Jerome Gambit: He Should Have Read This Blog

Sometimes it feels like it has all been said, before.

Take the following game. Black decides to be creative in his defense to the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+), and even finds a novelty on move 7.

Alas, he is checkmated on move 8.

As I point out in the notes, there was a ton of information on the line - as well as a fascinating game example - available on this blog.

But, of course, you have to read the blog. (Forewarned is forearmed.)


Wall, Bill - Guest13762608
PlayChess.com, 2019

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke6 

Wow. Black decides that accepting 1 piece is enough. There is a whole lot to say about this - check out the game Wall, Bill - Guest4105968, PlayChess.com, 2018 (1/2 - 1/2, 50) that I covered in detail in "Jerome Gambit: Over the Rainbow", Parts 1, 2 & 3.

For now, I can point out that the current Database has 29 games with this position, with White scoring 66%. In the 7 games that have the strongest followup (see below), White scores 79%.

6.Qg4+ Ke7 

Black needed to play 6...Kxe5, and hang on.

7.Qxg7+ Ke8 

The move 7...Kc6 would cost Black his Queen (after 8.Nf7+). Instead, the text costs him his King.

8.Qf7 checkmate

Jerome Gambit: Pow! Bam!

The following bullet game (1 minute, no increment) reminds me of the campy 1960s "Batman" tv show, when battles between the heroes and the villains would have large words such as "Pow!" and "Bam!" superimposed over them, comic book style. See for yourself.

angelcamina - fred314
1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2019

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 

7.Qxe5 Nf6 

A simple solution that protects the Rook, but Black's best defenses - the Whistler (7...Qe7) and the Blackburne (7...d6) - both rely on offering the Rook.

8.Qxc5 c6 

Or 8...d6 as in angelcamina - janpecsok18, lichess.org, 2018 (1-0, 17) 

9.Qe3 Re8 

Steady and principled, although 9...Nxe4!? directly was playable.

10.d3 d5 11.f3 dxe4 12.fxe4 Bg4 

Mysterious. White's pressure on the King now builds and builds.

13.O-O b6 14.Qg3 Bh5 15.Bg5 Qd4+ 16.Kh1 Kg7 17.Bxf6+ Qxf6 18.Rxf6 Kxf6 

19.Nc3 Kg7 20.Rf1 Rf8 21.Rxf8 Rxf8 22.Qe5+ Kh6 23.Kg1 Be2 

Threatening checkmate, but overlooking the reply.

24.Nxe2 

Black resigned

Jerome Gambit: Are We Getting Any Better?

A major resource for understanding and playing the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) and related openings is The Database, a collection of over 59,000 games that I have maintained along with this blog.

While The Database contains all of the historical over-the-board and correspondence games that I have been able to collect, and, no doubt, suffers slightly from the fact that players are willing to share or publish their successful efforts, while letting their unsuccessful ones remain unnoticed - a full 93% of the games are drawn, regardless of their outcome, from games played at the online chess website FICS, at all time controls, from 1999 through September 2018.

That means that The Database largely reflects the experiences of the average online club player playing the Jerome Gambit.

So - how are the results of the Jerome Gambit (and for this question, I focused upon just 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) doing? Are we, as Jerome Gambit players, getting better over time?

This is what I found.  

Year    Games    Score
1999          29      34%
2000        172      41%
2001        262      40%
2002        231      44%
2003        242      34%
2004        251      38%
2005        383      37%
2006        502      38%
2007        560      39%
2008        782      43%
2009     1,322      45%
2010        930      40%
2011     1,073      42%
2012        634      45%
2013        945      44%
2014        867      43%
2015        589      43%
2016        621      45%
2017        589      44%
2018*      389      45% 

(*2018 includes games from January - September.)

("Scoring" is calculated by assigning one point to each win, one half point to each draw, and dividing by the number of games played.)

Another way of looking at the data is to graph the scoring percentages (which show a general trend upward):

There are any number of ways to look at this data.

Perhaps the simplest is to guess that players who are unsuccessful with the Jerome leave the pool (and produce no more games), while players who are successful stick around, adding more wins and bumping up the scoring percentage. Following this logic, though, it is not clear why the number of soon-to-be-unsuccessful players who played the Jerome Gambit in 1999 (and subsequently left the pool) should be any different than the soon-to-be-unsuccessful players who try their hand in 2019 (joining the pool, replacing those who left).

Maybe the Jerome Gambit, in general, is better known today than it was 20 years ago. (This blog and I will take some of the blame.) It is a risky and exciting opening, so, perhaps more sedate players who would find it not to their taste now steer clear (avoiding adding losses to The Database), while the adventurous swash-bucklers, knowing what they are getting into, charge straight ahead, nonetheless (adding wins, and possibly getting better over time). 

Even though the scoring percentage for the Jerome Gambit remains quite modest, compared to many other openings, there are some super-players who do quite well with the opening. Quite possibly, the trend upwards of scoring reflects their entry into FICS play, and their improvement over time?

In the end, we must always remain careful about statistics - and refuted chess openings.

Jerome Gambit: It's Not Automatic

The following game has another example of an "automatic" pawn capture that would have benefitted from a bit more reflection before appearing on the board - but, playing at one minute a game, with no increment, there is a limit to the amount of reflection that is available. 

angelcamina - Cubigami
1 0 bullet, lichess.org

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 

7.Qd5+ Kf8 8.Qxc5+ d6 

angelcamina has seen other responses:

8...N8e7 9.0-0 d6 (9...b6 10.Qe3 d5 11.e5 Kg8 12.f4 Bf5 13.h3 h6 14.g4 Be6 15.f5 Nxf5 16.gxf5 Bxf5 17.Rxf5 Qh4 18.Rf3 Qg5+ 19.Qxg5 hxg5 20.Kg2 Nf4+ 21.Kh2 Rxh3+ 22.Rxh3 Nxh3 23.Kxh3 Kf7 24.d4 Rh8+ 25.Kg3 Rh4 26.Bxg5 Rxd4 27.Nc3 Rc4 28.Re1 b5 29.e6+ Ke8 30.e7 b4 31.Nxd5 b3 32.cxb3 Rd4 33.Nxc7+ Kd7 34.e8=Q+ Kxc7 35.Rc1+ Kd6 36.Qd8+ Ke5 37.Bf4+ Ke4 38.Re1+ Kf5 39.Qxd4 g6 40.Qe5 checkmate,  angelcamina - southerngumbo, 1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2019) 10.Qe3 Bg4 11.f3 Be6 12.f4 Bc4 13.d3 Bb5 14.f5 Ne5 15.c4 Bc6 16.d4 Nxc4 17.Qc3 Bb5 18.a4 Nxb2 19.axb5 Na4 20.Rxa4 a6 21.bxa6 bxa6 22.f6 gxf6 23.Rxf6+ Ke8 24.Re6 Qd7 25.d5 Kd8 26.Bg5 Re8 27.Na3 Rb8 28.Rxa6 c6 29.Rxc6 Ra8 30.Rexd6 Qxd6 31.Rxd6 checkmate, angelcamina - Claim1, 1-0 bullet, lichess.org, 2019); and 

8...Qe7 9.Qe3 Nf6 10.Nc3 d5 11.d3 dxe4 12.dxe4 Ng4 13.Qf3+ Ke8 14.O-O N6e5 15.Qf4 Rf8 16.Qg3 h5 17.f3 h4 18.Qe1 Nxh2 19.Kxh2 h3 20.f4 hxg2 21.Kxg2 Ng4 22.Qg3 Rh8 23.Rh1 Rxh1 24.Kxh1 Bd7 25.f5 Nf6 26.Bg5 Kf7 27.Bxf6 Qxf6 28.Qg6+ Qxg6 29.fxg6+ Kxg6 30.Rg1+ Kf7 31.Rf1+ Ke7 32.Nd5+ White won on time, angelcamina - mustapha1996, 1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2019 

9.Qe3 Nf6 10.O-O 

White played Nc3 first, in angelcamina - JsFlexWay, 1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2018 (1-0, 19).

10...Ng4

"Amazing how popular this move is" - Cliff Hardy.

11.Qf3+ Qf6

A bit stronger than 11...Nf6, as in angelcamina - Kvngmicky, 1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2019, (1-0, 38).

12.Qg3 Kf7 13.h3 N4e5 14.f4 Nc6

15.e5

Excellent bullet psychology. This is not the strongest move in the position, but if Black automatically captures the pawn, he is busted.

15...dxe5 16.fxe5 Ngxe5 17.Rxf6+ gxf6

White has a Queen and a pawn for a Rook and Knight. More importantly, Black appears to be shaken.

18.d4 Nc4 

White finishes up after this, by placing his focus on the enemy King.

19.Qb3 N6a5 20.Qf3 Nd6 21.Bg5 f5 22.b3 Rg8 23.h4 h6 24.Qh5+ Kg7 25.Qxh6+ Kf7 26.Qf6+ Ke8 27.Qe7 checkmate

Jerome Gambit: Happy Birthday, Blog!

It is hard to believe, but 11 years ago, on June 10, 2008, I made my first post to this blog. You are welcome to check out "Welcome!" 

(You can read forward from the beginning to today's post, but, mind you, that would mean reading 2,780 posts!)

It has been exciting to see how many people are willing to play the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+), and how many have been generous in sharing their games and their analysis. The play ranges from exceedingly fast 1 0 bullet games to more serious 3 days per move games, and include online, correspondence, blindfold, and over-the-board games.

It has also been great fun to see The Database of Jerome Gambit and Jerome-related games grow to over 59,000 examples.

As ever, I have enjoyed sharing many scintillating wins with the Jerome Gambit; but I have not shied away from showing losses and refutations, as I find them. The best place to learn how to win with the Jerome is this blog; the best place to learn how to defeat the Jerome is also this blog. 

Thank you, everyone, for your support. Thank you, Readers, for coming by.

Jerome Gambit: Cautious in Bullet?

I wonder if it pays to be cautious in bullet chess. Fending off attacks with your clock ticking down can not be much fun. It's probably more enjoyable to choose a wild opening like the Jerome Gambit, and just hack away.

angelcamina - RafaRofer
1 0 bullet, lichess.org

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6   

The Semi-Italian Opening, according to past world champion Euwe. It is also called the Anti-Fried Liver Defense, I suppose because it keeps a White Knight out of g5, where it plans to sacrifice itself on f7. If Black was planning with 3...h6 to protect f7 in this game, he was sorely disappointed.

4.Nc3 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ 

The Semi-Italian Jerome Gambit. Compare with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nc3 h6. The pawn move may create more weakness than it is worth.

 5... Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.Qh5+ Ke6

When you have a couple of pieces for a couple of pawns, and Stockfish 10 rates you as only +1 pawn, you have to know that your opponent has some serious dynamic potential. That is Black's situation at this point.

8.f4 Nc4 

Hoping to save one of the two hanging pieces, but actually surrendering both. The phlegmatic 8...d6 was the move. 

9. Qf5+ Ke7 10.Qxc5+ Nd6 11.e5 

11... b6 12.exd6+ cxd6 13.Qe3+ Kf7 14.O-O Nf6

White is better (material, development, pawn structure, King safety).

15.d3 Re8 16.Qf3 Kg8

Oversight. A 1 minute, no increment time control is brutal. 

17.Qxa8 Ba6 18.Qxd8 Rxd8 19.Bd2 Bb7 20.Rae1 Ng4 21.h3 Nf6 22.Ne4 Nd5 

23.Bc3 Ne7 24.Nxd6 Bc6 25.Rxe7 Rf8 

26.Rxg7+ Kh8 27.Rxd7+ Kg8 28.Rg7+ Kh8 29.Nf7+ Rxf7 30.Rxf7+ Black resigned

Jerome Gambit: Double Check It

When assembling a defense to a sketchy attack like the Jerome Gambit, it is always best to double check your work. Black does not do so in the following game - with a time control of 1 minute, no increment, there is not much time for reflection - and immediately pays the price. Later on, the game is decided, ironically, by a double check.

angelcamina - The_KGD
1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2019

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

The Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.d4 Bb4

Black is not just saving his Bishop, he is pinning the enemy Knight that protects the e4 pawn. In doing so, he overlooks that the pawn is also indirectly defended. Better was the direct 7...Bd6 8.dxe5 Bxe5.

8.dxe5 Nxe4 9.Qd5+ 

The point.

9...Ke8 10.Qxe4 a5 

It is unclear what Black has in mind. Perhaps it is a do something, quickly move in bullet.

11.O-O g5 

This falls to a tactical onslaught.

12.Nd5 Bc5 13.Nf6+ Ke7 14.Bxg5 h6 15.Nd5+ Black resigned

Black will lose his Queen, and then be checkmated.