Jerome Gambit: A New Game In An Old Line

Sometimes the best way to understand a recent game is to reflect upon past games with the same line of play. The following game is a good illustration.

Yohannessen - saumilpradhan
5 5 blitz, Chess.com, 2020

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6

The Two Knights Defense. 

Jerome Gambit players have to deal with it - see "Jerome Gambit vs Two Knights Defense (Part 1), (Part 2), (Part 3) and (Part 4)" for starters.

Recently, I have been seeing a lot of games featuring 4.Bxf7+, a variation I have loosely referred to as an "impatient Jerome Gambit" because White does not wait for ...Bc5 before sacrificing.

4.Qe2

White has a different idea. To put it into context, see "No Way A GM Plays the Jerome Gambit! (Part 1)". There is also the historical perspective reflected in "Proto-Jerome Gambits? (Part 3)".

The earliest example that I have seen with this move is Pollock, W.H.K. - Vernon, J.E., Bath vs Bristol match, 1883: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Qe2 Be7 5.d4 d6 6. d5 Nb8 7.Nc3 Nbd7 8.Bd2 Nb6 9.Bb3 Bd7 10.Nd1 a5 11.a3 c6 12.c4 c5 13.O-O O-O 14.Ne1 Ne8 15.f4 Bf6 16.f5 Bg5 17.Ne3 Bxe3+ 18.Bxe3 g6 19.Bh6 Ng7 20.f6 Nh5 21.Bxf8 Kxf8 22.Qe3 Nxf6 23.Nf3 Ng4 24.Qd2 Kg7 25.Ng5 Nh6 26.Rf2 Qe7 27.Raf1 Rf8 28.h4 a4 29.Ba2 drawn

It was also played in Gunsberg - Burn, 6th American Chess Congress, 1889 (1/2-1/2, 27) and Bird - Chigorin, 6th American Chess Congress, 1889 (0-1, 53).

4...Bc5 5.Bxf7+

For the earliest example that I have found of this move, see "Adolf Albin Plays the Jerome Gambit (Part 1 & 2)", which focuses on the game Albin,A - Schlechter,C, Trebitsch Memorial Tournament Vienna, 1914 (0-1, 31).

5...Kxf7 

The game has transposed into a possible Jerome Gambit line: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Qe2 Nf6.

6.Qc4+ Ke8 7.Qxc5 b6 

Black pushes back. If he were able to castle, the pawn deficit would not matter much.

By the way, the alternative, 7...Nxe4 is met by 8.Qe3 d5 9.d3 Nf6 10.Nxe5 and White has recovered the pawn, while opening the dangerous e-file.

8.Qe3 Ba6 9.d3 Nb4 10.Na3 Ng4 

The time control for the game is 5 5 blitz, and a flurry of active pieces is a good strategy. White responds by exchanging Queens. 

11.Qg5 Qxg5 12.Bxg5 h6 13.Bd2 Rf8 

An oversight.

14.Bxb4 Rf4 15.Bd2 Rf6 16.Bc3 d6 17.d4 c5 18.dxe5 dxe5 

19.Nxe5 Rxf2 20.Nxg4 Re2+ 21.Kd1 Rxg2 22.Ne3 Rd8+ 23.Kc1 Re2 24.Nf5 Rd7 25.Bxg7 Rf2 26.Re1 Rdd2 

Black continues to pressure the White King.

27.Bxh6 Rde2 28.Rxe2 Rf1+ 29.Kd2 Rxa1 30.Re1 Rxa2 31.b3 Rxa3 

Play continues in a rowdy fashion, but now White turns to his passed "Jerome pawn".

32.e5 c4 33.bxc4 Bxc4 34.e6 b5 35.e7 a5 36.Ng7+ Kf7 37.e8=Q+ Kf6 38.Qf8+ Kg6 39.Nf5 

Black resigned

 What would happen next: 39...Kh5 40.Qg7 Rd3+ 41.cxd3 a4 42.Qg5 checkmate

One More Thought

Musing over the earlier post, "Unasked Questions", which concerned itself with a sort of an "impatient Jerome Gambit" - 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 (the Two Knights Defense) 4.Bxf7+ (not waiting for Black to play ...Bc5) - I remembered a tangential question that I had asked about what impact further developing a Knight for each side - creating the Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ - would have, compared to the regular Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+.

It turned out that Komodo 10 evaluated the Four Knights version as improving Black's position 3/4 of a pawn over Black's position in the regular Jerome. Furthermore, The Database showed that Black scored 61% in the Four Knights variation, versus 54% in the regular Jerome Gambit line.

So, I had one more thought: Might that mean, analagously, that the line that we looked at in the earlier post would be stronger for Black than if we stripped away a Knight from each side, i.e. if we had Komodo 10 look at 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Bxf7+ ? (Would I dare to call it a sort of "accelerated impatient Jerome Gambit"? I hope not.)

It turns out that Komodo 10, at 30 ply, sees only about 3/100th of a pawn's difference between 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Bxf7+ and 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Bxf7+. Not much at all, as far as computer evaluation goes.

However, checking The Database, I noted 479 games with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Bxf7+ and 443 games with 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Bxf7+. In the first case, Black scored 61%; in the second case, 52%. From a practical point of view, that may be significant - even if you take into account that The Database is not as statistically representative for these two lines, because my data collection has not been as rigorous.

In both cases, it seems that Black's practical chances are improved as his development increases, even though White increases his development equally.

Curious.

Should White abandon the Jerome Gambit for 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Bxf7+? No, I wouldn't go that far.

But I would refer Readers to "Jerome-Knight Gambit" for a collection of those accelerated, impatient games.

Jerome Gambit: Yet, Ever Onward

The third round of Chess.com's "Italian game Classic" tournament has started, and I find myself in Group 1 - which consists of me, LttlePrince, pitman63, Sp1derR1c0 and Winawer99. (I am the next-to-lowest rated.)

With two Whites to start off with, I faced a couple of Two Knights Defenses, and was able to wrangle one of them into an Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

The other game could have evolved into a Noa Gambit, but I haven't recovered the suffering I experienced at the hands of  RemoveKubab1, last year. (That is quite funny, given that Komodo 10 rates Black 3 3/4 pawns ahead in the Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit; while it assesses Black to be only 1 1/2 pawns ahead in the Noa Gambit.)  I keep thinking that I should try the Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit, but will probably return to using a couple of ideas from Yury V. Bukayev.

Jerome Gambit: Ever Onward

The third round of Chess.com's "Italian game Battlegrounds" tournament has started, and I find myself in Group 2 - which consists of me and andrewLLL.

As always, I was fully prepared to place my chances for success in the hands of the Jerome Gambit, but a review of my opponent's recent games suggests that he much preferred 3...Nf6, the Two Knights Defense, to 3...Bc5, which would limit my Jerome options.

So, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6, I crossed my fingers and played 4.Nc3, fully expecting 4...Nxe4, when I was resigned to returning to last year's site of grave strugggle with the Noa Gambit against RemoveKubab1 with 5.Bxf7+.

However, perhaps andrewLLL got a hint of the won game looming before him, and played, instead, 4...Bc5, allowing me to move the game into the Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit with 5.Bxf7+.

The Database shows that I have played this line in 60 games, scoring 74%, but you never know when it comes to "refuted" openings, do you? 

Jerome Gambit: Discussion Crasher

The Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) continues to show up in the oddest places. The other day I was reading an interesting post by John Torrie, at chesstalk.com. It started out with a reference to Bobby Fischer, but quickly moved on to an interesting game that featured what is sometimes called the Nachmanson Gambit (see a reference in my post "Kaissiber!"). In the middle of the game - Torrie reflected upon the Jerome Gambit, because of a tactical similarity. (It seems likely that Mr. Torrie is familiar with this blog.) 

I have posted the earliest example of the Nachmanson Gambit that I have been able to find, at the end of this discussion; although I have found no information on Nachmanson, himself. I also dug up an earlier game with a different opening line, but with a similar tactical theme, which you will also find at the end.  

John Torrie  

Wednesday, 21st November, 2018, 11:20 AM 

Apparently the Fischer vs Allan encounter is not the only memorable game from Montreal, Feb. 1964. Dan Elman says that he also squared off with Mr. Allan at the Montreal Chess Club. The first game, with Mr. Allan venturing his Two Knight's Defence, went like this: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.O-O Nxe4 6.Nc3 (Dan picked up this peculiarity in the early '60s while he was 'resident chess player' at a Belgium cafe. The owners of the cafe had a deal with Dan, if he played chess with the patrons for wagers of liquor, he could have free lodgings with light fare. Usually the patrons drank beer, while Dan drank ginger ale disguised as 'whisky'. Dan drank a lot of ginger ale while making a lot of whisky sales for the cafe.) 6...dxc3 7.Bxf7+ (Hey Jerome! Jerome! Will the real Jerome please stand up: The 150 year old Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 with attacking chances for white, was the brainchild of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome who also had the distinction of proposing - not without merit - that a pawn be allowed to promote to a king when it reached the 8th rank.) 7...Kxf7 8.Qd5+ Ke8 9.Re1 Be7 10.Rxe4 d6 11.Bg5 cxb3 12.Rae1 h6 13.Bxe7 Nxe7 14.Qh5+ Kf8 15.Ng5 g6 16.Qf3+ Nf5 (Dan points out that if the bishop blocks, Ne6+ forks the queen.) 17.Qc3 Rg8 18.Re8+ Qxe8 19.Qf6+ resigns. (After 19...Qf7, 20.Nh7 makes a model mate.)...

Trajkovic, Mihajlo - Trifunovic, Petar

Belgrade, 1952
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.O-O Nxe4 6.Nc3 Nxc3 7.bxc3 d5 8.Bb5 Be7 9.Nxd4 Bd7 10.Bd3 Ne5 11.Nf5 Bxf5 12.Bxf5 Nc4 13.Rb1 O-O 14.Bd3 Nb6 15.Qg4 Re8 16.a4 a5 17.Be3 Bf6 18.Bxb6 cxb6 19.c4 d4 20.Rfe1 Qd6 21.g3 Rxe1+ 22.Rxe1 g6 23.Qf3 Rb8 24.Qf4 Qxf4 25.gxf4 Kf8 26.Kg2 Re8 27.Rxe8+ Kxe8 28.Be4 Ke7 29.Bxb7 Kd6 30.Kf3 Kc5 31.Ke2 Kxc4 32.f5 g5 33.h3 Kc3 34.Ba6 Kxc2 35.Bd3+ Kc3 36.Bb5 Be5 37.Bd3 h5 38.f3 Bg3 39.Bb5 f6 40.Ba6 Bh2 41.Bb5 Bg1 42.Ba6 Kb4 43.Bb5 Kc5 44.Be8 h4 45.Bb5 Kd5 46.f4 gxf4 47.Kf3 Bh2 48.Bd3 Kc5 49.Ke4 Kb4 50.Bb5 Kc3 51.Be2 f3 52.Bxf3 b5 53.axb5 a4 54.Bh5 d3 55.b6 a3 White resigned

McConnell, James - Zukertort, Johannes Hermann
New Orleans, 1884
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.a3 Bxc3 6.dxc3 Nxe4 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qd5+ Ke8 9.Qxe4 d5 10.Qa4 Rf8 11.Nxe5 Qe7 12.f4 Bd7 13.O-O Nxe5 14.Qd4 Nc6 15.Qxd5 Be6 16.Qb5 a6 17.Qxb7 Qc5+ 18.Be3 Qxe3+ 19.Kh1 Qb6 20.Qxb6 cxb6 21.Rae1 Kd7 White resigned

Jerome Gambit: Chaos in a Two Knights (Part 1)

The May, 20, 1899 issue of The Daily Telegraph, of Sydney, New South Wales, carried what it called "A lively game from the recent tourney".

Presenting the contest gives me an opportunity to share some of the delights of doing Jerome Gambit research. It also gives Readers a number of opportunities to try their analytical skills - playing the Jerome, after all, is very much about taking advantage of opportunities as they arise.

(I have changed the newspaper's descriptive notation to algebraic.) 

Dr. Finlay - Elliott, H. E
Dungog, NSW, Australia, 1899

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 

If Dr. Finlay had been looking to play the Jerome Gambit, he got derailed (at least temporarily) by the Two Knights Defense.

This is enough of an issue that it has been discussed a number of times on this blog. For ideas, you could try "Jerome Gambit vs Two Knights Defense" Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4. Follow that up with "Further Explorations" (Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5).

4.Nc3

Opening books recommend against this move, as Black has a reasonable response in 4...Nxe4 (temporary piece sacrifice) 5.Nxe4 d5 (recovering the piece), what Hans Kmoch called the "fork trick" in his Pawn Power in Chess (1949). 

4...Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ 

This is may not have been what Black expected.

The Bishop sacrifice goes by different names.

It has been referred to as the Noa Gambit. Charles Thomsas Blanshard, in his Examples of Chess Master-Play (1894) said of 5.Bxf7+ "The text move, a hobby of Dr. Noa, develops Black's game." See Noa,J - Makovetz,G, DSB-07 Kongress, Dresden, 1892 (0-1, 27).

It has also been called the Monck Gambit. In Pollock Memories: A Collection of Chess Games, Problems, &c., &c., Including His Matches with Eugene Delmar, Jackson Showalter, and G.H.D. Gossip (1899), William Henry Krause Pollock gave a crushing 19-move miniature ending in checkmate as "[A] very fine example, known in Dublin years ago as the 'Monck Gambit' ." 

More recently, Rev. Tim Sawyer, of Blackmar Diemer Gambit fame, applied the very apt name "Open Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit".

It is worth mentioning some early games by players whose names have not been attached to the line -

Zoltowski, E. - Zukertort, Johannes, Berlin, 1869: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe4 Be7 7.Nfg5+ Bxg5 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxg5 d5 10.Qxd8 Rxd8 11.Ng5+ Kg7 12.d3 Nd4 13.O-O Nxc2 14.Rb1 Re8 15.b3 Bf5 16.Rd1 Nb4 17.Ba3 Nxd3 18.g4 Nxf2 19.Rxd5 Nxg4 20.Rbd1 Ne3 21.Rd7+ Bxd7 22.Rxd7+ Kh6 23.Nf7+ Kh5 24.Bc1 Nf5 25.Ng5 h6 26.Rh7 Rad8 White resigned;

Bird, H.E. - Mills, simultaneous exhibition, British Chess Club, London, 1887: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe4 d5 7.Neg5+ Kg8 8.d3 h6 9.Nh3 Bg4 10.c3 Bc5 11.Be3 d4 12.Bc1 Qd7 13.Nhg1 Kh7 14.h3 Be6 15.Ne2 Rhf8 16.b4 Bd6 17.b5 Ne7 18.c4 a6 19.bxa6 Rxa6 20.Ng3 Ng6 21.Ne4 Be7 22.h4 Bf5 23.h5 Bxe4 24.dxe4 Nf4 25.Nxe5 Bb4+ 26.Kf1 Qe8 27.Bxf4 Rxf4 28.Ng6 Rxe4 29.g3 Re1+ 30.Qxe1 Bxe1 31.Rxe1 Qc6 32.Rh4 Qxc4+ 33.Kg1 Qxa2 34.Re8 Rxg6 35.hxg6+ Kxg6 36.Rf4 c5 Black queened in a few moves and White resigned;

Marshall, Frank James - Pollock, simultaneous exhibition (22 boards) Montreal Chess Club, Montreal 1894: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe4 d5 7.Neg5+ Kg8 8.d3 h6 9.Nh3 Bxh3 10.gxh3 Qd7 11.Qe2 Qxh3 12.Bd2 Bd6 13.Rg1 Kh7 14.Rg3 Qf5 15.O-O-O Rhf8 16.Bxh6 gxh6 17.Ng5+ Kh8 18.Rdg1 e4 19.Qh5 Bxg3 20.Qxh6+ Kg8 21.Rxg3 Rf6 22.Nxe4+ Kf7 23.Rg7+ Ke6 24.Nxf6 Rh8 25.Nh7+ Ke5 26.Rg5 Nd4 27.Qf6+ Kf4 28.Qxd4+ Qe4 and White mates in two moves, Black resigned

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+

Wow.

"Making a sort of Jerome Gambit; interesting, but of course quite unsound" wrote the chess columnist of The Daily Telegraph, properly focused on the Knight capture/sacrifice as well as the subsequent Queen sally.

The Database has only 11 game examples of this move - usually played is 6.Nxe4 - with White scoring 28%. Don't let that discourage you - the current game quickly develops chaotic elements like the traditional Jerome Gambit.  

6...Nxe5 7.Qh5+ Ng6 8.Nxe4

White wants to get his Knight into play. Instead, 8.Qd5+ Ke8 9.Qxe4 might have been a bit stronger, but White might also have wanted to avoid the exchange of Queens that would have followed 9...Qe7. 

8...d6

The Daily Telegraph suggested that 8...Be7 followed by 9...d5 was preferrable, but Black could probably have played 8...d5 directly, or even on the next move.

9.O-O Be7 10.f4 Kf8 

Suddenly, the game is equal.

How can that be? The Jerome Gambit themes are strong: Black's King is on the same file as White's Rook, and the dangerous "Jerome pawn" at f4 is about to advance.

11.f5 Ne5 12.d4 

White could have played 12.f6!? directly, ultimately transposing to the line played.

12...Nd7 

Black has protected the f6 square (four times) from an advance of the White pawn - but it is not enough. He would have done best to retreat the Knight to the f-file, where it would provide some shelter from the enemy Rook: 12...Nf7 13.f6 Bxf6 14.Nxf6 gxf6 15.Bh6+ Nxh6 16.Qxh6+ Kf7 17.Rf3!? and the pressure will force Black to give back a piece, e.g. 17...Bg4 18.Rg3 Qg8 19.h3 Qg5 20.Qxg5 fxg5 21.hxg4 Rae8 with an even game.

[to be continued]

Jerome Gambit: Checkmate

In the Jerome Gambit, White activates his Queen to attack - and, ideally, checkmate - the enemy King.

The following game illustrates.

Wall, Bill - Guest6199747
PlayChess.com, 2018

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 

The Two Knights defense. Bill has had a lot of success transforming games into the Jerome Gambit, however.

4.d3 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ 

Tranposing to the "modern" Jerome Gambit line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.d3 Nf6.

5...Kxf7 6.Nc3 d6

Black seems safe. Black feels safe. Black is safe.

For the moment.

7.h3 Be6 8.Ng5+ 

The first step in drawing the enemy King out into the center. It is a simple idea - perhaps so simple that Black feels no sense of danger.

8...Ke7 9.Nxe6 Kxe6 10.O-O Qe7 

11.Nd5 Nxd5 12.exd5+ Kxd5 

It is interesting to see here that Stockfish 8 sees the game as even.

If you compare material, Black is "simply" a  piece ahead, so the computer's assessment is either very concrete - White can win back a piece - or very abstract - White has a much better position.

You need only look at the position of Black's King to know that "something" is up.

13.Qg4

Do you see the threat?

13...Nd8 

Giving the King some breathing room. The computer suggests returning a piece to achieve a messy, but even, position: 13...Nd4 14.c3 h5 15.Qe4+ Ke6 16.cxd4 Bxd4 17.Qxb7 c5

14.b4

To win the Bishop. There is also a hidden drop of poison in the move, as Black will discover. It is time for the defender to defend: 14...Kc6 15.bxc5 b6, when the King can escape, although White will be better.

14...Bd4 15.c3

Cute.

15...Bxc3 

The game needed to go something like 15...h5 16.Qe4+ Ke6 17.cxd4 Kd7 when after 18.d5 Rf8 19.Be3 White has regained his piece and it looks like he has a better position - starting with a safer King. 

16.Qc4 checkmate

Once again, this is why we play the Jerome Gambit.