A Bagatelle

I unearthed my Maurice Ashley Teaches Chess CD the other day with thoughts that I might be able to use it with my "Chessboard Math" groups at a nearby school. I loaded it on my machine at work to be sure that the 1995 program would run under Windows XP. It did, no problem.

Wandering through MATC, I rediscovered the fact that it has a chessplaying engine, designed to give novices a decent game without embarassing them. When I had a free 5 minutes, I dashed off a game.

Of course, it had to be a Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+).

Here's the light-hearted romp.

Kennedy - MATC
blitz 2008

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 b5



Where did that come from?? There's a whole lot of trouble for White with 8...Qh4+, instead.
9.Qxe5+ Kc6 10.Qd5+ Kb6 11.d4



Moving too fast... Moving too fast... Making my moves too fast...

I was taking seconds on each move, so when I got to my 11th move I thought "Can't take the Rook on a8, he'll play 11...Bb7 and my Queen is trapped!"

I should never move so fast that I can't think straight...

11...Bb4+ 12.c3 Bb7


All of a sudden Black's goofy 8th move "works."

13.Qe5 Be7



A lucky break for me: 13...Bd6 is stronger (as MATC decides next move).

14.Be3

Here's a goofy line Fritz8 came up with later, showing some of what was hidden in the position: 14.a4 d5 15.Qxg7 Qd7 16.a5+ Ka6 17.Qxh8 Bf7 18.Nd2 Bxh8 19.Nb3 Qc6 20.Nc5+ Qxc5 21.dxc5 dxe4 with an unclear position.

14...Bd6 15.d5+ Ka6 16.Qd4 Nf6



Now I'm winning, but a safer route for Black (when White still has an edge) was pointed out by Rybka 3: 16...c5 17.dxc6 dxc6 18.a4 c5 19.Qd3 Kb6 20.Na3 a6 21.axb5 Be7 22.Qc4 axb5 23.Bxc5+ Bxc5 24.Qxb5+ Kc7 25.Qxc5+ Kb8 26.0–0 Qe7 27.Qd4 Nf6 28.e5 Ne4 29.Nc4 Rd8 30.Rxa8+ Bxa8 31.Qb6+ Bb7. Of course, Rybka had 5 minutes per half move to think on it...

17.a4 Qe7 18.axb5+ Kxb5 19.c4+ Kb4 20.c5+ Kb5 21.Nc3 checkmate

Ok, ok, I missed a couple of mates-in-one at the end there...

Blunder, Sir??

I've been working through a list of my Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) games, looking at the ones that I haven't posted yet – and wondering why I haven't shared them. Sometimes the reason is simple: the game is a decent crawl uphill on my part (remember, the opening is refuted) making steady, small gains – until my opponent blunders big time.

That "lesson" is probably worth sharing: if you're going to play the Jerome Gambit, it really helps to use it against someone who likes to blunder.

In the following game, I kind of just work hard enough to win.
perrypawnpusher - klixar
FICS rated blitz game 2007

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Kf8

A defensive idea as old as Alonzo Wheeler Jerome himself, who mentioned it in a July 1874 article in the Dubuque Chess Journal.

7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qg3
More usual is the Queen check at f4.

8...Nf6 9.Nc3 Ng4

In a blitz game it has to look good to threaten forking the enemy King and Queen, but this sally is easily parried.
10.0-0 g6 11.d3 Kg7 12.h3 Ne5 13.Kh1 Rf8 14.f4 Kh8

Black has castled by hand and retains the advantage.

15.Bd2 Nc6 16.Nd5 Be6 17.Ne3

Rybka suggests that White mix it up with 17.f5 gxf5 (17...Bxd5 18.fxg6) 18.Bg5 Qd7 19.Bf6+ Rxf6 20.Nxf6 Qg7 21.Qxg7+ Kxg7 22.exf5 Bxa2 23.Nxh7 Bd5 when Black's edge is small.

17...Rg8 18.c3 d5 19.d4

White uses his Jerome Gambit imbalance: the pawns.

19...Be7 20.e5 Bh4 21.Qf3 Qf8 22.g3 Be7 23.g4 Qf7 24.f5 gxf5 25.gxf5 Bc8

Now 26.Nxd5 or 26.e6 is the way to continue the pressure.

26.f6 Bf8 27.Nf5 Bxf5 28.Qxf5

The game is relatively even, and remains that way until...

28...Re8 29.Rae1 Nd8 30.Kh2 Ne6 31.Rg1 Rxg1 32.Rxg1a5 33.Qg4

Black lost on time

Bright Ideas From Silicon

While drawing up my first list of online Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) resources (see "Jerome Gambit Scrapbook") I decided to review some games from the computer vs computer Jerome Gambit tournament that Randy Tipton of Baltimore, Maryland, ran a while back, as mentioned on his blog HANGING PAWN :: Tip's Chess Blog, subtitled A Patzer's experiments with Engines and Unorthodox Chess Openings (see "We are not alone...").

HIARCS 11.1, Deep Shredder 10 and Rybka 2.3.1 participated in the event in which White won 239 (31%), drew 76 (10%), and lost 450 (59%).

Tipton made available the 239 games won by White – won by either Hiarcs 11.1 or Deep Shredder 10, as it turns out. Hiarcs 11.1 lost 7 games; Deep Shredder 10 lost 19 games; and Rybka 2.3.1 lost 223. ("Something fishy is going on here. Very unlike Rybka, maybe its book learning was off. ")

What can we learn from these encounters between master or grandmaster level engines? A little – but, surprisingly not a whole lot.

Here is a summary of the games, and the choices the silicon giants made.

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

As noted, coming out of this line there were 239 White wins, played by Hiarcs 11.1 or Deep Shredder 10.

5.Nxe5+

In the games won by White, the computers showed a clear preference for the "classical" second piece sacrifice, playing it in 231 games, 97% of the time.

5.0-0 Nf6 6.c3 was seen in 4 games; 5.c3 Nf6 6.d4 exd4 7.cxd4 Bb4+ 8.Bd2 Qe7 9.e5 Ne4 was seen in 2 games; 5.d4 exd4 6.Ng5+ Ke8 7.0-0 d6 8.c3 was seen in 1 game; and 5.d3 Nf6 6.Nc3 appeared in 1 game.

5...Nxe5 6.d4

Surprisingly, this was White's choice over 6.Qh5+ by a 3 to 1 margin (in the games that the first player won).

6.Qh5+ was seen in only 52 games, which amounts to only 23% of the games with 5.Nxe5+; or 22% of the games in the whole tournament.

For the record, all of the games with 6.Qh5+ continued 6...Ke6 7.f4 d6, since they all were played by Rybka 2.3.1. This line, returning a piece to reach a more settled game, is as old as D'Aumiller - A.P., Livorno 1878 (see "My Jerome Gambit Database").

6...Qh4 7.0-0 Nf6

This move, a "TN" as far as I can tell, was the overwhelming choice in the tournament, appearing in 166 games (all played by Rybka 2.3.1.)

7...Ng4 was seen in 11 games (see "Jerome Gambit Tournament: Chapter X"); 7...Qxe4 8.dxc5 Nf6 was seen in 1 game, transposing to the main line below; and 7...d6 was seen in 1 game

8.dxc5 (144 games)

8.dxe5 was seen in 22 games

8...Qxe4 9.Nc3

Alternately, 9.Re1 was seen in 3 games

9...Qb4

9...Qc6 showed up in1 game

10.Nd5 (118 games, all Deep Shredder 10 - Rybka 2.3.1 32-bit)

10.Be3 was seen in 23 games.

10...Qxc5 11.Nxf6 Kxf6 12.Be3 Qc4 13.Bd4 c5 14.Bxe5+ Kg6

So, here we have a main line that shows up in almost half of the games in the whole tournament. After some reflection, what can we conclude?

1) 7...Nf6 is a new way to return a piece in the 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Qh4 line, although it is not as strong as the traditional 7...Ng4;

2) Black still had an advantage in the main line until the error 11...Kxf6, while the alternative 11...gxf6 would have maintained that advantage (as Deep Rybka 3.0 Aquarium has confirmed);

3) The overwhelmingly chosen line of play of the tournament – the main line, above – is largely the artifact of one program's (Rybka 2.3.1) predelection for an inferior line of defense (recall Steinitz's defense vs the Evans Gambit in his games against Chigorin);

4) Whatever enlightening bits of wisdom ("new and good" as it were) that the computers have uncovered about the Jerome Gambit must be hidden in the sidelines – or in the games that White managed to lose with later moves (and which are still unavailable from HANGING PAWN).

Driving Distance

"Kennedy Kid" Matt is now in Phoenix, Arizona, doing a physical therapy clincal internship for the Milwaukee Brewers major league baseball team. That puts him a 2-hour drive from Jerome, Arizona. If anything Jerome Gambit-ish occurs in Jerome, Matt will be able to report from on site.

Blackburne Shilling Gambit: The Trapper Trapped? (Part 2)

Back to Pete's game (see "Blackburne Shilling Gambit: The Trapper Trapped? (Part 1)") without any more unnecessary editorial interruptions!

Draper - Banks
Wolverhampton
Summer League
Halesowen v Lucas B
June 2004

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4

Let's go for the Blackburne Shilling Trap. He's only a kid, he may not know it.

3...Nd4 4.Nxd4

Damn! Why do they hardly ever take the pawn?

4...exd4 5.0-0

Hmm, last time I played this, Bc5 was met by Qh5, but I think I've seen an improvement.

5...Bc5 6.Bxf7+ Kxf7 7.Qh5+ Kf8 8.Qxc5+ d6 9.Qxd4

So much for the improvement!

Let's see... 2 pawns down, can't castle, no pieces developed, behind on the clock. Better start playing!

9...Bd7 10.d3 Qf6 11.Qe3

Interesting. He doesn't want to swap Queens. I may be able to use that.

11...Ne7 12.Nc3 c6

Don't want that N hopping in.

13.f4

I don't like pins, even potential ones.

13...Kg8 14.e5 Qg6 15.exd6 Nf5 16.Qe4 Re8 17.Qf3

This is beginning to look OK. 3 pawns down, but I've got 2 extra pieces developed. One Rook trapped, he's ahead on the clock.

17...Nd4 18.Qg3 Qxd6

That's one of the little blighters!

19.Qf2 Bg4 20.Ne4 Qd5 21.Re1

Got to try to get my other Rook out, whatever the risk.

21...Kf7

Must get my other rook out, whatever the risk.

It gets a bit complicated from hereon in, but don't expect me to explain it.

22.c4

Time for a little combination I think

22...Ne2+ 23.Rxe2 Qxd3 24.Ng5+ Kg6 25.Rd2 Qxc4

Ok, got my pawns back, just a N down now. I reckon that's better, because if everything's swapped off, 3 pawns can win, but a N can't.

26.f5+ Bxf5 27.Rd6+ Kh5 28.Qf3+

This is looking a teeny bit dangerous.

28...Bg4 29.Qf7+ Qxf7

No choice.

30.Nxf7 Rhf8 31.h3 Be2 32.Rd7 Bc4 33.Ng5 Re1+

Seize the moment!

34.Kh2 Bd5 35.Rxg7

I laugh in the face of his threats!

35...Rf2 36.Kg3 Rxg2+ 37.Kf4

I've only got 7 minutes left, against his 45.

It looks as though we're winning the match. Better bail out.

37...Rf2+ 38.Kg3 Rg2+ Draw

Blackburne Shilling Gambit: The Trapper Trapped?? (Part 1)

Pete Banks ("blackburne") of the Jerome Gambit Gemeinde, sends us the following game - not arising from 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+, but quickly showing some Jerome-ish characteristics. Who winds up trapping who??

Draper - Banks
Wolverhampton Summer League
Halesowen v Lucas B
June 2004 (notes by Banks)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4
Let's go for the Blackburne Shilling Trap. He's only a kid, he may not know it.

3...Nd4

Let's leave Pete's game for a moment.

Those readers unfamiliar with the Blackburne Schilling Gambit can get a quick update from the entry at Wikipedia. See also "Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit" on this blog.

I did some research on the BSG a few years ago, especially after learning that International Master Michael Basman (of the St. George Defense, Macho Grob, and Creeply Crawly Opening, among many unorthodox lines) might have a connection. Here is our exchange of emails.

Dear Mr. Basman,

I am trying to track down how the line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4!? came to be known as Blackburne's Shilling Gambit.
Supposedly the story is that he used the line to score quick wins against amateurs and pocket stakes of a shilling a game. However, I've not been able to turn up a BSG game with Blackburne on either side of the Gambit. Contemporary sources, at least as far as I've been able to see, might cover the line; but I've found nobody attributing it to "The Black Death."
The earliest game I've found with the BSG is from 1911; the earliest reference I've found linking Blackburne and the line has been The Complete Chess Addict by James and Fox (1987).
Mr. James indicated to me that in the 1980s or 1990s you had written a small booklet on the "Oh My God" opening. I was wondering if you had found any Blackburne game or connection with the opening. (I also wonder if you ever played it yourself?) Thank you for whatever help you can provide.
Sincerely,
Rick Kennedy

Quickly came the reply.

Dear Rick,

No I never played the opening (Oh my god!) but I did fall for it once.

I introduced it to some of my pupils. As I was explaining it to them I realised that their opponents would not get the point without a little prompting. So I explained that when they played Nd4 they should clap their hands to their foreheads and say "Oh my gosh, I've lost a pawn!" pointing to the e5 square if necessary. Then, after Nxe5 Qg5, they should have an apoplectic fit and say "Oh no, now I've lost a rook".

This should be enough to guide their opponents on the right path. After Nxf7 Qxg2 there would be no more need for acting and they could just deliver the checkmate.

I knew my plan had worked because one of my pupil's opponents rushed out of the room in tears shortly after the commencement of the round.

The opening soon became all the rage in Surrey without the children understanding much about it.
One of my pupils, who knew the line well, fell into it herself and was promptly checkmated. When I pointed this out to her, that she had fallen into the "Oh my god trap", she explained to me that this was not the case. I asked her why not - she said "because he did not say 'Oh my god!' "

Best of luck with your researches,

Mike Basman

The Proper Perspective

Recently Ty Kroll made a post at the Yahoo "Unorthodox Chess Openings" Group that caught my eye and which I think is well worth sharing.

He was writing in reference to "the Fishing Pole" (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Ng4!?), a Ruy Lopez defense variant that has been enthusiastically embraced by National Master Brian Wall.

The Fishing Pole has its critics, and, like the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) also has its refutations (although the 'Pole is not nearly as bad as the Jerome). Under the right circumstances, both can also be a lot of fun to play.

It was equally interesting to see a response by N. Earl Roberts.

First Ty,

I think there's a lot of fun, if nothing else, to be had in unorthodox lines which are actually bad.

I've been playing the line Brian dubbed "Tyler Hughes" in the 2 knights since he brought my attention back to it from this forum, in Blitz, and it's a lot of fun, but only because the opponents almost never respond with the winning variation for white, because they've never analyzed the line before and have probably never even seen it. I can even imagine such tricks working under slower time controls. It's the surprise factor.
I mostly play lines like that for the fun value, though. If I ever write anything about that variation (and I doubt it hasn't "all been written" already) it would start with the refutation because that's the best line, the correct line; that's real theory. All the fun I have with it in nearly every game would go in theoretical sidelines.
Writing any other way is a fantasy. I'd like to see all such lines addressed in that context. ... the fishing pole included if it is unsound.
I agree with Ty. Readers of this blog should be well aware of the many refutations of the Jerome Gambit. As more turn up, you'll see them here, too.

By the way, those with an interest in music, voice, and the occasional chess post might want to visit his blog at http://ne0romantic.livejournal.com/

Here I can follow up with Earl's post

As for the value of the "Fishing pole" itself, I actually agree with you that perhaps its value lies in its surprise, but I must point out that there is a vast difference between "playable" and "sound".
I am sure Mr. Wall does well believe that the "Fishing Pole" is playable because in those posts that I have seen, he clearly demonstrates that he is obviously the vastly stronger player....at blitz.
Here in lies the clear difference between the two, an opening is made "playable" by who it is used against relating to what medium it is used. Example, the original exclamation ridden game concerned. Mr. Wall clearly shows that over a ratings difference of around 300 points minimum (that's at a guess of the difference between 1700 and the master strength he clams to be) in a game of blitz, that the "Fishing pole" is quite playable.
The argument for it being sound on the other hand might well reduce with the rating difference coming closer together and game time being extending to a sensible length for proper consideration of moves.
Finally, refutations. Refutations are only relevant when people know them. I think Mr. Wall knows this and probably why he continues to play the "Fishing Pole" with such success in the bubblegum medium of internet chess blitz and good on him to, I am happy for him.
One of the curse of the internet Ty is people will always have an opinion and when it comes to refutations, people will always be there to line up with even more opinions... and in some way, that's not all together a bad thing.

Thank you, gentlemen.