Something had to happen

The following game from Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member Bill Wall arrived with a note: "For your database. I got lucky in the end. I just had to play aggressive, keep the threats open and something had to happen."


Wall,B - Darkmoonstone
Chess.com, 2011

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

The Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

5...Kxf7 6.Qe2 d6

This is an improvement over 6...Rf8 in Wall,B - Hamilton,E, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 22) and Wall,B - NFNZ, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 15); and a bit better than 6...d5 in Wall,B - Samvazpr, Chess.com, 2010 (0-1, 25).

7.0-0 h6 8.h3 Rf8 9.d3 Nd4 10.Nxd4 Bxd4 11.Nb5 Bd7

White works with the tools that he has: he will get rid of the pesky Black Bishop (allowing f2-f4) and replaces it with a doubled pawn.

12.Nxd4 exd4 13.f4 Kg8 14.Qe1 Qe7 15.Qb4 Bc6

Black focuses on developing his pieces and improving his position, rather than protect the pawn at d4 with the "ugly" (but stronger) 15...c5. White accepts the gift.

16.Qxd4 Qf7 17.Bd2 Qg6 18.f5 Qe8 19.Bc3 Rf7 20.Rf3 Nd7 21.Rg3 Ne5

22.Rf1 Qe7 23.Qe3 Kh8 24.f6

Returning the pawn to develop play against Black's Queen and King. While Bishops-of-opposite-colors endgames tend to be drawish, their middlegames favor the attacking player.

24...Rxf6 25.Rxf6 Qxf6 26.d4

26...Nc4 27.d5

A tricky move that does Black in.

27...Qh4

After the exchanges 27...Nxe3 28.Bxf6 gxf6 29.dxc6 Nc4 30.cxb7 Rb8 31.Rc3 Na5 32.b4 Nxb7 33.Rxc7 White can probably hold the draw, as Black's extra Knight will not easily protect his isolated pawns.

28.Bxg7+ Kh7 29.Qd3

Black resigned.

After 29...Ne5 30.Bxe5 dxe5 31.dxc6 White would clearly be winning.

A Slice of Jerome Gambit

My thanks to Welton Vaz, Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member from Brazil, for sending the Jerome Gambit (and related) games from FICS for June, 2011.

I looked at the games a bit closer, and made some interesting discoveries.

There was a total of 109 games with the move order 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ played at FICS in June.

White won 44 games, lost 63, and drew twice, scoring 41%, which is about what I have found when I have studied other collections of Jerome Gambit games. (The statistics tool from ChessBase indicated that the Whites had slightly underperformed, playing at about 30 rating points below their average.)

Interestingly enough, according to The Database, 2/3 of the players facing the Jerome Gambit at FICS in June had already defended against it at least one time before (low, once; high forty). The opening, it seems, is getting around, and is much less often a surprise than I would have thought.

When playing an opponent new to the Jerome Gambit (at least according to The Database) White scored 46%. That was a bit better than when playing an opponent with some experience with the Jerome, when White scored 39%.

Although some players offered "Jerome Gambit odds" to those rated less than themselves, this was not the standard in this game sample: White was the higher-rated player in only 40% of the games. More often, the Jerome Gambit was played against equals or higher-rated opponents.

Still, it must be noted that when giving "Jerome Gambit odds" White scored 55%.

Not surprisingly, in 64 of the games in the June pool, (59 %) the higher rated player won.

Or should that number have been higher? Was the Jerome Gambit introducing some chaos into the predictions? 

In any event, if Black was the higher-rated player in 60% of the games, and the higher-rated players won about 60% of their games, it should not be surprising that White won only about 40% of the games... 

Cosmic Echo

I can think of no explanation for Black's 16th move pawn-grab other than the one that I provided for another opponent's 11th move swipe, about a week ago: he simply did not see that the pawn was protected.

perrypawnpusher - eduborio
blitz, FICS, 2011

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 Bxd4 8.Qxd4 d6

9.0-0 Be6 10.f4 Nc6 11.Qd3 Rf8

Preparing to castle by hand.

12.f5 Bd7 13.Bg5

Instead, 13.Qc4+ first, as in perrypawnpusher - hklett, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 18), was more accurate.

13...Ne5 14.Qg3 c6 15.Rad1 Qb6+ 16.Kh1

16...Nxe4

Inexplicable, as are Black's next two moves as well. Perhaps he lost interest in the game.

17.Nxe4 Nc4 18.Nxd6+ Kg8 19.Nxc4 Black resigned

Black is not only down a piece and a pawn, his Bishop is difficult to defend – and he faces a mating attack on his King with Bh6 (a move that White could have played instead of capturing the Knight). 

Compensation

My relationship with my chess partner, Rybka 3, is a mixed one: it helps me understand my games after they are over; in turn, I have to put up with its "insults" (negative evaluations) about my play.

I trust Rybka's evaluations, but sometimes they are based upon the dynamic play that is possible in a position – often including moves played at the master level – as compensation for sacrificed material.

In games like the following, my opponent could be content with his extra material throughout the game. I struggled, successfully, as it turned out, to find all of the compensation that Rybka, afterward, assured me was there.

perrypawnpusher - irak
blitz 6 10, FICS, 2011

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

The Semi-Italian Opening.

4.0-0 Bc5 5.Bxf7+

The Semi-Italian Jerome Gambit.

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.Qh5+ Kf8

Stronger, but more complicated with more risk, is 7...Ke6. The text move keeps Black's advantage.

8.Qxe5 Bd6

I have faced this move, without ...h6 and 0-0, against LeiCar and dogofthesouth.

9.Qc3

Possibly a bit stronger than 9.Qd4 in perrypawnpusher - LethHansen, blitz, FICS, 2009 (1-0, 26).

9...Qf6

Black would not mind exchanging some pieces, to remove any danger to his King. White should be able to take advantage of this mind set and get an equal game.

10.d4 Bf4 11.Nd2

After the game Rybka 3 preferred 11.e5.

11...c6

AlonzoJerome - MarleysGhost, blitz, ICC, 2011, also continued with an overt "exchange" theme: 11...Bxd2 12.Bxd2 Qc6 13.Qf3+ Qf6 14.Qe3 d6 (1-0, 17)

12.Nf3 Bxc1 13.Raxc1 Ne7

Black is rightly pleased with his solid game, although a skeptic would point out that he moved his dark-squared Bishop four times in exchanging it for White's un-moved counterpart. These missing tempi can be seen in comparing the two home ranks: White's Rooks are linked, while it will take Black three moves to do so.

The question, as always, is: can White make something of this, or will Black's extra piece prevail in the end?

14.e5 Qe6 15.Qd3 Qxa2

I knew that Black could not afford this further loss of time, even with his solid position. This is the kind of  pawn-grabbing that Chess Challenger 7 used to do against me all the time, many, many years ago.

How to punish it??

16.b3 Qa6 17.Qe4

Understandable, although more consistent (i.e. "Jerome pawns") was 17.c4. Nothing is going to happen quickly, but White's clamp-down on Black's position can grow tighter and tighter.

17...Ke8

Far-sighted: he plans to make f5 a strong point for defense. It will cost him more tempi to get his Queen back into play, but if he does not create further weaknesses in his position it will remain White's responsibility to show compensation for his sacrifices.

18.Nh4 Qb5 19.f4 Qd5 20.Qe3 Rf8

As planned, but Black gets his moves out of order.

After 20...g6 White can still go for the breakthrough with 21.f5 but after 21...Nxf5 22.Nxf5 gxf5 23.Rxf5 c5 Black is still holding his own, according to Rybka 3. White would still have to play accurately and actively to show his compensation.

21.f5 d6

Understandable: Black hits White's center, and prepares to finally develop his Queen Bishop and Queen Rook. Unfortunately, it opens things up for White, who can now better get at his King.

As painful as it might have felt, Black needed to continue to set development aside and play something like 21...c5.

After the game Rybka 3 suggested 22.Rcd1 cxd4 23.Rxd4 Qc5 24.f6 Nd5 25.Qf2 gxf6 26.Nf5 Kd8 27.Nd6 b6 28.Ne4 with an edge for White. Again, that is a rather sophisticated evaluation: White's compensation is largely in dynamic play, and if he lags, he loses.

22.f6

Good, and thematic, but second best: how could I have overlooked the "Jerome pawn"-themed 22.c4 (followed by 23.exd6)?

22...gxf6 23.exf6

23...Qf7

After some excellent cold-blooded defense, Black slips again, and his game rolls downhill...

Rybka 3 reduces the game to a Rook and pawn endgame that is better for White with 23...Rf7 24.Rce1 Qg5 25.Qxg5 hxg5 26.Ng6 Bg4 27.Rxe7+ Rxe7 28.fxe7 Kd7 29.Rf7 Rc8 30.c4 a5 31.Kf2 Bh5 32.Nf8+ Ke8 33.Rg7 Bf7 34.Nh7 Kxe7 35.Nxg5 Kf6 36.Rxf7+ Kxg5 37.Rxb7 Kf4 38.Re7 Rb8.

24.fxe7 Qxe7 25.Qxh6

Again, this is enough, but the puckish 25.Rxf8+ was better, as 25...Kxf8 would have been followed by the Knight fork 26.Ng6+, winning the Black Queen.

25...Rxf1+ 26.Rxf1 Be6 27.Re1 Kd7 28.c4 Re8

Finally, the pieces are developed. If Black could move his Queen out of the pin along the e-file, he could envision further resistance, being only a pawn down, with a Bishop against a Knight.

29.d5 Qf8 30.dxe6+ Ke7 31.Ng6+ Kf6 32.Nxf8+ Ke7 33.Qg7+

Here Black's time ran out. His clock was still running over 2 1/2 minutes later, so I courtesy adjourned the game. He resigned the next day.

Ajedrez en Antigua‏

From an email from "Kennedy Kid" Jon, attending Spanish Academy Sevilla in Antigua, Guatemala. No word on Jon playing the Jerome Gambit, but there is hope!

...In addition, the Guatemalan Chess Federation sponsored a Chess tournament today nearby the park. I decided to participate and I did ok. I made a silly blunder my first game and subsequently lost, but I regained my pride by winning the next two. After three games they did some point calculation that I did not understand and decided that I was 6th (out of around 18) and I watched the guy who beat me play a game of speed chess in the final. The games I played were normal games where they added a timer after about 20 minutes of play. I really don´t like speed chess (each person had two minutes) as the guy who beat me was winning handily in the final match but could not get to checkmate before he ran out of time. Anyway, I played (and won) one more game for fun afterwards, ending the day 3-1...

Sense of Danger

As I mentioned in yesterday's post (Sunday Book Review) I have been reading Amatzia Avni's Danger in Chess, subtitled How to Avoid Making Blunders.

When I played through a recent Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit game that reached the following position, I thought about what Avni had written about "when the opponent plays badly in the opening."

comport - mrquestionmark
FICS, 2011

Suppose you play against someone who makes some silly moves, right from the start. He sheds material, or plays not in accordance with development rules, or he makes apparently self-destructive moves... Most chess players, when faced with such an enemy, tend to relax and expect an early success. It is a human trait to count on consistency in behaviour; if our adversary played weakly until now, so we reason, he is likely to demonstrate the same low quality in the following phases of the game as well.

This line of thought is devoid of empirical justification. Our opponent may possess poor openings knowledge, but still be a strong middlegame player. Or he may have deliberately made early provocations to lead us to think that our victory is assured.

Whatever our impression about our rival's level of play, we must stay on guard!

8.Qb3+ Kf8 9.Qf7 checkmate

Sunday Book Review: Surprise in Chess

Surprise in Chess
Amatzia Avni
Cadogan (1998)
softcover, 112 pages
figurine algebraic notation

I have a long-term interest in chess psychology (see "My Chess Psychology Bookshelf" for examples), and I have enjoyed the writings of psychologist and FIDE Master Amatzia Avni, reviewing several (Devious Chess, The Grandmaster's Mind and Practical Chess Psychology: Understanding the Human Factor) of his books.

Surprise in Chess is not a new title (in fact, its publisher, Cadogen Chess, has since morphed into Everyman Chess) but I have been reading it lately (along with its companion, Danger in Chess) to better understand the impact of the Jerome Gambit and its relatives.

Contents
Symbols
Introduction
Surprise in Chess
The Theory of Surprise
The Five Faces of Surprise in Chess
Special Cases of Chess Surprise
More About Surprise in Chess
The Way Players Experience Surprise
Summary
Assorted Surprises
Solutions
Index of Players and Composers

Avni's writing style is aimed toward the average chess player, more conversational, rather than being technical. He has a sense of humor that lifts the more serious discussions (e.g. how can a "logical" game like chess, where "information" about what is happening on the board is equally available to both players, have any surprises?). His examples of surprise help fill out the theory that he outlines.

Jerome Gambit Gemeinde members regularly surprise their opponents, and, adding insult to injury, often seem to know how the player across the board is going to respond, and even what he or she will do next... There is nothing "magical" about what is going on, only the fact that the gambiteer knows something about "The Way Players Experience Surprise".

Two quotes, amongst many, got me thinking

The last four examples provide abundant proof that chess is not always as logical, coherent and ordered as we might like to think...
In a world where pure chess weapons are in the posession of a wide public, nuances in non-chess weapons can make the difference between succcess and failure.
Surprise is such a weapon.

It is well worth the effort to pick up Surprise in Chess from the local public library, or perhaps it sits on your chess club library's shelf. The local bookstore may have a copy. It is certainly available online.