Jerome Gambit: A Long Look At A Short Game

Once again, a Jerome Gambiteer demonstrates that complications can favor the attacker, rather than the defender.

angel_camina - Nightmare_230607

1 1 bullet, Chess.com, 2026

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kf8 

It is worth quoting from an earlier post, "Jerome Gambit for Dummies 2.0 (Part 3)"

Although 98% of the time (according to The Database) Black captures the Bishop, the move is not forced. It is simply a choice for the second player between having an "objectively" winning game with 4...Kxf7 and having the worse position after 4...Kf8 or 4...Ke7.

Jerome Gambit Declined

Jerome Gambit Declined

Yet a few defenders will adopt the sly attitude If he wants me to take the Bishop, then I won't take it.

There is some "psychology" in this, too: the Jerome Gambiteer suddenly finds himself "stuck" with a calm, but "objectively" better game than had been expected a move before. This change of fortune can take some getting used to.

For this reason, even though it is an unlikely event, for peace of mind White might want to prepare a response to the Jerome Gambit Declined.

In the first place, White can feel reassured when facing the Gambit Declined. The Database has 471 games with 4...Kf8 with White scoring 61%; and 59 games with 4...Ke7 with White scoring 70%. Stockfish 14.1 (30 ply) rates White about 3 pawns better in the first case, and about 4 pawns better in the second.

White can respond to the Jerome Gambit Declined with the simple 5.Bb3, knowing that he has invested a couple of tempos to obtain a pawn and prevent Black from castling. (Also possible are 5.Bc4 and 5.Bd5.) The Database shows White with 5.Bb3 scoring 66% against 4...Kf8 and 100% against 4...Ke7.

White can part with his Bishop, instead, with 5.Bxg8, scoring 63% against 4...Kf8 and 91% against 4...Ke7. (Personally, I like to keep the Bishop.)

Some players seeking greater complications have left the Bishop in place and tried 5.Nxe5, apparently hoping to continue along orthodox Jerome Gambit lines, gaining a tempo when Black finally plays ...Kxf7. White has been successful with 5.Nxe5 over-the-board (The Database has 68 games, White scores 60%) even though the computer frowns upon the move, seeing Black about 1 3/4 pawns better. (It must be noted that the tries 4...Kf8/4...Ke7 5.Nxe5 Nxe5 6.Qh5 d6 and 4...Kf8/4...Ke7 5.Nxe5 Nxe5 6.d4 Nxf7 are not very encouraging for White.)

5.Nxe5 

Of course, angelcamina enters "greater complications". Can his opponent keep up? 

5...Nxe5 6.Bxg8 

From "Jerome Gambit: Complication After Refusal" an insight

Just for the record, had White chosen 6.d4, then 6...Kxf7 would reach a position regularly in the Jerome Gambit - with White to move, instead of Black.

6...Bxf2+ 

Black stirs things up further.

7.Kxf2 Rxg8 

Or 7...Qf6+ first, then 8.Ke1 (or 8.Ke2 Rxg8 as in  angelcamina - gazorpazorpfield161, lichess.org, 2023 [1-0, 29] ) Rxg8 9.Rf1 b6 10.Rxf6+ gxf6 11.d4 Ng4 12.h3 Nh2 13.Bf4 Rxg2 14.Bxh2 Ba6 15.Qh5 Rxh2 16.Nc3 Rxc2 17.Rd1 Rxb2 18.Qxh7 Rc8 19.Rd2 Rb4 20.Qxd7 c5 21.Qxc8+ Bxc8 22.dxc5 bxc5 23.Nd5 Rxe4+ 24.Kf2 Bxh3 25.Nxf6 Rf4+ 26.Kg3 Rxf6 27.Kxh3 Ra6 28.Rc2 Ra3+ 29.Kg4 Ra5 30.Kf4 Ra4+ 31.Ke5 c4 32.Kd4 a6 33.Kc3 Ke7 34.Kb2 Rb4+ 35.Kc3 a5 36.a3 Rb3+ 37.Kxc4 Rxa3 38.Kb5 Ra1 White resigned, angelcamina - mohammadameen2008, lichess.org, 2023 

8.Rf1 Ke8 9.Qh5+ Nf7 10.Kg1 Qe7 

The pressure on Black's King will only grow.

Bullet games have limited time for analysis.

11.Nc3 h6 

Protecting the h-pawn, but 11...c6 was more to the point, as angelcamina immediately points out. 

12.Nd5 Qc5+ 13.d4 

Of course.

13...Qxd4+ 14.Be3 Qxe4 15.Qxf7+ Kd8 16.Qxg8+ Black resigned

The finish would be 16...Qd8 17.Bg5+ hxg5 18.Qxe8+ Kxe8 19.Rae1+ Kd8 20.Rf8 checkmate

Jerome Gambit: Pawn and Knights

In the following game, White makes use of his advanced pawns and Knights, to dominate his opponent.

Wall, Bill - Iiii

SparkChess, 2026

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. Bxf7+ Kf8

Checking Bill's games, I see White is 10 - 1 in this Jerome Gambit Declined line. 

Oh, and in that one loss by White, Bill was playing Black. 

5.Bxg8 Rxg8 

Capturing with the King would move it a step away from the center. Instead, after the Rook capture, the piece is now placed to advance his g-pawn. 

6.Nc3 

It was possible to execute the standard Jerome Gambit tactic, 6.Nxe5 Nxe5 7.d4. 

By declining the offered Bishop, Black has changed the game from a wild gambit to a quiet, pawn-up game for White.

Bill can deal with that.

6...d6 7.d3 Bg4 8.O-O Ne7 

I am not sure what the Knight is doing. White motors on.

9.h3 Bh5 10.a3 a6 11.b4 Ba7 12.Rb1 h6 13.Re1 g5 

With a Rook on b1, White is not likely to fianchetto his Bishop.

Without his light-squared Bishop, he will want to deal with the pin on his f3 Knight a different way.

14.Be3 Bxe3 15.Rxe3 Kg7 

Black castles-by-hand.

16.d4 Rf8 17.g4 Bg6 

18.dxe5 Nc6 19.e6 

This advanced "Jerome pawn" will cause Black difficulties.

19...Ne7 20.Nd4 Rf4 21.Nf5+ Bxf5 22.exf5 

And then there were two.

22...Nc6 23.Nd5 Ne5 24.e7 Qd7 

25.Nxf4

The removal of this defender spells upcoming checkmate.

25...gxf4 26.Rxe5 Re8 27.Re6

Black resigned

White is up a Rook and a pawn. He also threatens checkmate in 14.

Jerome Gambit: White Declines

I am familiar with a number of lines in the Jerome Gambit where Black declines a sacrificed piece, e.g. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kf8, or, further, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8.

In both cases mentioned, the computer would indicate that "declined" is not as strong as "accepted", but psychological factors - e.g. the sacrificer's possible disappointment - also come into play.

Occasionally Black returns the favor, by giving back some material.

I recently tripped over a line where White declines a sacrifice (counter-sacrifice?), much to his dismay.

The time control may have been a factor, but the ending may have come as a surprise.

nsmanoj - goingtowinliketal

3 0 blitz, lichess.org, 2023

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5

And now the most popular responses for Black are 7...d6, Blackburne's defense, and 7...Qe7, Whistler's defense, in both case sacrificing the Rook for strong counterplay.

7...d6

Blackburne, it is.

8.Qxh8 

White is happy to take the Rook - and, if he is up on theory, he and his Queen will escape with at least a draw.

8...Bxf2+

This is a departure from Joseph Henry Blackburn's idea.

Black intends to answer 9.Kxf2 with 9...Qf6+ 10.Qxf6+ Nxf6 and, as I noted back in 2011 in "Short and Unbecoming"

At the cost of exchanging a won game for one in which he is a pawn down, Black has reached a Queenless middlegame that is not what every Jerome Gambiteer wishes for.

9.Kd1 

nsmanoj has played games where Black has declined sacrifices - Why not White?

(Please remember that this was a 3-minute blitz game - although both players were rated above 2000.)

9...Bg4 checkmate

Ouch.

Jerome Gambit: If I Said It Before...

A lot of what there is to be said about the path the following Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) game travels has already been said, so I have linked to earlier blog posts freely.

joesienk - JuanviPascual

"Jerome Gambit Classic #1",Chess.com, 2024

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kf8 

As I noted in "Jerome Gambit for Dummies 2.0 (Part 3)"

Although 98% of the time (according to The Database) Black captures the Bishop, the move is not forced. It is simply a choice for the second player between having an "objectively" winning game with 4...Kxf7 and having the worse position after 4...Kf8 or 4...Ke7.

Jerome Gambit Declined

Jerome Gambit Declined

Yet a few defenders will adopt the sly attitude If he wants me to take the Bishop, then I won't take it.

There is some "psychology" in this, too: the Jerome Gambiteer suddenly finds himself "stuck" with a calm, but "objectively" better game than had been expected a move before. This change of fortune can take some getting used to.

Also in "Jerome Gambit: Too Many Decisions Too Quickly"

Of course, if the move comes as a surprise to White, the thinking time it takes to respond could be significant in a 1-minute game.

The non-human computer program Stockfish 15.1 is not impressed, evaluating (32 ply) the position as almost 2 pawns better for White. This is why the Jerome Gambit player should have a plan, devised ahead of schedule, for facing Declined variations.

 5.Nxe5

Further from "Jerome Gambit: Too Many Decisions Too Quickly"

White could simply retreat the Bishop with 5.Bc4 or 5.Bb3, or exchange it with 5.Bxg8. Perhaps that is what Black expected.

Instead, he decides to complicate things further. It's all part of the plan.

Although this line makes up only about 2% of the games in The Database, it has held a fascination for me, as I have posted on it a number of times, including "Jerome Gambit: First Steps (Part 5)", "Jerome Gambit: Keep It Simple", "JeromeGambit: It Is Supposed To Be Uncomplicated" and "Jerome Gambit: Ignore Me, Stay Aware".

5...Nxe5 

Once more, from "Jerome Gambit: Too Many Decisions Too Quickly"

I suppose that you could be asking yourself, What if Black tried the wild 5...Qh4 instead? 

Yury V. Bukayev is way ahead of you, having considered that in his post "Anatoly Karpov & Jerome Gambit (Part 1)".

6.Bd5 Nf6 

Too routine. Instead, there was the counter-attacking 6...Qf6!? 

7.d4 Nxd5 8.dxe5 

The way to go was 8.exd5, i.e. 8...Bb4+ 9.c3 Ng6 10.cxb4 d6 

8...Ne7 

9.Qf3+ Kg8 10.O-O 

Stockfish 16.1 tries to be helpful by pointing out that 10.Qb3+ Kf8 11.Qf3+ Kg8 12.Qb3+ etc would be a draw. 

White wants more.

10...Ng6 11.Qb3+ Kf8 12.Be3 

More than mere development.

12...Bxe3 

Missing the idea of his opponent's move. Better was 12...Qe7. 

13.fxe3+ Ke7 14.Qf7 checkmate

Jerome Gambit: A Decade Ago... (Part 1)

Wandering through The Database I found yet another Jerome Gambit game that I had played, but not posted on this blog. 

It looks a lot like the game perrypawnpusher - GuestJDZB 2 12 blitz, FICS, 2024 (varying on move 10) that I posted a few days ago, but actually was played 10 years earlier than that game.

It was a complicated back-and-forth battle the included more back than forth. The tactics played and missed were interesting. Black's Knights took a starring role, throughout.

perrypawnpusher - CorH

3 12 blitz, FICS, 2014

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 

I just checked: I have scored 80% against this move, and 80% against 6...g6. My score against 6...Ke6 is slightly better, at 83%; and a little worse against 6...Kf8, 74%. (As they say, Your Mileage May Vary.)

7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 Qe7 

Challenging the enemy Queen and putting pressure on the e-pawn.

9.Qe3 Nf6 10.Nc3 d6 

More restrained than GuestJDZB's 10...Ng4.

10...Kf7 was seen in perrypawnpusher - frencheng, blitz, FICS, 2010  (1/2-1/2, 34)}) 

Stockfish 16's recommendation is 10...d5. 

11.O-O Ne5 

It looks like my opponent was trying to provoke a pawn advance, which, in this case, would not be a bad thing for me.

Instead, 11...b6 was seen in 4 of my games: perrypawnpusher - MRBarupal, 10 5 blitz, FICS, 2010 (0-1, 22); perrypawnpusher - Navarrra, 6 12 blitz, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 24); perrypawnpusher - alvarzr, 2 12 blitz, FICS, 2013 (0-1, 59); and perrypawnpusher - MarkHundleby1, Chess.com, 2013 (1-0, 27). 

There was also 11...Rf8 in perrypawnpusher - chingching, 5 11 blitz, FICS, 2011  (1/2-1/2, 36).

Again, the computer likes 11...d5, with the advantage still with Black.

12.d4 Nc6 

A wandering Knight got into trouble after 12...Nc4 13.Qd3 Na5 (better 13...Nb6) in perrypawnpusher - mikelars, 4 12 blitz, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 50). 

13.f4 

It is funny, Stockfish 16 suggests the Queen-and-Knight dance continue with 13.d5 Nb4 14.Qd4 c5 (not 14...Nxc2 because of 15.Qa4+) 15.Qd1 and White would have an edge.

The problem with the text move is that Black can still respond with 13...d5, giving him a small advantage.

13...Kd7 

Black's King feels the heat, being on the e-file (which may soon open) behind his Queen and decides to vacate. His Majesty blocks his Bishop, however.

Stockfish 16 has a suggestion for a line of play that looks very human-like, with swarming Knights: 13...d5 14.e5 Ng4 15.Qd3 Nb4 16.Qe2 Bf5 17.h3 and here it endorses the offer of a piece with 17...h5!? that should be declined, at least at first. Instead, it proposes the free-wheeling mess 18.Bd2 Nxc2 19.Nxd5 Qd7 20.hxg4 hxg4 21.Qc4 c6 22.Ne3 Nxa1 23.Rxa1 Rd8 24.Rd1 Be6 25.Qd3 Qxd4 26.Qg6+ Bf7 27.Qxg4 Qxb2 28.Ba5 b6 29.Be1 after which it suggests that Black is about a pawn better.

I am tempted to repeat Bobby Fischer's comment, "long analysis, wrong analysis" but I suspect that the computer would have its own criticism of my efforts, along the lines of  "lazy analysis, crazy analysis".

14.e5 

This breakthrough by the "Jerome pawns" (the pawns White has as compensation for his sacrificed piece) is thematic, and advantageous for the first player.

14...Ng4 

How to respond?

A strong line of play shows that, despite my complaints, sometimes Stockfish does play like it "understands" the Jerome Gambit: 14...b6 15.Bd2 (15.exf6 is possible, but 15...Qxe3 16.Bxe3 gxf6 leads to a static position, albeit one where White is a pawn up) 15...Ba6 16.Qh3+ The King hunt is on! 16...Qe6 17.Qxe6+ Kxe6 18.d5+ Nxd5 19.f5+ Kxe5 20.Rae1+ Kd4 21.Re4+ Kc5 22.Na4+ Kb5 23.c4+ Kxa4 24.cxd5+ Kb5 25.Rc1 Bc8 26.dxc6 a5 27.a4+ Ka6 28.Rf1 Rf8 29.g4 h5 30.h3 when Black's Bishop is locked in, and, hence, his Rook.

Of course, Black does not have to play 14...b6. Instead, 14...Re8 15.d5 Nb4 16.Qd4 a5 17.exf6 Qxf6 would create another position where White is a pawn ahead, and Black's King is still unsafe and blocking his development.

It goes without saying that none of these lines of play, or the insights that go with them, ever occured to me during the game. I show them to illustrate the richness of the Jerome Gambit.

[to be continued]

Jerome Gambit: Too Many Decisions Too Quickly

In a chess game played at bullet speed - a time control of one minute, no increment - there are many decisions to be made quickly.

Sometimes, too many. Sometimes, too quickly.

The following game is an example.  

Anti-Duhring - GodSaveKing

1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2023

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

4...Kf8

The Jerome Gambit Declined. 

If you want me to take the piece, then I don't want to take it.

Of course, if the move comes as a surprise to White, the thinking time it takes to respond could be significant in a 1-minute game.

The non-human computer program Stockfish 15.1 is not impressed, evaluating (32 ply) the position as almost 2 pawns better for White. This is why the Jerome Gambit player should have a plan, devised ahead of schedule, for facing Declined variations.  

5.Nxe5

White could simply retreat the Bishop with 5.Bc4 or 5.Bb3, or exchange it with 5.Bxg8. Perhaps that is what Black expected.

Instead, he decides to complicate things further. It's all part of the plan.

Although this line makes up only about 2% of the games in The Database, it has held a fascination for me, as I have posted on it a number of times, including "Jerome Gambit: First Steps (Part 5)", "Jerome Gambit: Keep It Simple", "JeromeGambit: It Is Supposed To Be Uncomplicated" and "Jerome Gambit: Ignore Me, Stay Aware".

5...Nxe5 

I suppose that you could be asking yourself, What if Black tried the wild 5...Qh4 instead? 

Yury V. Bukayev is way ahead of you, having considered that in his post "Anatoly Karpov & Jerome Gambit (Part 1)".

6.Bd5 

I suspect that the retreat was played quickly, saving the time for future tactics.

6...Qf6 

Black is on the attack.

7.f4 

Kick that Knight!

7...Ng6 

Stockfish recommends 7...c6 8.Rf1 Nd3+ 9.cxd3 cxd5 but it is easy to see why Black chose otherwise. 

8.c3 Qxf4 

Yikes! Moving too quickly.

9.Rf1 Black resigned

The Queen is lost.

Black's extra Rook and Knight do not make up for White's extra Queen and pawn - and there are still too many decisions to make in too little time.

Lose Never with a Strong Deferred Jerome Gambit! (Part 3)

 Lose Never with a Strong Deferred Jerome Gambit! (Part 3)   

  

(by Yury V. Bukayev) 

 

 

The Part 3 of this my analytical investigation is also about strong deferred Jerome gambit which is important for modern opening theory and for serious practice and which is a part of the Jerome gambit (JG), not relative gambit for it. 

 

At first let’s repeat the following thoughts from the Part 2 (September 22, 2022) of this my research: “It shouldn’t mix related (relative) lines for an opening with its deferred ones. Let’s consider the Queen’s gambit. For example, 1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 is one of deferred types of the Queen’s gambit (we may name it as ‘Nf3Nf6-Queen’s gambit deferred’), 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.c4 is the other deferred type of the Queen’s gambit (we may name it as ‘Nf3e6-Queen’s gambit deferred’) etc. Often we unite them with the “standard line” 1.d4 d5 2.c4 and name each of them as ‘the Queen’s gambit’. In contrast with them, the Catalan opening (for example) is an opening which is related to the Queen’s gambit. We never unite it with the Queen’s gambit, because the plan with Bxc4 after …dxc4 is impossible in the Catalan opening”.  

 

Let’s consider the Jerome gambit twice accepted (JGTA) analogously. In the Part 2 of this my research I have written about it: “Its “standard line” is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5, and after 6.Qh5+! or 6.d4 (it’s much less strong move) White gets a sharp play, you know the modern theory of August 2022 from my publications on Rick Kennedy’s blog. If 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 is played after 4.Nc3 (or 4.d3, or 4.0-0, or 4.c3, or any other “calm” move) 4…a6 (or 4…h6, or certain other moves: 4…a5, 4…b5, 4…Rb8), then the same White’s plans to return a part of gambit material (7.Qh5+ and 7.d4) get no additional obstacles here in comparison with the standard line. That is why 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Nc3 a6 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 and other above lines are deferred lines of JGTA. Analogously, we may unite them with the standard line of JGTA and name each of them as ‘JGTA’. In contrast with them, if Black plays 4…Nf6 (or 4…d6, or any other move which we don’t see above), then 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 forms only a related line for JGTA, so we may not unite it with JGTA”. 

 

But recently I have made a revision of this my view. Thus, if Black plays 4…Nf6, but then White makes his next “calm” move and Black makes the move 5…Nxe4 or another King’s Knight move (excluding 5…Ng4, 5…N[x]d5), then 6.Bxf7+ Kxf7 7.Nxe5+ Nxe5 form also deferred lines of JGTA. Analogously, we may unite them with the standard line of JGTA and name each of them as ‘JGTA’. 

 

Finally, a deferred line of JG is each deferred line of JGTA where the move n.Bxf7+ is made and where the further sequence of moves n…Kxf7 (n+1).Nxe5+ Nxe5 is made or can be made. For example, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 (4.0-0) 4…Nf6 5.0-0 (5.c3) 5…Nxe4! 6.Bxf7+AN is one of deferred lines of JG. Thus, after 6…Kxf7 7.Nxe5 (7.d4!?, 7.Qb3+!?) 7…Nxe5!? White can play 8.d4, 8.Qh5+, 8.Qb3+, for example: 8.Qh5+ Ng6!? 9.Qd5+ with 10.Qxe4. If you want to get it as White, then your opponent can’t prevent it. But this gambit’s force doesn’t let me say: “Lose never with it”.   

 

Is it possible to get a deferred line of JG where Black and White make no bad moves in the whole game, where the moves “n.Bxf7+” and “n…Kf8” can’t lose certainly, where an interest for important modern opening theory and for serious practice is VERY large? I have invented such new gambit, let’s consider it. 

 

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 AN Nxf2!? 7.Bxf7+!?. First of all, I should say that, it maybe (it depends on analysis), 6…Nxf2 is a gambit (and certainly 5.0-0 is a gambit, but it plays no role here), so 7.Bxf7+ is a counter-gambit in this case, but we know that the term “gambit” includes also counter-gambits, in fact. Further, I don’t like 5.0-0, but I think, this move is enough playable. Further, I should say that 6…d5!! also leads to a complicated fight, and it will be quite difficult for Black to choose his 6th move in practice.  

 

After 6…Nxf2!? the move 7.Bxf7+!? is White’s natural choice. Let’s consider alternatives in brief: 

 

I)7.Qb3 Nh3+! 8.Kh1 Nf2+ 9.Kg1 [9.Rxf2? Bxf2 10.Bxf7+ Kf8, and Black has a winning advantage] 9…Nh3+, ½ - ½  

 

II)7.Qe2 Nh3+! 8.Kh1 Nf2+ 9.Rxf2 [9.Kg1 Nh3+] 9…Bxf2 10.Qxf2 Qf6 with a complicated fight  

 

III)7.Rxf2 Bxf2+ 8.Kxf2 e4!? 9.Qe2 [9.Ne1 d5!, and Black stands slightly better; 9…Qf6+ 10.Kg1 Nxb4? 11.cxb4! Qxa1 12.Nc3! d5! 13.Nc2!?, and White has a large advantage]  

 

A)9…Qe7 10.Ne1, and Black stands slightly better 

 

B)9…d5! 10.Bb5 0-0! 11.Ne1 Qf6+! 12.Kg1 Nxb4. Black has a very large advantage and one extra pawn again.  

 

Let’s consider 7.Bxf7+ now: 

 

IV)7.Bxf7+ 

 

A)7…Kxf7 8.Qb3+ [Thus, opponents can play 8.Nxe5+ Nxe5, but White plays much stronger instead. Do we have the Jerome pseudogambit? Let’s answer this question after looking at the following continuation.] 8…Ke8 9.bxc5 (9.d4!?, so White can regain a piece not only by the direct way) Ng4 [or 9…Ne4] with a very sharp fight, where White attacks and has enough large compensation for the material in both cases. Thus, do we have the Jerome pseudogambit? If we start to look since 7.Bxf7+ only, then yes. If we start to look since 5.0-0 and consider 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.b4 Nxf2 7.Bxf7+ as the whole system, then we may consider it as the true gambit – the (‘complex’) Jerome gambit. We can name it as ‘the Great complex Jerome gambit’, 7…Kxf7 – accepted gambit, 7…Kf8 and 7…Ke7 – declined gambit.     

 

B)7…Kf8! [It’s a very strong Jerome gambit declined, we can name it also as ‘the War’s Stop Great variation’ according to the result in the point “B2” below.]  

 

B1)8.Qb3 Nh3+ [8…Bb6!?], and White can’t win 

 

B2)8.Qe2! [8.Rxf2?? Bxf2+, and Black wins] 8…Nh3+! 9.Kh1 Nf2+ 10.Kg1 Nh3+, ½ - ½  

 

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 gambits which are the parts of JG. And its above new part is, probably, the JG which is the most important for practice: the probability of Black’s move 6…Nxf2 in practice is enough high.  

 

Thus, this research is a start of the new era of JG and of JG declined in chess opening theory and practice! 

  

 

Note: Author’s theoretical novelties-moves are marked by the symbol “AN”. 

 

 

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.]