The Return of Jerome Gambit for Dummies (Part 3)

Continuing my search for the "essence" of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+), or at least an insight into how it "works" (see Part 1 and Part 2) I examined The Database for games of a half-dozen moves in length.

For the most part, as might be expected, the footnote to most of White's 6-move wins was "White won on time". Opponents were either dazzled, shocked, bored, distracted or offended... and went on to other things. An exception was the following game

Perfesser - Talking LCD Chess (1 ply)
casual game at home, 2003
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Kf6 1-0

More about this game and the match between these two opponents can be found at "Jerome Gambit and The Perfesser" Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4.

After six moves in the game, White can recover his sacrificed pieces, playing 7.Qf5+ Ke7 8.Qxe5+ and then either 9.Qxc5+ or 9.Qd5+ and 10.Qxc5, depending on Black's 8th move.

This looks very good for the first player, although I have to point out that White lost 8 of 32 games (after 6...Kf6) in The Database, including the very embarassing perrypawnpusher - chingching, blitz, FICS, 2011.

Although White White's main enemy in 6-move games remained the clock, about one third of those "0-1"s were the result of 5.Ng5+ (see "The Return of Jerome Gambit for Dummies, Part 2").

There was also the first appearance of a new kind of obstacle, one that I had bemoaned a couple of years ago in "A Sneaky Way to Defeat the Jerome Gambit"

Chainbk - zdveslo
blitz, FICS, 2010
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Black wins by ajudication

Got A Match?

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.

And then there is that as yet untold tale of two expert-to-master-level American players who played a Jerome Gambit match 5 years ago, but the games remain hidden from public view, pending the players' release of a monograph on the opening...

Perhaps that will show up on this blog one of these days.






























http://jeromegambit.blogspot.com/2008/11/jerome-gambit-and-perfesser-part-i.html


iv

Artificial Ignorance (Part 1)

How do you get a chess-playing computer to play poorly?

In the case of programs like Talking LCD Chess – see "Jerome Gambit and the Perfesser (Part I)", Part II, Part III and Part IV – you can limit how deeply it searches for each move. It sees less, it misses more.

In the case of programs like Chess Challenger 7 – see "A Jerome Gambit 'Challenger' " –  you can limit the amount of time it spends on choosing each move. Again, playing strength has a lot to do with how far the computer "sees".

Or, when you design a program, you can have it play a relatively decent game, but every once-in-a-while have it choose the 4th or 5th or worse move choice. That's the blunder-as-a-ticking-time-bomb model: with strong players, large mistakes are rare; but with weak players things go *boom* quite regularly.

I was thinking about this "problem" (most of the time programmers are trying to make their chess engines stronger and smarter) today while discussing the Chess Titans program (which is included in the Windows 7 operating system) with my son, Jon.

The youngest of the "Kennedy Kids", home on vacation from his work in Haiti, has been spending more time on chess lately. Of course, he wanted me to show him the details of the Jerome Gambit, and of course I spent a lot of time doing so.

He wants to return to The Haitian Project, play his boss at chess, and beat him with the Jerome Gambit...

Wait 'Till Next Year!

There was a time when the New York Mets baseball team was so good at losing that fans would appear on Opening Day with signs promising although this year may bring more disaster, Wait 'Til Next Year!

The following game is given with that spirit in mind, as White deserved – and no doubt next time will play – better.

macgregorchess - ahphong
blitz, FICS, 2010

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

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Kf6

An unusual reply (there are only 25 examples before this one in the New Year's Database, with White scoring 76%) looked at in the coverage of the game The Perfesser vs Talking LCD Chess.

7.f4

Certainly thematic, but White should, instead, regain both sacrificed pieces with 7.Qf5+ Ke7 8.Qxe5+ Kf8 9.Qxc5+ d6, leaving him two pawns to the good.

Interestingly enough, other games have seen 7.Qh4+, 7.0-0, 7.Nc3 and 7.d3.

The recommended 7.Qf5+ does not bring "Instant Victory" but it certainly brings "Instant Advantage" and should be remembered in the New Year.

7...Nf7 8.Qxc5 Qe7

Wow! Another thematic move, this time by Black. Usually ...Qe7 is part of a stirring counter-attack for the second player, but in this instance it has a flaw.

9.e5+

Readers, with their clocks not ticking, may have noticed 9.Qf5#.

9...Kg6 10.Qxc7

Grabbing an extra pawn, but it was probably time to grab the draw with both hands: 10.f5+ Kxf5 (if 10...Kh5 then 11.g4+ Kxg4 13.Qc4+ with the same idea) 11.0-0+ Kg6 12.Qd4 and White repeats the position by checking the enemy King.

10...Qh4+

Here comes trouble.

11.g3 Qg4 12.Nc3 Qf3 13.Rf1 Qc6

White has repelled the invader, and with an exchange of Queens would now stand about even, his "Jerome pawns" accounting for the sacrificed piece. Instead, he overlooks one last thing.

14.Qd8 Nxd8 White resigned

Unorthodox Chess Openings Magazines

If you enjoy playing the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) you probably have an interest in playing other "unorthodox" chess openings, as well.

While you may not have the Myers Openings Bulletins at hand (M.O.B. 1979-1988, New M.O.B. 1992-1996)

I've mentioned on this blog three other magazines devoted to unusual opening lines that are still being published.

Kaissiber, a German language magazine published by FIDE Master Stefan Bücker, is always a treasure trove of solid chess creativity and chess history. The current Issue #37 has a large article on the Sicilian Wing Gambit (1.e4 c5 2.b4!?), for example, and on a reversed Budapest Gambit coming out of the Tal Gambit in the Sicilian (1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5 3.Nf3!? dxe4 4.Ng5) amongst other explorations.

The grand-daddy of current unorthodox openings magazines is Rainer Schlenker's Randspringer. The current publication is a triple issue, full of "Kaffeehaus-Schach". Schlenker's imagination knows few bounds, but he frequently plays the openings he presents, and his games are amusing and educational.

A relative "youngster" in the group is the Unorthodox Openings Newsletter. Issue #26 recently appeared. Yes, that is a picture of Women's World Champion Alexandra Kosteniuk on the cover. Editor Gary K. Gifford has an interview with Ms. Kosteniuk on the inside pages. There is also a ton of games by Philip du Chattel, who loves to play Nh6 in Hippopotamus style formations. Also catching my eye was more thought, analysis and games on the Tayler Opening (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Be2!?).

Why not check them all out?

Beyond LCD

There are 70 games by Nesseerd in the New Year's Database of Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+), Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4) and Semi-Italian Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 4.various Bc5 5.Bxf7+) games.

In the following battle, he encounters a hybrid defense that has hardly been played and has largely been unsuccessful – only to discover that statistics can, as ever, mislead.

Nesseerd - slouhend
blitz, FICS, 2010

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

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6

7.f4 d6

This defense is at least as old as D'Aumiller - A.P., Livorno 1878, and is a computer favorite.

8.fxe5 g6

slouhend adds a "Blackburne" twist to the line, following in the footsteps (?) of the chess-playing Talking LCD Chess, which had an exploratory match with The Perfesser (see "Jerome Gambit and The Perfesser (Part I, II, III and IV)").

9.Qh3+

9.Qf3 dxe5 10.b4 Bb6 11.Rf1 Qh4+ 12.g3 Qg5 13.Qf7+ Kd6 14.Na3 Be6 15.Nb5+ Kc6 16.Qxe6+ Kxb5 17.a4+ Kxb4 18.Qb3+ Kc5 19.Qd5+ Kb4 20.Qb5 checkmate, Perfesser - Talking LCD Chess (3 ply), casual game, 2003;

9.Qe2 Kxe5 10.Rf1 Qh4+ 11.g3 Qg4 12.d4+ Bxd4 13.Bf4+ Kf6 14.Bxd6+ Kg5 15.Qd2+ Kh5 16.Qxd4 cxd6 17.Rf4 Qd7 18.Rh4+ Kg5 19.Nd2 h5 20.Qxh8 Qf7 21.Rf4 Qxf4 22.gxf4+ Kxf4 23.Qxg8 Black resigned, Perfesser - Talking LDC Chess (4 ply), casual game, 2003

9...Kf7

 A challenging position for White. Rybka recommends 10.Rf1+ Ke8 11.Qf3 Be6 12.exd6 with the first player following up by fianchettoing his Queen's Bishop and castling Queenside, then being only about a pawn's worth behind.

10.Qb3+ Be6

The position is likewise not easy for Black. Rybka suggests 10...Kg7 instead, with a defense along the lines of 11...Qe7 and ...Be6, with a winning advantage.

11.c4

Rybka's recommendation here (blunder check, 5 minutes a move) has me puzzled, but I'll give it anyway: 11.Rf1+ Ke7 12.Qc3 Kd7 13.g3 Bh3 14.d4 Bxf1 15.dxc5 dxe5 16.c6+ bxc6 17.Kxf1 Qf6+ 18.Kg1 Qd6 19.Qf3 Rf8 20.Qe2 Nf6 21.Nc3 Qb4 22.a3 Qb7 23.Be3 Kc8 24.b4, when Black is up the exchange, but his poorer pawn structure means he has only a slight advantage

analysis diagram






11...Qh4+

Here comes trouble. White's pawns are weak, and his lack of development will tell against him.

12.g3 Qxe4+ 13.Qe3

An oversight, ending the game, but Black likely had a forced mate in any event.

13...Qxh1+ White resigned

Correctness

The Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) is not the Blackmar Diemer Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxd4 3.Nc3 Nf6) which in turn is not the Sicilian Defense (1.e4 c5)...

Alonzo Wheeler Jerome was not Emil Josef Diemer who was not Mikhail Tal...

Still, I had to smile the other day as I was catching up on Tom Purser's Blackmar Diemer Gambit blog (see the "Tom'sBDGPages" link on the lower right) when I ran across his post on "Correctness".

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

"Correctness"

In his book, Vom Ersten Zug an auf Matt [Toward Mate From the First Move], Diemer included a short essay on correctness (a propos -- KORREKTHEIT!, p. 129), in which he insisted that if the BDG were a "correct gambit" then it would be no gambit at all. Tonight I read an interesting piece by Dutch grandmaster Jan Hein Donner, (who once wrote a separate devastating article on Diemer called "The Prophet von Muggensturm").

He didn’t care about correctness, complications were more important to him. To drag his opponent with him into the labyrinth, he gave everything for it. I’ve seen it in Zürich, the growing feeling of unease when he sacrificed a piece or more in every game, and won, but when afterwards it turned out the whole enterprise had been rather risky if only the opponent would have found the right moves behind the board. In analysing, too, it turned out that, although he had calculated much and much more than the average player, he did very much tend to calculate in his own favour. Even then it became clear that only Keres could stand up to him in such analysis sessions where hands grab and reach over the board. ‘Aber mein Lieber, was machen Sie denn darauf!’ [But my darling, what do you play now?] and Tal just laughed. ‘Wer hat gewonnen?’ [Who has won?] (…)

Tal? Tal? Forgive me if I mislead you. Here Donner was writing about Tal. Not about Diemer. You can read the entire piece in this post in Chess Vibes. (scroll down to the bottom of the page).

Of course, neither Purser nor Donner were writing about playing the Jerome Gambit, either; but I hope I did not mislead any Reader.

Still, isn't that what we do when we play the Jerome: drag our opponents with us "into the labyrinth"?

Jerome Gambit and The Perfesser (Part IV)

Time for the last Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) match-up between The Perfesser and the silicon mini-mite! The computer is set to analyze a bit deeper.

How deep does the average club player analyze?

The Perfesser - Talking LDC Chess (4 ply)

casual game 2003

Finally, I set Excalibur to 4 ply and tried the promising Qe2 line from the notes above (see "Jerome Gambit and The Perfesser (Part III)"):

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 d6 8.fxe5 g6 9.Qe2

9...Kxe5? 10.Rf1!

Here the computer "thought" for over a minute. I think Black may be lost at this point.

10...Qh4+
Alternatives: 10...Ke6 11.b4! Bb6 ( 11...Bd4 12.Qc4++-) 12.Qg4+ Ke7 13.Qg5+ Ke8 14.Qxd8+ Kxd8 15.Bb2+-; 10...Bb6 11.b3! looks very dangerous for Black because of the hanging Rook at h8, e.g. 11...Bd4 12.c3 Bb6 13.d4+ Ke6 14.Qg4+ Ke7 15.Bg5+ Ke8 16.Rf8+ Kxf8 17.Qf4+ Nf6 18.Bxf6 Qd7 19.Bxh8+ and White has emerged a pawn up.
11.g3 Qg4 12.d4+ Bxd4 13.Bf4+ Kf6 14.Bxd6+
14...Kg5
14...Kg7 15.Bf8# is very attractive.
15.Qd2+ Kh5 16.Qxd4 cxd6 17.Rf4!
17.Qxh8?? Qxe4+! would turn the tables on White.
17...Qd7 18.Rh4+ Kg5 19.Nd2 h5 20.Qxh8 Qf7 21.Rf4! Qxf4 22.gxf4+ Kxf4 23.Qxg8

... and I resigned for the computer since there is no point in playing out this position.
1-0

graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"

Jerome Gambit and The Perfesser (Part III)

The Perfesser continues his experiment with the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+), setting his computer opponent to "think" to the depth of 3 half-moves... The annotations are by the Learned One.



The Perfesser - Talking LCD Chess (3 ply)
casual 2003

The third game, at level 3, was equally interesting.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6



7.f4 d6 8.fxe5 g6 9.Qf3


Angling for possible checks at f7 later on.

9.Qe2!? comes into consideration as well, intending to meet 9...dxe5? with 10.Qc4+ Kd6 11.Qd5+ Ke7 12.Qxe5+ Kf7 13.Qxc5 Qh4+ 14.Qf2+ Qxf2+ 15.Kxf2 and White's two extra pawns should win easily. For more on this idea, see the next game.

9...dxe5 10.b4!?



10...Bb6

10...Bxb4? 11.Qb3+ regains the piece with a favorable position due to Black's wretched centralized King; At first I thought that 10...Bd4 would be winning, but on closer examination I found that Black can actually get into trouble, e.g. 11.Rf1 c6 ( 11...Bxa1 12.Qf7+ Kd6 13.Qd5+ is a cute perpetual) 12.Na3 Nf6 ( 12...Bxa1?? 13.Qf7+ Kd6 14.Nc4#) 13.c3 Bb6 14.d4! exd4 15.Bg5 Rf8 16.Qh3+ and White picks up the rest of Black's kingside pawns with a winning advantage.

11.Rf1 Qh4+?



11...c6 is a more logical move, but amazingly I'm not sure Black is better any more: 12.Qf7+ a)12.Qg4+ Kd6 ( a)12...Ke7 13.Qg5+ Kd6 14.Qg3 comes to the same thing) 13.Qg3 Nf6 14.Bb2 Re8 15.Na3 Nxe4 16.Nc4+ Kd7 17.Nxb6+ axb6 18.Qg4+ Kd6 19.Qxe4 is quite unclear; b)12.Na3!? Nf6 ( b)12...Kd7 13.Nc4 is worth exploring: 13...Bc7 14.Bb2 Qh4+ 15.g3 Qe7 16.Qc3!? is unclear) 13.d4 Rf8 14.dxe5 Kxe5 15.Bb2+ Ke6 16.Rd1 Qe7 17.Qh3+ Kf7 18.Qxh7+ Ke6 19.Qh3+ Kf7 20.Rxf6+! Ke8 ( b)20...Qxf6? 21.Qh7++-) 21.Rxf8+ Qxf8 22.Qh8 with some advantage to White, who can probably keep at least one of the extra pawns; 12...Kd6 13.c4 Qh4+ 14.Kd1 Bg4+ 15.Kc2 Ne7! should hold everything.

12.g3 Qg5

12...Qxh2 13.c4! and the threat of Qf7+ is quite strong.

13.Qf7+ Kd6 14.Na3!



Now the threat of 15.Nc4+ Kc6 16.Qd5# forces Black to give up material hand over fist.

14...Be6 15.Nb5+ Kc6 16.Qxe6+ Kxb5 17.a4+ Kxb4 18.Qb3+ Kc5 19.Qd5+ Kb4 20.Qb5# 1-0




graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"

Jerome Gambit and The Perfesser (Part II)

The Perfesser continues his experiment with the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+)...

The Perfesser - Talking LCD Chess (2 ply)
casual game 2003

The really interesting games, however, occurred when I set the computer on higher levels. At "two ply" it played the better 6...Ke6 and ... well, I thought I was lost, but look what happened!

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6


7.f4 d6 8.fxe5 dxe5 9.Rf1 Nf6 10.Qe2

10...Ke7 11.d3 Bg4 12.Qd2 Kf7 13.Qg5 Qd7 14.Nc3 Bd4


15.Nd5 Rhd8 16.Nxf6 gxf6 17.Rxf6+ Ke8 18.Qg8+ Ke7 19.Qf7#


I like this miniature because Black's moves are fairly natural and his doom falls more or less unexpectedly. The culprits are 14...Bd4? throwing away the advantage (almost any other reasonable move, like 14...c6 or even 14...h6, is still winning) and 15...Rhd8? handing White the game (where 15...Raf8 would still leave the issue in doubt). Note that 15...Qd8, defending the Knight a third time, drops the B/g4.
1-0
graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"

Jerome Gambit and The Perfesser (Part I)

One way a chess program's strength can be increased or decreased is by controlling the number of plys (half-moves) it analyzes before making its move. Five years ago, a strong, creative chess player -- who I will refer to as The Perfesser -- ran a simple experiment with a simple computer and a simple opening: the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+).

We will look at 1-ply, 2-ply, 3-ply and 4-ply games with notes by my learned friend.

The Perfesser - Talking LCD Chess (1 ply)
casual game 2003

After my online debut with the Jerome this morning, I played four more Jeromes just for kicks against a hand-held chess computer, Talking LCD Chess by Excalibur, setting up the first three moves by hand so that I wouldn't have to wade through a pile of Sicilians and a Two Knights Defense before getting the desired position.

(Note: Talking LCD Chess has a nasty quirk: after moving its King and returning it to e8, it will sometimes castle! Other than that it's a fine little machine to kick around.)

To simulate cluelessness, I set it first on "one ply" – and it promptly fell into

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7

5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Kf6??


The game is uninteresting and I will not bore you with it, though I recorded it.
[After 7.Qf5+ Ke7 8.Qxe5+ Kf8 9.Qxc5+ White has recovered his two pieces and is two pawns up - Rick]
Stray thought, though: at one ply the evaluation parameters must come out more clearly than with deeper lookahead. Do we see a combination of defending the piece with a penalty for "center tropism" with the King? The center of the f6 square is, geometrically, a little further from the absolute center point of the board than the center of the e6 square is, and hence presumably f6 is evaluated as "safer"
... 1-0
graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"