Jerome Gambit: Including Unknown Region

Please Note: I have recently received so many interesting Jerome Gambit games, many from those who have tried it for the first time, that I will begin posting on this blog daily, rather than every-other-day, so I can share more, more frequently. -Rick 

It has been a while since I have looked at the statistics that blogger.com collects about this blog about the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+). 

On May 23, 2020, it listed the top 10 audiences for the last month, in order, as

United States

Hong Kong

Turkmenistan

Romania

United Kingdom

Unknown Region

Germany

Canada

France

Russia

There were a few surprises in that list. For starters, I am not sure if everyone in 6th place all come from a particular region that is, for some reason, "unknown" - or if there was a measurable amount of error in reporting home countries, and these individuals were all scooped up and placed in "unknown"; perhaps they were using VPNs or blocking their location.

In any event: Welcome, Readers!

* * * *

For the lifetime of the Jerome Gambit blog, the audience looks like this

United States
Russia
Germany
France
Ukraine
United Kingdom
Poland
Brazil
Canada
Japan 

Again: Welcome Readers!

One More Thought

Musing over the earlier post, "Unasked Questions", which concerned itself with a sort of an "impatient Jerome Gambit" - 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 (the Two Knights Defense) 4.Bxf7+ (not waiting for Black to play ...Bc5) - I remembered a tangential question that I had asked about what impact further developing a Knight for each side - creating the Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ - would have, compared to the regular Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+.

It turned out that Komodo 10 evaluated the Four Knights version as improving Black's position 3/4 of a pawn over Black's position in the regular Jerome. Furthermore, The Database showed that Black scored 61% in the Four Knights variation, versus 54% in the regular Jerome Gambit line.

So, I had one more thought: Might that mean, analagously, that the line that we looked at in the earlier post would be stronger for Black than if we stripped away a Knight from each side, i.e. if we had Komodo 10 look at 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Bxf7+ ? (Would I dare to call it a sort of "accelerated impatient Jerome Gambit"? I hope not.)

It turns out that Komodo 10, at 30 ply, sees only about 3/100th of a pawn's difference between 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Bxf7+ and 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Bxf7+. Not much at all, as far as computer evaluation goes.

However, checking The Database, I noted 479 games with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Bxf7+ and 443 games with 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Bxf7+. In the first case, Black scored 61%; in the second case, 52%. From a practical point of view, that may be significant - even if you take into account that The Database is not as statistically representative for these two lines, because my data collection has not been as rigorous.

In both cases, it seems that Black's practical chances are improved as his development increases, even though White increases his development equally.

Curious.

Should White abandon the Jerome Gambit for 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Bxf7+? No, I wouldn't go that far.

But I would refer Readers to "Jerome-Knight Gambit" for a collection of those accelerated, impatient games.

Jerome Gambit: New Games Coming

GM Aman Hambleton, of CHESSBRAHS, over at chess.com, also at Twitch, has stirred up a good bit of interest in the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) in the last few days, due to his video (mentioned in the previous post) concerning the Jerome (it can be found on YouTube.com).

I also have to credit GM Eric Hansen, who I watched on the CHESSBRAHS site try for two hours to get a Jerome Gambit game going, but was frustrated in his attempts. 

As a result, I have received many emails and messages, as well as a good selection of new Jerome Gambit games - including one by the computer program Leela Chess Zero, rated over 3600!  

I plan to share those games, although it may take me a few days to get them posted on this blog. Please be patient - and keep an eye out.

In the meantime, it is always possible to use the "search this blog" function to explore this site further. I have also found that if I use an internet search engine (like Google, Bing, or DuckDuckGo) for a string of moves - say, "6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 Qe7" it will turn up links to relevant posts on this blog.

Thank you - Rick   

Jerome Gambit: All In Good Fun

I thought that Jon Speelman had had the last, friendly, justifiable, Grandmaster laugh at the Jerome Gambit four years ago, in his "Agony Column #24" over at chessbase.com, where he dissected a couple of my games that I had shared with him - but it turns out that I was wrong.

YouTube.com has recently posted a video by Canadian GM Aman Hambleton (aka TOMMYFOOKINSHELBY, at Chess.com, see the previous blog posts "Jerome Gambit: Smash Finish" and "Unasked Questions") that hilariously gives the Jerome Gambit, this blog, and me, our just due - and then some. All in good fun.

It is must viewing for all Readers.

In the meantime, especially to those new to this blog, let me quote from a post from the first month of this blog, a dozen years ago, titled "But - Is this stuff playable? (Part 1)"

Of course not.The Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) has many refutations. 

I'm glad that's settled. 

Maybe a more useful question would be -- Under what conditions might the Jerome Gambit be playable?

Perhaps in friendly games, in bullet games, in blitz games, in games where you are giving "Jerome Gambit odds" to a weaker player - the opening might just be playable. (It is helpful to keep in mind Geoff Chandler's whimsical "blunder table" in this regard.)

I am reminded of Gary Kasparov's response, when someone suggested 1...g5!? as a response to 1.c4 - "Chess isn't skittles". Certainly he was right - at the grandmaster and master level of play. But, for many club and amateur players, chess is skittles; and the Jerome Gambit fits right in.

By the way, from an academic point of view, the Jerome Gambit is often a study of "errors in thinking" - exactly how does someone lose to "the worst chess opening, ever"?

Unasked Questions

???????

I wanted to share another game by TOMMYFOOKINSHELBY  (see "Jerome Gambit: Smash Finish") because it answers an unasked question or two...

TOMMYFOOKINSHELBY - Fafa05
5 0 blitz, Chess.com, 2020

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 

The Two Knights Defense, often a stumbling block on the way to the Jerome Gambit, although White has options; see, for example, "Jerome Gambit vs Two Knights Defense", parts 1, 2, 3 and 4.

4.Bxf7+ 

This line doesn't have a name, as far as I know, but it might as well be "the impatient Jerome Gambit". The earliest game that I have with it in The Database is from 2001, but it has to be much older than that. My research is lacking here.

Philidor1792, who has contributed much to this blog, explained his approach to the line in "What's Going On Here?"

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Ng6 

Or

6...Nc6 as in Philidor 1792 - guest1334, Bereg.ru, 2014 (1-0, 20), You [Philidor 1792] - Stranger, Chess-Samara.ru, 2014 (1-0, 18), Philidor 1792 - guest3018, Bereg.ru 2014 (1/2 - 1/2, 24), and Philidor 1792 - guest345, Bereg.ru, 2014 (1-0, 15); or 

6...Nc4 as in You - Stranger, Chess-Samara.ru, 2014 (1-0, 26); or

6...Neg4 as in Philidor1792 - Stranger, Chess-Samara.ru, 2014 (1-0, 27); or

6...Qe7 as in Philidor 1792 - Juppzupp, PlayChessBase.com, 2014 (1-0, 24).

7.e5 Ne8

Black has also tried

7...Qe8 in Philidor 1792 - Guest10161477, PlayChess.com, 2014 (1-0, 29);

7...Nd5 in You - Stranger, Chess-Samara.ru, 2014 (1-0, 16) and You - Stranger, Chess-Samara.ru, 2014 (1-0, 17), as well as Philidor 1792 - Guest838140, PlayChess.com, 2014 (1-0, 28);

7...d5 in Philidor 1792 - guest5, Bereg.ru 2014 (1-0, 42);

7...Qe7 in Philidor 1792 - guest1278, Bereg.ru 2014 (1-0, 29); and

7...d6 in Philidor1792 - Guest805466, PlayChessBase.com 2014 (1-0, 62). 

8.Qf3+ Kg8 

For some reason, Black preferred 

8...Nf6 in Philidor 1792 - CrinjuChess, PlayChess.com 2014 (1-0, 46), Philidor 1792 Sauron2005, PlayChess.com 2014 (1-0, 25), and Philidor 1792 Ppion, PlayChess.com 2014 (1-0, 36); and

8...Ke7 in Philidor1792 - Guest691264, PlayChessbase.com 2014 (1-0, 14)

9.Qd5 checkmate

Oh. Right. Nice work, TOMMY.

Jerome Gambit: Smash Finish

I recently received a 3-minute blitz game from a Chess.com player who has become excited about the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+). Given his success in the following game - including the finish - it is easy to understand why.

TOMMYFOOKINSHELBY - samuelwillwin
3 0 blitz, Chess.com, 2020

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

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 

7.Qd5+ 

The "nudge", another way of getting the defender to waste time on "Why did he do that?"

7...Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qe3 Qe7 

10.Nc3 c6 11.d4 Nf6 12.O-O Kf7  13.f4 Ng4 

"When in doubt, attack White's Queen", said many regretful defenders.

14.Qf3 d5

The advantage is flowing toward White, and this quickens things. The bold 14...h5 or the bolder 14...Qh4 might have slowed things down a bit.

15.f5 dxe4

Same slip as with move 13 - but, remember, this is a 3-minute game. Given enough time, this move might never see the light of day. 

16.Qxg4 Nf8 17.Nxe4 h5 18.Qf4 Nd7 

Will the defense hold? One clue: Black's Knight blocks his Bishop which locks in his Rook. Another: next move, Black's King will block his other Rook.

19.Ng5+ Kg8 20.Bd2 Nb6 21.Rae1 Qf6

22.Re8+ Qf8 23.Rxf8+ Kxf8 24.Qd6+ Kg8 25.Qd8 checkmate

Nice.

Jerome Gambit: I Am Not As Smart As Bill Wall (Part 2)

[continued from previous post]

perrypawnpusher - LttlePrince

Italian Game Classic tournament, Chess.com, 2020

I was ready to answer 19...Nf2 with 20.Qxf5+ Kg7 21.Qf6+ Kg8 22.Qe6+ Kf8 23.Qf6+ etc. and split the point with a draw by repetition.

19...Raf8

My opponent was not amused. I could have now captured a pawn with 20.Qxf5+, but, after 20...Ke7 21.Qg4 he probably would have gone for the Knight fork with 21...Nf2, and there would be no draw for me to find for the loss of the exchange.

20.Rhf1 Ke7 21.Rf3 

The Rook was going - somewhere?

The irony was that while I was considering making moves against the enemy King on both the Kingside and Queenside, Black's Knight stood like a tower of strength in the middle of my position.

21...Qc5 22.Rb3 b5 

At the time, this looked like a consession by my opponent.

23.a4 a6 

Of course. It was a bit too much to hope for 23...bxa4 24.Rb7+.

24.Qh6 

This was the high point of my optimism about our game. It was mostly downhill, thereafter.

24...Rfg8 25.g3 Rg6 26.Qh5 Ke6 

What to do?

After the game, the computer suggested 27.Kb1, but I chose a different kind of piece shuffling. I wanted to leave my Queen where she was, as she seemed to be keeping the enemy Rooks busy. So - a Rook?

27.Re1 Qc4 

More salt in the wounds. I had the impression that opening a line would now be against my King, but I wasn't ready to give the a-pawn away for free.

28.axb5 axb5 29.Ra3 b4   Black resigned

Black's b-pawn is headed toward b3, and, in the meantime, where is my Rook to go? In the meantime, my Queen isn't holding his Rooks, the Rooks are holding my Queen. His extra Knight still sits there, smiling.

This is what it's like to be decisively defeated by a stronger opponent, one more proof that I am not as smart as Bill Wall.