Jerome Gambit - Lost and Found

Last year, when John Watson and Eric Schiller's Taming Wild Chess Openings came out (New In Chess, 2015), I expressed disappointment on this blog that the Jerome Gambit did not appear to the authors to fit their sorting of A) Good B) Bad and C) Ugly chess openings and defenses. (Especially the "Bad" and the "Ugly".)

I am a bit behind in reading Dennis Monokroussos' "The Chess Mind" blog, and I just discovered - in Dennis' past review of Taming Wild Chess Openings, that the Jerome Gambit actually does appear.

My mistake. I had looked in the book's "Contents" without success. I had checked out the "Index of Moves and Variation Names" without discovering either the Italian Game, the Giuoco Piano - or the Jerome Gambit. Ditto the "Opening Index".

Ah, but Dennis pointed out - the Jerome is covered in the "Evans Gambit: Lasker Defense (C52)" chapter!

4.Bxf7+? Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ is the Jerome Gambit, which, however, is refuted by 5...Nxe5 6.Qh5+ (6.d4 Qh4! 7.0-0 Nf6 8.dxc5 Qxe4) 6...Kf8, or here 6...g6 7.Qxe5 Qe7, winning.

Regular readers are no doubt familiar with the "pie-in-the-face" (6...Qh4), Jerome (6...Kf8) and Whistler (7...Qe7) defenses.

My apologies to John and Eric, and my thanks to Dennis.

A) Good B) Bad C) Ugly D) None of the Above

IM John Watson and NM Eric Schiller's new Taming Wild Chess Openings Good, Bad, and Ugly (New In Chess, 2015) is a revised and expanded print version of their 2014 same-titled EPlus ebook; which, in turn was an updated version of their Big Book of Busts (Hypermodern Press,1995).

Alas, call the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bx5 4.Bxf7+) "good", "bad" or "ugly" - it does not appear "wild" enough or in need of "taming" as it does not appear in Taming Wild Chess Openings.

One can certainly make the case that the Jerome Gambit is "annoying," however, so it is not suprising to find it in the authors' earlier Survive and Beat Annoying Chess Openings The Open Games (Cardoza, 2003),

As the Jerome can be thought of as both "unorthodox" and a gambit, it is understandably found in Schiller's Unorthodox Chess Openings (Cardoza, 1998, 2002) and his Gambit Chess Openings (Cardoza, 2002).

Joker's Wild (conclusion)

We conclude an article (see "Joker's Wild (1)" and "Joker's Wild (2)") by Louis Morin ("mrjoker") of Montreal, Canada, a long-time Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) Gemeinde member. He completes his response to the "Bashing the Jerome Gambit" chapter in Schiller and Watson's Survive & Beat Annoying Chess Openings (2003), and your editor has a few words to add.

17.b5! Kb6

17...Kxb5?? 18.Qd3+ is completely hopeless for Black. Try it!

18.Qd3! c6

19.Nc4+ Kc7 20.Nxd6

with much the better game for White. So after their suggested 6...Ke6 7.f4 Qf6! Schiller and Watson should have seen the obvious 8.Rf1 and analyzed reasonable moves such as 8...g6 or 8...Nd3+ (best in my opinion). But as it is their "piece of analysis" does not teach us very much. One can only wonder if the rest of the book has the same pedagogical value.

Louis Morin (mrjoker)
Montreal, Canada

It is likely that the analysis in "Bashing the Jerome Gambit" is Eric Schiller's work, as it is largely a repeat of his analysis given in Unorthodox Chess Openings (1998, 2002) and Gambit Chess Openings (2002). Other analysis in Survive & Beat Annoying Chess Openings is more reliable – I am thinking of the coverage of the Danish Gambit, for example.

Here's a game that shares the first 8 moves with the above analysis, although Black varies with 8...g6: mrjoker - jmt (1516), blitz, ICC, 2008,1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 Qf6 8.Rf1 g6 9.Qh3+ Ng4 10.Qxg4+ Ke7 11.Qe2 Qd4 12.c3 Qg7 13.d4 Bb6 14.g4 d6 15.f5 g5 16.e5 dxe5 17.dxe5 Kd8 18.f6 Qf7 19.Bxg5 h6 20.Bh4 Be6 21.Nd2 Kc8 22.b3 a6 23.Ne4 Kb8 24.0-0-0 Ka7 25.c4 Ba5 26.Kb2 Rb8 27.Bf2+ Ka8 28.Nc5 Bb6 29.Qe4 Black resigned

Joker's Wild (2)

We continue with an article (see "Joker's Wild (1)") by Louis Morin ("mrjoker") of Montreal, Canada – a long-time Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) Gemeinde member – as he gives his response to the "Bashing the Jerome Gambit" chapter in Schiller and Watson's Survive & Beat Annoying Chess Openings (2003).

11.d4!

At the cost of a pawn White opens the game and puts the centralized King in real danger.

11...Qxd4 12.c3!

Attacks the Queen with tempo.

12...Qc4

I cannot give each and every variation, but 12...Qd3 is strongly met by13.Rf3 Qc2 14.Nd2. With his Queen out of play and his King dangerously standing in the center, Black will soon have to give back at least his Bishop, for example 14...Kc6 15.b4! Bd6? (he should leave his Bishop where it stands) 16.e5! Bxe5? (same comment) 17.Qc4+ Kd6 18.Ne4+ 1-0

analysis
diagram





13.Nd2!

Still attacking the Queen with tempo!

13...Qe6 14.Qg3+

Now attacking the King with tempo.

14...Kc6

Of course not 14...Qe5 15.Nc4+

15.b4!

And now attacking the Bishop with tempo. Black is so busy defending against so many threats that he cannot save this Bishop anymore.

15...Bd6?

Black should let his Bishop go, for example 15...Bb6 16.a4 a5?? 17.b5+ followed by mate.

[to be continued]

Joker's Wild (1)

This article is by Louis Morin ("mrjoker") of Montreal, Canada. mrjoker is a long-time Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) Gemeinde member, and his games have appeared on this blog numerous times before.

I hope readers enjoy this contribution, especially those who question whether "serious analysis" and "Jerome Gambit' can fairly occupy the same sentence.

I just bought the book Survive & Beat Annoying Chess Openings by Schiller and Watson, because I was eager to read the section entitled "Bashing the Jerome Gambit". Should I say that I am very disappointed? Even though though the authors are strong masters, their piece of analysis is very lousy at best.

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

the authors suggest that Black can get a promising position after 6...Ke6 7.f4 Qf6! 8.Nc3 Ne7 9.Rf1 g6 10.Qh3+ Ng4! because the f-file remains closed and White's attack fades away.

I will NOT discuss this position for a very simple reason: it it completely irrelevant!Schiller and Watson simply missed that their suggested 8.Nc3 for White is a losing blunder! Black gets a winning position after the obvious 8...Qxf4 9.d4 Nf6!
(they probably only looked at 9...Qf6 10.d5+ Kd6 11.Nb5+ Ke7 12.Bg5), for example 10.Bxf4 Nxh5 11.Bxe5 Bb6 followed by 12...d6.
White is simply a piece down for a Pawn, with no compensation whatsoever.
Instead of 8.Nc3? losing the f4-pawn and the game, White should play the obvious 8.Rf1, and unfortunately Schiller and Watson do not say how Black should continue. But wait a minute. Suppose Black plays 8...Ne7, then White will answer 9.Nc3 and Black is back in the variation he wants by 9...g6 10.Qh3+ Ng4! etc. Right?

Wrong! After

8.Rf1 Ne7?

White gets a promising game with the simple

9.fxe5 Qxe5 10.Qg4+
and now we see the flaw in 8...Ne7?. Black would like to go back to e7, but unfortunately a Knight is occupying this vital square. So the King has to stay in the center with 10...Kd6. How should White react?

[to be continued]

Eric Schiller Doesn't Play the Jerome Gambit

American author and FIDE Master Eric Schiller doesn't play the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+). Despite his interest in unusual opening lines, he has spent far more time providing the club player with refutations of the Jerome.

His 2003 (with John Watson) Survive and Beat Annoying Chess Openings has a chapter on "Bashing the Jerome Gambit," which would be something akin to "Weapons of Mass Destruction versus the Mosquito" if it didn't at least shine a light on the poor, neglected creation of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome.

Still, as a followup to my two posts on Adolf Albin and the Jerome Gambit (see Part 1 and Part 2), I was wandering through my database when I came across the following game. There's at least a slight resemblance in the play to, well, you know...

Schiller - Shipman
New York, 1981

1.e4 Nc6 2.Bc4 e5 3.d3 Na5


4.Bxf7+
International Master Gary Lane (author of a couple of books on the Bishop's Opening), in one of his Opening Lanes columns at ChessCafe, wrote, in response to a reader who had asked about this line

I wanted to dismiss this bishop sacrifice, but in the spirit of the King's Gambit, I had to see what happens. I was surprised to realize that White is doing very well.

Michael Goeller (maintaining the best online resource for the Bishop's Opening), in his article on "The Hamppe - Meitner Motif" (see "Hamppe -Meitner Revealed" as well as "Godfather of the Jerome Gambit?" Part I, Part II, Part III, and Endnote) for the Kenilworth Chess Club website is more assertive, noting

If White does not have this move it's hard to see how he might even try to gain the advantage.

4...Kxf7 5.Qh5+ Ke6
Of course, the Jerome-ish 5...g6 was an option for Black, but not a particularly good one.

White plays 6.Qxe5 attacking the knight and rook, when 6...Bb4+ 7.Bd2 Nf6 8.Bxb4 is just very good for White – LaneInteresting, but ultimately unsatisfactory, is 5...g6!? 6.Qxe5 Nc6 7.Qxh8 h6 8.Bxh6! (8.Qc3?? Bb4! points up how much difference d3 for White can make!) 8...Bxh6 (8...Nxh6 9.Nc3) 9. Nf3 and White's Queen will not be trapped, meaning White retains a slight material edge and the safer King – Goeller

6.Qf5+

White has a much simpler alternative here: 6.Nf3! Qf6 (6...Nc6? 7.Ng5+ Ke7 8.Qf7+) 7.Ng5+ Ke7 8.Nc3 c6 and White wins back his material with advantage by 9.b4 or 9.Nxh7!? – Goeller
Instead, 6.Nf3 is met by 6...d6! and this simple way to deal with the threat against the e5-pawn 7.Ng5+ Kd7 8.Nf7 Qe8 9.Qf3 Nf6 10.Nxh8 Be7 slightly favors Black because he has two pieces for the rook, but 11.d4 is interesting since the king is misplaced on d7 – Lane

6...Kd6 7.d4

It appears that Schiller wished (mistakenly) to transpose directly to Hamppe - Meitner, but he thus missed his chance to turn White's extra tempo to advantage – Goeller

The move 7.f4 is stronger, according to Goeller and Lane ("The chase is on and White is in hot pursuit of the king").
7...Kc6 8.Qxe5 d5
9.exd5+ Kb6

Black can play for the win with 9...Qxd5! 10.Qe8+ Bd7!! 11.Qxa8 Nf6 12.Qxa7 (12.Nc3 Qxg2 13.Be3 Nc4 14.O-O-O Nxe3 15.fxe3 Qxh1) 12...Qxg2 13.Qxa5 Qxh1 14.d5+ Nxd5 15.Qa4+ Kb6 16.Qxd7 Qxg1+ 17.Ke2 Qxc1 18.Qxd5 Bc5. The text move should also favor Black, but it is much less clear – Goeller

10.Nc3 Qe7 11.Na4+ Kb5 12.Nc3+
Here 12.b3 was the move to draw.

12...Kb6
There was more in 12...Ka6.
13.Bf4 Bf5 Drawn

If Black had wanted to play for a win, he might have tried 13...Nc4!. It remains unclear to me whether this was a pre-arranged draw gone wrong or a real contest – Goeller

A Conspiracy of Silence?

Yesterday's post ("Travelling a Dangerous Path") showed a line in the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) that was challenging enough to give even one of the premier players of the Jerome – Pete Banks ("blackburne") – enough to keep him on his toes.

It can be hard playing against a line recommended by either International Master Gary Lane – The Greatestest Ever Chess Tricks and Traps (2008) – or FIDE Master Eric Schiller – Unorthox Chess Openings (1998, 2002), Gambit Chess Openings (2002), and Survive and Beat Annoying Chess Openings (with John Watson, 2003): 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke3 7.f4 and either 7...d6 (Lane) or 7...Qf6 (Schiller).

But what about the alternative 7th move, 7.Qf5+ ? It turns out that blackburne has played that move, too, for example: 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Bd4 9.fxe5+ Bxe5 10.d4 Qh4+ 11.Kd1 Nh6 12.Qxe5+ Kc6 13.Qc5 checkmate, blackburne - Temmo, Chessworld, 2008.

Hope you didn't blink: that was a fast win, there.

I have to admit that although more than half of my losses with the Jerome Gambit have come after playing 7.Qf5+, I have a few wins with it, as well. Over a dozen.

So, what do our friends IM Lane and FM Schiller have to say about that alternative to 7.f4, 7.Qf5+ ?

Nothing.

That's right: nothing.

It's almost as if the two, each of whom enjoys writing about and playing offbeat openings, are announcing the death of the Jerome Gambit (for the umpteenth time) to the chess world at large when it comes to 7.f4 – and then giving a wink and a nod to the Jerome Gambit Gemeinde when it comes to 7.Qf5+.

Editorial oversight, or Conspiracy of Silence?

You decide.

A Personal Loss

I have just learned that chessfriend Calvin Olson, of California, USA, author of The Chess Kings Volume One, has passed away suddenly.

I met Calvin (via email) when I reviewed his book for the Chessville web site.

Of Chess Kings Volume One, subtitled History, Politics, and the Fine Art of Mythmaking in Chess my review noted

Olson, a chess teacher, Correspondence Chess Master and historian, is a good choice to tackle this topic. He is well-read on the topic, having a personal chess library of over 3,000 volumes. His chess writings have been published (School Mates, Gambit) and he has edited a chess newsletter (The Orange Knight). Incidentally, he has served as proofreader for chess books (including several for Random House). The Chess Kings Volume One is the result of 30 years of studying chess, followed by 10 years of research and writing.

It was not surprising that The Chess Kings received the the Perry PawnPusher Awards Was There Chess Before Fischer? Award.

Calvin was amused to receive the award, and we both smiled when his publisher, Trafford, mentioned it on its site.

According to Calvin's wife, Gail, he was working on the last chapter of Volume II the day he died. John Watson has agreed to finish the last chapter using Calvin's notes and intent. As she noted

I hope that this volume is available soon so that others can appreciate his talent and what he wanted to give back to chess for all the years of pleasure that it gave him.

To which I can only add: Amen.