Return to Awful

Following up on Something Awful and Something Awful Again, I was able to contact both OrangeKing and jyrka.

4444444444

OrangeKing,

From Something Awful:"Fired up, ready to go I'm playing in a tournament this weekend (the Northeast Open, in Stamford), in the u2100 section. You guys are tempting me to play with a Jerome Gambit/Halloween Gambit/Fred repertoire."

Any chance you actually played a Jerome Gambit game?

If so, care to share?

Thanks.

perrypawnpusher

3333333333

perrypawnpusher,

Can't say I did - Sorry.

OrangeKing

4444444444
jyrka,

From Something Awful: "I didn't know it had a name but I meet the Jerome Gambit against crappy players A LOT. I don't really have any other reaction other than to consider the game won."

Care to share some of your games?

Thanks.

perrypawnpusher

3333333333

perrypawnpusher,

Ah, sorry, I don't really have any games on hand. If you haven't already, check out the Jerome Gambit blog... hold on, I just checked it and it's YOUR website. You've probably seen it already then.

Usually I meet the gambit in a dimly lit pub against drunk guys. Definitely not in tournaments. To put it in perspective, another commonly used move is spilling the beer accidentally on the board.

jyrka

Something Awful Again

Some time ago I mentioned that I'd run across the Something Awful website (subtitled "The Internet makes you stupid") while examining the "referring sites" listed by Google Analytics for this blog (see "Something Awful").

As you can see from the graph below, the fitting mention of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) and this blog at Something Awful had a sudden, if not long-lasting, impact on the number of visitors here.

I've since been able to dig deeper into the site, and reproduce below some of the relevant exchanges concerning the Jerome.

I enjoyed monoceros4's comment, would like to see jyrka's plentiful crushes, and will let you know if either OrangeKing or wlokos takes the plunge.

Orange King: Oh, you can't just stop playing crazy gambits because they're "bad" or "unsound" or "totally refuted!" Next thing you know, people will be advising against the Jerome Gambit.

Hand Knit: I would think that the Jerome would be the exact opposite of 'unsound'.

monoceros4: I'd never heard of this gambit so I looked it up, only to discover that there's a good reason I'd never heard of it.

Hand Knit: How could you have not heard of it when there's a blog dedicated to it exclusively.

monoceros4: I'd never heard of that either. I'm not sure whether to be charmed or not.
In fact, if you're going to devote a whole website to one opening, it might as well be some relic of the Romantic era of chess that nobody plays any more. An online temple to (say) the Najdorf would be a tiresome place indeed.
The sour note is that the devotion isn't entirely genuine. When Weaver Adams preached the doctrine of the Vienna Game, he genuinely believed in spite of evidence that White could win with it against anybody. Modern-day endorsements of unsound, Romantic openings, though, are more evasive. "Oh, it's playable, as long as you're playing low-rated amateurs in rapid games," is the typical qualification. I think it's ungentlemanly to play with the hope that your
opponent is dumb. It's a respectable version of hoping they'll fall for Scholar's Mate or the Englund trap.

Hand Knit: The Jerome Gambit is so-called because white is said to have a much better chance of winning when after playing 4.Bxf7+ standing up and yelling "JERRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMEE." It's not an opening you play to win.

goggle-eyed freak: Speaking of off-beat openings, does (or has) anyone else here play the Fred? (1. e4 f5 2. exf5 Kf7, although I usually play 2. ... Nf6).I used to play it quite often on ICC and didn't do half bad with it against similarly rated opponents. Is there much theory on it after the second move?

Hand Knit: Back in my high school days I knew a guy who made a living playing that opening. The strongest player I knew he beat with it was rated over 2300, and that wasn't a one-time thing.
And yes, he played 2...Kf7, not 2...Nf6. I think his online rating was over 2800 blitz and pushing 3000 on lightning. not ICC, but another site that was able to compete with it for a while. Worldchessnet or something.

OrangeKing: Fired up, ready to go I'm playing in a tournament this weekend (the Northeast Open, in Stamford), in the u2100 section. You guys are tempting me to play with a Jerome Gambit/Halloween Gambit/Fred repertoire.

jyrka: I didn't know it had a name but I meet the Jerome Gambit against crappy players A LOT. I don't really have any other reaction other than to consider the game won.

goggle-eyed freak: If you're already out of the money before the last round, then what's the risk besides a few rating points? Plus it would make for a good post here.

wlokos: You guys are making me want to study the Jerome gambit and such when I should be learning real openings, shame on all of you.
I was actually having fun yesterday trying out completely random weird openings yesterday in blitz games on icc, it was actually pretty fun. It's not like it really matters with my current 1000 blitz ranking.

An Odd Line in an Odd Line

One of the modern members of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) Gemeinde, Louis Morin, played White in the following game. It's a simple equation: Jerome Gambit + blitz = anything can happen.

guest1200 - satmonger
ICC 2 12, 2001
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke7


Quite unusual: given the choice of four refutations (5...Kf8, 5...Ke6, 5...Ng6 and 5...g6) Black choses a move instead that gives White the advantage.

6.Qh5 Qf8


It is rare that counter-sacrificing the Bishop at f2 is a good move for the second player (see "Jerome Gambit Strikes in Denmark!"), but here it was his best choice: 6...Bxf2+ 7.Kxf2 Qf8+ 8.Nf3 Nf6 with advantage to White, according to Rybka.

7.0-0

With 7.Nxc6+ bxc6 8.Qxc5+ White would have been happily two pawns ahead.

7...d6 8.Ng6+ hxg6 9.Qxh8


9...Nd4 10.Na3 Ne2+ 11.Kh1 Be6 12.d4 Bxd4 13.f4


Aggressive, but risky, as Black's pieces are beginning to swarm and White's Queen risks entrapment.

13...Qf6 14.Nb5 Bb6

White's Knight sortie is a distraction, and helps bring the game back into balance.

15.Bd2 a6 16.Nc3 Nxc3 17.Bxc3 Bd4


After 17...Qf7 the game would have been roughly equal. But this gives White a chance.

18.e5 dxe5 19.fxe5 Qxe5 20.Bxd4 Qxd4 21.c3 Qe5 22.Rae1 Qd5


Now Black's game collapses. He had to try the tactical 22...Rf8, although that allows White to spring his Queen and win material: 23.Qh4+ g5 24.Qb4+ Qd6 25.Qxd6+ Kxd6 26.Rxf8,

23.Qxg7+ Kd6 24.Rd1 Qxd1 25.Rxd1+ Kc6 26.Qxg6 Black resigns

"Bishop in a Hurry"

A few days after posting on the Jerome-ish 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ (see "Offside!" and "The Other Side") I discovered that a similar line of play from the Vienna Opening rather than the Italian Game (a reminiscent reflection of "Godfather of the Jerome Gambit?" Part I, Part II, Part III and Endnote) – 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ – had been addressed in a "Reader's Challenge" at ChessPublishing (

http://www.chesspublishing.com/content/1/puz2.htm):

Reader’s Challenge P2.1.1 referring to M.Adams-P.Motwani, London 1989

The idea of ...Na5 has been mentioned, but would it have been OK for Black to play it even earlier, at move three?

Solution

3...Na5? loses to 4 Bxf7+

! Kxf7 5 Qh5+, intending 5...g6 6 Qe5 (forking the loose black pieces on a5 and h8) or 5...Ke6 6 Qf5+ Kd6 7 d4 and then, for example, 7...Qf6 8 dxe5+ Qxe5 9 Bf4 or 7...Qe8 8 dxe5+ Kc6 9 e6 b6 10 Qd5# or 7...Nc6 8 dxe5+ Nxe5 9 Bf4 Qf6 10 Bxe5+ Qxe5 11 0-0-0+, costing Black his queen.

It's pretty easy to back this analysis up with games, as I have only a handful in my database:

Schelkonogov - Morozenko, corr, 1989: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Qh5+ Ke6 6.Qf5+ Kd6 7.d4 Nc6 8.dxe5+ Kc5 9.Be3+ Kb4 10.a3+ Ka5 11.e6+ d5 12.exd5 Nce7 13.b4+ Black resigned;

Keizer - Kroes, corr NLD, 1991: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ Ke7 5.Bxg8 Rxg8 6.Nd5+ Kd6 7.d4 Black resigned;

Stalker - Palmer Douglas, Scotland Tch B, 1994: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Qxe5 Nc6 7.Qxh8 Nf6 8.Nf3 Bh6 9.Qxd8 Nxd8 10.d4 Bg7 11.0-0 d6 12.Re1 Nc6 13.e5 dxe5 14.dxe5 Ng4 15.e6+ Black resigned;

Gutt - Schiller, Bergisch Gladbach (4), 1996: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Qh5+ Ke6 6.Qf5+ Kd6 7.d4 exd4 8.Bf4+ Ke7 9.Nd5+ Ke8 10.Nxc7+ Ke7 11.Nd5+ Ke8 12.Nc7+ Ke7 13.Qxa5 d6 14.Qg5+ Nf6 15.Nxa8 h6 16.Qg6 Be6 17.Nf3 Qxa8 18.Bxd6+ Kxd6 19.e5+ Kd7 20.exf6 gxf6 21.0-0-0 Qc8 22.Nxd4 Kc7 23.Qxf6 Bg4 24.Nb5+ Black resigned;

McCall - Harvey, Kent vs Essex, Swanscombe, 2001: 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nc3 e5 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Qh5+ Ke6 6.Qf5+ Kd6 7.d4 Qe8 8.dxe5+ Kc6 9.e6 Qxe6 10.Qb5+ Kd6 11.Bg5 c6 12.Qxa5 b6 13.Qa3+ c5 14.Nf3 Kc6 15.0-0-0 h6 16.Bf4 Nf6 17.Qa4+ Kb7 18.e5 Ne8 19.Rhe1 g5 20.Bg3 a6 21.Nd5 Ka7 22.Nf6 b5 23.Qa5 Nxf6 24.Qc7+ Bb7 25.exf6 Rc8 26.Rxe6 Rxc7 27.Re8 Rc6 28.Rxd7 Rxf6 29.Bb8+ Kb6 30.Bc7+ Kc6 31.Ne5 checkmate;

Olmos - Esteves, 54th Villa Ballester (5), 2004: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Qh5+ Black resigned

graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"

Are we there, yet?

I often open with 1.e4, heading toward the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) but not all of my opponents cooperate. Sometimes they do – it just takes them a while.

perrypawnpusher - angelosgoulianos
FICS rated blitz game, 2007

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6


Are we there yet?

No, not yet.

Will there be any presents??

I don't know.

4.0-0 a6

Are we there yet?

Not yet.

Truth be told, I was hoping we would "get there," because I didn't think that the two extra pawn pushes helped Black's defense to the Jerome.

5.Nc3 Bc5 6.Bxf7+



We're there!

6...Kxf7

In this delayed Jerome Gambit, Black merely has the advantage, not a winning advantage.

7.Nxe5+ Nxe5 8.Qh5+ Ke6



Yippee. If White is going to have a chance, it's going to be against the enemy King in the middle of the board.

9.Qf5+

A thematic move, to be sure, compared to the more direct 9.d4 Bxd4 10.Ne2 Bc5 11.Nf4+ Kd6 12.Rd1+ Kc6 13.Qxe5 when it is clear that White's d-pawn sac was worth it.

The fly in the ointment is that here, as in the game, Black can answer Ne2 with ...c5 and keep his advantage.

9...Kd6 10.d4

Rybka now says White gets very little for the pawn.

10...Bxd4 11.Rd1 c5 12.Ne2


Still giving it the old Jerome Gambit try. Black can now strengthen his defense with 12...Ne7.

12...Kc7 13.Nxd4 d6


Cool!

14.Ne6+ Bxe6 15.Qxe6 Nf6



Black is winning, and the position is becoming less complicated by the minute, a bad sign for White.

16.Bf4 Re8 17.Qb3 Nxe4 18.Bxe5 Rxe5 19.Qf7+ Qd7 20.Qf3 Qf5 21.Qxf5 Rxf5



Can we go home now??

No, not yet.

22.f3 Ng5 23.Re1 Kd7 24.Rad1 Re8 25.Rxe8 Kxe8 26.Rxd6

Can we go home now??

No, not yet.

26...Re5 27.Kf2 Ke7 28.Rb6

Can we go home now??

Not yet.

28...Rf5 29.Rxb7+Kf6 30.Rb6+ Kf7 31.Rxa6



Now?

Maybe...

31...Ne4+ 32.Ke3 Nd6



A present!! We don't want to go home now!

33.Rxd6 Ke7 34.Rd3 Rh5 35.h3 Re5+ 36.Kf2 g5 37.Re3 Rxe3 38.Kxe3 Kd6 39.Ke4 c4 40.Kd4 Black resigns


Wow! Can we do that again??

Jerome Gambit and – Cell phones??

A while back I shared an entry from Wikipedia (see "Artificial Castling" from Wikipedia (Portugese)") that used the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) to illustrate "castling by hand" or "artificial castling."

That's not unusual for a blog dedicated to the Jerome Gambit.

I just discovered, however, that the folks at Web Celular (http://www.webcelular.com.br/) have done me one better. In order to add some panache to their lineup of phones, they have included chess content – including that Wikipedia article.

Nothing quite says reliable, dependable and top-of-the-line like the Jerome Gambit, does it?

Sorry, Pete

Commenting on my recent computer vs computer Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) matches (see "I can't seem to get the hang of these things...") Pete Banks ("blackburne"), a long-time member of the Jerome Gambit Gemeinde, posted a Comment

Hi Rick,

Have you tried matching two equally-strong computer programs? It might be interesting to see what percentage White got. I'd guess about 40%.

Pete

While I liked Pete's enthusiasm for the Jerome Gambit, my Comment reply was not as optimistic as his. After all, while I have supported the use of the Jerome when giving "odds" to a weaker player; I'm not at all confident in its prospects when the players are evenly matched.

Hi Pete,

I'll ask Rybka to play a similar match against itself. I suspect it will run something like 0-20.

But, then again, what do I know?? You see, I can't seem to get the hang of these things...

Rick

The first thing that I learned is that using the Aquarium interface I wasn't able to have Rybka 3.0 play a match against itself. However, I was able to have two similarly powerful Rybka engines face off: Rybka 3 Dynamic w32 vs Rybka 3 Human w32.

I set up a 20-game Jerome Gambit match, starting from the position after 4.Bxf7+. Each computer had 5 minutes per game. I gave Dynamic the White pieces first.

The match finished 0 - 20.

I then switched engines, giving Human the White pieces.

That match finished 0 - 20.

That's zero wins for the Jerome Gambit, against forty losses!

I've really got to stop running these experiments...

(I won't post the games, but they will be available in the 4th PGN file of games presented or referred to on this blog, when it becomes available.)