[continuing the imaginary discussion of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) started yesterday with "It's hard to explain..."]
Explanations for any success of the Jerome Gambit (and there are players like Bill Wall who score 95%+ with it) must be found in the blitz and casual practice of club chess players, not the international tournaments of masters or grandmasters.
That now seems obvious. "The masters, they are different", right?
More important is the way in which club players are different. A good example is Geoff Chandler's fanciful "Blunder Table" which, when the laughter is done, contains a lot of chess truth. Chandler suggests that in a game between players rated over 2000, the loss of a pawn should be enough to decide the outcome. For players rated around 1800, a couple of pawns would be the winning advantage. For a game between two 1500 players, however, an extra Bishop or Knight would be necessary to "guarantee" one side a win.
[Blush] [Silence] [Drumming of fingers]
In many Jerome Gambit games, White has given up a piece for two pawns – the equivalent of spending about a pawn to get to the kind of positions that he is comfortable with, and his opponent, far more likely than not, is not. That amounts to "suicide" among masters, but "unclear" among many club players.
True, but can't Black take the time to settle himself down and work out a defense?
Of course, and the stronger the defender, the more likely that is to happen. In blitz games, however, that will cost time. And in casual games, it will require attention.
[Blush] [Silence] [Drumming of fingers]
In many Jerome Gambit games, White has given up a piece for two pawns – the equivalent of spending about a pawn to get to the kind of positions that he is comfortable with, and his opponent, far more likely than not, is not. That amounts to "suicide" among masters, but "unclear" among many club players.
True, but can't Black take the time to settle himself down and work out a defense?
Of course, and the stronger the defender, the more likely that is to happen. In blitz games, however, that will cost time. And in casual games, it will require attention.
Delaying, but not eliminating the "blunder bomb"?
Exactly. Also, some "advantages" are easier for club players to take advantage of, while some are more challenging. For example, which would you rather have, an extra piece, or an extra two or three pawns?
Well, it depends, doesn't it?
It almost always "depends", yes, but, remember, it is the Jerome Gambiteer choosing when such a thing happens. I have seen hundreds of games where White advances his two "Jerome pawns" against Black's position, and the "logical" outcome – instead of allowing his position to become fatally cramped or dangerously opened up via pawn exchanges – should be that the defender "simply" returning the extra piece for the foot soldiers, with at least an even game. But it rarely happens.
Sometimes returning the extra piece is anything but simple.
Ah, so I see that you have tumbled to the Jerome Gambit as well, eh?
Perhaps we can continue this discussion another time...
Exactly. Also, some "advantages" are easier for club players to take advantage of, while some are more challenging. For example, which would you rather have, an extra piece, or an extra two or three pawns?
Well, it depends, doesn't it?
It almost always "depends", yes, but, remember, it is the Jerome Gambiteer choosing when such a thing happens. I have seen hundreds of games where White advances his two "Jerome pawns" against Black's position, and the "logical" outcome – instead of allowing his position to become fatally cramped or dangerously opened up via pawn exchanges – should be that the defender "simply" returning the extra piece for the foot soldiers, with at least an even game. But it rarely happens.
Sometimes returning the extra piece is anything but simple.
Ah, so I see that you have tumbled to the Jerome Gambit as well, eh?
Perhaps we can continue this discussion another time...
[to be continued]
