Jerome Gambit: Another Historical "Oversight"

My game against AndrewLLL in the third round of the "Italian Game Battlegrounds" tournament at Chess.com (see the previous post) has already progressed enough that I can now correct a historical "oversight": despite my commitment to share all of my Jerome Games, regardless of outcome, on this blog, I sort of "overlooked" the game perrypawnpusher - joseluislopez, blitz, FICS, 2012 (0-1, 55).

You might notice that I lost that game against joseluislopez, and that maybe I was too embarassed to share it. That is not quite right: I did post an endgame position from our game that featured a double blunder, before my eventual loss by checkmate.

Yet, fair is fair, so here is the game - with a couple of lessons to learn.

perrypawnpusher - joseluislopez
blitz, FICS, 2012

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ 

The Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.d4 Bd6 8.dxe5 Bxe5 

9.f4

Starting the advance of the "Jerome pawns".

9...Bxc3+ 10.bxc3 d6 

I willingly traded my Queenside pawn structure for some time - Black's Bishop moved 4 times before leaving the board, while my Knight moved once. This was probably a mistake. A master would find active play to compensate, but I am not a master. Well on into the endgame, you will still be able to see the effect of the different Queenside pawn structures.

11.O-O Bg4 12.Qd3 Re8 13.h3 Bh5 14.g4 Bg6 

So far, White is playing aggressively, in true blitz style. Black probably should have returned material with 14...Bxg4!? which would have led to some danger to White's King.

15.f5 Nxe4 

This is a mis-reading of the position, as it allows White to open the f-file. Instead, Komodo 10 suggests the bizarre 15...Bh5!?, and has Black holding on to a small advantage.

16.fxg6+ 

This move leads to White's advantage, but the alternative, 16.Qd5+, would have led to checkmate: 16...Kf8 17.fxg6+ Qf6 18.Rxf6+ Ke7 19.Rf7+ Kd8 20.Qxb7 Re7 21.Rxe7 Kxe7 22.Qxc7+ Ke8 23.gxh7 Nf6 24.h8/Q+ Ng8 25.Qxg8 checkmate..

16...Kxg6 17.Qf3 

Looking to put more pressure on the enemy King, but overlooking Black's response, which is an effective remedy. More accurate would have been 17.Qd5, when 17...Nf6 (the only move to prevent checkmate) 18.Qf5+ Kf7 19.g5 would have led to a clear advantage.

17...Qf6 

White's dynamic compensation for his structural defects has been wasted. Black now grinds his opponent down - and a significant part of his plan is to take advantage of White's isolated Queenside pawns.

18.Qxf6+ Nxf6 19.Bd2 Re4 20.Rab1 b6 21.Rb4 Rae8 22.Rxe4 Rxe4 23.Kg2 Re2+ 24.Rf2 Rxf2+ 25.Kxf2 Ne4+ 26.Ke3 Nxd2 27.Kxd2 Kg5 28.Ke3 h5 29.gxh5 Kxh5 30.Kf3 Kh4 31.Kg2 g5 32.c4 c6 33.c3 b5 34.cxb5 cxb5 35.Kh2 a5 36.Kg2 b4 37.cxb4 axb4 38.Kh2 d5 39.Kg2 d4 40.Kf3 Kxh3 41.Ke4 g4 42.Kxd4 g3 43.Kc4 g2 44.Kxb4 g1=Q 45.a4 Qb6+ 46.Ka3 Kg4 47.Ka2 Kf4 48.Ka3 Ke4 49.Ka2 

I do not remember why I was playing on, a Queen down; most likely, my opponent was short of time. Only a miracle would save me - and I was not ready, when it came.

49...Qb5?? 50.Ka3?? 

Capturing the Queen would have led to a draw, even a pawn up. Probably I was short of time, too.

50...Qa5 51.Kb3 Kd4 52.Ka3 Qc3+ 53.Ka2 Qb4 54.Ka1 Kc3 55.a5 Qb2 checkmate

(My personal notes to this game suggested that I avoid 9.f4, and try something like 9.Ne2 - which I did, against AndrewLLL. We shall see how that works out.)

Jerome Gambit: Sacrifice/Blunder?

A Jerome Gambit win, and some handy endgame play in another game, will allow me to move on to the 3rd round of play in both the "Italian Game Classic" and "Italian Game Battlegrounds" tournaments at Chess.com. There will be a bit of a wait, however, until I can play a few more Jerome Gambits, as each tournament has a number of games to complete before the round is finished.

The turning point in the following game reminds me of the light-hearted comment about giving up material: if it succeeds, it's a "sacrifice", if it fails, it's a "blunder". I would love to say that my chess has matured to the point where I made an intuitive sacrifice, but I have to admit that it was more of a fortunate oversight.

perrypawnpusher - mallack
Italian Game Battlegrounds, Chess.com, 2019

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5. Nxe5+ Nxe5 6. Qh5+ Kf8

The Jerome Defense, first suggested by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome in an article in the Dubuque Chess Journal of July, 1874, and seen, initially, in Jaeger - Jerome, correspondence, 1880 (1-0, 40).

The Database has 665 game examples, with White scoring 50%. My own experience is a bit better: in 36 games, I scored 79%. (That probably reflects experience with the line.)

7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qg3 

As I noted in an earlier post

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 

I am not sure why I chose the text move over 9.d3. Before this game, I was 3 - 1 with 9.Nc3 and 5 - 1 with 9.d3. The two lines sometimes transpose, and 9.d3 brings White one step closer to resolving the issue of Black's annoying dark square Bishop, so, perhaps it should be played first.

9...Be6 

This was also played by Abhishek29 against me earlier this year. The move is good, and preserves Black's advantage, although it has the slight taint of placing the Bishop (possibly) in a place where an advancing White f-pawn might hit it.

10.O-O g6 

This move, a novelty, according to The Database, does several things. It resists a possible f2-f4-f5 by White; it protects the Black g-pawn from White's Queen, and it gives the Black King a place to step out of the way, to castle-by-hand and allow his Rook to get into play.

11.d3 Kg7 12.Na4 

Seriously?!

I was going to try this move, after the trials of my game against warwar, in the 3rd round of the Italian Battleground tournament (at Chess.com) earlier this year? Sure, the positions are not the same, but warwar did not meekly retreat his Bishop to b6, he brought it to d4, then e5 - and then threw in ...Nh5 for good measure. It was a messy game, even if I did weasel out a win.

Then, there was the additional anxiety related to my game against Abhishek29, when he did retreat the Bishop, and I was able to exchange it off.

Certainly, it was a time for in-depth concrete analysis - so, of course, I crossed my fingers for luck and just made the Knight move...

12...Bb6

Whew!

After the game, Stockfish 10 pointed out that 12...Bd4 13.c3 Be5 14.f4 would be hit by 14...Nh5. In fact, 13...Nh5 would have been good for Black, too. Yikes.

13.Nxb6 axb6 14.f4 Rxa2 

This took me by surprise. It should not have - in a similar position against Abhishek29, I had prevented the capture by playing a2-a3. But, is the loss of the pawn a big deal, any way? It turns out, it is not. This is the sacrifice/blunder of material that I referred to in the introduction to this game.

15.Rxa2 Bxa2 16.b3 

Black's Bishop has left his King, and is trapped. It is vulnerable to capture in a couple of moves, which explains Black's next choice.

16...Qa8 

In for a penny, in for a pound.

Black has grabbed the pawn, and now feels the need to protect the locked-in Bishop, even at the cost of removing another defender from the Kingside.

17.Bb2

This move reminded me of a booklet on the 2.b3 Sicilian that I bought in 1977, from Ron's Postal Chess Club, of all places. At the time, I was advancing the b-pawn one step against 1...c5 if I was feeling conservative, or two steps (the wing gambit) if I was feeling rowdy; and I even tried 2.b3 against the French and Caro Kann defenses. Nowadays you can find Sabotaging the Sicilian, French & Caro-Kann with 2.b3 by Jerzy Konikowski and Marek Soszynski.

Oh - back to the game. White's attack is about to come together.

17...Rf8 18.f5 

18...Qa5 19.fxg6 hxg6 20.Qf4 g5 21.Bxf6+ 

After the game, Stockfish 10 preferred 21...Qg4. I wanted my piece back, right away.

21...Kg8 22.Qg4 Qd2 

Black's Queen cannot save the day.

23.Bxg5 Black resigned

You probably saw the cute checkmate, instead, with 23.Qe6+ Kh7 24.Qe7 Rf7 25.Qxf7+ Kh6 26.Qg7+ Kh5 27.Qh7+ Kg4 28.Qh3#.

Please note the stranded Bishop on a2.

Jerome Gambit: Win, How? (Part 2)

[continued from previous post]

perrypawnpusher - schnappa
Italian Game Classic, Chess.com, 2019

11.d3

Alonzo Wheeler Jerome played this move, with a transparent threat to pin and win Black's Queen, in games against Shinkman in 1874 (0-1, 21), Brownson in 1875 (1-0, 42), Amateur in 1876 (1-0, 20) and Pane in 1878 (1-0, 41). The Database has 9 games where Black overlooked the threat and lost his Queen - 7 of those wins were mine.

11...Ke7 

The Chess.com analysis rated 11...Ke7 to be an  "inaccuracy" (The Database: 11 games, White scores 64%), seeing 11...Kc6 as best (The Database: 11 games, White scores 27%).

The alternative, 11...Kc6, attributed to B.K. Neufville, “gives Black an opportunity for a counter attack and makes an exciting contest” according to Jerome, in the American Chess Journal, of April 1878.

12.Nc3

An "inaccuracy", according to the analysis, which considered 12.c3 as "best".

I should give the alternative title of "Jerome Gambit Secrets #10" to the current post, as The Database shows only 1 game with 12.c3, and it continued 12...d6 13.Bg5? Qxg5 White resigned, which was a result quite likely to keep the variation "secret".

12...d6 

This move was "inaccurate"; 12...Bd4 was "best".

(If you are getting tired of all of this "inaccurate" stuff, so am I. Considering the whole game, the computer assessed me as being 91.9% "accurate", while my opponent was  89.7% "accurate". I don't know what that means.)

The latter move, 12...Bd4, was played against me in perrypawnpusher - karleinkarl, blitz, FICS, 2012 (0-1, 16), a sad game where, in a bit of an echo, I allowed Black to pin my Queen to my King.

13.Bf4 

So far, we are following Jerome - Brownson, Iowa, 1875, which continued 13.Bf4 Qe6 14.O-O-O Qg4 15.Qf1 g5 16.Bg3 Be3+ 17.Kb1 Bf4 18.Bf2 c5 19.h3 Qh5 20.h4 Be6 21.hxg5 Qxg5 22.Bh4 Qg4 23.Nd5+ Bxd5 24.exd5 Rae8 25.d4 Bg5 26.Bxg5 Qxg5 27.dxc5 dxc5 28.Qb5 b6 29.d6+ Kf7 30.Rhf1 Kg7 31.Qc6 Rhf8 32.a3 Rd8 33.g4 Nxg4 34.Qc7+ Kg8 35.Rxf8+ Rxf8 36.Qxa7 Qd8 37.Qa4 Ne5 38.Qe4 Ng6 39.Qe6+ Rf7 40.d7 Nf8 41.Qe8 Qxd7 42.Rxd7 Rxd7 43.Qb8 Black resigned

13...Qh5

The Chess.com analysis announced "inaccuracy", preferring 13...Qd4 (which does not show up in The Database at all) as "best".

In perrypawnpusher - vz721 -Italian Game thematic, Chess.com, 2013, I now castled Queenside, allowing the exchange of Queens. Looking over that game while I was putting together this post, I was shocked to see that both I and my opponent seem to have overlooked the response 14...Bg4!?


In any event, against schnappa I now played the kind of move that you would more likely see in a 1 0 bullet game, just to mess with my opponent ("threatening" to remove his Knight at f6, which protects his Queen) and give me time to figure out if I wanted to swap Queens, after all.

14.Nd5+ 

And here, much to my surprise, Black resigned.

Of course, 14...Nxd5? would be a mistake, but any reasonable King retreat - 14...Kd8, 14...Kf7 or 14...Kf8 - would be fine. He should avoid 14...Ke6, which would allow the fork 15.Nxc7+, and both 14...Kd7? and 14...Ke8? (resurrecting the primary threat) would fall to 15.Nxf6+.

The Chess.com analysis rated the final position as -2.29, giving Black over a 2 pawn advantage, which makes sense to me.

It recommended the following continuation: 14...Kf7 15.Qxh5+ Nxh5 16.Rf1 Nxf4 17.Rxf4+
 Kg6 18.Nxc7 Rb8 19.Kd2 Bd4 20.Raf1 Be5 21.R4f2 b5 22.Nd5 Be6 23.Ne7+ Kg5 24.Nc6 Rbc8 25.h4+ Kh6 26.Nxe5 dxe5 27.a3 Kg6 28.g3


My best guess is that demands of the outside world temporarily distracted my opponent.

Jerome Gambit: Win, How? (Part 1)

I just won my latest Jerome Gambit game, in the "Italian Game Classic" tournament at Chess.com. I am still trying to figure out how I did it.

Since my opponent and I entered what I call the "Optical Illusion" variation of the Jerome Gambit - see "Optical Illusion (1)", "Optical Illusion (2)" and "Disdainful Defender Defense" - I am inclined to see my last move in the game as giving a false impression of strength, another illusion.

This was a fortunate outcome for me, to a game that started off with ominous tones. Ever since I started posting on this blog, over a decade ago, I have worried (mostly, needlessly) that an opponent might simply come here and look up a line of play or refutation and throw it at me.

The fact is, you could get a good sense of my game by simply looking at my post on perrypawnpusher - PDX84, Italian Game Classic, Chess.com, 2019 (1-0, 15), and its notes, through move 12, as recounted less than 2 weeks ago in "Jerome Gambit: History in Play".

Really. Go read the post. It contains some good analysis and a good amount of Jerome Gambit history.

(For that matter, you could wander on back 6 years to "Who's the 'Expert'?", which contained perrypawnpusher - vz721, Italian Game thematic, Chess.com, 2013 (0-1, 29), which anticipated the current game through move 13. We will get back to that.)

Still, I don't want to give a bare game score, today. Since I had so much fun sharing the analysis of an earlier game that the Chess.com computer provided (see "Jerome Gambit: A Way Out of the Woods [Part 1 and 2]) I decided to consult that oracle again, and share its conclusions. I dipped into The Database a bit, too.

perrypawnpusher - schnappa
Italian Game Classic, Chess.com, 2019

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ 

 The Chess.com computer post-game analysis rated this move as "excellent", but still considered 6.d4 to be "best".

As I wrote in "Jerome Gambit: A Way Out of the Woods (Part 1)",

For the record, The Database has 4,442 games with 6.Qh5+ (White scores 56%) and 2,024 games with 6.d4 (White scores 55%). So, 6.Qh5+ is twice as popular as 6.d4, but both moves score similarly.

6...Ke6

"Best" according to the Chess.com analyst.

7.Qf5+

This move was "good", while 7.f4  was "best".

The Database shows my clear preference for 7.Qf5+: I have 80 games with the move, scoring 86%. As for 7.f4, I have 2 games - although I did win both of them (see "Jerome Gambit: Unfinished Symphony Part 1 and 2" and "Return of the Negative Halo Effect in the Jerome Gambit").

7...Kd6 8.f4 

"best" according to the computer. It was first suggested in Jerome's analysis in the "New Chess Opening" article in the April 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal.

8...Qf6 

This was an "inaccuracy" according to the Chess.com post game analysis. Instead, 8...Kc6 was seen as "best".

This evaluation is mildly supported by The Database, that has 75 games with the natural move 8...Qf6, with White scoring 53%; while it has only 3 games with 8...Kc6, although Black won them all.

(It is interesting that this main line shows up in "Jerome Gambit Secrets #5", which takes a look at the relatively unknown 8...Ne7:  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Ne7 - although the "secret" comes a couple of moves later).

9.fxe5+

The computer analysis saw this move as "excellent", although it considered exchanging Queens with 9.Qxe5+,  as "best".

9...Qxe5 10.Qf3 

Of course, the Chess.com engine considered this move as an "inaccuracy", because swapping Queens with 10.Qxe5 would have been "best"

10...Nf6 

I my notes to perrypawnpusher - PDX84, I said that this move made a lot of sense. The Chess.com analysis referred to it as "best"

[to be continued]