Not Funny

One reason to play the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) is that you might cause your opponent to break out laughing. Who doesn't need a good laugh these days?

In the following game, though, Black is probably not even over his giggles before he realizes that he has a worse – not winning – game.

Not funny!

jfhumphrey - sniktawiii
blitz, FICS, 2011

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

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

A line that we have seen that jfhumphrey likes (see "Danger? He laughs at danger!").

6...Bd6

A more active alternative touched upon recently was 6...Bb4+; and of course there were always the straight-forward 6...Bxd4 and the scary 6...Qh4.

Black, rated about a couple hundred points higher than his opponent, covers his surprise at facing the Jerome Gambit by borrowing the Bishop move from the "fork trick".

7.dxe5 Bxe5

Not the best response, but who would think up Rybka 3's suggestion of 7...Bb4+ 8.c3 Bf8 and a roughly even game? 

8.Qd5+

Best.

At this point Black resigned in jfhumphrey - stefanomnn, blitz, FICS, 2010.

White has had experience with the alternative 8.Qh5+ as well, in jfhumphrey - jrhicksdotnet, blitz, FICS, 2008 (1-0, 14) and jfhumphrey - biryuk, blitz, FICS, 2010 (0-1, 65).

8...Kf6 9.f4 d6 10.fxe5+ Black resigned

Black is only down a pawn, but the fun seems to have gone out of the game.

Thought, Emotion and Error

Today's game is an interesting example of chess thought, emotion and error in defending against the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+).





perrypawnpusher - Sonndaze
blitz, FICS, 2011

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

Black offers to play the Two Knights Defense, a very reasonable sidestep of the Jerome Gambit. This is not a strategic error like the Jerome Gambit Declined, but it does require the second player to be ready to sacrifice a pawn for counterplay (especially after 4.Ng5).

4.Nc3

White is not interested in the Two Knights, and he is willing to risk playing against the "fork trick" or entering the Italian Four Knights Game, which has a reputation for being very dull.

4...Bc5

Black opts for "dull" himself. Maybe he was having 2nd thoughts about the 2Ns. Maybe he was taking a relaxed approach to the opening.

5.Bxf7+

The Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit. Relaxation time is over.

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.d4

7...Bb4

This is one of several responses that Black has at his disposal. (You have choices when you are a piece ahead.) It is not the strongest (7...Bd6) or the most common (7...Bxd4) but it is playable, provided that Black keeps his wits about himself.

8.dxe5 Nxe4

This follows through on Black's previous move, attacking the pinned White Knight on c3, but it overlooks something.

After 8...Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 and then a retreat by the Knight, or even 9...Re8, Black would retain a small edge. 

9.Qd5+ Black resigned

Black's disappointment at missing White's win of his Knight no doubt fed into his decision to resign.

Still, if the game were an important one, Sonndaze might have tried continuing with 9...Kf8 10.Qxe4 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 d5 12.exd5 e.p. Qxd6 when White's pawn weaknesses in the middle game or the Bishops-of-opposite-colors in the end game would have given him chances to fight for the draw. 

Transplant

It can sometimes be helpful to take an idea from opening and apply it to another. This kind of "transplant" must be done carefully, however, and only upon prior examination. In the following game, both Black and White were unaware that they should have rejected the transplant.

Rijndael - krispykurtis
blitz, FICS, 2011

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6

The Semi-Italian Opening.

4.Nc3 Bc5 5.Bxf7+

The Semi-Italian Jerome Gambit.

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.d4 Bd6

Black transplants an idea from the "fork trick".

After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ (the Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit) Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.d4 the idea of 7...Bd6 is playable. In the current game, though, with ...h7-h6 replacing ...Nf8-g6, the idea is trouble.

8.dxe5 Bxe5

This puts the Bishop in danger, as White can follow up with 9.Qh5+ and win it. Black would do best to let the White pawn at e5 go with 8...Bb4.

9.f4

Aha! White also recognizes the transplanted "fork trick" and plays a thematic move for that line of play. The game yorgos - hartingu, FICS, 2009, continued more appropriately, 9.Qh5+ Kf8 10.Qxe5 with advantage to White (1-0, 30).

9...Bxc3+ 10.bxc3

White's compensation for his piece is a pawn, better center control, and open lines against an uneasy enemy King. It is not enough. 

Fortunately, Black continues with ordinary moves, in this case preparing to castle-by-hand.

10...Ne7 11.0-0 Re8 12.f5 Kg8

13.f6

This move appears premature at first glance, as White has only one pieced developed (his Rook) to Black's two. However, the opportunity to break open Black's King's haven should not be missed, and the unfortunate arrangement of Black's King and Rook (available to a pawn fork from f7) is encouraging. With luck, White's open lines will help in the attack.

13...gxf6

Collapsing. After the game Rybka 3 suggested 13...Ng6 14.f7+ Kh7 15.fxe8Q Qxe8 with the edge to White. Fritz 8 suggested, instead, 13...Rf8, but this is met roughly by 14.Bxh6 Rf7 (14...gxh6 15.Qg4+ and mate follows) 15.Bxg7 and then, for example, 15...Ng6 16.Qd5 and White's attack will win material.

14.Qg4+ Kh7 15.Rxf6 Rg8 16.Rxh6 checkmate

All Rook and Pawn Endings...

If you want to play the Jerome Gambit, you are sometimes going to face the Two Knights Defense. You can try the Italian Four Knights Game, but you have to be prepared for the "fork trick"...

perrypawnpusher - rupsi
blitz, FICS, 2011

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4

Sigh. No Jerome Gambit today.

Still, I have studied the "fork trick"...

5.Nxe4 d5 6.Bd3 dxe4 7.Bxe4 Bd6

8.Bxc6+

Recommended by Y. Bukayev.

8...bxc6 9.d4 Qe7

An interesting idea. After my response, Black could have tried 10...e4.

10.0-0 0-0 11.dxe5 Bxe5 12.Nxe5 Qxe5 13.Re1 Qb5

All-in-all, my opening preparation has done its job, as White has a small advantage (better pawn structure) – as opposed to the Jerome Gambit, where he has a lost game.

Why my opponent guided me away from the shoals and into a safe harbor is an interesting question. For the next few moves he concentrates on exchanging off one of his isolated double pawns.

14.b3 c5 15.Bb2 c4 16.Qd4

White's position doesn't have a lot of "bite", but it you give it some time...

If Black now defends the imperilled g7 square with 16...Qg5, White has 17.Re3, threatening Re3-g3.

16...f6 17.bxc4

A silly move, when 17.Ba3 was available, winning the exchange because of back rank mate threats. 

17...Qc6 18.Qd5+ Qxd5 19.cxd5

White has come out with an extra pawn.

Unfortunately, it was now my turn to play "routinely" (read: carelessly), and my opponent quickly recovered the material.

19...Ba6 20.Re6 Bb7 21.c4 Rab8 22.Rae1 Bxd5 23.cxd5 Rxb2

The position reminds me of the old saying that "all Rook and pawn endings are drawn."

Still, I had made "something" out of the game after the "fork trick" and I wanted to play on a bit longer to see if I could do the same here.

24.R6e2 Rfb8 25.f3 R2b5 26.Rd2 Rd8 27.Red1 Kf7 28.Kf2 Rb6 29.Ke3 Ke7 30.Ke4 Kd6

31.Rc1 Rd7 32.f4 Rb4+ 33.Kf3 Rf7 34.Rc6+ Kd7 35.Rdc2 Rb7 36.g4 g5 37.f5 Ke8 38.Re6+ Kd8 39.d6 cxd6 40.Rxd6+ Rbd7 41.Rcc6 Rxd6 42.Rxd6+ Ke7 43.Ra6 Kd8 44.a4 Rc7

A slip that costs a pawn.

45.Rxf6 Rc3+ 46.Kg2

White's King should go forward with 46.Ke4 to eventually help his advanced pawn. Failing this, Black's active Rook can cause mischief – and eventually score the draw.

46...Ra3 47.Ra6 Ra2+ 48.Kg3

Again, my King's choice to stay "at home" dooms the game to a draw. I needed to see that 48.Kf3 Rxh2 49.Rxa7 was advantageous for White.

48...Ra3+ 49.Kg2 Ra2+ 50.Kg3 Ra3+ 51.Kg2 Ra2+ Game drawn by repetition

Hats off to my opponent, whose active play at the end of the game helped him grab the half-point.

The End of the Jerome Gambit?

In today's game I was "Sidetracked" again – my opponent, who has Jerome Gambit experience, might have visited these blog pages as well.

In any event, his use of the "fork trick" to deprive me of the opportunity to play an Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit was timely (given yesterday's post and my recent coverage of the tactical motif) if a bit existentially challenging. After all, he was choosing to play a line that leads to a small advantage for White, instead of choosing to play a line that refutes the first player's opening.

Oh well, as they say a difference of opinion is what makes a chess game...(or was that "a horse race"?)

perrypawnpusher - JTIV
blitz, FICS, 2010

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

It could be my imagination, but I think that I have been seeing this move more often since this blog's series on "The Jerome Gambit vs Two Knights Defense (Part 1)" (Part 2), (Part 3) and (Part 4).

My opponent has won at least one Jerome Gambit: JTIV - NyteFork, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 14).

He and I have also previously contested a very exciting game: perrypawnpusher - JTIV, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 32).

4.Nc3 Nxe4

The "fork trick".

With White, JTIV had less success after 4...Bc5 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.0-0 Re8 7.Ng5+ Kg8 8.Nb5 a6 9.Nc3 d6 10.a3 Ng4 11.Nh3 Nd4 12.Nd5 c6 13.Ne3 Nxe3 14.fxe3 Bxh3 15.exd4 Bxd4+ 16.Kh1 Be6 17.c3 Ba7 18.Qf3 Rf8 19.Qxf8+ Qxf8 20.Rxf8+ Rxf8 21.h3 Rf1+ 22.Kh2 Bb8 23.g4 d5 24.exd5 Bxd5 25.Kg3 e4+ 26.Kh4 h6 27.g5 hxg5+ 28.Kxg5 Bf4+ 29.Kf5 Bxd2+ 30.Ke5 Bxc1 31.Kd6 Re1 32.b3 Bd2 33.Ra2 Bxc3 34.Rf2 Rb1 35.Ke7 Rxb3 36.Rf8+ Kh7 37.h4 e3 38.Re8 e2 39.Kf8 e1Q 40.Rxe1 Bxe1 41.a4 c5 42.h5 c4 43.Ke7 c3 44.Kd6 Bh1 45.Ke5 c2 46.Kf5 c1Q 47.Ke6 White resigned, JTIV - drkljenko, FICS, 2010.

5.Nxe4 d5

6.Bxd5

I am not quite sure why I played this move, instead of the recommended 6.Bd3. Things turned out okay in this instance, but I will probably not repeat my "experiment".

6...Qxd5 7.Nc3 Qc4

This is an interesting idea, aimed at interfering with White's castling (I think) but Black's Queen can go just about anywhere (d6 may be best) and maintain the second player's edge.

8.d3 Qg4 9.0-0 Bd6

10.Ne4 Qg6 11.Be3

After the game Fritz8 suggested 11.Nh4 Qe6 12.f4 with equal play.

11...Bh3 12.Ng3 Bg4 13.h3 Bxf3 14.Qxf3

Black has not gained much from his Bishop maneuvers; neither has he lost much. The following pawn sacrifice seems to gain little and lose more.

14...e4 15.Qxe4+ Qxe4 16.Nxe4 Be5 17.c3 0-0-0 18.d4 Bf6

Black is willing to give up his Bishop for a Knight and the opportunity to attack along the g-file. I am happy to have more targets.

19.Nxf6 gxf6 20.Bf4 Rhg8 21.Rae1 h5 22.Re3 Rg7 23.Rg3

23.Rfe1 was playable as even after 23...h4 White's Bishop allows him to play g2-g3 now or after Black doubles Rooks on the g-file.

23...Rxg3 24.Bxg3 Ne7

White is ahead a pawn, has a Bishop vs a Knight, and has 2 solid pawn islands vs Black's 3 (including 3 isolated pawns). At our level of play, especially in blitz, it would be presumptious so say the win "is only a matter of technique."

25.Re1 Nf5 26.Bf4 a5 27.g3 h4 28.g4 Ng7 29.Bd2 c5 30.Re4 f5 31.gxf5 Nxf5 32.Rf4 Ne7

33.Rxh4 b5 34.Be3 Nf5 35.Rf4 Rd5 36.dxc5 Nxe3 37.fxe3 Rxc5 38.Rxf7 Rg5+ 39.Kh2 Re5 40.Rf3 Rd5 41.Rf2 Kc7 42.h4 Kc6 43.Re2 Kc5

44.e4 Rd1 45.e5 Kc4 46.e6 Kd3 47.e7

After 47...Kxe2 I had already seen the mindless 48.e8Q+ Kd2 49.Qd7+ Kc1 50.Qxd1+ Kxd1 51.h5 etc, although there are smarter ways for White to win, too.


47...Re1

A slip. Black resigned

Sidetracked

I'm always looking for a Jerome Gambit when I play 1.e4, especially when my opponent replies 1...e5. Sometimes we get sidetracked, however. In those cases it is good when I know something about the line I've been forced into.

perrypawnpusher - vladchess
blitz, FICS, 2010

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6

Our one previous game was quite odd, a declined Busch-Gass Gambit: 2...Bc5 3. Bc4 f6 4.Nxe5 d6 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Nxg6 Kd7 7.Nxh8 Qe7 8.Qf7 Nc6 9.Be6+ Kd8 10.Qxg8+ Black resigned, perrypawnpusher - vladchess, blitz, FICS, 2010

3.Bc4 h6

The Semi-Italian Opening.

4.0-0 Nf6 5.Nc3

The Semi-Italian Four Knights Game.

My opponent hesitated before making his next move. Did he know that I was going to answer 5...Bc5 with 6.Bxf7+, the Semi-Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit? If he did, would that make him more or less likely to play 5...Bc5?

Instead, vladchess opted for the "fork trick". For a general overview of this maneuver, take a look at "Jerome Gambit vs Two Knights Defense (Part 3)".

5...Nxe4

Here I fell in with my opponent's plan.

6.Nxe4 d5 7.Bd3 dxe4 8.Bxe4 Bc5

The Bishop has taken a step too far, and this costs a pawn.

9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.Nxe5

Later, I grabbed a second pawn, and even later, a third, winning in 29 moves.

But – that hesitation at move 5. What was that all about?

Is there something about adding White's 0-0 and Black's ...h6 that changes the dynamics of the "fork trick"?

It turns out, there is. Instead of playing 6.Nxe4, White could have played the shocker 6.Nxe5!?.

Certainly now Black can continue with 6...Nxe5 and after 7.Re1 Be7 (or simply 7...d6) 8.Rxe4 d6 White will have the standard "plus over equals" edge that can come with the first move.

But what if Black mixes it up with 7...d5!? – and keeps playing crazy attacking moves?

8.Bxd5 Bg4 9.f3 Bc5+

10.d4 Bxf3 11.gxf3 Bxd4+ 12.Kg2

You know that things are getting tense for White when he has to play this "only" move.

12...Nxc3 13.Qxd4 Nxd5 14.Qxe5+ Kf8

Here – having made it safely through the storm – we can probably say that White's Bishop vs Black's Knight and his better opportunities for development are adequate compensation for his missing pawn in this even game...

Yes, Indeed, I am glad that I read and remembered that overview of the "fork trick", above, and decided to go that way, instead!

Jerome Gambit vs Two Knights Defense (Part 3)

Another way for the Jerome Gambiteer to face the Two Knights Defense (see "Jerome Gambit vs Two Knights Defense Part 1" and "Part 2"), besides playing the main lines or opting for 4.Qe2 is to play for a transition to the Italian Four Knights Game, and, thus, the Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

So: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 (hoping for 4...Bc5).

The updated New Year's Database has over 900 games with this position, with White scoring 41%. (By contrast, the Database includes 21 of my games and 21 of Bill Wall's games. We each scored 90%. As they say: your mileage may vary.)

Of course, Black does not have to play 4...Bc5; in fact, the recommended move is 4...Nxe4, planning what Hans Kmoch called "the Fork Trick": 5.Nxe4 d5, winning back a piece.

By the way, after 4...Nxe4 White does not have to recapture immediately, but instead can try the Jerome-ish 4.Bxf7+, although after 5.Kxf7 Nxe4 6.d5 Neg5+ 7.Kg8 Black's King has found safety (and he has the intimidating pawns).

The problem for White here is not so much that his position is worse than in regular Jerome Gambit lines – objectively, it is far better – but that the Fork Trick is standard fare for players learning about openings, whereas the Jerome Gambit is far less known or understood. The chance of surprising Black is less. (Still, this line remains a "project" for further analysis.)

Recommended for White after 4...Nxe4 5.Nxe4 d5 is 6.Bd3 dxe4 7.Bxe4 Bd6.

It is worth examining Y. Bukayev's article on this line, as he sees White as standing slightly better after 8.Bxc6+.

None of this seems as much fun as the Jerome Gambit proper, though, does it?

Tomorrow's post takes a look at 4.0-0, and in the process shows one way to redeem 4.Nc3 as well.