajedrez Jugadas en Mexico, 1879); and which Lt. Soren Anton Sorensen recommended as “more solid and easier to manage” in his seminal Jerome Gambit essay (Nordisk Skaktidende 5/1877). 

It is interesting that early in Jerome's Gambit's life, there were players willing to accept one "gift" but who were skeptical of accepting two "gifts".

6.Qh5

This move shows up in 38 games in The Database, with White scoring 49%.

As I noted

White also has the option of playing 6.Qh5, the Banks Variation, as in Banks - Rees, Halesowen, 2003, when Black can transpose with 6…Nxe5  as recommended by the American Chess Journal, (3/1877) - "The continuation adopted by Jerome, Qh5 looks promising." 

Pete Banks ("blackburne" online), a stalwart member of the Jerome GambitGemeinde (and still the strongest player I know who has played the Jerome regularly over-the-board in rated contests), brought international attention to Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's invention by writing to International Master Gary Lane, who commented at length on the opening, and on a couple of Banks' games, in his March ("The Good Old Days") and April ("Chess Made Easy") 2008 "Opening Lanes" columns at ChessCafe.com. IM Lane also mentioned one of Banks' games in his The Greatest Ever chess tricks and traps (2008), which reprised some of the earlier material. 

It is humorous to note that in his "Opening Lanes" column Lane wrote, after 5.Nxe5+, "I think anyone with good manners playing Black would now kindly ask their opponent if they wanted to take their move back" while in his book he changed this to "I think anyone with good manners playing Black would now go to another room to carry on laughing." 

Apropos the Banks Variation itself (i.e. playing 6.Qh5 in response to 5...Kf8), IM Lane noted in "The Good Old Days" that "6...Qe7 is a good alternative [to 6...Qf6 of Banks - Rees], because it stops the checkmate and protects the bishop on c5." 

A few months later, 6...Qe7 was tested successfully in a GameKnot.com game, splott - mika76, 2008: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8 6.Qh5 Qe7 7.Ng6+ hxg6 8.Qxh8 Qxe4+ 9.Kf1 Qd4 10.Ke1 Qxf2+ 11.Kd1 d6 12.h3 Qxg2 13.Re1 Qf3+ 14.Re2 Bf2 15.d3 Nd4 16.Nc3 Qh1+ 17.Kd2 Nf3 checkmate. Clearly White, the very-slightly-higher rated player, was taken aback by the move. I asked mika76 if he had been influenced by IM Lane's recommendation, but he said he had come up with the move himself.

Jerome Gambit: The Best "Explanation"

The previous post suggested that

Often the best way to learn an opening is to play over the games of an experienced practitioner 

True, that, but sometimes a game becomes very complicated, and the best "explanation" of what is happening is the series of moves that the winner plays. There is a way out of the maze, but sometimes it is not easy for the reader to discover it without help.

Wall, Bill - Guest423598
PlayChess.com, 2017

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8 

Here we have another Sorensen variation where Black is satisfied with accepting one sacrificed piece. It remains an important defense - see "Critical Line: 5...Kf8 (1, 2 and 3)".

6.O-O Nxe5

This time Bill tempos with 6.0-0, and his opponent changes his mind and grabs the second piece.

Alternately Bill has faced:

6...Qf6 7.Nxc6 (White goes back to the main idea) Qxc6 (7...dxc6 8.Nc3 Bd6 9.d4 h6 10.e5 Bxe5 11.dxe5 Qxe5 12.Re1 Qg5 13.Bxg5 Black resigned, Wall,B - NN, lichess.org, 2016) 8.d4 Bb6 9.Nc3 d6 10.Bg5 Qe8 11.f4 Qg6 12.h4 Qe8 13.f5 Ba5 14.f6 gxf6 15.Qf3 Qf7 16.Nd5 h5 17.Bxf6 Nxf6 18.Nxf6 Be6 19.Qg3 Ke7 20.Nd5+ Bxd5 21.Rxf7+ Bxf7 22.Qg5+ Kd7 23.Qxa5 b6 24.Qb5+ c6 25.Qf5+ Be6 26.Qf6 Rh7 27.d5 cxd5 28.exd5 Bg4 29.Re1 Rg8 30.Re3 Rc8 31.a4 Rc7 32.a5 bxa5 33.Re6 Rc5 34.Rxd6+ Kc7 35.Rc6+ Rxc6 36.Qxc6+ Kd8 37.d6 a4 38.Qa8+ Bc8 39.c4 Rb7 40.c5 Rg7 41.Qf3 Rg6 42.Qf7 Re6 43.c6 Ba6 44.Qd7 checkmate, Wall,B - Computer-level 6, Chess.com, 2017 and

6...d6 7.Nxc6 bxc6 8.d4 (8.Nc3 Nf6 9.d4 Bb4 10.Qf3 Bg4 11.Qf4 Kg8 12.e5 Bxc3 13.exf6 Qd7 14.bxc3 Bf5 15.Qg3 Bxc2 16.Bh6 g6 17.Rfe1 Qf5 18.Re7 Qxf6 19.Rae1 Bf5 20.Rxc7 Rb8 21.h3 Rc8 22.Qe3 Rf8 23.Qe7 Qf7 24.Qxf7+ Rxf7 25.Re8+ Rf8 26.Rxf8 checkmate, Wall,B - Anonymous, lichess.org, 2016) 8...Bb6 9.Nc3 Ba6 10.Re1 Qf6 11.e5 Qh4 12.Re4 Qe7 13.Qf3+ Qf7 14.Rf4 Qxf4 15.Bxf4 d5 16.Bh6+ Ke7 17.Bxg7 Black resigned, Wall,B - Guest399227, PlayChess.com, 2016. 

7.d4 Bb6 

It is sometimes useful to search for understanding in a line by looking at and comparing transpositions.

For example, suppose instead of playing 5...Kf8, Guest423598 had tried 5...Nxe5 and after 6.d4 had played 6...Bb6, with White following up with 7.O-O as in the current game - well, there are actually 3 games by jfhumphrey (he has 278 games in The Database) with that line, and it is significant that two continue with 7...Ng6 and one continues with 7...Nc6; in none of the cases did Black feel the need to play ...Kf8, which would transpose to the current game.

Does that leave Black in our current game a tempo behind the jfhumphrey games, or is his King safer on f8 versus f7?

Of course, experience and analysis suggest that the more critical misstep for Black was withdrawing the Bishop, rather than giving it up in exchange for White's d-pawn, i.e. 7...Bxd4 8.Qxd4 Qf6 9. Qe3 Ne7 10. Nc3 d6 11. f4 N5c6 12. Nb5 Ng6 13. Nxc7 Rb8 14. Nb5 a6 15. e5 Qe6 16. f5 Qxe5 17. fxg6+ Kg8 18. Nxd6 hxg6 19.Qxe5 Nxe5 20.Bf4 Rh5 21.Rae1 Black resigned, Wall,B - Guest1442, chesstempo.com, 2017.

Black would also have done better giving up the Knight, e.g. 7...Bd6 8.dxe5 Bxe5 9.f4 Bd4+ 10.Qxd4 Qf6 11.e5 Qb6 12.Qxb6 axb6 13.Nc3 Ne7 14.Nb5 c6 15.Nd6 g6 16.f5 gxf5 17.Bh6+ Kg8 18.Nxf5 Nxf5 19.Rxf5 d5 20.Rf8 checkmate, billwall - DeDrijver, Chess.com, 2012. 

8.dxe5 Qe8 9.Qf3+ Qf7 10.Qa3+ Ne7 11.Nc3 c6 

Black's Bishop plans to retreat and protect the pinned Knight.

12.Bg5 

Applying pressure. Oddly, Stockfish 8 suggests 12.Be3 Bc7 13.f4 Qc4 14.Rad1 b5 15.Rd4 Qf7 16.Rd2 Qc4 17.Rd4 etc. with a draw by repetition. I can't see either human player being satisfied with that.

12...Bd8 13.f4 h6 14.Bh4 Ke8  

Defending in Steinitz-like fashion, Black now anticipates trouble along the f-file, and moves his King off of it. Stockfish 8 suggests that the King belongs at h7, instead, in a rather turgid, if balanced, position.

Jerome Gambit players should decide: how should White continue?

15.f5 g5 

Not fearing 16.fxg6 ep Qxg6 with an open line against the White King, although the attack would develop slowly.

16.Bg3 b5  

Black wants to work around the central "Jerome pawns" by advancing on the wings. It is an interesting idea, but also a dangerous one, as his King is stuck in the center and vulnerable to a pawn break through.

I have to say that Black's psychology would have me raving with impatience with the White pieces - but Bill Wall is a cool character, and he decides to occupy a "hole" in his opponent's position.

17.Qd6 Bb7 

And, just like that, Black's position blows up.

Upon reflection, 16...b5 was a mistake. Should he have gone all in with 16...h5, and pushed the Kingside attack?

Should he have avoided the g-pawn push on move 15 and noodled around with something like 15...Bc7, instead? 

Was 14...Kg8, headed toward h7, the way to go after all?

The best that Stockfish 8 can come up for him now is 17...Qf8 18.e6 Nxf5 19.exd7+ Bxd7 20.Qg6+ Qf7 21.exf5 Qxg6 22.fxg6  with a very exposed King. 

18.e6 dxe6 19.fxe6 Black resigned

Black will have to give up his Queen to avoid checkmate.

Jerome Gambit: Playing Over Games

Often the best way to learn an opening is to play over the games of an experienced practitioner - that is what this blog is all about - and pay attention to what is going on - especially when play varies from past experience and analysis.

The following Jerome Gambit game is a good example of what to look at.

Wall, Bill - Guest129367
PlayChess.com, 2017

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8

Checking Bill's Jerome Gambit nomenclature, I am reminded that this is the Sorensen Variation, where Black declines the second sacrifice and moves his King closer to safety.

Lieutenant S. A. Sorensen wrote an early analysis of the Jerome Gambit in his "Chess for Beginners" column in the May 1877 issue of Nordisk Skaktidende. It was widely translated and republished.

He was anticipated in his discussion by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome, who first looked at the line in 1874. The earliest game example that I have in The Database is Jerome - Brownson, Iowa, USA, 1875 (1/2-1/2, 29). For history of the line, see "Critical Line: 5...Kf8 (1, 2 and 3)".

6.Nc3

I was a bit surprised to find that, according to The Database, this move is a novelty, although the game will transpose to an earlier Bill Wall game in a few moves.

White simply develops a piece, and waits to see what Black can make of the position. Similar would be 6.0-0, which Bill is 7-0 with. He also suggests 6.d4!?, which brought him a win the one time he tried it.

Seen more often, and recommended by both Jerome and Sorensen, is 6.Nxc6.

6...Qf6

The Black Queen sometimes goes to f6 to help defend; here it is also attacking.

Of course Black had the option of capturing the Knight with 6...Nxe5, and after 7.d4 Bxd4 8.Qxd4 d6 the game would have transposed into more mainstream play. There is a practical argument for 6...Nxe5 as well: Bill is "only" 8-2 against it. 

Stockfish 8 (30 ply) shows a tiny preference for 6...Nxe5, but also suggests the wild 6...Qg5!?, which it recommends that White meet with 7.Qf3+, looking to exchange Queens. Not surprisingly, The Database has no examples of 6...Qg5.

7.Nd3

White can no longer exchange off his Knight because of 7.Nxc6?? Qxf2 checkmate.

7...Bb6 8.O-O d6 

The game has transposed to Wall, Bill - Tim93612, Chess.com, 2010 (1-0, ), which began 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8 6.Nd3 Bb6 7.0-0 Qf6 8.Nc3, but then continued with 8...Nge7 (1-0, 36).

With a piece for two pawns, Black can be said to have a small advantage, especially in light of White's blocked development. Black has to be aware, however, that his King and Queen are on the same file, which could prove risky if White can exchange off pawns to expose his Rook at f1.

9.Kh1

White wastes no time unpinning his f-pawn, so he can advance it.

9...Ne5

Black would love to exchange Knights at d3 and bury White's Bishop. Bill recommends, instead, 9...Qf7. 

10.Nd5 

The attack on Black's Queen gives White time to exchange off Black's troublesome Bishop and double a couple of pawns - if nothing better comes up.

Why didn't White play the Knight jump the previous move, instead of "wasting time" with 9.Kh1 ? Probably because Black could have answered the move with 9...Qd4, and the Queen would have recaptured, keeping his pawns intact.

10...Qf7 

Bill suggests, instead, 10...Qe6 11.N3f4 Qf7. Why is this different from moving the Queen to f7 immediately?

11.Nxe5 dxe5 12.f4 

Suddenly the "Jerome pawns" take on a menacing potential.

Stockfish 8 suggests that Black continue with reasonable defense, 12...Ke8 13.fxe5 Qg6 14.d4 Ne7 15.Nxe7 Kxe7 16.Qd3 and with 3 pawns for the piece - despite facing the two Bishops - White appears to have somewhat better chances.

12...Nf6 

Black's first real slip. Development is good, and shielding the Queen and King is noble - but the enemy Rook on the f-file is still a danger.

13.fxe5 c6 14.exf6 g6 15.Ne7 

Not only is White up 3 pawns, his advanced Knight and pawn are full of trouble - especially with Black's pawn on g6. (Perhaps Black's Queen should have gone there, instead, with 14...Qg6, but after 15.Nxb6 axb6 White could have continued with 16.b3, intending 17.Bb2 with further pressure on Black's kingside.)

15...Be6 16.d4 Rd8 

Overlooking White's main threat, which could have been met with 16...h5. At that point White would not have an immediate shot, but could continue to build his attack with 17.b3 and 18.Ba3, or work for a breakthrough with 17.d5.

17.Bh6+ Ke8 

Now there is already the win of the exchange after 18.Bg7, but White wants to go after the enemy King.

18.d5 cxd5 

It is difficult to find a safe retreat for Black's light squared Bishop, so Black decides to return it for a couple of pawns. This leaves him down a Rook (and a couple of pawns)

19.exd5 Bxd5 20.Nxd5 Rxd5 

21.Re1+ 

Please excuse Bill for overlooking the checkmate in 20 moves that starts with 21.Qg4 (silly computer) - the text is strong enough (and would checkmate almost as fast, if Black didn't resign sooner).

21...Kd7 22.Qg4+ Kc7 23.Re7+ Black resigned

Jerome Gambit: Countering the Counter-Attack

Here is another look at the 6...Qh4 defense in the Jerome Gambit, discussed in the previous blog post. Again, Bill Wall has the White pieces. This is pretty heavy going, and there is plenty to study in the notes, too. Or, you can just enjoy the main game, as, after a dozen moves, Bill decides enough is enough and goes after the enemy monarch.

Wall, Bill - IraHaru
lichess.org, 2016

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

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Qh4

7.O-O Qxe4

The text can be contrasted with 7...Ng4 8.h3 Bb6 (8...Bd6 9.e5 Bxe5 10.dxe5 Nxe5 11.Qd5+ Kf6 12.f4 Ng6 13.Nc3 d6 14.Be3 Ke7 15.Rae1 Kd8 16.Nb5 Nf6 17.Qc4 Ne8 18.Bf2 Qf6 19.Bd4 Qh4 20.Rxe8+ Kxe8 21.Nxc7+ Kf8 22.f5 Ne5 23.f6 gxf6 24.Qd5 Kg7 25.Qxd6 Rg8 26.Rxf6 Qxf6 27.Bxe5, and White won, Sorensen,S - X, Denmark, 1888) 9.hxg4 (9.Qf3+ N4f6 10.e5 Bxd4 11.exf6 Nxf6 12.c3 Bb6 13.Nd2 Rf8 14.Ne4 Qxe4 15.Qd1 d5 16.Re1 Qf5 17.Be3 Bxe3 18.Rxe3 Bd7 19.Rf3 Qe5 20.Qd2 Rae8 21.Re3 Qd6 22.Rxe8 Rxe8 23.b3 Qe5 24.Rf1 Bc6 25.Kh1 Qe2 26.Qc1 d4 27.cxd4 Qe4 28.d5 Qxd5 29.f3 Kg8 30.Rd1 Qe6 31.Qf4 Nd5 32.Qd4 Ne3 33.Rc1 Bxf3 34.Kg1 Nxg2 35.Rxc7 Qe3+ 36.Qxe3 Nxe3 37.Kf2 Bc6 38.b4 Nd5 White resigned, Sir Osis of the Liver - perrypawnpusher, JG3 thematic, ChessWorld.net 2008) 9...d6 10.f3 Be6 11.Be3 Bc4 12.Re1 Ne7 13.f4 Rhe8 14.Nd2 Ba6 15.Nf3 Qg3 16.a4 Ba5 17.c3 Kf8 18.b4 Ng6 19.f5 Nf4 20.Bxf4 Qxf4 21.Qc2 c5 22.bxa5 Qxg4 23.Rad1 cxd4 24.Rxd4 Qg3 25.Qb3 Qf4 26.Qb1 Qg3 27.e5 g6 28.Rxd6 Re7 29.f6 Ree8 30.Qb4 Bb5 31.Rd8+ Kf7 32.e6+ Kxf6 33.Qd4+ Black resigned, Wall,B - Rajiv, Chess.com, 2010.

8.dxc5 Nf6

8...Qg6 9.Nc3 Nf6 10.Nd5 Nxd5 11.Qxd5+ Qe6 12.Qe4 d5 13.cxd6 cxd6 14.Bd2 Qg6 15.Qd5+ Qe6 16.Qe4 Rf8 17.Bc3 Kg8 18.Rae1 Qg6 19.Qd5+ Be6 20.Qxb7 Nf3+ 21.Kh1 Nxe1 22.Rxe1 Rab8 23.Qe4 Qxe4 24.Rxe4 Bd5 25.Rd4 Rxf2 26.Rd1 Rbf8 27.h3 Bxg2+ 28.Kg1 Bxh3 29.Rxd6 Rxc2 30.Ra6 Rf1 checkmate, Petasluk - ElFuriozo, FICS, 2011

9.Nc3

Bill likes this move. An alternative is 9.Re1 Qf5 10.Qd4 (10.f4 Nc6 11.Be3 Re8 12.Nc3 b6 13.Nb5 Nd5 14.Qd2 a6 15.Nd4 Nxd4 16.Bxd4 Rxe1+ 17.Rxe1 bxc5 18.Bxc5 d6 19.c4 Nxf4 20.Bxd6 cxd6 21.Rf1 g5 22.g3 Qc5+ 23.Kh1 Bb7+ White resigned, Proudfoot - JLeee, FICS, 2008; 10.Nd2 Rf8 11.Nf1 Nc6 12.Be3 b6 13.Ng3 Qd5 14.Qe2 Kg8 15.c4 Qf7 16.b3 Bb7 17.a4 Rae8 18.cxb6 axb6 19.f3 Nh5 20.Qc2 Ne5 21.Bd4 Nxf3+ 22.gxf3 Nxg3 23.hxg3 Qxf3 24.Qh2 Rxe1+ 25.Rxe1 Rf5 26.Qh3 c5 27.Rf1 Qxf1+ 28.Qxf1 Rxf1+ 29.Kxf1 cxd4 30.g4 g5 31.b4 h5 White resigned, 10 0, Gambit Fruit1 Beta4bx - Deep Fritz 8, 2006) 10...Re8 11.Kh1 Qxc2 12.Na3 Nf3 13.Qxf6+ gxf6 14.Nxc2 Nxe1 15.Nxe1 Rxe1 checkmate, wolfpack123 - blackscorpion, GameKnot.com, 2009

9...Qc4

Also seen: 9...Qc6 10.Qd4 (10.Re1 d6 11.cxd6 Qxd6 [11...cxd6 12.Bg5 Bg4 13.Qd2 Bh3 14.f3 Bxg2 15.Rxe5 dxe5 16.Kxg2 h6 17.Be3 Rhd8 18.Qe2 Rac8 19.Bxa7 b6 20.Qe3 Rd7 21.Bxb6 Rb7 22.Ba5 Rxb2 23.Rc1 Qc5 24.Nd1 Rxc2+ 25.Rxc2 Qxc2+ 26.Nf2 Qxa2 27.Qxe5 Re8 28.Qb5 Re2 29.Bb6 h5 30.Bd4 Qd2 31.h3 Kg6 32.Qb6 Kh7 33.Bxf6 gxf6 34.h4 Qe1 35.Qc5 Kg7 36.f4 Ra2 37.Qc7+ Kh6 38.Qc5 Qe8 39.Kf3 Qa8+ 40.Ne4 Ra3+ 41.Kf2 Rh3 42.Qd4 Qa2+ 43.Nd2 Rh2+ 44.Kg3 Rxd2 45.Qxf6+ Kh7 46.Qf5+ Kg8 47.Qg5+ Kf8 48.Qc5+ Ke8 49.Qe5+ Kd7 50.Qb5+ Kd6 51.Qb6+ Kd5 52.Qb5+ Kd4 53.Qe5+ Kc4 54.Qe4+ Kc3 55.Qe5+ Kc2 56.Qc5+ Kd1 57.Qxh5+ Ke1 58.Qe5+ Re2 59.Qc3+ Kf1 60.Qf3+ Kg1 61.Kh3 Rh2+ White resigned, Shredder Paderborn - Junior 7, Utrecht, 2002] 12.Bf4 Nf3+ 13.Qxf3 Qb6 14.Nd5 Nxd5 15.Bxc7+ Qf6 16.Qxd5+ Be6 17.Qxb7 Rhe8 18.Bd8+ Black resigned, Wall,B - Gorodetsky,D, Chess.com, 2010; or 10.Bg5 Qxc5 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Ne4 Qb6 13.a4 Qxb2 14.Rb1 Qa3 15.Rb3 Qe7 16.f4 Ng6 17.Re3 Kg7 18.Rfe1 d6 19.Ng3 Qd7 20.Nh5+ Kh6 21.Nxf6 Qd8 22.Qh5+ Kg7 23.Ne8+ Rxe8 24.Rxe8 Qf6 25.f5 Ne5 26.Re3 Bxf5 27.Rg3+ Ng6 28.Rxa8 Qd4+ 29.Kf1 Qf4+ 30.Ke1 Bxc2 31.Qd5 c6 32.Qg8+ Kh6 33.Rh3+ Kg5 34.Rg3+ Kh6 35.Rh3+ Kg5 36.Re8 Bf5 37.Rg3+ Bg4 38.Ree3 Kh6 39.h3 Bh5 40.Qb8 Qb4+ 41.Kf1 a5 42.Qd8 Qf4+ 43.Kg1 d5 44.Kh2 Bd1 45.Re6 Kg7 46.Re7+ Kh6 47.Rxb7 Bc2 48.Qg8 Nh4 49.Rxh7+ Bxh7 50.Qg7+ Kh5 51.Qxh7+ Qh6 52.Qe7 Qg6 53.Qe2+ Kh6 54.Qe3+ Kh5 55.Qe2+ Kh6 56.Qe3+ Kh5 57.Rxg6 Kxg6 58.Qg3+ Kf5 59.Qxh4 Ke5 60.Qe7+ Kf5 61.g4+ Kg6 62.Qe6+ Kg7 63.g5 c5 64.Qf6+ Kh7 65.Qf7+ Kh8 66.g6 d4 67.Qf8 checkmate, Deep Shredder 10 UCI-HIARCS 11.1 UCI, jeromegambit, 2008) 10...Ng6 (10...Re8 11.f4 Ng6 12.f5 Ne5 13.Bf4 d6 14.cxd6 cxd6 15.Bg5 Qc5 16.Qxc5 dxc5 17.Nb5 Re7 18.Rae1 a6 19.Nd6+ Kf8 20.Bf4 Nc6 21.Nxc8 Rxe1 22.Bd6+ Kf7 23.Rxe1 Rxc8 24.Bxc5 Re8 25.Rxe8 Nxe8 26.Kf2 Kf6 27.g4 Ne5 28.Kg3 Nf7 29.Kf4 Ned6 30.Bd4+ Ke7 31.Bxg7 Nc4 32.g5 Nfd6 33.g6 hxg6 34.fxg6 Ne8 35.Bc3 Ncd6 36.h4 Kf8 37.h5 Ng7 38.Kg5 Ne4+ 39.Kh6 Nxc3 40.bxc3 Black resigned, iconsisonline - IgorBohar, FICS, 2010) 11.f3 Re8 12.Be3 b6 13.b4 bxc5 14.bxc5 Nf8 15.a4 Ne6 16.Qc4 d6 17.Rfd1 dxc5 18.Bg5 Black forfeited by disconnection, Wall,B - felineMMXI, blitz FICS, 2011; and

9...Qb4 10.Be3 d6 11.Bd4 Re8 12.a3 Qc4 13.cxd6 cxd6 14.f4 Nc6 15.Bxf6 Qc5+ 16.Rf2 Black resigned, GazzaT - Yigor, Chess.com, 2011.

10.Be3

An improvement over 10.Re1 Qxc5 11.Be3 Qc6 12.Bxa7 d6 13.Bd4 Re8 14.Bxe5 Rxe5 15.Rxe5 dxe5 16.Qe2 a5 17.Re1 b6 18.Qd3 Bb7 19.Qg3 Nh5 20.Qg5 Nf4 21.f3 Qc5+ 22.Kh1 Qf2 23.Rd1 Bc8 24.Rc1 h6 25.Qg3 Qd2 26.Rf1 Qxc2 27.Qf2 Qxf2 28.Rxf2 Nd5 29.Nxd5 Rxd5 30.Kg1 Rd1+ 31.Rf1 Rxf1+ 32.Kxf1 g5 33.a3 Ke6 34.Ke2 e4 35.fxe4 Ke5 36.Kd3 Ba6+ 37.Ke3 Bb5 38.h3 Bc6 39.g3 h5 40.h4 gxh4 41.gxh4 Bxe4 42.b3 Bc2 43.b4 Ba4 44.Kf3 Kf5 45.Kg3 Bc6 46.Kf2 Kg4 White resigned, Deep Sjeng 1.5 -Junior 7, The Jeroen Experience, 2003.

10...b6

Or 10...Re8 11.Bd4 d6 12.b3 Qa6 13.cxd6 Qxd6 14.Nb5 Qc6 15.Nxa7 Rxa7 16.Bxa7 b6 17.Qd4 Ba6 18.c4 Nf3+ 19.gxf3 Qxf3 20.Qd1 Re2 21.Qd8 Qg4+ 22.Kh1 Bb7+ White resigned, Wall,B - Guest6296711, PlayChess.com, 2014.

Or 10...Rd8 11.Qd2 Qb4 12.b3 c6 13.a3 Qg4 14.Rae1 d5 15.Kh1 Bf5 16.Bf4 Ng6 17.Bd6 Ne4 18.Nxe4 Black forfeited on time, Bholashankar - HellDenied, FICS, 2014.

11.Bd4 Nc6 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.Qh5+

It is time for White to start putting the pressure on.

Curiously, Stockfish 8 prefers 13.Nd5 and recommends that Black sacrifice the exchange to keep an edge in the game: 13...Rg8!? 14.Nxc7 Ne5 15.Nxa8 Bb7 16.f3 Qxc5+ 17.Kh1 Bxa8.

Going after the King makes more sense to me.

13...Ke7

Now it's time for the Knight to step in.

14.Nd5+ Kd8 15.cxb6 axb6 16 Qf7 Qd4

Centralizing the Queen, stepping out of the possible exposed attacks by White's Queen (after the Knight moves), and protecting the f6 pawn. Alas, it leads to disaster.

17.Rad1 Qxb2 18.Rfe1 Ne5 19.Qe7 checkmate