Jerome Gambit: The Improved Face Palm Variation?!

Having taken a look at what I called the "Face Palm Variation" of the Jerome Gambit, I wondered if there was an "improved" variation, where White played an early d2-d4, so that his Knight could safely move to g5 with the support of his dark square Bishop.

I quickly recalled the game Wright - Hunn, Arkansas,1874, played about a half year after Alonzo Wheeler Jerome published his first analysis of his gambit in the Dubuque Chess Journal. The game began 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4 exd4 5.Bxf7+.

The line was referred to as The Macbeth Attack on the Italian language website Sacchi64. It has a relationship to the Italian Gambit, (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4) as explored by Jude Acers and George S. Laven in their book The Italian Gambit and A Guiding Repertoire for White - 1.e4, (although they were not interested in Bxf7+)  as well as to the Lewis Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.d4) and the Von der Lasa Gambit, (1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Bc4 Bc5).

The Database has 1,413 game examples, with White scoring 37%.

Here is a recent game. Beware: the tactics get out of hand, quickly. White (who has almost 700 games in The Database) shows a number of  practical choices to keep the clock at bay.

drumme - RikTheKing
4 0 blitz, FICS, 2020.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.d4 exd4 

A bit stronger, according to Komodo 10, is 5...Bxd4, although the result for White of the 645 games in The Database was only 26%. 

6.Ng5+ 

By playing an early Bxf7+, White has avoided the Sarratt or Vitzthum Attack, although that's not necessarily a good thing.

6...Ke8 7.O-O h6 

Facing a gambit can be scary, and it's natural to want to kick at the attacking piece - but this dismantles Black's defense, rather than helping it.

8.Qh5+ Ke7 9.Qf7+ Kd6 

Black is now at risk for losing a lot of material.

10.Qd5+ 

White is not feeling very greedy, or perhaps in a 4-minute blitz game there wasn't the time (or need) to dig deeper: 10.Bf4+ Ne5 11.Bxe5+ Kxe5 12.Qxg7+ Nf6 (12...Qf6 13.f4+ Kd6 14.e5+) 13.f4+ Kd6 14.Nf7+ Kc6 15.Nxd8+ would have been painful for Black.

10...Ke7 11.Qxc5+

Grabbing the enemy Bishop, but it was stronger to play 11.Qf7+ Kd6 to return to the line given in the note above, 12.Bf4+ etc.

11...d6 

Do I have to do this all over again? 

Didn't I do it right the first time? 

Do I have to do this all over again? 

How many times do I have to make this climb? 

from Long Title: Do I Have to Do This All Over Again? 

12.Qc4 Ne5 

Black could have grabbed the Knight, and hung on: 12...hxg5 13.Bxg5+ Nf6 14.f4 Qg8 15.Qxg8 Rxg8 16.e5 dxe5 17.fxe5 Nxe5 18.Re1 Ke6 19.Bf4 Nfg4

13.Qxd4 Nf6 14.f4 Nc6 15.Qc3 hxg5 16.fxg5 Nxe4 

Well...

At first glance, Black seems to have played himself out of difficulty. Alas, it is actually a checkmate in 9, for White.

17.Qxg7+ Ke6 18.Qg6+ 

Now, interposing a piece will cost Black a piece. There wasn't time to suss out 18.Qf7+ Ke5 19.Nc3 Qg8 20.Bf4+ Kd4 21.Rfd1+ Kc5 22.Be3+ Kb4 23.a3+ Ka5 24.b4+ Ka6 25.Qf1+ Qc4 26.Qxc4+ b5 27.Qxc6 checkmate 

18...Kd5 

19.Nc3+

Again, development makes the most sense when time is short. Instead 19.c4+ Kc5 20. Be3+ Nd4 21.Qxe4 Kb6 22.Bxd4+ c5 23.Bxh8 was crushing. 

19...Nxc3 20.Qd3+ Ke6 

This might have seemed the safest choice, but it was not. 

21.Qxc3 

I am sure that after the game drumme found 21.Qf5+ Ke7 22.Qf7 checkmate 

21...Ne5 22.Qb3+ Kd7 

Black's uncomfortable King and extra piece is slightly outweighed by White's better development and 2 extra pawns. Although the players' fortunes now go up and down, White keeps the pressure on.

23.Bf4 Qe8 24.Rae1 Kd8 25.Qd5 Qc6 26.Qb3 Re8 

Note, for the umpteenth time, Black's light-squared Bishop at home, blocking his Rook. Typical defense-to-the-Jerome-Gambit "sin".

27.g6 Nxg6 28.Bg5+ Ne7 29.Rxe7 Rxe7 30.Bxe7+ Kxe7 31.Qf7+ Kd8 32.Qf6+ Ke8 33.Re1+ Kd7 34.Qe7 checkmate

Jerome Gambit: Worse vs Best (Part 2)

While I tend to refer to 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ as the Jerome Gambit, the name has been attached to other move orders, especially in earlier years. The issue often comes down to which aspect of the opening, the Bishop sacrifice at f7, or the Queen advance to h5 (after 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+), the annotator is looking at.

For example, Joseph Henry Blackburne, in his Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess (1899) refers to the Jerome Gambit a "the Kentucky Opening". He was clearly focused on the Queen move, as my posts on "The Kentucky Opening" Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and "The Kentucky/Danvers Opening" [1.e4 e5 2.Qh5] argue.

On the other hand, some writer focus upon the Bishop sacrifice. Gerald Abrahams is, perhaps, the most extreme example, coming out of the Bishop's Opening rather than the Giuoco Piano, labeling 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Bxf7+ as The Jerome Gambit, despite no analysis or games by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome focusing on that line. See "The Abrahams Jerome Gambit" Part 1 & 2.

(For that matter, Alessandro Salvio wrote, in the early 1600s, about 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Qe2 Nc6/Nf6 4.Bxf7+, although White's Queen would subsequently go to c4, with check, instead of h5, to pick up the Bishop at c5.)

Similar is the Lewis Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.d4 exd4 4.Bxf7+, and the similar Von der Lasa Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4, 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+. Both, with their focus on the Bishop sacrifice, seem to have escaped the Jerome Gambit label, however, at least as I can tell.

Further extended are lines like 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4 exd4 5.Bxf7+, arising from either the Scotch Opening or the Giuoco Piano. The earliest game that I have with it is Wright - Hunn, Arkansas, US, 1874, which in the Dubuque Chess Journal of November, 1874, was referred to as "an unsound variation of Jerome's double opening." It has also been referred to, later on, as "the Macbeth Attack". (Of course, the first 4 moves have been recently covered in The Italian Gambit and A Guiding Repertoire For White - E4! by Acers and Laven.)

Finally, we come to 1.e4 e5. 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+, which has been referred to, variously, as the Noa Gambit, the Monck Gambit - and, more recently, as the Open Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit. A closer look will probably muddy thing further.

[to be continued]

Lewis Gambit

I have been enjoying watching the series of "Dirty Chess Tricks" videos on YouTube, by Gunjan Jani, especially "Dirty Chess Tricks 13" on the Lewis Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.d4.

This is an opening line that I have touched upon in this blog, starting with "SOS", writing about Secrets of Opening Surprises, Volume 10, which contained an article by Jeroen Bosch on the Lewis Gambit.  

The earliest examples I have of the gambit are from an 1841 Staunton - Cochrane match, which makes it a possible inspration for Alonzo Wheeler Jerome in creating his Jerome Gambit, after the Lewis line 3...exd4 4.Bxf7+. The similarity to the Abrahams Jerome Gambit - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Bxf7+ - is apparent. See "Proto-Jerome Gambits? (Part 4)".

There is also a similarity to a line in the Von der Lasa Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+, as seen in J.H. Blackburne - E.J. Evelyn, blindfold, London, 1862 (1-0, 32). And let's not overlook the "Macbeth Attack".

Jani rightly points out the possibilities of the Lewis Gambit transposing to the Max Lange Gambit, the Max Lange Attack, and the Italian Gambit.

(GM Boris Alterman has a video on the Lewis Gambit as well. Dangerous Weapons: 1.e4 e5 by GM John Emms, GM Glenn Flear, and IM Andrew Greet has good coverage of where the Lewis Gambit can go if Black does not allow a Bxf7+.)