Offside!

While putting together a post on a rare variation of the Italian Game (see "Don't make me go Jerome all over you...") I recalled a similar idea – and a similar response – with colors reversed in the old Hamppe -Meitner game (see "Godfather of the Jerome Gambit? (Part I), (Part II), (Part III) (Endnote) ).


That got me thinking: are there any examples of an earlier "offside" Knight?

It didn't take me long to round up a number of examples.

Sidran - Vong
email, 1992

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+

The Jerome-ish solution. Naturally there is also 4.Nxe5 Nxc4 ( 4...Qe7 5.Bxf7+ Kd8 6.d4 Nf6 7.Bg5 d6 8.Nc3 dxe5 9.dxe5+ Nd7 10.Bxe7+ Bxe7 11.e6 Bb4 12.exd7 Bxd7 13.Be6 Bxc3+ 14.bxc3 Black resigned, Chung - Bonney, corr 1995) 5.Nxf7 Kxf7 6.Qf3+ Nf6 7.Qc3 d5 8.exd5 Nb6 9.b4 Qe7+ 10.Kf1 Qd7 11.a4 Nxa4 12.Rxa4 Qb5+ 13.d3 Qxa4 14.Bg5 Bd6 15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.h4 Qxb4 17.Qxb4 Bxb4 18.f3 Bc5 19.Nd2 Bd4 20.Ne4 a6 21.c3 a5 22.cxd4 Kf8 23.Nxf6 c6 24.dxc6 bxc6 25.f4 c5 26.dxc5 Kf7 27.Ne4 Kf8 28.c6 h6 White resigned, Matogrosso - Jappe, Utrecht 1992

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+

Alternately 5.d4 d5 6.exd5 exd4 7.Ne5+ Kf6 8.Qxd4 Ke7 9.Bg5+ Nf6 10.0-0 b6 11.b4 Be6 12.bxa5 Qxd5 13.Bxf6+ gxf6 14.Qb4+ c5 15.Qa4 Qxe5 16.Nd2 Bh6 17.Nc4 Qd4 18.Rfe1 Kf7 19.Nxb6 axb6 20.Qc6 Qd5 21.Qc7+ Kg6 22.axb6 Rhc8 23.Qg3+ Kf7 24.Rad1 Qb7 25.Rxe6 Kxe6 26.Qh3+ Ke7 27.Qxh6 Qxb6 28.Qg7+ Ke6 29.Qd7+ Ke5 30.Rd5+ Black resigned, bigbreakout - iggydog, www.GameKnot.com 2005

5...Ke6 6.Qg4+ Kf6 7.d4 d6 8.Bg5 checkmate

Well, that was... awkward.

Surely Black had better defenses...

graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"

Cha - ching!

N. Earl Roberts, whose comments on playability and refutation of a disreputable opening were reflected in the post "The Proper Perspective" is the first visitor to this blog to receive the third PGN file of games presented at jeromegambit.blogspot.com.

This file (plus the first and second ones of course) is available for the asking, although if you wanted to send along a Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) of your own along with your request, that would be really nice, too.

Or you could procrastinate until the next file is assembled – say, when 1,000 games have been posted (or referred to) here; we're already 3/4 of the way there!

Another nail in the coffin...

Readers are aware that I have not shied away from presenting refutations of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) when I run into them (or am run over by them). It's time to give Master Eric Schiller credit (again) for both writing about the Jerome Gambit and providing a reasonable refutation for one of the main lines.

His Unorthodox Chess Openings (1998, 2002), Gambit Chess Openings (2002) and Survive & Beat Annoying Chess Openings (2003) have the following line:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7

This rather extravagant gambit is included by popular request, as the Internet newsgroup rec.games.chess.analysis had quite a bit of discussion on it in the summer of 1997 and several of the participants asked me to include it. White sacrifices a piece just to draw the enemy king into the game... (Unorthodox Chess Openings)

5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+

This too ambitious gambit has a following in some gambit circles, but it is totally unsound and Black has very little cause for concern. Just play aggressively and don't fall into passive cowardice. (Survive & Beat Annoying Chess Openings)

6...Ke6 7.f4

White will win back one of the sacrificed pieces. Black should react calmly be developing and protecting the king. It is useful to keep in mind that for an attack to succeed the attacker usually requires greater force than that which defends the king. Here the Black king is surrounded by pieces, and White has only the queen and a pair of pawns. The Black king can retreat to e7, but this would confine the Black queen. Therefore the correct move suggests itself. (Unorthodox Chess Openings 2)

7...Qf6! 8.Nc3 Ne7 9.Rf1 g6 10.Qh3+ Ng4 11.Qxg4+ Kf7

Black can easily defend with ...Rf8 and ...Kg8, and can also move the d-pawn, attacking the enemy queen. (Gambit Chess Openings)

Short Controversy

I was looking through Eduard Gufeld and Nikolai Kalienchenko's Chess Strategy (Batsford, 2003) when I ran across an interesting section on "Gambit Systems and How to Evaluate Them."

Openings in which material is sacrificed for the sake of dominating the centre and mobilizing the pieces quickly are called gambit systems. The material sacrificed is usually one or two pawns, or a minor piece for one or two pawns. Sometimes a rook is given up for a knight or bishop; occasionally even a whole rook is sacrificed. How do we judge whether the positional gains compensate for the sacrificed material? Sometimes we can tell from our first glance at the position. But more often the latent possibilities come to light only as a result of lengthy analysis and accumulated practical experience.

If a large quantity of material is sacrificed (two pawns, a piece for a pawn, etc.), then once the gambit becomes generally known, several different authors will give analyses attempting to prove conclusively whether the attack can be repelled while the material is retained. Sometimes the controversy over the sacrifice will last for many years...

When it comes to the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) the "controversy" did not last very long.

The Jerome first appeared in print in the April 1874 edition of the Dubuque Chess Journal. This was likely too late for analysis of the gambit to be included in the 1st edition of Cook's Synopsis of the Chess Openings, Andres Clemente Vazquez's 1st edition of Analisis del juego de ajedrez, the 2nd edition of Longman's Chess Openings, or the 4th edition of Bilguer's Handbuch des Schachspiels -- all which came out the same year.

The following year, the 2nd edition of Wormald's Chess Openings also had nothing on the Jerome Gambit; and in 1876 the 2nd edition of Cook's Synopsis of the Chess Openings was equally neglectful.

However, 1877 saw the publication of a seminal article on the Jerome Gambit by Lieut. Sorensen in his "Chess for Beginners" column in the May issue of Nordisk Skaktidende (see "Bashi-Bazouk Attack") which was translated and reprinted around the world.

Sorensen's conclusion

Naturally we immediately remark that it is unsound, and that Black must obtain the advantage; but the attack is pretty sharp, and Black must take exact care, if he does not wish to go quickly to the dogs. A little analysis of it will, therefore, be highly instructive, not to say necessary, for less practised players, and will be in its right place in our Theory, especially since it is not found in any handbook.

Don't make me go Jerome all over you...

Sometimes you just want to play something Piano like the Giuoco, when all of a sudden your opponent does some thing really aggravating, and you're practically forced to get all aggressive on him – and what would be better than a lesson drawn from the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+)?

Kedar - Dijkstra
Twente Young Masters B 2007
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Na5



See what I mean?

5.Bxf7+
Look what you made me do!

5...Kxf7

Readers who are familiar with the Jerome Gambit will understand that there is at least one game where Black declined the sacrifice, as if to ask innocently What did I do?: 5...Kf8 6.Bxg8 Rxg8 7.b4 Bxb4 8.cxb4 Nc4 9.d3 Nd6 10.Nxe5 Nb5 11.Qb3 Nd6 12.Nc3 Qf6 13.d4 a5 14.Ba3 Ra6 15.Nd5 Qh4 16.Qf3+ Qf6 17.Nxf6 Nc4 18.Nxh7+ Ke7 19.Nxc4 d6 20.b5 Rb6 21.Nxb6 cxb6 22.e5 Black resigned, johnnybgood - richye, net-chess.com 2001.

6.Nxe5+

To be fair, this is not the only (or even the best) choice available to White here. There's always 6.b4, forking Black's pieces and winning one, leaving the first player with the better game.

6...Kf8

As expected, 6...Ke8 falls to the consistent 7.Qh5+ while 6...Ke7 can still be met with 7.b4.

7.Qh5

Of course.

7...Bxf2+


Perhaps more readily explained by psychology than raw calculation.

Black has several alternatives that lead to interesting struggles, as can be seen in the following games:

7...Qf6 8.d4 g6 9.Nxd7+ Bxd7 10.Qxc5+ Qe7 11.Qxe7+ Nxe7 12.Bh6+ Ke8 13.Nd2 Bb5 14.b3 Bd3 15.0-0-0 Rg8 16.h4 Rc8 17.Rhe1 b5 18.Re3 Bxe4 19.Rxe4 Kd7 20.b4 Nac6 21.Nb3 Nd5 22.Nc5+ Kd8 23.Bg5+ Nce7 24.Rde1 Re8 25.Kd2 c6 26.Re6 Rc7 27.Na6 Rb7 28.Rxc6 Kd7 29.Rce6 Kc8 30.Nc5 Rc7 31.R1e5 h6 32.Bxh6 Rh8 33.Bg5 Rh7 34.Rxd5 Black resigned, Mueller - Laue, Badenweiler op, 1995;

7...Qe7 8.d4 Bb6 9.0-0 Qe8 10.Qf3+ Nf6 11.b4 Nc6 12.Nxc6 dxc6 13.e5 Bg4 14.Qf4 Be2 15.Re1 Bd3 16.Re3 Qg6 17.exf6 Re8 18.Rxe8+ Kxe8 19.Qe5+ Kd7 20.Qe7+ Kc8 21.f7 Qe4 22.Bg5 Qe2 23.f8Q+ Rxf8 24.Qxf8+ Kd7 25.Qxg7+ Kc8 26.Qf8+ Kd7 27.Qd8+ Ke6 28.Qe7+ Kd5 29.Qd7+ Kc4 30.Qf7+ Kb5 31.a4+ Ka6 32.b5+ Ka5 33.Nd2 Bc2 34.Nc4+ Qxc4 35.Qxc4 c5 36.dxc5 Bxc5 37.Qxc5 Black resigned, Steinert - Berg, Spree op, 1997;

7...Qe7 8.0-0 Nc6 9.Ng6+ hxg6 10.Qxh8 Qxe4 11.d4 Be7 12.Nd2 Qd5 13.Re1 d6 14.Nf1 Bd7 15.Bd2 Re8 16.Ne3 Qb5 17.b3 Kf7 18.c4 Qg5 19.f4 Qf6 20.Bc3 Bd8 21.Rac1 Nh6 22.Qh7 Nf5 23.Nd5 Qh4 24.Qxh4 Nxh4 25.Ne3 Nf5 26.Nxf5 gxf5 27.d5 Ne7 28.Kf2 Rh8 29.h3 c6 30.Bb4 c5 31.Bc3 Rh7 32.Re3 b5 33.Rce1 Ng6 34.Kf3 Rh4 35.g3 Rxh3 36.Kg2 Rh7 37.R1e2 b4 38.Ba1 Kf8 39.Kf3 Rh6 40.a3 a5 41.axb4 axb4 42.Ra2 Nxf4 43.gxf4 Rh3+ 44.Ke2 Rh2+ 45.Kd3 Rxa2 46.Re1 Kf7 47.Rb1 g5 48.fxg5 Bxg5 49.Bh8 Bf6 50.Bxf6 Kxf6 51.Ke3 Ke5 52.Kf3 Kf6 53.Kf4 Rf2+ 54.Ke3 Rh2 55.Kf4 Kg6 56.Kg3 Black resigned, Madureira -Petiz, Averio 1998.

8.Kxf2 Qf6+ 9.Ke1


Simpler seemed 9.Nf3, but White liked the idea of lining up his Rook with Black's Queen and King on the f-file.

9...g6 10.Nxg6+ Qxg6 11.Rf1+ Kg7 12.Qe5+ Nf6 13.Qxa5


Not well thought out. White would have an edge after getting his piece back with the routine 13.Qe7+ Qf7 14.Qxf7+ Kxf7 15.e5.

13...Qxg2



Both players seem edgy: after 13...Qxe4+ 14.Kf2 Nd5 15.Kg1 Black seems to have enough activity to keep the position balanced.

The text allows White the opportunity to make more Rook threats against Queen and King, this time along the g-file, with the savvy 14.d3, threatening 15.Be3 (and Rg1).

Instead, the game slips to near even.

14.Qf5 Qxe4+ 15.Qxe4 Nxe4 16.d3 Nc5 17.Be3 Ne6

Prudent. Fritz8 gives White the edge after the pawn sacrifice 17...Nxd3+ 18.Kd2 Ne5 19.Na3.

18.Nd2 d5 19.Rf3 Bd7 20.Kf2 Rhg8 21.Rg1+ Black resigns

This has to be clock-related, or perhaps the second player was seeing ghosts. Certainly 21...Kh8 gave Black good chances of minimizing whatever disadvantage he had.

graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"

London Calling... Five Months of Blog

So far there have been over 150 daily posts to this Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) blog – and I don't think I've come near to exhausting what can be written about this atavistic opening.

Scary, isn't it?

Of course, this site wouldn't go far without the interest and support of its readers, and especially the Jerome Gambit Gemeinde. (Who are those folks? Check out "The Jerome Gambit Gemeinde (early)" and "The Jerome Gambit Gemeinde (modern).")

If you are new to this blog, or to the Jerome Gambit itself, you could start at the very beginning with "Welcome!" and work your way forward – or you could just jump in anywhere.

There's always "International Master Gary Lane" or "A Few Words With... Tim McGrew."

Or you could look at some games at "Don't encourage them!" and "Pass the aspirin, please!" Whatever you do, don't miss "Mars Attacks!"

On more serious notes there's always "Jerome Gambit Scrapbook" or "Pitfall Numero Uno in the Jerome Gambit."

Just don't overlook the offers at "Looking for a few good Jerome Gambit games..." and "Still Looking for a few good Jerome Gambit games..."
Have fun. Stick around. Come back.

The Jerome Gambit isn't for everybody, but it might put a smile on your face – and that can't be all bad, can it?

Deadly Duel in Denmark

The latest news from our Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member in Denmark, Martin Moller:

I have been experimenting with my various chess computers too [see "A Jerome Gambit 'Challenger'," "A Bagatelle" and "Rematch!" for similar play - Rick], and here is a 5 min. game with the Mephisto Maestro Travel Chess Computer, ca. 1600 ELO.

Martin - Mephisto
Denmark, 2008

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 Bd4
[ The "computer choice" is frequently 7...d6, giving back a piece. See "Bright Ideas From Silicon" - Rick]

8.f5+
[Wow! Playing "psychologically" against the computer?? The result is quite complex; ordinary players might have just taken a piece - Rick]

8...Kd6 9.d3 g6 10.Qe2 gxf5 11.c3 Qh4+ 12.g3 Bxc3+
[When a material-loving computer gives something back, you know it's in trouble - Rick]

13.bxc3

[Martin points out that 13.Nxc3 would have been stronger - Rick ]

13...Qg4 14.d4 Nf3+ 15.Kf1

[15.Kf2, mentioned by Martin, would have led to a roughly even game - Rick ]

15...Qh3+

[ Here Mephisto prefers the h-pawn and a check over the much stronger capture of the e-pawn with 15...Qxe4 - Rick]

16.Kf2 Nxh2 17.Bf4+ Ke7 18.exf5+ Kf8

[The kind of position that would make any gambiteer smile. Black's King is in grave danger, and his lack of effective development easily offsets his extra piece - Rick]

19.Nd2 Nh6 20.Bxh6+ Qxh6 21.Kg2
[This is fine for winning back the piece and maintaining the advantage. Going after the King with 21.Rae1 was also an option - Rick.]

21...Qg5 22. Rxh2 Qxf5?
[Another totally unexplainable computer move; a blunder squared. Martin finishes up quickly. - Rick]

23.Rf1 d5 24.Rxf5+ Bxf5 25.Qe5 Kf7 26.Rh5 Bd7 27.Qxd5+ Kg6 28.Ne4 Rae8 29.Qg5+ Kf7 30.Qf6+ Kg8 31.Rg5 checkmate