Jerome Gambit: Win, How? (Part 2)

[continued from previous post]

perrypawnpusher - schnappa
Italian Game Classic, Chess.com, 2019

11.d3

Alonzo Wheeler Jerome played this move, with a transparent threat to pin and win Black's Queen, in games against Shinkman in 1874 (0-1, 21), Brownson in 1875 (1-0, 42), Amateur in 1876 (1-0, 20) and Pane in 1878 (1-0, 41). The Database has 9 games where Black overlooked the threat and lost his Queen - 7 of those wins were mine.

11...Ke7 

The Chess.com analysis rated 11...Ke7 to be an  "inaccuracy" (The Database: 11 games, White scores 64%), seeing 11...Kc6 as best (The Database: 11 games, White scores 27%).

The alternative, 11...Kc6, attributed to B.K. Neufville, “gives Black an opportunity for a counter attack and makes an exciting contest” according to Jerome, in the American Chess Journal, of April 1878.

12.Nc3

An "inaccuracy", according to the analysis, which considered 12.c3 as "best".

I should give the alternative title of "Jerome Gambit Secrets #10" to the current post, as The Database shows only 1 game with 12.c3, and it continued 12...d6 13.Bg5? Qxg5 White resigned, which was a result quite likely to keep the variation "secret".

12...d6 

This move was "inaccurate"; 12...Bd4 was "best".

(If you are getting tired of all of this "inaccurate" stuff, so am I. Considering the whole game, the computer assessed me as being 91.9% "accurate", while my opponent was  89.7% "accurate". I don't know what that means.)

The latter move, 12...Bd4, was played against me in perrypawnpusher - karleinkarl, blitz, FICS, 2012 (0-1, 16), a sad game where, in a bit of an echo, I allowed Black to pin my Queen to my King.

13.Bf4 

So far, we are following Jerome - Brownson, Iowa, 1875, which continued 13.Bf4 Qe6 14.O-O-O Qg4 15.Qf1 g5 16.Bg3 Be3+ 17.Kb1 Bf4 18.Bf2 c5 19.h3 Qh5 20.h4 Be6 21.hxg5 Qxg5 22.Bh4 Qg4 23.Nd5+ Bxd5 24.exd5 Rae8 25.d4 Bg5 26.Bxg5 Qxg5 27.dxc5 dxc5 28.Qb5 b6 29.d6+ Kf7 30.Rhf1 Kg7 31.Qc6 Rhf8 32.a3 Rd8 33.g4 Nxg4 34.Qc7+ Kg8 35.Rxf8+ Rxf8 36.Qxa7 Qd8 37.Qa4 Ne5 38.Qe4 Ng6 39.Qe6+ Rf7 40.d7 Nf8 41.Qe8 Qxd7 42.Rxd7 Rxd7 43.Qb8 Black resigned

13...Qh5

The Chess.com analysis announced "inaccuracy", preferring 13...Qd4 (which does not show up in The Database at all) as "best".

In perrypawnpusher - vz721 -Italian Game thematic, Chess.com, 2013, I now castled Queenside, allowing the exchange of Queens. Looking over that game while I was putting together this post, I was shocked to see that both I and my opponent seem to have overlooked the response 14...Bg4!?


In any event, against schnappa I now played the kind of move that you would more likely see in a 1 0 bullet game, just to mess with my opponent ("threatening" to remove his Knight at f6, which protects his Queen) and give me time to figure out if I wanted to swap Queens, after all.

14.Nd5+ 

And here, much to my surprise, Black resigned.

Of course, 14...Nxd5? would be a mistake, but any reasonable King retreat - 14...Kd8, 14...Kf7 or 14...Kf8 - would be fine. He should avoid 14...Ke6, which would allow the fork 15.Nxc7+, and both 14...Kd7? and 14...Ke8? (resurrecting the primary threat) would fall to 15.Nxf6+.

The Chess.com analysis rated the final position as -2.29, giving Black over a 2 pawn advantage, which makes sense to me.

It recommended the following continuation: 14...Kf7 15.Qxh5+ Nxh5 16.Rf1 Nxf4 17.Rxf4+
 Kg6 18.Nxc7 Rb8 19.Kd2 Bd4 20.Raf1 Be5 21.R4f2 b5 22.Nd5 Be6 23.Ne7+ Kg5 24.Nc6 Rbc8 25.h4+ Kh6 26.Nxe5 dxe5 27.a3 Kg6 28.g3


My best guess is that demands of the outside world temporarily distracted my opponent.

Jerome Gambit: Win, How? (Part 1)

I just won my latest Jerome Gambit game, in the "Italian Game Classic" tournament at Chess.com. I am still trying to figure out how I did it.

Since my opponent and I entered what I call the "Optical Illusion" variation of the Jerome Gambit - see "Optical Illusion (1)", "Optical Illusion (2)" and "Disdainful Defender Defense" - I am inclined to see my last move in the game as giving a false impression of strength, another illusion.

This was a fortunate outcome for me, to a game that started off with ominous tones. Ever since I started posting on this blog, over a decade ago, I have worried (mostly, needlessly) that an opponent might simply come here and look up a line of play or refutation and throw it at me.

The fact is, you could get a good sense of my game by simply looking at my post on perrypawnpusher - PDX84, Italian Game Classic, Chess.com, 2019 (1-0, 15), and its notes, through move 12, as recounted less than 2 weeks ago in "Jerome Gambit: History in Play".

Really. Go read the post. It contains some good analysis and a good amount of Jerome Gambit history.

(For that matter, you could wander on back 6 years to "Who's the 'Expert'?", which contained perrypawnpusher - vz721, Italian Game thematic, Chess.com, 2013 (0-1, 29), which anticipated the current game through move 13. We will get back to that.)

Still, I don't want to give a bare game score, today. Since I had so much fun sharing the analysis of an earlier game that the Chess.com computer provided (see "Jerome Gambit: A Way Out of the Woods [Part 1 and 2]) I decided to consult that oracle again, and share its conclusions. I dipped into The Database a bit, too.

perrypawnpusher - schnappa
Italian Game Classic, Chess.com, 2019

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ 

 The Chess.com computer post-game analysis rated this move as "excellent", but still considered 6.d4 to be "best".

As I wrote in "Jerome Gambit: A Way Out of the Woods (Part 1)",

For the record, The Database has 4,442 games with 6.Qh5+ (White scores 56%) and 2,024 games with 6.d4 (White scores 55%). So, 6.Qh5+ is twice as popular as 6.d4, but both moves score similarly.

6...Ke6

"Best" according to the Chess.com analyst.

7.Qf5+

This move was "good", while 7.f4  was "best".

The Database shows my clear preference for 7.Qf5+: I have 80 games with the move, scoring 86%. As for 7.f4, I have 2 games - although I did win both of them (see "Jerome Gambit: Unfinished Symphony Part 1 and 2" and "Return of the Negative Halo Effect in the Jerome Gambit").

7...Kd6 8.f4 

"best" according to the computer. It was first suggested in Jerome's analysis in the "New Chess Opening" article in the April 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal.

8...Qf6 

This was an "inaccuracy" according to the Chess.com post game analysis. Instead, 8...Kc6 was seen as "best".

This evaluation is mildly supported by The Database, that has 75 games with the natural move 8...Qf6, with White scoring 53%; while it has only 3 games with 8...Kc6, although Black won them all.

(It is interesting that this main line shows up in "Jerome Gambit Secrets #5", which takes a look at the relatively unknown 8...Ne7:  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Ne7 - although the "secret" comes a couple of moves later).

9.fxe5+

The computer analysis saw this move as "excellent", although it considered exchanging Queens with 9.Qxe5+,  as "best".

9...Qxe5 10.Qf3 

Of course, the Chess.com engine considered this move as an "inaccuracy", because swapping Queens with 10.Qxe5 would have been "best"

10...Nf6 

I my notes to perrypawnpusher - PDX84, I said that this move made a lot of sense. The Chess.com analysis referred to it as "best"

[to be continued]

BSJG Bullet: Too Fast To Figure Out

Sometimes you can meet an expected offbeat opening (e.g. the Jerome Gambit) with another offbeat opening (e.g. the Blackburne Shilling Gambit) and morph into an offbeat line (e.g. the Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit) - all of which can be rationally calculated, if the clock allows you.

Alas, for Black, in the following game, that does not happen.

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

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4

The Blackburne Shilling Gambit.

4.Bxf7+

The Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit. According to The Database, angelcamina is 9-0 with this line in bullet chess.

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke8 6.Qh5+ 

6...g6 

Otherwise, White can checkmate, e.g. 6...Ke7 7.Qf7+ Kd6 8.Nc4+ Kc6 9.Qd5 checkmate, angelcamina - umutkaraca09, lichess.org, 2019. 

7.Nxg6 hxg6 

The alternative, 7...Nxc2+, should only lead to an even game, although angelcamina wrestled a win, e.g. 8.Kd1 Nxa1? 9.Nxh8+ Ke7 10.Qf7+ [10.Qe5#] Kd6 11.d4 [11.Qd5+ Ke7 12.Qe5#] Kc6 12.Qd5+ Kb6 13.Nc3 c6 14.Qb3+? Kc7? 15.Bf4+ d6 16.Qf7+ Ne7 17.e5 d5 18.e6+ Kb6 19.Na4+ Ka5 20.b3 b5 21.Bd2+ Ka6 22.Nc5+ Kb6 23.Qf4 Ng6 24.Qe3 Nxh8 25.Qc3 Bxc5 26.Qa5+ Kb7 27.Qxd8 Bb6 28.Qe7+ Ka6 29.Qxh7 Bb7 30.e7 Black resigned, angelcamina - eloali, 1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2019. 

Likewise, 7...Nf6 led to trouble, 8.Qe5+ Ne6 9.Nxh8 Bg7 10.Qf5 Bxh8 11.e5 Nd5 12.Qxh7 Bxe5 13.Qg8+ Nf8 14.f4 Nxf4 15.O-O Ne2+ 16.Kh1 Qe7 17.d4 Bxd4 18.Bg5 Ng3+ 19.hxg3 White won on time, angelcamina - Skhokho1507, 1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2019. 

And 7...Qf6 fared no better, e.g. 8.Nxh8+ Ke7 9.e5 Nxc2+ 10.Kd1 Qxf2 11.Qf7+ Kd8 12.Qxf2 Black resigned, angelcamina - felix_paton, 1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2019. 

8.Qxh8 Nf6 

Not 8...Ke7 9.Qxd4 Ke8 10.O-O Be7 11.f4 Nf6 12.e5 Ng4 13.f5 b6 14.Qxg4 gxf5 15.Qg6+ Kf8 16.Rxf5+ Bf6 17.Rxf6+ Ke7 18.Rf7+ Ke8 19.Qg8 checkmate, angelcamina - aldiardiansyah, 1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2019.

Now was the time for 8...Nxc2+, with advantage to Black. In the BSJG it can be hard to tell if the Rook on a1 is poisoned or not.

9.Kd1 d5 10.e5 

This is a slip, and in bullet games with a time control of one minute, no increment, they can be expected. Black now also misses the fact that 10...Ne4 would be crushing.

10...Nd7 11.c3 Nc6 

12.e6 Nf6 13.Re1 Qe7 14.d3 b6 

It would have been okay to grab the pawn with 14...Bxe6, but that would have taken some thinking time, and bullet games are notoriously short of that. Now White closes in.

15.Bg5 Bb7 16.Bxf6 Qd6 17.e7 

Those pesky "Jerome pawns"!

17...Nxe7 18.Bxe7 Qxe7 19.Rxe7+ Kxe7 

20.Qe5+ Kd7 21.Kc2 Bd6 22.Qg7+ Kc6 23.Nd2 d4 24.cxd4 Rf8 25.f3 Rf5 26.Ne4 Rd5 27.Nxd6 Rxd6 28.Rc1 Ba6 29.Kd2+ Kb7 30.Qxc7+ White won on time

BSJG: Sacrifice and More Sacrifice

In the "good old days" of chess, it was considered valiant to offer sacrifices, and craven to refuse them. These attitudes produced some very entertaining games - and a plethora of virtual tut tuts from the computers that came after, and supplied skeptical analysis.

The world of "bullet chess" - in this case, a time limit of one minute with no increment - has brought back wild play, and, a person can win the game, even if he loses the annotations. The following game is an enjoyable example.

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

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 

The Blackburne Shilling Gambit - a practical choice in bullet chess. It is one of those openings that an opponent can be expected to disarm and defeat, if he has enough time; of course there often is not enough time in bullet chess.

4.Bxf7+ 

However, angelcamina has come prepared! This is the infamous Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit. 

(You are right, Reader: there are no game examples of Joseph Henry Blackburne ever playing 3...Nd4. And, you are right again: there are no game examples of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome playing 4.Bxf7+ as a response. However, the opening calls out for the name, and I have supplied it.)  

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke6 6.Qh5 

White's "strongest" move is 6.c3, leading to an even game, but angelcamina is planning to sacrifice his way to victory.

 6...Nf6 7.Qf7+ Kxe5 8.f4+ Kxe4 9.Nc3+ Kxf4 

What if Black plays 9...Kf5 instead? It turns out that White has already answered that question (more sacrifice), in angelcamina - rabirabi, 1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2019 (1-0, 13).

10.d3+ 

Warning: if you follow this line of play in the future, angelcamina will improve with 10.0-0+.

10...Ke5 11.O-O Nxc2 

One last grab of material.

12.Bf4+ Kd4 13.Qc4 checkmate