Jerome Gambit and The Perfesser (Part IV)

Time for the last Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) match-up between The Perfesser and the silicon mini-mite! The computer is set to analyze a bit deeper.

How deep does the average club player analyze?

The Perfesser - Talking LDC Chess (4 ply)

casual game 2003

Finally, I set Excalibur to 4 ply and tried the promising Qe2 line from the notes above (see "Jerome Gambit and The Perfesser (Part III)"):

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 d6 8.fxe5 g6 9.Qe2

9...Kxe5? 10.Rf1!

Here the computer "thought" for over a minute. I think Black may be lost at this point.

10...Qh4+
Alternatives: 10...Ke6 11.b4! Bb6 ( 11...Bd4 12.Qc4++-) 12.Qg4+ Ke7 13.Qg5+ Ke8 14.Qxd8+ Kxd8 15.Bb2+-; 10...Bb6 11.b3! looks very dangerous for Black because of the hanging Rook at h8, e.g. 11...Bd4 12.c3 Bb6 13.d4+ Ke6 14.Qg4+ Ke7 15.Bg5+ Ke8 16.Rf8+ Kxf8 17.Qf4+ Nf6 18.Bxf6 Qd7 19.Bxh8+ and White has emerged a pawn up.
11.g3 Qg4 12.d4+ Bxd4 13.Bf4+ Kf6 14.Bxd6+
14...Kg5
14...Kg7 15.Bf8# is very attractive.
15.Qd2+ Kh5 16.Qxd4 cxd6 17.Rf4!
17.Qxh8?? Qxe4+! would turn the tables on White.
17...Qd7 18.Rh4+ Kg5 19.Nd2 h5 20.Qxh8 Qf7 21.Rf4! Qxf4 22.gxf4+ Kxf4 23.Qxg8

... and I resigned for the computer since there is no point in playing out this position.
1-0

graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"

Jerome Gambit and The Perfesser (Part III)

The Perfesser continues his experiment with the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+), setting his computer opponent to "think" to the depth of 3 half-moves... The annotations are by the Learned One.



The Perfesser - Talking LCD Chess (3 ply)
casual 2003

The third game, at level 3, was equally interesting.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6



7.f4 d6 8.fxe5 g6 9.Qf3


Angling for possible checks at f7 later on.

9.Qe2!? comes into consideration as well, intending to meet 9...dxe5? with 10.Qc4+ Kd6 11.Qd5+ Ke7 12.Qxe5+ Kf7 13.Qxc5 Qh4+ 14.Qf2+ Qxf2+ 15.Kxf2 and White's two extra pawns should win easily. For more on this idea, see the next game.

9...dxe5 10.b4!?



10...Bb6

10...Bxb4? 11.Qb3+ regains the piece with a favorable position due to Black's wretched centralized King; At first I thought that 10...Bd4 would be winning, but on closer examination I found that Black can actually get into trouble, e.g. 11.Rf1 c6 ( 11...Bxa1 12.Qf7+ Kd6 13.Qd5+ is a cute perpetual) 12.Na3 Nf6 ( 12...Bxa1?? 13.Qf7+ Kd6 14.Nc4#) 13.c3 Bb6 14.d4! exd4 15.Bg5 Rf8 16.Qh3+ and White picks up the rest of Black's kingside pawns with a winning advantage.

11.Rf1 Qh4+?



11...c6 is a more logical move, but amazingly I'm not sure Black is better any more: 12.Qf7+ a)12.Qg4+ Kd6 ( a)12...Ke7 13.Qg5+ Kd6 14.Qg3 comes to the same thing) 13.Qg3 Nf6 14.Bb2 Re8 15.Na3 Nxe4 16.Nc4+ Kd7 17.Nxb6+ axb6 18.Qg4+ Kd6 19.Qxe4 is quite unclear; b)12.Na3!? Nf6 ( b)12...Kd7 13.Nc4 is worth exploring: 13...Bc7 14.Bb2 Qh4+ 15.g3 Qe7 16.Qc3!? is unclear) 13.d4 Rf8 14.dxe5 Kxe5 15.Bb2+ Ke6 16.Rd1 Qe7 17.Qh3+ Kf7 18.Qxh7+ Ke6 19.Qh3+ Kf7 20.Rxf6+! Ke8 ( b)20...Qxf6? 21.Qh7++-) 21.Rxf8+ Qxf8 22.Qh8 with some advantage to White, who can probably keep at least one of the extra pawns; 12...Kd6 13.c4 Qh4+ 14.Kd1 Bg4+ 15.Kc2 Ne7! should hold everything.

12.g3 Qg5

12...Qxh2 13.c4! and the threat of Qf7+ is quite strong.

13.Qf7+ Kd6 14.Na3!



Now the threat of 15.Nc4+ Kc6 16.Qd5# forces Black to give up material hand over fist.

14...Be6 15.Nb5+ Kc6 16.Qxe6+ Kxb5 17.a4+ Kxb4 18.Qb3+ Kc5 19.Qd5+ Kb4 20.Qb5# 1-0




graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"

Jerome Gambit and The Perfesser (Part II)

The Perfesser continues his experiment with the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+)...

The Perfesser - Talking LCD Chess (2 ply)
casual game 2003

The really interesting games, however, occurred when I set the computer on higher levels. At "two ply" it played the better 6...Ke6 and ... well, I thought I was lost, but look what happened!

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6


7.f4 d6 8.fxe5 dxe5 9.Rf1 Nf6 10.Qe2

10...Ke7 11.d3 Bg4 12.Qd2 Kf7 13.Qg5 Qd7 14.Nc3 Bd4


15.Nd5 Rhd8 16.Nxf6 gxf6 17.Rxf6+ Ke8 18.Qg8+ Ke7 19.Qf7#


I like this miniature because Black's moves are fairly natural and his doom falls more or less unexpectedly. The culprits are 14...Bd4? throwing away the advantage (almost any other reasonable move, like 14...c6 or even 14...h6, is still winning) and 15...Rhd8? handing White the game (where 15...Raf8 would still leave the issue in doubt). Note that 15...Qd8, defending the Knight a third time, drops the B/g4.
1-0
graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"

Jerome Gambit and The Perfesser (Part I)

One way a chess program's strength can be increased or decreased is by controlling the number of plys (half-moves) it analyzes before making its move. Five years ago, a strong, creative chess player -- who I will refer to as The Perfesser -- ran a simple experiment with a simple computer and a simple opening: the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+).

We will look at 1-ply, 2-ply, 3-ply and 4-ply games with notes by my learned friend.

The Perfesser - Talking LCD Chess (1 ply)
casual game 2003

After my online debut with the Jerome this morning, I played four more Jeromes just for kicks against a hand-held chess computer, Talking LCD Chess by Excalibur, setting up the first three moves by hand so that I wouldn't have to wade through a pile of Sicilians and a Two Knights Defense before getting the desired position.

(Note: Talking LCD Chess has a nasty quirk: after moving its King and returning it to e8, it will sometimes castle! Other than that it's a fine little machine to kick around.)

To simulate cluelessness, I set it first on "one ply" – and it promptly fell into

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

5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Kf6??


The game is uninteresting and I will not bore you with it, though I recorded it.
[After 7.Qf5+ Ke7 8.Qxe5+ Kf8 9.Qxc5+ White has recovered his two pieces and is two pawns up - Rick]
Stray thought, though: at one ply the evaluation parameters must come out more clearly than with deeper lookahead. Do we see a combination of defending the piece with a penalty for "center tropism" with the King? The center of the f6 square is, geometrically, a little further from the absolute center point of the board than the center of the e6 square is, and hence presumably f6 is evaluated as "safer"
... 1-0
graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"

Tom's BDG Pages

Players who enjoy the cut-and-slash of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) should be thrilled by the attacking possibility of a real gambit that has much more of a chance for success, and whose "refutations" are constantly being deconstructed, if not refuted – the Blackmar Diemer Gambit, 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3.

Tom Purser, BDG fan and guru – past editor of the Blackmar Diemer World magazine, and author of several BDG (and one Elephant Gambit) books – has his own blog these days, "Tom's BDG Pages," at http://bdgpages.blogspot.com/.

The blog includes games and analysis, but also warmly showcases the personality of the opening and those who have played it.

Check it out!

Something Awful

I was checking google analytics for data on recent visits to this blog when I discovered that on Halloween – October 31, 2008 – over two dozen people were referred here from one of the forums at the website Something Awful (see the site's logo, above).

Somehow, considering the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) and the internet, it didn't surprise me.

Rematch!

I admit that I had a lot of fun in that 3 minute (or less) Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) game against the chess engine in Maurice Ashley Teaches Chess (see "A Bagatelle") – enough that I found time today to have a rematch game. After all, I was lucky to make "the second to last mistake" the first time, and was otherwise able to match MATC blunder-for-blunder...

Kennedy - MATC
blitz 2008

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6

Again my opponent runs its King to the center to hang onto material.

7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Qh4+


An improvement over the previous 8...b5?

This move has cause me lots of trouble in the past. See "Jerome Gambit Tournament: Chapter XVI" for a list of posts on the topic.

9.g3 Nf3+

Oh, boy! MATC plays one of the nastier (but more complicated) refutations of the Jerome Gambit.

10.Kd1 Qxg3+

Huh??

What is this?

Let us pause for a moment to answer an existential question: how do you make a chess computer play "weak" chess? Well, I guess you can limit the time it spends in its calculation – or you can program it to make a really bad move every once in a while. It looks like that's what we've got here.

Our game continued another 32 moves, and ended in mate with two Queens (both mine). There's no need to report any further on the battle, except to say that after a reasonable defense, Black threw away a whole Rook on move 31 – more evidence of some kind of blunder factor.

I don't feel the need for a re-rematch.