Jerome Gambit: My Opponent Knows What He Is Doing (Part 1)

While it looks like I am headed for a 3rd place finish (out of 6) in the 3rd round of the "Italian Battleground" tournament at Chess.com, I will at least have some Jerome Gambit tales to tell from the experience.

I have already shared my 3rd round game perrypawnpusher - Abhishek29, "Italian Battleground", Chess.com, 2019 (1-0, 35) - my second win in this tournament against that opponent, having defeated him in in Round 1 - see perrypawnpusher - Abhishek29, "Italian Battleground", Chess.com, 2019 (1-0, 19).

The current game is a rematch with an opponent that I faced in Round 2 - see perrypawnpusher - warwar, "Italian Battleground", Chess.com, 2019 (1-0, 39). I was a bit concerned, the way "real" chessplayers are concerned about "real" chess openings: how much had he learned about the Jerome Gambit in the meantime?

It turned out to be an interesting battle between the "Jerome pawns" and the defender's extra piece, but, most of all, between someone who had prepared the opening and someone who had to improvise in the middlegame and endgame.

perrypawnpusher - warwar
"Italian Battleground", Chess.com, 2019

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

When the game was over, the Chess.com site offered to do a quick computer analysis. Not surprisingly, this move was labelled a blunder.

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Kf8 

warwar adopts the Jerome Defense, first suggested by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome in his analysis in an article in the Dubuque Chess Journal of July, 1874. It was first played in Jaeger - Jerome, correspondence, 1880 (1-0, 40).

Interestingly enough, Abhishek29 was playing the same defense against me in the same round, too. My record, at that point, against the line was 25 - 6 - 3, a decent 78% score.

7.Qxe5 d6

As I wrote in the article that I had prepared for Kaissiber (unfortunately, never published)

The defenses 6…Kf8 and 6…Ng6 have had their supporters and detractors, depending on how each evaluated the alternatives – was it better to hold onto a little material and avoid complications, or to enter them confidently, knowing that they would turn the game even more in your favor? 

Jerome (DCJ 7/1874) first suggested 6…Kf8. He followed it with 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qf4+ Nf6 9.c3 Kf7 10.d4 Bb6 11.e5 dxe5 12.dxe5 Re8 13.0-0 Kg8 14.exf6 Qxf6 15.Qxf6 gxf6 16.Bh6 “and White has a pawn ahead.” (Actually, the game is even; but Jerome missed that earlier his 11.e5 was premature, as after the pawn exchange 12…Qd3 would be crushing – Paul Keiser, personal communication. The alternative 8…Ke8 was seen in 5 games in the Yetman – Farmer 2008 match.) 

As Sorensen (NS 5/1877) did not mention 6…Kf8, it was not touched upon by other writers until Freeborough and Rankin (COAM, 1889) suggested that it led to a safe game for Black, giving the line 7.Qxe5 Qe7 8.Qf5+ Ke8 9.Nc3 d6 10.Qf3 Qf7 (or 10...Nf6!) 11.Qe2 Nh6 (or 11...Ne7 or 11...Nf6) with “a superior position or game” to Black. 

A hundred years after Jerome, Harding, in his Counter Gambits (1974), varied, after 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qf4+ Nf6 with 9.d3 Kg8 10.Nc3 Qe8 11.Be3 Bb4 12.0-0 Be6 13.Ne2 Qh5 14.Nd4 Bd7 15.c3 Bc5, advantage to Black. His comment in The Italian Game (1977) was that after 7…d6, White was left “without genuine compensation for his piece.” He sagely recommended the 6…Kf8 line as “other lines would allow White to attack the exposed black king or to win back the sacrificed material.”

8.Qg3 

I experimented with Jerome's 8.Qf4+ in perrypawnpusher - Capt. Mandrake, Jerome Gambit 3 thematic tournament, ChessWorld.com, 2008 (1-0, 9) and perrypawnpusher - LeeBradbury, "Italian Game" Thematic, Chess.com, 2012 (1-0, 36).

I also tried 8.Qc3 in perrypawnpusher - Raankh, blitz, FICS, 2009 (0-1, 22).

There is not much difference in the strength between these two moves and the text, or even 8.Qh5, if Stockfish 9 is to be believed.

8...Nf6 9.Nc3 Kf7 

Abhishek29 chose 9...Be6 in our Round 3 game.

Years ago, perrypawnpusher - klixar, blitz, FICS, 2007 (1-0, 33) continued 9...Ng4.

perrypawnpusher - truuf, blitz, FICS, 2011 (0-1, 32) continued with the text move.

[to be continued]

A while back (see "Ed Yetman's Gambit Challenge Quads") I wrote about an adventurous chess player in Tuscon, Arizona, USA, who had offered to play the White side of the Smith-Morra Gambit (1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3), the Paris Gambit (1.Nh3 d5 2.g3 e5 3.f4 Bxh3 4.Bxh3 exf4 5.0-0 fxg3 6.hxg3) or the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) in his games in a quad.  

He even published a link to an early analysis of the Jerome Gambit to give potential opponents an opportunity to study beforehand. (From the analysis: "[W]e give the Jerome Gambit as a representative form of this kind of attack on its merits, showing its strength and weakness apart from accidental circumstances, which in actual play may materially affect the result.")

I recently checked with Ed Yetman and he reported, surprisingly, that not a single player was brave enough to take up his challenge!

I can understand someone not wanting to face the Smith-Morra Gambit: many who play it are booked to the eyeballs and dangerous as a rattlesnake.

Maybe the Paris Gambit was a bit to odd or foreign for people's tastes.

But, the Jerome Gambit ??

Is it September already?

I enjoy using Internet search engines to find references to the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+).

Sometimes a result leads to a site that is interesting enough on its own. Take Bill Vallicella's Maverick Philosopher website.

The Jerome Gambit connection?

Look hard enough and you can find a nascent email "conversation" between Bill Vallicella, Ed Yetman III and Peter Lupu about the possibility of a Jerome Gambit tournament in Jerome, Arizona.

(Is it September already? Okay, I'll place my hopes on October, then. I will offer a prize for the best/worst Jerome Gambit game in the tournament – the adjective may well be worth some philosophical discussion. )

Look some more at the same site, and you can find an interesting read under Philosophy of Chess.

(If that catches your eye, you might be interested in the forthcoming Philosophy Looks at Chess, edited by Benjamin Hale, from the Open Court Publishing Company.)