Jerome Gambit: Susan Polgar Tweets (Part 2)

 [continued from the previous post]

In the previous post we looked at a tweet by Grandmaster Susan Polgar about the value of opening study for novice chess players, and the ensuing discussion.

Admittedly, things got a bit crass, fast.

I would like to share some thoughts.

I agree with Grandmaster Polgar, that for novice players (and a lot of us who are beyond novice) to focus a lot on openings is not the right use of one's valuable time; it is better to focus on sound opening principles, improving tactics, learning basic endgames, and developing understanding of strategies, etc.

That might seem a bit odd, coming from someone who maintains a blog focused on a chess opening (and which is approaching its' 4,000th post), but I have always believed that the early sacrifices in the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) are an expressway out of a quiet opening and into the tactical complications of the middle game. In fact, many defenders are barely settled in their seats before their brain sends the message What in the world is happening to me??

That said, I think that Grandmaster Polgar made a minor misstep by supporting her argument by pointing out that if a Grandmaster opened a game with various unorthodox moves, would that mean that the novice opponent could beat the GM? (Of course not!)

In fact, if the novice player rattled off the first dozen "best" moves in the Najdorf Sicililan (or any other top level line), the Grandmaster would still win - perhaps not as quickly, but just as inevitably.

Grandmaster vs novice equals crush.

More to Grandmaster Polgar's point, a novice player facing a novice player (or a club player facing a club player) would do best to polish those sound opening principles, middlegame tactics and basic endgames. That is the highway to success.

By the way, I will continue my exploration of the Jerome Gambit, but always with the following tactical debacle in mind: perrypawnpusher - alfil_7, "Piano Piano" tournament, Chess.com, 2021 (0-1, 35). Tactics. Ouch.

Jerome Gambit: Susan Polgar Tweets (Part 1)

It is not often that I visit the world of Twitter (see "Jerome Gambit: A Top Grandmaster Tweets", "Jerome Gambit: Sometimes Accuracy Is Not Enough", "Jerome Gambit: GM Tisdall's Words Before The World Chess Championship 2021" and "The Jerome Gambit Continues to Spread Globally" for examples) but today Yury V. Bukayev has sent me a link to a commented tweet by the 8th Women's World Champion GM Susan Polgar, the trainer and the writer.

Replies to the Grandmaster's tweet sparked, in my opinion, an interesting conversation and got me thinking about the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) - of course.

Here is how it went.

Susan Polgar. For novice players who like to focus a lot on openings, ask yourself this simple question: If a GM opens the game with 1.a3, 1.h3, 1.Na3 or 1.Nh3, etc., do you think you can beat the GM? Of course not! So what does that mean? For the opening phase, focus on sound opening principles, but devote your valuable time on improving tatics, basic endgames, and strategies, etc.

Rodrigo Gallego. Using the same logic. If a GM sacrifices a bishop for not reason whatsoever, I can also not beat the GM. What does this mean?

Susan Polgar. It means you should take up checkers.

mcronrn. Flip answer people that can't beat a GM w bishop odds should take up checkers?? Bashing beginners, are we? Hikaru got 2400 chezzdotcm rating by giving up his queen! Guess all those 2300s he beat should give@up chess too

Susan Polgar. No it means you should learn to take advice from people who have 50+ years of experience and success. You made a ridiculous apple to orange comparison. If you think you know better then do what is best for you.

mcronrn. You said Rodrigo should give up chess if he couldn't beat a GM up a bishop (+3pts). I pointed out that many 2300s lost to Hikaru after he traded his queen for a N/B/R (+4/6 points), so a bigger differential. Not sure how that's a ridiculous apple / orange comparison.

Susan Polgar. Then I cannot help you if you cannot understand basic elementary stuff. Read my original post again. I would stay far away from any coach who recommends novice students to focus on openings instead of what I discussed.

mcronrn. Your response "take up checkers" is what's under discussion here. I'm a big fan of yours (and your sisters), and I'm merely pointing a wierd tweet. Chess isn't just for those who can beat a GM with bishop odds. I wish you well.

Susan Polgar. Let's go back to my original tweet. 36,700+ saw it. Everyone understood. In fact, I talked about this for decades. Therefore, hundreds of thousands heard it. No issue whatsoever. Then one person made a completely illogical comparison. The point is simple. It is a waste of time for novice players to focus everything on openings while openings are unimportant as GMs can beat them using any opening, even terrible ones. His response/comparison made my point exactly. If a GM gives a free piece and the opponent still could not win, it means it has nothing to do with openings. Same with my checkers comment. When someone makes a completely illogical comparison, one person out of hundreds of thousands, I made this emoji and mentioned checkers. Everyone understood that there is no possible explanation that can satisfy someone trolling.

[to be continued] 

Jerome Gambit: Too Casual

Some chess games can be referred to as "casual" - played among friends or clubmates, as much for enjoyment as for gains in rating our tournament success.

We have seen many times before, however, that a "casual" approach to defending against the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) can give that Billy Batson of a chess opening an opportunity to transform into a Captain Marvel force of power.

The following game is a recent example.

Carlos_Ricardo - DevanshGupta1991

3 2 blitz, lichess.org, 2023

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Kf8 

7.Qxe5 Bd6 

Black has the routine alternatives 7...d6 and 7...Qe7 that protect the Bishop.

He also has the largely unplayed (5 examples in The Database) move 7...d5, which was the recommendation of Grandmaster Cemil Can Ali Marandi in his video "Everything You Should Know About the Jerome Gambit".

By the way, here is the Grandmaster's take on the opening 

...and in this video I would like to analyze the Jerome Gambit for you guys. You might have heard about the Jerome Gambit and I would like to make sure that everybody understands the ideas behind this gambit and how you should actually proceed. The Jerome Gambit is becoming very popular lately, but you have to kind of understand that this is obviously not the right way to play the game of chess. If you're looking for something which is entertaining, if you're looking for interesting sacrifice right off the bat in the opening this is a gambit for you but it's only for educational and fun purposes. It is really not good for a regular classical game or and over-the-board practice...

(Please notice that I give an extended quote that highlights both the entertainment and the really not good points being made, instead of making an exciting cut, advertisement style, and claiming that the Gradmaster wrote "this is a gambit for you"!)   

8.Qf5+ Nf6 

Development is good. Offering the exchane of Queens with 8...Qf6 is better.

9.O-O b6

Black envisions two Bishops raking White's Kingside.

However, he has overlooked White's next move.

10.e5 Bb7 

It is true that Black has an "extra" piece that he can afford to return, but he would do better by considering the safety of his King and trying 10...Be7 11.exf6 Bxf6 or 10...Bc5 11.exf6 Qxf6. 

In blitz players move quickly, and the depth of their analysis is not as great.

11.exd6 cxd6 

Here we have an interesting position. Black's doubled (isolated) d-pawns do not block his Bishop, which has been fianchettoed. They even protect important squares (c5, c6, e5, e6) in his camp.

Sure, White has an extra pawn but why does Stockfish 15.1 rate White as more than a piece better here?

12.d3 

White's idea.

12...Kf7 13.Bg5 Rf8 

Preparing to castle-by-hand, giving protection - if there is time enough - to the Knight at f6, after ...Kg8.

There is not enough time.

14.Bxf6 gxf6 

Does it matter which capture is made at f6?

Yes, but White would be better in either case.

Here, though, there is checkmate.

15.Qxh7+ Ke6 16.Re1+ Kd5 17.Qe4+ Kc5 18.Qc4 checkmate

Last year, I wrote a series of short stories for my young grandson that featured a "super hero" called Silly Squirrel, who disabled his opponents by telling terrible jokes that would crack them up and leave them vulnerable to capture.

Truly, the Jerome Gambit is the Silly Squirrel of chess openings.

Jerome Gambit: Proper Attitude

 

I think the proper attitude to approach the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7) is one of bemused optimism. 

(Optimism, mind you, based on experience: For example, I have scored 82% with the "refuted" opening; Bill Wall has scored 93%.)

Is this stuff playable? Of course not - according to Grandmasters, at least against each other in longer time controls. But it is a lot of fun, especially at the club level, so let's give it a go...

This thought process is clear in the enjoyable lichess.org study, somewhat rudely named "Idiotic Chess Openings - The Jerome Gambit". (I wonder what other openings fall into that class for the creator?)

The basics of the opening are systematically laid out in educational style.

The Summary is delightful.

Play this highly questionable opening and pray that your opponent counters it incorrectly. If they do, you are a tactical genius who makes Tal-style sacrifices to win the game. If they don't, well, I guess you should have played a different opening.

Highly recommended. 

Jerome Gambit: Long And Winding Road

 

I just finished watching a YouTube video, "[Disaster] Italia Game: Jerome Gambit" which features a computer vs computer game that was an unusual 153 move draw.

If computer programs had feelings, it is likely that Black in the game was quite frustrated that the extra piece that it had was of little use.

By the way, 153 moves is not the longest Jerome Gambit that I have in The Database - it is only 4th longest, behind latemate - fadaro, 5 0 blitz, FICS, 2015 (1-0, 157); stockfish_20060616x64_modern - fruit_2.1, 2020 (1-0, 158); and the all-time champion Petasluk - bozidaranas, 5 2 blitz, FICS, 2022 (1/2-1/2, 239).

Jerome Gambit: Reddit

Taking a look at reddit, at r/Anarchy Chess, I found this variation of a popular meme, comparing chess players who are used to slower times and chess players who are used to very rapid times, as they play at blitz speed.

Once again, the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) appears.

I already premoved the first 10 moves of the Jerome gambit, can you please play your second move?

The Winning Part of the Same Jerome Gambit – 4.c3 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.b4 Nxf2 7.Bxf7+! (Part 1)

 

The Winning Part of the Same Jerome Gambit – 4.c3 Nf6  

5.0-0 Nxe4 6.b4 Nxf2 7.Bxf7+! (Part 1)   

  

(by Yury V. Bukayev) 

 

 

This my new analytical research is a development of my other analytical research ‘Lose Never with a Strong Deferred Jerome Gambit! (Part 3)’ (it was published in January 16, 2023, on Rick Kennedy’s blog). Dear readers will understand the great and unique importance of the current work in details after reading of the previous one.  

 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 (4.0-0) 4…Nf6 5.0-0!? (5.c3!?) 5…Nxe4 6.b4!? Nxf2!? 7.Bxf7+!. It’s a part of the same Jerome gambit (not a relative gambit), dear readers can find the explanation in my previous work. This variation is important for modern opening theory and for serious practice. In fact, after 6…Nxf2 the move 7.Bxf7+! is the best one, and it leads to White’s advantage, most probably. Thus, here are my new inventions after this move. 

 

I)7…Kxf7 8.Qb3+ Ke8 9.d4! [9.bxc5!?] 9…Be7! 10.Rxf2 White stands better 

 

 

II)7…Kf8 8.Qe2 Nh3+ 9.Kh1 Nf2+ [9…Nf4?! 10.Qc4 White stands better] 10.Rxf2!! [After 10.Kg1 Nh3+ 11.Kh1 Nf2+ 12.Kg1 White gets only a draw; 12.Rxf2!! – 10.Rxf2!!.] 10…Bxf2 

 

 

A)11.Qxf2?! Qf6! 

 

A1)12.Bd5 [White prevents 12…e4.] 12…Ne7 13.Qc5 b6 14.Qxc7 Nxd5 15.Qxe5, and White lost attacking opportunities, Black has the clear advantage  

 

A2)12.Bh5 [12.Bb3 e4 13.d4 exf3 leads to Black’s some advantage, because White’s compensation isn’t enough] 12…e4 13.d4 exf3 14.Bxf3 d6 15.Be3 Bf5, and Black has some advantage, because White’s compensation isn’t enough 

 

 

B)11.Bb3!! [White uses the facts that positions of Black’s King and Rooks are bad and wants to develop his pieces rapidly, to prepare the move Ra1-f1 or Ra1-e1.] 

 

B1)11…Bb6 12.d4! d5 [12…h6 13.Ba3 d6 14.Nbd2, and White stands better] 13.Bg5! Qd6 [13…Qe8 14.Bxd5, White stands better] 14.Nbd2 Be6 15.Bh4! h6 [15…e4?! 16.Ng5!] 16.b5 Na5 17.Nxe5 Nxb3 18.Nxb3! [18.Ng6+!? Kf7! 19.Nxh8+ Kg8 with the unclear position] 18…Kg8 19.a4! a5 20.bxa6 bxa6 21.a5 Ba7 22.Rf1 Re8 23.h3 Bc8 [23…h5 24.Qd3!] 24.Qh5 Rf8 25.Rxf8+ Qxf8 26.Nc6 Kh7 27.Nxa7, White stands better 

 

B2)11…e4 12.Qxe4 

 

1)12…d5 13.Bxd5 Qe7 14.Qf4+ Qf6 15.d4 Qxf4 16.Bxf4 Ne7 17.Bb3 Ng6 18.Bxc7 Ke7 19.Nbd2 Kd7 20.Be5 Nxe5 21.Nxe5+ Kc7 22.Rf1 Bh4 23.Rf7+ Kb8 24.Ne4!, White stands better 

 

2)12…d6 13.d4 Qe7 14.Qd3 Bh4 15.Na3 Bg4 16.Bd2 Bf6 17.h3 Bh5 18.Re1 Qd7 19.Ng5! d5 20.Ne6+ Kg8 21.Nb5! Bf7 22.Nc5! Qc8 23.Qg3, White stands better 

 

 

C)11.Bh5!? e4 12.b5 exf3 13.Qxf2 Ne5 14.d4 Nf7 15.Bxf3, and White has enough compensation, probably. 

 

Once again, the Jerome gambit (JG) isn’t 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ only, it is also a large family of deferred (not of relative) systems with Bxf7+ which are the parts of JG. And the above part of JG is, probably, the strongest and the most important for practice: the probability of Black’s move 6…Nxf2 in practice is enough high.  

 

Thus, my previous research and this research are a start of the golden era of JG in chess opening theory and practice! 

 

 

 

Contact the author:  istinayubukayev@yandex.ru  

 

 

© 2023 Yury V. Bukayev (Copyright © Bukayev Yury Vyacheslavovich 2023). All rights reserved.  

[A legal using of this investigation with a reference to it is permitted  

and doesn’t require author’s consent.]