One (or both) of us needs help (Part II)

Clearly the computer's revenge match had gotten off on the wrong foot – see "One (or both) of us needs help (Part I)."

For game two I set its skill level to 1400, and we played from the initial Jerome Gambit position (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) again.

Kennedy - WeakDelphi (1400)
blitz 2 12 (2), 2008

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke8 6.Qh5+ Ke7 7.Nxc6+

We both quickly repeat our errors from the first match game – although mine are "inaccuracies" while its are "blunders."

7...Kf6 8.Qf5 checkmate

Yikes.

For our third game, I stepped the computer's skill level up another 200 points.

Kennedy - WeakDelphi (1600)
blitz 2 12 (3), 2008

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke8 6.Qh5+ Kf8 7.Qf7 checkmate

Not much to say about that one.

Finally, I bumped the computer's skill level up to 1800.

Kennedy - WeakDelphi (1800)
blitz 2 12 (4), 2008

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke8 6.Qh5+ Ke7

The move that gives Black the advantage is, of course, 6...g6.

7.Qf7+ Kd6 8.Qd5+

Missing the mate-in-one: 8.Nc4.

8...Ke7 9.Nxc6+ Kf6

One last gift.

10.Qf5 checkmate

No more experiments for me – for a while, anyhow.

graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"

One (or both) of us needs help (Part I)

After my computer vs computer Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) match debacle (see "I can't seem to get the hang of these things") I was sure that I had done something wrong.

Eventually I discovered that the skill setting for WeakDelfi was set at 1200 – could that have been responsible for the engine's odd play?

Having injured the honor of the electronic beast, I figured that it would only be fair for me to allow it some form of revenge – across-the-board.

So I set up a blitz game (2 12) to start after move 4 of the Jerome Gambit. I set my opponent's skill level at 1200.

Kennedy - WeakDelfi (1200)
blitz 2 12 (1), 2008

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke8

Just. Plain. Bad.

6.Qh5+

I knew that this was not the best move, but I wanted to see how my opponent would handle it.

White would have a tiny advantage after 6.Nxc6 Qh4 7.d4 Qxe4+ 8.Qe2 Qxe2 9.Kxe2 Bb6 10.Nb4 Bxd4.

6...Ke7 7.Nxc6+

Missing: 7.Qf7+ Kd6 8.Nc4 checkmate.

7...Ke6

Clueless.

8.Qf5+ Kd6 9.Qd5 checkmate



Ouch!

graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"

Triangulation

Ward Farnsworth's web page http://www.chesstactics.org/ has a link to this Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) blog, so it only seems fair to point out in return that his two books Predator at the Chessboard A Field Guide to Tactics - Book I: Introduction, The Double Attack, The Discovered Attack and Book II: The Pin and the Skewer, Removing the Guard, Mating Patterns, were winners of the "Perry PawnPusher 99% Solution Award" at Chessville.

To quote from my review:

I found it to be "excellent for a ‘rusty’ player who wants to get back his tactical chops by re-thinking the process of piece interplay; or for class/ club/tournament players (like myself) who want to un-retire from the 64 squares and get back in the action, without looking like fools. It is an excellent resource for chess coaches or teachers working with middle school or even elementary school students.

The Jerome Gambit Gemeinde lives and dies by tactics, and Predator at the Chessboard is an unmatched resource, lest we, like the thunder lizards of old, disappear too soon from the face of the earth.

I can't seem to get the hang of these things...

After a few unfruitful days of trying to coax a Jerome Gambit game (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) out of a lucky opponent at the Free Internet Chess Server (FICS) I decided to put together another Computer vs Computer Jerome Gambit match.

Despite feeling a bit like Jar Jar Binks trying to command the Death Star, I turned to my new Deep Rybka 3.0 Aquarium, and discovered two interesting engines: Delfi (reportedly rated 2500) and WeakDelfi (supposedly rated 1900).

Perfect!
I arranged for a 20-game match (5 minutes per side per game), with the stronger Delfi playing the White pieces each time, starting from the Jerome Gambit position after four moves.

Delfi - WeakDelfi
5 minute game
1st of 20 game match

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4

6...Bxd4 7.Qxd4 Nf3+


Huh???

What is this??
8.gxf3 Qf6 9.Qc4+ Ke7 10.Qc5+ Ke8 11.Nd2 Qd6 12.Qxd6 cxd6

13.Rg1 g6 14.b3 Nh6 15.Nc4 Nf7 16.Bb2 Rf8 17.0-0-0
This is not the kind of position that usually comes to mind when someone says "Jerome Gambit".

17...b5 18.Na3 b4 19.Nb5 Ba6


More strangeness.
20.Nc7+ Ke7 21.Nxa6 Ne5 22.Nxb4 Nxf3 23.Rg2 Nh4 24.Rg4 Nf3 25.Bg7 Rfb8 26.Nd5 Kf7
27.Bd4 Nxh2 28.Rh4 Nf3 29.Rf4+ Kg8 30.Ne7 checkmate



Nervously, I looked at the second game in the match.


Delfi - WeakDelfi
5 minute game
#2 of 20 game match
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Black lost on time.

What???

Unreal!

For the record, the next 8 games looked like this:
Delfi - WeakDelfi
5 minute game
#3 of 20 game match

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Black lost on time.

Delfi - WeakDelfi
5 minute game
#4 of 20 game match

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Black lost on time.


Delfi - WeakDelfi
5 minute game
#5 of 20 game match
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Black lost on time.


Delfi - WeakDelfi
5 minute game
#6 of 20 game match
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Black lost on time.

Delfi - WeakDelfi
5 minute game
#7 of 20 game match
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Black lost on time.


Delfi - WeakDelfi
5 minute game
#8 of 20 game match

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Black lost on time.


Delfi - WeakDelfi
5 minute game
#9 of 20 game match

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Black lost on time.


Delfi - WeakDelfi
5 minute game
#10 of 20 game match

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Black lost on time.


Nine straight losses, all on time!

I stopped the match. I didn't have to be a Jedi master to know how the remaining 10 games would turn out.

graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"

With a lotta help from my friend...

My "thank you" again goes out to N. Earl Roberts (see "Cha - ching!" and "Jerome Gambit: The Proper Perspective") who quickly noticed that the vast majority of entries in the third PGN file of games from this blog are computer vs computer affairs that start from a fixed position – and that such games are handled differently by ChessBase in its "Repertoire" function.

Using an editor, he therefore added the beginning Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) moves and the proper ECO code to each of those games.

Those who have received the earlier, unimproved version of the third file have been sent the updated PGN file.

The Other Side

Sidran - Vong, 1992 (see "Offside!") was only an eyeblink look at the Jerome Gambit-style response to the 3...Na5 defense in the Italian Game. Strong? Weak? The line deserves further attention.

Benyovszki - Meyer

IECC email, 2001
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke6 6.Qh5

In our previous game we saw 6.Qg4+ Kf6 7.d4 d6 8.Bg4 checkmate, Sidran - Vong, Compuserve email, 1992.

The text move is not as strong. Interesting is 6.d4 Nf6 with an unclear, but perhaps equal position.
6...Nf6 7.Qf7+

This is not going to lead to success – but Black has the advantage (a smaller one) after 7.Qf5+ Ke7.

7...Kxe5 8.d4+ Kxe4

The position is complicated, and Black misses his chance for 8...Kxd4! 9.Be3+ Ke5 ( 9...Kxe4? 10.Nc3+ Kf5 11.0-0-0 d5 12.Rxd5+ Qxd5 13.Nxd5 and White is winning) 10.Nd2 c5 11.0-0-0 Kd6 12.e5+ Kc6 13.exf6 Qxf6 with significant advantage.

Likewise 8...Kd6 9.e5+ Kc6 10.exf6 Qxf6 would have been better for Black.

9.Nc3+ Kf5

This move leads to a mate-in-nine, but 9...Kxd4 only puts off the inevitable: 10.Be3+ Ke5 11.0-0-0 d5 12.Bd4+ Kd6 13.Bxf6 Kc6 14.Bxd8 Bd6 15.Qxd5+ Kd7 16.Bxc7 Nb3+ 17.axb3 Ke7 18.Rhe1+ Kf6 19.Ne4+ Kg6 20.Qg5+ Kf7 21.Nxd6+ Kg8 22.Re8 checkmate

10.Nd5

Ooops!

White needed to find 10.g4+! Kxg4 11.Rg1+ Kh3 12.Rg3+ Kxh2 13.Bf4 d5 14.Ne2 Qd6 15.0-0-0 Nb3+ 16.axb3 Qxf4+ 17.Nxf4 Bf5 18.Rg2 checkmate.

Now he loses.

10...Qe8+ 11.Ne3+ Ke4 12.f3+ Kxd4 13.c3+ Ke5 14.Nc4+ Nxc4 15.Qxc4 Kf5+ 16.Kf2 Qd8 17.Re1 Kg6 18.Re5 d5 19.Qh4 Ng4+ White resigns.

graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"

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"