Some commentators have suggested that Emanuel Lasker would purposely play "bad" moves in order to upset his opponents, making it easier for him to win a game. As someone who plays the Jerome Gambit, I guess I understand that argument.
It is also possible that Lasker won because he understood, better than his opponents, the positions that he played, both "bad" and "good".
The following game has several times when I can not understand what was going on - only that Bill understood the positions better than his opponent, and that was enough to fashion a win.
Wall, Bill - Guest4919498
PlayChess.com, 2018
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Bxd4 7.Qxd4 d6 8.Qd2
Okay, I don't get it. I would suggest "mouse slip", but Bill has played the move before. Given that there's about a 500 rating point difference between him and me, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt and continue to try to figure it out.
8...Nf6
Bill has also faced 8...Be6 9.O-O Nf6, in Wall,B - Guest477, ICC, 2017, (1-0, 25).
9.Nc3 c6 10.f4 Ng6 11.O-O
Bill has suggested that here, and the next few moves, he could have played Qd3. This re-positioning suggests that 8.Qd2 might have been a search for novelty, as he had seen the position after 7...d6 in over 70 games.
11...Re8 12.Re1 b5
When you have the advantage, you are obliged to attack, said Wilhelm Steinitz.
So, once again, the Jerome Gambiteer tests the attacking prowess of the defender.
13.a3 Qb6+ 14.Kh1 Ng4 15.h3 Nf2+
16.Kh2 d5 17.exd5
17...Rxe1
Bill points out that 17...Bf5 was stronger.
18.Qxe1 Bd7
Stockfish 8 gives a mind-numbing, attacking, alternative: 18...Bxh3!? 19.Kg3!? Nd3 (the piece was lost, any way) 20.cxd3 Bf5 21.Qe3 Qd8 22.Kh2!? cxd5 23.Nxb5 Bd7 24.f5 Kg8!? 25.Kg1!? Nh4 26.Nd4 Qf6 27.Bd2 Re8 28.Qf2 Nxf5 29.Bc3 Qg6 30.Nf3 Bb5 31.a4 Ba6 32.Ne5 Qb6 33.d4 Qf6 34.b4 with an even position. Um, sure.
19.Be3 Ng4+
Black has to give up his advanced Knight, but at least gets to dent White's pawn structure.
20.hxg4 Qc7 21.Kg3
The King has to help out on defense.
21...Qd8
Eyeing h4.
22.Qh1 Qe7 23.Re1 Qf6
Now Black's game crashes. He had better chances of survival after 23...Kg8 24.dxc6 Bxc6 25.f5 Qe5+ 26.Kh3 Nf4+ 27.Bxf4 Qxf4 but White would still have the advantage.
24.Ne4 Qd8 25.Ng5+ Kf6 26.Bd4+ Black resigned
Black faces checkmate, the quickest of which is 26...Ne5 27.Rxe5 Bxg4 28.Re6+ Kf5 29.Qxh7+ g6 30.Qxg6 checkmate. Ouch!
The latest game from Vlasta Fejfar shows that even when Black plays one of the most dangerous defenses against the Jerome Gambit, he can lose - and lose quickly. A better and deeper understanding of the Jerome often outshines its "refutation", as the following crush shows.
vlastous - dogfish
internet, 2018
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 Qe7
Whistler's defense. Although both lines are complicated, when White faces the Blackburne defense (7...d6) he can take the Rook at h8 and survive, while doing so against Whistler's defense runs a much greater risk.
8.Qf4+ Nf6
This is certainly a solid move, although it is already a step off of the "best" path. Black does best to play 8...Qf6, forcing White to again move his Queen.
9.e5 Bd6
Following in the footsteps of Jerome,A - Jaeger,D, correspondence,1879 (0-1, 45), but again not "best". Black should pressure the e-pawn, but more efficiently, i.e. 9...Re8.
10.d4 Kg7
Stepping out of the pin on his Knight and accepting the loss of a piece with 11.Qxf6+ Qxf6 12.exf6+ Kxf6 which would leave his King safe - but a pawn down.
11.Qh6+ Kf7 12.O-O
White is not in a hurry to win a piece, and, instead, safeguards his King (putting his Rook on the same file as the enemy King in the process).
12...Ng8
Black is nervous about the enemy Queen, but this retrograde move is not the solution. His best option was to return a piece for a couple of pawns with 12...Bxe5 13.dxe5 Qxe5, when White would have a slight edge.
13.Qf4+ Nf6
This can not have been comfortable for Black - repeating the position from move 10, but with White to move. Perhaps the best defense, instead, was 13...Kg7 14.exd6 Qxd6 15.Qxd6 cxd6, leaving him a pawn down, with a fractured pawn structure.
14.Nc3
Of course. Another piece to add to the action.
14...c6
Keeping the Knight off of d5 - but not out of the action!
15.Ne4 Rg8
Preparing to advance his g-pawn to kick out the Queen. After the expected 15...Bb8 16.Nxf6 White would be up a couple of pawns, and a Kingside attack would be on the agenda.
Now White crashes through.
16.Nxd6+ Kg7 17.exf6+ Qxf6
Hoping for an exchange of Queens and a release of some of the pressure - in vain.
18.Qh6+ Kh8 19.Bf4 b6 20.Be5 Black resigned
White will win the Queen, with checkmate to follow. I particularly like 20...Qxe5 21.Nf7 checkmate.
I have been presenting some Jerome Gambit games recently played by Bill Wall, and it has been surprising how they have been linked to one another.
The following game includes a creative defensive solution that Black appears to have come up with on the spot. Instead of solving problems, though, it creates some new ones.
One of the attractions of the Jerome Gambit for club play is that it seems so bad that any kind of response should win. There are many players who have discovered, however, that this is not so.
Wall, Bill - Guest430769
PlayChess.com, 2018
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4
According to The Database, Bill has reached this position over 250 times. He has encountered 14 different responses. He has scored 91%. It is not likely that he will be surprised.
6...Nf3+
An interesting and straight forward (if unsuccessful) way of dealing with the threat to two of his pieces. The Database has 5 previous games with this line; White scored 80%. In the one loss, White had a clear advantage until the ravages of time in a blitz game led to his downfall.
7.Qxf3+
I suspect that Black was hoping for 7.gxf3?!, counting on the fact that White would not want to capture with his Queen, as that would allow Black's Bishop to capture the pawn at d4. The glitch in this reasoning, of course, is that White's Queen arrives on f3 with check.
7...Nf6
Bill has also faced: 7...Qf6 8.dxc5 (8.Qb3+ d5 9.Qxd5+ Be6 10.Qxc5 Nh6 11.Qxc7+ Qe7 12.Qxe7+ Kxe7 13.Bxh6 gxh6 14.f4 Rhg8 15.g3 Rac8 16.Nc3 a5 17.d5 Bg4 18.e5 Bf3 19.Rf1 Bg2 20.Rf2 Bh1 21.O-O-O Black resigned, Wall,B - Gian, PlayChess.com, 2017) 8...Qxf3 9.gxf3 Nf6 10.Nc3 Re8 11.Nb5 Re7 12.Nxc7 Rb8 13.Bf4 b6 14.Nd5 Nxd5 15.Bxb8 bxc5 16.Bd6 Re8 17.Bxc5 Black resigned, Wall,B - Guest151963, PlayChess.com, 2011.
8.dxc5 Re8
White is two pawns up.
9.Nc3 Kg8 10.O-O d6
And Black has little compensation for his sacrificed pawns... Wait a minute, isn't this an opening where White sacrifices? Ten moves in, something has gone terribly wrong for Black.
The defender now succumbs to pressure on f6 that leads to a tactical slip.
11.Bg5 Rf8 12.Nd5 Bg4 13.Bxf6 gxf6 14.Qxg4+
14...Kf7 15.Rfd1 c6 16.Nb6
A nice shot. He can afford it. (He also had the quiet 16.Ne3 and the diabolical 16.Nxf6, but the text works just as well.)
16...axb6 17.Rxd6 Qc7 18.Rd7+ Black resigned
White wins the Queen.
Sometimes a defender may appear ready to deal with the Jerome Gambit, and might even start off looking prepared - but if that preparation is "a mile wide and an inch deep", it won't be enough.
Consider the following game.
Wall, Bill - Guest5643953
PlayChess.com, 2018
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Qh4
This "pie-in-the-face" variation is another example of an early ...Qh4 by Black, which immediately challenges White to find a way to survive.
7.O-O Nf3+
Okay, this is kind of strange...
Black's 6th move was one of the strongest ways to meet 6.d4, by ignoring possible material loss and, instead, initiating a counter-attack; but this move looks like the second player is suddenly upset at having two minor pieces attacked, and so he decides to give one up.
8.Qxf3+ Nf6 9.dxc5 Qxe4
What a difference a few moves can make! Instead of being down two pieces, White is up a pawn.
The game is not over, but certainly there is no talk of a refutation any more.
10.Qb3+ d5 11.cxd6+ Be6 12.Qa3 Qxc2 13.Nc3 cxd6
Here we have a subtle position. Material is even. White's advantage is the weakness of Black's pawn on d6.
Black hurries to protect the pawn, but this makes his position worse.
14.Bg5 Ne8 15.Qb4 Bc8
There was less danger in 15...b6. Black has un-developed two minor pieces and dis-connected his Rooks.
16.Rae1 h6 17.Re7+ Kg6 18.Be3
After the game Stockfish 8 showed a preference for 18.Bxh6!? but there was no need to chase complications after 18...gxh6 19.Qd4 Rf8 20.g4!? The text move is fine.
18...Rf8 19.Qd4 Qf5 20.Nd5
White's pieces cooperate and close in on the enemy King. In the mean time, it is again relevant to point out Black's Bishop at home, blocking his Rook, at home. Black now develops the Bishop, but it is too late.
20...Bd7 21.Re4
Threatening 22.Ne7+, forking the Queen and King.
21...Qh5 22.g4 Qh4 23.Ne7+ Kh7 24.g5
It is a tossup as to which is in more danger, Black's King or his Queen.
24...Qh3 25.Rh4 Qe6 26.g6+ Kh8 27.Rxh6 checkmate
Very nice!
One of the reasons that few chess players open a game with 1.f3 e5 2.g4 is that there is a one-move refutation - 2...Qh4 is checkmate.
For other refuted openings, however, the demands upon the defender are more onerous. Even the Jerome Gambit, which has a number of refutations, can require consistent play by Black, or the attacker will not only escape unpunished, he will win.
The following game is a good example.
Wall, Bill - Guest436030
PlayChess.com, 2018
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Bb4+ 7.c3 Qh4
Black does not waste time saving either of his minor pieces, but makes the same "mistake" that White often does in the Jerome Gambit - early development of his Queen.
The position, with Black's great lead in development, shows how White can see the tables turn and subject the attacker to an attack.
Before this game, The Database had 10 games with this line - all wins for Black.
(A well-timed ...Qh4 is one reason that I prefer the 6.Qh5+ variations over the 6.d4 variations; but Bill is not troubled by such things!)
8.O-O Ng4 9.h3 Be7
Black prefers to save his Bishop, instead of withdrawing his Knight with 9...N4f6.
10.hxg4 d6 11.Qb3+ Ke8 12.f3 Nf6
White's pawn wall defense seems to scream for 12...h5!? by Black.
13.Be3 b6
Planning to put his Bishop on b7 to further pressure White's pawn chain and Kingside is reasonable, but slow. The move also creates deadly weaknesses on the light squares for Black, as his opponent quickly shows.
14.e5 dxe5 15.dxe5
15...Nxg4
Black insists that he still has an attack, and is willing to give back his extra piece to prove it. Stockfish 8 is not convinced, however, and recommends, instead, 15...h5 16.g5 Nh7 17.g6 Ng5 18.Qd5 when 18...Nh3+ 19.gxh3 Qg3+ 20.Kh1 Qxh3+ 21.Kg1 Qg3+ 22.Kh1 Qh3+ etc. would lead to a draw by repetition.
16.fxg4 Qxg4
Compounding his error. Better was 16...Bb7, but White would still be better. Now White's counter-counter-attack wins.
17.Qf7+ Kd7 18.Qd5+ Ke8 19.Qc6+ Bd7 20.Qxa8+ Bd8 21.Nd2 Black resigned
Black is down a Rook with almost nothing to show for it.
Things are happening in the "Italian Battleground" tournament at Chess.com.
With 8.5/10, it looks like I will top Group 2 and move on to the next round - with JohnDuh2 (6.5) and Abhishek29 (5.5). With the Jerome Gambit I scored 2.5/3.
Likewise, xtfabio (8.5) is set to win Group 4, and advance with two of the following three: vasbur, XristosGikas, and nand_1996, who are still battling.
In Group 1 there are still plenty games to complete, but FM_Andy_Markk, Marek_Sturmvogel and warwar are likely to make it to round two.
Group 3 is too hard to call at this point. There are too many important games left to complete. One player - the second-highest rated on in the group - has completed only 1 of his 10 games, to date, but could still walk away with the whole thing. All six players still have chances to be among the three who advance to the next round!
Continuing the thread of the last few posts, it is no surprise that I have also been unable to find support for the suppossed Jerome Gambit game "Halpern, Jacob - von Scheve, Theodor, London, 1880".
I could find no game reference for Halpern earlier than 1883, and only four games by von Scheve earlier than that year - all games against Siegbert Tarrasch.
As interesting - if, in some ways, unfortunate - as it would have been for Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1884 to have been anticipated, it remains an exciting and original "first".
