Jerome Gambit: When is a Won Game Won? (Part 1)

In my latest Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) game, in the ongoing "Piano Piano" tournament at Chess.com, I managed to side-step some opening issues, arriving at a tricky middle game position that I was familiar with. In fact, it soon led to what Stockfish 14 later would indicate was a "won" game. Still, it seemed like one more challenge, reminding me of the lament, The hardest thing to win is a 'won' game.

I have included a number of links in my comments, to give Readers more information on the lines of play and their alternatives.

 

perrypawnpusher - Kugich

3d/move, "Piano Piano" tournament 

Chess.com, 2021

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+  Ng6 

I commented upon this move in my recent post on my recent game, perrypawnpusher - jjdd57, 3 d/move, "Piano Piano" tournament, Chess.com, 2021

Once again the Chess.com computer fusses that this is an "inaccuracy" (of about 1 1/4 pawns), preferring 6...Kf8. Fair enough. The Database shows 2,874 games with 6...Ng6, with Black scoring 45%, against 941 games with 6...Kf8, where Black scored 50%.

My own record in 137 previous games with White against 6...Ng6 is 79% (with virtually no difference in results between 6...Ng6 and 6...Kf8).

YMMV.

It is important to remember that a move that a computer labels an "inaccuracy" may be simply one choice amongst many for the average club player, approaching a distinction without a difference.

7.Qd5+ Kf8 

Again, here is another computer-generated non-issue. In annotating perrypawnpusher - jjdd57, 3 d/move, "Piano Piano" tournament, Chess.com, 2021 I noted

Interestingly enough, the Chess.com computer considers this move only "good", assessing 7...Ke8 as "best". The difference would be moot if I had played the "best" move on move 9 [after 8.Qxc5 Qe7, then 9.Qxe7+], exchanging Queens - in which case it would not matter on which of the two squares the Black King was, as the computer considered capture by the King (instead of the Knight) as "best".

The Database nods ever so slightly: 7...Kf8 appears in 362 games, with Black scoring 32%; 7...Ke8 appears in 782, with Black scoring 34%.

I think this is another example of how a strong computer chess program can provide intellectually interesting insights of little practical value to club players. Of course, tactical insights are another thing, and I appreciate and prize those efforts.

 8.Qxc5+ d6 9.Qe3 Nf6 

Is "gazillion" a real number? It feels like I have been in this position a gazillion times before.

Actually, the number is 14, the most recent example being perrypawnpusher - Bossferreira, "Piano Piano" tournament, Chess.com, 2020. (Of course, if you place the Black King on e8, you can add 60 more games to that list, the newest of which is perrypawnpusher - acasimon1987, 3 d/move, "Piano Piano" tournament, Chess.com, 2021).

I have seen 9...Kf7 previously; it usually transposes.

Instead, 9...Ne5 was an unusual idea, but brought Black success in perrypawnpusher - mconst, blitz, FICS, 2010 (0-1, 25).

The provocative 9...Be6 was seen in perrypawnpusher - jamtaylo, blitz, Welcome Jerome Gambit tournament, ChessWorld, 2009 (1-0, 27) and perrypawnpusher - jonathankochems, 2 12 blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 38)

10.O-O  Nf6 11.f4 Re8 

This direct pressure on the e-pawn has been a favorite of my opponents the last few years. It has its origin in Vazquez,A - Carrington,W, Mexico, 2nd match, 1876 (1-0, 34).

12.f5 

I had recently tried 12.Qb3+, in perrypawnpusher - acasimon1987, 3 d/move, "Piano Piano" tournament, Chess.com, 2021. As I noted

This is a move that I mentioned in "Jerome Gambit: Enthusiast", and I shared my curiosity about it in "Jerome Gambit: Mixed Feelings (Part 1)". The goal is simply to disrupt the castling-by-hand.

Earlier in the tournament, I had tried 12.f5 in perrypawnpusher - sincondrosis, 3d/move "Piano Piano" tournament, Chess.com, 2020, (1-0, 31).

Also possible is 12.d3, although after White meets 12...d5 with 13.e5, if he eventually wants his pawn on d4 it will take a second move to get it there.

12...Ne5 

A mistake is 12...Rxe4, as White has 13.fxg6+ (perrypawnpusher - grosshim, blitz, FICS, 2016 [1-0, 13]) Kg8 (not 13...hxg6 14.Qxe4, perrypawnpusher - bnxr, blitz, FICS, 2011 [1-0, 29]; nor 13...Kxg6 14.Rxf6+ Qxf6 15.Qxe4, perrypawnpusher - mconst, blitz, FICS, 2011 [0-1, 18 ] ) 14.gxh7+ Kh8 15.Qf2 and White is better.

Instead 12...Nh4 puts the Knight offside, but Black eventually won in perrypawnpusher - ecotom, 10 2 blitz, FICS, 2011 (0-1, 35).

The cautious 12...Nf8 is a good idea, as in perrypawnpusher - hamaru, 2 12 blitz, FICS 2011 (1-0, 36).

13.d4

Here we have a very Jerome-ish position: White has 2 extra pawns for his sacrificed piece, and he is putting them in motion to gain space in the center, as a prelude for an attack on the King.

[to be continued]

Lose Never with a Strong Deferred Jerome Gambit! (Part 1)

 

Lose Never with a Strong Deferred Jerome Gambit! (Part 1)   

  

(by Yury V. Bukayev) 

 

 

This analytical investigation is about strong deferred Jerome gambits which are important for modern opening theory and for serious practice.   

It shouldn’t mix related 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. 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 White gets some compensation, you know. If, for example, 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.  

Is it possible to get a deferred line of JGTA where Black makes no bad moves in the whole game, where the move “Bxf7+” can’t lose (probably), where an interest for important modern opening theory and for serious practice isn’t little? I have invented such gambit: 

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4. We have the Vienna game now, and further it can be transposed with the formation of other openings. Here two ways are very interesting: 

Way 1. 3…a6!? AN [It is made with the idea 4.f4 ef 5.Nf3 b5!? with the unclear position. The move 4…Bc5 isn’t good: 5.Nf3 d6, and after 6.Ng5! Nh6 7.Qh5 0-0 8.f5 or 7…Qd7 White has the initiative.] 4.b3?! [White tries to prepare f2-f4, but it doesn’t require this preparation here, in fact. Although this move is very useful in some possible cases (for example: 4…Nf6 5.Bb2 Ne4?! 6.Ne4 d5 7.Bd3 de 8.Be4 Nd4 9.Qh5 Bd6 10.Nf3 Nf3 11.Bf3, and White has the advantage; 4…Na5? 5.Bf7 Kf7 6.Qh5 Ke6 7.Qf5 Kd6 8.d4 (or even 8.Ba3) 8…ed? 9.Ba3!, and White wins), I don’t recommend you to play it, if your opponent is a top grandmaster.] 4…Be7!? [Black keeps a good position. In the case of 5.f4 Black can respond 5…ef 6.Nf3 Bh4!?.] 5.Nf3!? h6!? [Black keeps a good position, because 6.d4 isn’t good now: White’s Knight on c3 doesn’t have a protection here. Black considers the move 5…h6 as one of calm alternatives to 5…Nf6 6.Ng5 0-0 7.f4 ef 8.0-0, where the play is more complicated.] 6.Bb2 Bc5!? [Black prevents 7.d4.] 7.0-0 b5!? [After 8.Bd5 Bd6! 9.d4 ed! Black has chances to defend.] 8.Bxf7+!? [White’s goal is a win or a draw in all cases. I suggest the name ‘the Natural Star Jerome Gambit Deferred’ for this gambit, because this goal, probably, can be achieved, as we’ll see below. We may unite it with JG.] 8…Kxf7 9.Nxe5+! Nxe5 10.Qh5+! Kf8! [10…g6? 11.Qe5 with the win; 10…Ng6? 11.Qd5, and 12.Qa8 with the advantage; 10…Ke6 11.Nd5 Qg5 (11…Nf6? 12.Qe5 Kf7 13.Nf6 with the win; 11…Nc6? 12.Nf4! Kd6 13.Qd5 with the win; 12.Qg4 Kd6 13.Qg7 Qg5 14.Qh8 with the advantage; 12.Qf5 Kd6 13.Qg6 Nf6 14.Nf6 gf 15.Bf6 Qg8 16.Bg7 Qe6 17.Qg3 with the advantage) 12.Nc7 (or 12.Qg5 hg 13.Nc7 – 12.Nc7) 12…Kd6 13.Qg5 hg 14.Be5 Ke5 15.Na8 Kd6 16.a4! Bb7 17.ab! ab 18.b4 with the advantage; 17…Ba8 18.Ra6 with the advantage] 11.Qxe5 d6! 12.Qf4+! Qf6 [12…Nf6? 13.Nd5 Kf7 14.d4 Ba7 15.Nb4 (with the idea 16.e5), and White has the advantage.] 13.Qg3! Ne7 [The move 13…b4 is weaker: 14.Nd1!? Bd4 15.c3 bc 16.dc Bb6, and after 17.Ne3 or 17.Kh1 White has enough compensation for the material. After 13…Bb7 14.Qd3! White plans 15.Nd1 and has enough compensation too: 14…Bd4?? 15.Nd5! with the advantage; 14…Qd4 15.Qf3 Qf6 16.Qd3 Qd4 = ; 15…Nf6 16.d3! Ba3 17.Ba3 Qc3 18.Rab1! (with the idea 19.Bb2!) with enough compensation.] 14.e5! Qf7 [14…de?! 15.Ne4, and White stands slightly better] 15.Ne4! Nf5 [The position is complicated and unclear. If 15…Bb6, then 16.ed Nf5! 17.Qd3 – 15…Nf5.] 16.Qd3 Bb6 17.exd6!. The material is equalized (three pawns against a Bishop), the position is complicated and unclear. It maybe, White gets a draw in all cases after a long fight. 

Way 2. 3…h6!? [Black prepares to meet 4.f4 AN: 4…ef 5.Nf3!? g5 6.h4!? Bg7 with a good position. We can see the move 3…h6 in the Bukayev Jerome counter gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 4.Nf3 Nd4?! 5.Bf7!) which is one of deferred Blackburne shilling Jerome gambits. We may unite it with BSJG. This gambit was considered on Rick Kennedy’s blog, later it was mentioned in other places including the chess magazine ‘Unorthodox Openings Newsletter’, 2014, N.33, P.3.] 4.b3?! AN [This move is useful in some possible cases (for example: 4…Na5? 5.Bf7 Kf7 6.Qh5 Ke6 7.Qf5 Kd6 8.d4 (or even 8.Ba3) 8…ed 9.Ba3 or 9.Bf4, and White wins). Moreover, we remember the similar plan in the Becker defence of the King’s gambit accepted: 2.f4 ef 3.Nf3 h6 4.b3!?. So White tries to prepare f2-f4.] 4…Be7!? [Black keeps a good position. In the case of 5.f4!? Black can respond 5…ef 6.Nf3 (6.Bb2 Bh4! 7.Kf1 Bf6!) 6…Bh4!.] 5.Nf3!? a6!? 6.Bb2 Bc5 7.0-0 b5 8.Bxf7+!? etc. 

 

Note 1: Here we can see the track Bf8-e7-c5 instead of Bf8-c5, but if we start from the standard line of the Giuoco Piano (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5), then Black must play …b7-b6 and later …b6-b5 to get the same position: 4.Nc3 h6 (with the idea 5.d3 Nf6!) 5.0-0 a6!? AN (Black plans 6…d6) 6.b3?! b6?! (these moves are enough strange) 7.Bb2 b5 8.Bxf7+!? etc. A lot of experts can think now: “There is a complex of the Woman player’s luck opening (the Bednikova opening) and of the Italian opening”, although such method to name it is arguable.  

 

Note 2: Author’s theoretical novelties-moves are marked by the symbol “AN”. 

 

 

Contact the author:  istinayubukayev@yandex.ru  or  Facebook  

 

 

© 2021 Yury V. Bukayev (Copyright © Bukayev Yury Vyacheslavovich 2021). All rights reserved.  

[A legal using of this investigation with a reference to it is permitted  

and doesn’t require author’s consent.]