Some time ago I mentioned that I'd run across the Something Awful website (subtitled "The Internet makes you stupid") while examining the "referring sites" listed by Google Analytics for this blog (see "Something Awful").
As you can see from the graph below, the fitting mention of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) and this blog at Something Awful had a sudden, if not long-lasting, impact on the number of visitors here.
I've since been able to dig deeper into the site, and reproduce below some of the relevant exchanges concerning the Jerome.
I enjoyed monoceros4's comment, would like to see jyrka's plentiful crushes, and will let you know if either OrangeKing or wlokos takes the plunge.
Orange King: Oh, you can't just stop playing crazy gambits because they're "bad" or "unsound" or "totally refuted!" Next thing you know, people will be advising against the Jerome Gambit.
Hand Knit: I would think that the Jerome would be the exact opposite of 'unsound'.monoceros4: I'd never heard of this gambit so I looked it up, only to discover that there's a good reason I'd never heard of it.
Hand Knit: How could you have not heard of it when there's a blog dedicated to it exclusively.
monoceros4: I'd never heard of that either. I'm not sure whether to be charmed or not.
In fact, if you're going to devote a whole website to one opening, it might as well be some relic of the Romantic era of chess that nobody plays any more. An online temple to (say) the Najdorf would be a tiresome place indeed.
The sour note is that the devotion isn't entirely genuine. When Weaver Adams preached the doctrine of the Vienna Game, he genuinely believed in spite of evidence that White could win with it against anybody. Modern-day endorsements of unsound, Romantic openings, though, are more evasive. "Oh, it's playable, as long as you're playing low-rated amateurs in rapid games," is the typical qualification. I think it's ungentlemanly to play with the hope that your
opponent is dumb. It's a respectable version of hoping they'll fall for Scholar's Mate or the Englund trap.
Hand Knit: The Jerome Gambit is so-called because white is said to have a much better chance of winning when after playing 4.Bxf7+ standing up and yelling "JERRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMEE." It's not an opening you play to win.
goggle-eyed freak: Speaking of off-beat openings, does (or has) anyone else here play the Fred? (1. e4 f5 2. exf5 Kf7, although I usually play 2. ... Nf6).I used to play it quite often on ICC and didn't do half bad with it against similarly rated opponents. Is there much theory on it after the second move?
Hand Knit: Back in my high school days I knew a guy who made a living playing that opening. The strongest player I knew he beat with it was rated over 2300, and that wasn't a one-time thing.
And yes, he played 2...Kf7, not 2...Nf6. I think his online rating was over 2800 blitz and pushing 3000 on lightning. not ICC, but another site that was able to compete with it for a while. Worldchessnet or something.
OrangeKing: Fired up, ready to go I'm playing in a tournament this weekend (the Northeast Open, in Stamford), in the u2100 section. You guys are tempting me to play with a Jerome Gambit/Halloween Gambit/Fred repertoire.
jyrka: I didn't know it had a name but I meet the Jerome Gambit against crappy players A LOT. I don't really have any other reaction other than to consider the game won.
goggle-eyed freak: If you're already out of the money before the last round, then what's the risk besides a few rating points? Plus it would make for a good post here.
wlokos: You guys are making me want to study the Jerome gambit and such when I should be learning real openings, shame on all of you.
I was actually having fun yesterday trying out completely random weird openings yesterday in blitz games on icc, it was actually pretty fun. It's not like it really matters with my current 1000 blitz ranking.
