Wild!

A discussion started in "London Calling... Seven Months of Blog", (is there another totally obscure and disreputable tactical opening line or gambit that I could go digging for information about, while I'm researching the Jerome Gambit?) eventually led to a comment by chessfriend and Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member Pete Banks ("blackburne") to the post "Worth a Second Look... (Part 1)"

Rick,

I've just started a Lolli Gambit (aka Wild Muzio) tournament on Chessworld. It's similar to the Jerome in that a Bishop is sacced very early on f7. 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5. Bxf7ch?! It seems to have more potential for quick wins than the Jerome. there have been several wins for White in under 10 moves already.

Pete

Now that's wild!

I did some quick research to learn more about Pete's suggestion, and ran into this game attributed to Greco:

Greco,G - NN, Europe, 1620
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Ne5+ Ke6 7.Qxg4+ Kxe5 8.Qf5+ Kd6 9.d4 Bg7 10.Bxf4+ Ke7 11.Bg5+ Bf6 12.e5 Bxg5 13.Qxg5+ Ke8 14.Qh5+ Ke7 15.0-0 Qe8 16.Qg5+ Ke6 17.Rf6+ Nxf6 18.Qxf6+ Kd5 19.Nc3+ Kxd4 20.Qf4+ Kc5 21.b4+ Kc6 22.Qc4+ Kb6 23.Na4 checkmate

Anyone whose King has been hounded to death while facing the Jerome Gambit will sympathize with poor NN, above.

From http://wapedia.mobi/en/Giambattista_Lolli:

Giambattista Lolli (1698 in Nonantola, Italy- 4 June 1769) was an Italian chess player. Lolli was one of the most important chess theoreticians of his time. He is most famous for his book Osservazioni teorico-pratiche sopra il giuoco degli scacchi (English: Theoretical-practical views on the game of chess), published 1763 in Bologna. It contains analyses of chess openings, in particular the Giuoco Piano. In the King's Gambit the variation 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5. Bxf7+ is designated after Lolli. It illustrates the Italian masters' style of uncompromising attack, which clearly differs from the rather more strategic considerations taken by, for example, the French chess player Philidor. In addition, the book contain listings of 100 chess endgames. One of these positions was used by Wilhelm Heinse in his novel Anastasia und das Schachspiel (English: Anastasia and the game of chess).

W. John Lutes' fantastic Cunningham Gambit (1980) (anything written by Lutes is fantastic - he was a relentless researcher) has an in-depth history of the King's Gambit, and it's worth tracing the Wild Muzio a bit.

One such series of Italian manuscripts were written by the brilliant analyst and player, Giulio Cesare Polerio, around 1590. He had accompanied Leonardo da Cutri to Spain in 1575 and had first-hand knowledge of the opening analysis done by the Spanish players. As well, his recorded variations and comments show that he had both played and analyzed the King's Gambit for some time.

Polerio discusses the King's Gambit at considerable length and a few examples are necessary to illustrate the extraordinary depth of his play... 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Ne5+ Ke6 7.Qxg4+ Kxe5 8.Qf5+ Kd6 9.d4... ["And although he has lost two pieces, yet he will win the game by force from the given position, provided he knows how to go on with the attack. If Black observes the loss of the game after 6...Ke6, and does better, perhaps by 6...Ke8!, then 7.Qxg4 Nf6 8.Qxf4, and seeking to Castle, White will have the best attack, despite having lost a piece for severals Pawns, as Black can no longer Castle."]

In a footnote, Lutes adds

5.Bxf7+ is presently known as the Lolli Muzio Gambit, from its having appeared in the Osservazioni Teorico-pratiche sopra il Giuoco degli Scacchi; ossia Il Giuoco degli Scacchi..., 1763, written by Giambatista Lolli.

Polerio's observation that the best defense is 6...Ke8! 7.Qxg4 Nf6! (7...Qf6 was Lolli's idea) was borne out by extensive analysis by Zukertort (1868), Schmid (1886), Alapin (1889), and Savenkoff (1897). The main line runs: 8.Qxf4 d6 (8...Bd6 [Zukertort, 1868] 9.0-0 Rf8! 10.d4 Nc6 11.Qh6!, gives White a strong attack. Analysis by Paul Bohl, 1884; Alapin, 1899; and Savenkoff, 1897) 9.Nf3 (9.Nc4 Nc6 10.0-0 Bg7 11.d3 Be6 12.Qg3 Qe7. -/+. Allgaier, 1802) Rg8! 10.e5 de 11.Nce5 Bd6 12.0-0 Bh3 13.Re1 Bc5+ 14.d4 Bxd4+ 15.Be3 Rxg2+ 16.Kh1 Rg4! -/+. Dr. C. Schmid: Deutsche Schachzeitung, 1886, p. 325.

The Lolli connection shows up later, after several authors, including Greco

With Greco, the King's Gambit became a fearsome weapon of attack. He whipped together the best analysis of the old Italian masters and hammered out a system of uncompromising assault on the enemy f7 square; sacrificing as many Pawns or pieces as necessary to achieve this objective...

According to Lutes,

Lolli took Ercole del Rio's bare analysis from the Sopra il giucco delgi Scacchi..., 1750, and added copious notes and explanations; as well as a few well chose contributions. The following variations from Lolli are of interest: (A) 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Ne5+ Ke8! 7.Qxg4 Qf6 8.Qh5+ Ke7 9.Nf7 Qxf7 10.Qe5+ Qe6 11.Qxh8 Nf6 12.b3 Nc6 13.Bb2 Ne5 14.Nc3 c6 15.0-0-0 (K at b1 and QR at e1) Qf7 16.Nd5+ cd 17.ed Bg7 18.Rxe5+ Kd6 19. Qd8 b6 20.d4 Bb7 21.Ba3 mate...

Again, playing through the analysis, it's hard not to see themes that show up in the later Jerome Gambit.

London Calling... Eight Months of Blog

Dear Jerome Gambit Gemeinde,

As this blog continues its daily march toward post #250, I occasionally ask myself "Why bother with the Jerome Gambit? (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+)"

The answers (there are many) are easy to come by.

I love chess: the play of it, its history, its games, and its analysis. Not just the well-known "stuff" but the arcane and even the "useless" stuff.

There's also the joy of the interaction with other similarly-minded chess players: face-to-face, via email, online and through the printed word.

I like receiving games and sending them out.

And the Jerome Gambit itself, in all its weirdness, notoriety and fame: there's a chance that it's improving my chess, after all... Here's a recent online blitz game of mine - not a Jerome, mind you, but a Danish - and you'd almost believe that I understood my opponent's gambit, figured out some tactical counterplay (although I missed some easier mates), and stayed in the game until he cooperatively handed it over to me.

Just like in the Jerome Gambit.

josephandrew - perrypawnpusher

rated blitz game

FICS, 2009

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2 d5 6.Bxd5 Nf6 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qxd8 Bb4+ 9.Qd2 Bxd2+ 10.Nxd2 Nc6 11.Ngf3 Bg4 12.0-0 Rae8 13.Rfe1 Bxf3 14.gxf3 (better: 14.Nxf3 since 14...Nxe4? 15.Rxe4 Rxe4 16.Ng5+ +-) 14...Rhf8 15.Rac1 Kg8 16.Kg2 Nd7 17.Rg1 Nde5 18.Kg3 Nd3 19.Rc2 (19.Rb1) 19...Nxb2 ( 19...Ncb4 20.Rxc7 Nxb2 21.Rxb7 Rd6) 20.Rxb2 b6 ( 20...Nd4 21.Re1 Re6 22.Kg2 Rg6+ 23.Kf1 b6 24.Re3 c5-/+) 21.Rc2 Re6 (21...Nd4!) 22.Nb3 Rg6+ 23.Kh3 Rxg1 24.Rxc6 Rxf3+ 25.Kh4 Rxf2 26.h3 Rf4+ 27.Kh5 g6+ 28.Kh6 Rh4 checkmate

Tic Tac Toe

The Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) can be compared, perhaps unkindly, to the childhood game of tic tac toe, a pasttime which, as most adults know, has been solved: the player who moves first can win or tie, and need never lose. The second player, however, need only know which first moves to avoid to gain the tie and avoid the loss.

Likewise, with so many refutations of the Jerome Gambit available, the player of the Black pieces need only choose one of them – and the full point arrives gift-wrapped.

Well, sometimes...
Consider the following blitz game that I recently played on the Free Internet Chess Server (FICS):

perrypawnpusher - BronxBoyIIFICS rated blitz game 10 3, 2009
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6
7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4

An earlier game against the same opponent continued: 8.d4 Bxd4 9.Na3 Ne7 10.Bg5 Nxf5 11.Bxd8 Bxb2 12.Rd1+ Kc6 13.exf5 Rxd8 14.Nb5 Kxb5 15.Rb1 Nc4 16.0-0 Rf8 17.Rfe1 Rxf5 18.Re4 d5 19.Rxc4 Kxc4 20.Rxb2 Kc3 White resigns, perrypawnpusher-BronxBoyII, FICS blitz game, 2008

8...Qf6 9.fxe5+ Qxe5 10.Qf3 Nf6 11.d3
Black is playing very well. What should he be thinking about now?

As pointed out "In The Beginning...", Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's first analysis of his gambit, appearing in the April 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal, noted of White's move: "Compelling either K or Q to move as White threatens Bf4; or Black can play ...g5".
Alas, my opponent must have missed that post – and with it his chance to score a second win against me and the Jerome Gambit.
11...Rf8 12.Bf4
12...Nxe4

This move looks good – at first, rapid glance, only.
13.Bxe5+ Kc6 14.Qxe4+ d5 15.Qxh7 Re8 16.Qh5
Here 16.Qxg7 was also possible, and after 16...Bd7 then 17.Kd1 (avoiding the trap 17.Nc3 Rxe5+ 18.Qxe5 Re8 19.Qxe8 Bxe8 which allows Black to recover some of his missing material).

16...d4
Better was 16...Bd7, as in the note above.
17.Qxe8+ Bd7 18.Qxa8 Black resigns

Jerome Gambit: Drilling Down (28)

Shredder 8 comes up with a new move in the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) and while it doesn't lead to any kind of advantage, it helps complicate things – and in a computer vs human battle, that's often enough. In that regard, being able to spot every tactical opportunity in the Jerome is a great advantage.

Shredder 8 - RevvedUp
blitz 2 12, 2006
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.Qe2
A new move in this position, although it was seen a move later in Fritz 8 - RevvedUp and RevvedUp - Hiarcs 8.
9...Nf6 10.Qc4+ Kd6 11.b4

A major theme in the Jerome Gambit is for White to bring pressure – psychological, if not tactical – against the Black King. Although RevvedUp's monarch isn't any more insecure on the Queenside than on the Kingside (or in the center), Shredder 8 has to play it that way.

11...Bb6 12.Nc3 Be6 13.Qe2 c6

Nothing accomplished, yet.

14.Na4 Qe7 15.Nxb6 axb6 16.0-0 Rhf8 17.a3 Kc7


18.Bb2 Bg4 19.Qe3 h6 20.d4


Looking for some kind of play.

20...exd4

A slip: better to have reinforced the center with 20...Nd7.

21.Qg3+ Kd7 22.e5


Suddenly Shredder 8 has an active (if even) game, and all for the cost of a tiny pawn... All Jerome Gambiteers should have this good fortune.

22...Be2 23.exf6 Rxf6 24.Rfe1 Raf8

Keeping things in balance was 24...c5.

25.Bxd4 Black resigns

Jerome Gambit: Drilling Down (27)

Again the tame 7...d6 defense holds up for Black, and the tactical wiles of the computer strike before the human can take it down.

RevvedUp - Shredder 8
blitz 2 12, 2006

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.Qh3+
A move as old as the 1993 Fisher-Kirshner - Knightstalker match (see "A Few Words With... Micah Fisher-Kirshner"). The alternative 9.Rf1 appeared in Fritz 8 - RevvedUp and RevvedUp - Hiarcs 8.

9...Kf7 10.Qh5+ g6
In 2006 I heard from Jeroen_61 of the Netherlands, who emailed me

Some time ago when Hiarcs 8 was released after receiving my copy I ran some small tournaments to see how things would go with Hiarcs. Other participants were Junior 7, Shredder Paderdorn (6.02) and Fritz 7. One of the tournaments I conducted with - the Jerome gambit as opening. They are games 40/40' + 40/40' + 40' (round robin two rounds, so 12 games in all). Only two were won by the white side.

Six of the games featured this line of play in RevvedUp - Shredder 8. (All were posted at a website that Jeroen_61 gave, although an attempt to use the url today got me the message De pagina is niet gevonden, which probably means just what it looks like.)
11.Qxe5
Oddly enough, the position is identical to that of the Blackburne line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 (see ''Nobody expects the Jerome Gambit!") except that Black's d-pawn is missing. This difference is probably in the second player's favor.

11...Bd4 12.Qf4+ Nf6
One reason not to use only database statistics in evaluating a position can be seen by the fact that I have 52 wins by White from this position, all computer games from Randy Tipton at HANGING PAWN :: Tip's Chess Blog (see "We are not alone..."). Of course, he only provided me with the Jerome Gambit wins, not the whole package of games.

13.c3

A "TN", but it is a prelude to a tactical oversight by RevvedUp.
13...Re8 14.cxd4 Rxe4+ White resigns

Worth a Second Look... (Part 3)

The most recent analysis of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 (see "Worth a Second Look (Part 1)" and "Worth a Second Look (Part 2)") is by NM Clyde Nakamura, in his very creative "The Search for Dragons & Mythical Chess Openings" column at Chessville. Nakamura refers to the line, after the additional 3.Nxe5 Nc6, as "Chiodini's Gambit" apparently so-named by a chessfriend-of-a-chessfriend. He gives earlier (1998) analysis by Stefano Vezzani and by Sverre Johnsen, and then gives a host of annotated games, including one by Busch and one by Gass.

The Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Nxe4 4.Nc3) was suggested by Lionel Kieseritzky in 1848. Samuel Boden published the first analysis of it in his Popular Introduction to Chess in 1851. Over 150 years later, will the BKG, in Chiodini form, rise again like the mythical Phoenix?

Worth a Second Look... (Part 2)

Rainer Schlenker refers to 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 (see "Worth a Second Look... (Part 1)") as the "Busch - Gass Gambit" in the May/June 1985 issue (pp. 69-71) of his magazine Randspringer.

He refers to analysis by Oskar Cordel in Führer durch die Schachtheorie (1888)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.d4 Bd6 (4...Bb6 5.Bc4!) 5.f4 f6 6.Nc4 Qxe4+ 7.Kf2 Bxf4 8.Nc3 Qf5 9.Bd3 Qg5 10.Re1+ Ne7 11.Kg1 Nbc6 12.Bxf4 Qxf4 13.Qh5+ Kf8 14.Re4 +/- / +-

and analysis included in Bilguer (1916)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.d4 Bd6 5.Nc3! Bxe5 6.Nd5 Qd6 7.dxe5 Qxe5 8.Bf4 Qxe4+ 9.Qd2

Schlenker, however, modifies the name that Bent Larsen gave to the line ("Busch-Gambit") in Larsen's Sharp Openings (in Danish) based on the game Baird - Busch, 15. Kongresses Deutchen Schachbundes, Nuremberg 1906. Sharp Openings included a portion of the game:

Baird,D - Busch
Nuremberg, 1906
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Nf3 Qe7 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.d4 Nxe4 7.Nd5 Bb4+ 8.Bd2 Nxd2+ 9.Nxe7 Nxf3+ 10.Ke2 Nfxd4+ 11.Kd3 Bxe7 12.c3 Ne6 13.Kc2 0-0 14.g3 d5 15.Bd3 Rd8 16.f4 d4 17.f5 dxc3 18.fxe6 Nb4+ 19.Kxc3 Rxd3+ 20.Qxd3 Nxd3 21.exf7+ Kf8 22.Kxd3 Bf5+ 0-1

Schlenker adds the name "Gass" to the variation after the German master who had been playing the line in the 1970s and 1980s, and gives a few examples.

Many of Gass's blitz games have gone:

NN - Gass
blitz (1970 - 1985)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Nxc6 dxc6 5.d3 Nf6 6.Bg5 Nxe4 7.Bxd8 Bxf2+ 8.Ke2 Bg4 checkmate

and then there's

NN - Gass
blitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Nxc6 dxc6 5.c3 Qe7 6.f3 f5 7.d4 fxe4 8.dxc5 exf3+ 9.Kf2 Nf6 10.Bc4 Ne4+ 11.Kg1 fxg2 12.Kxg2 Bh3+ 13.Kg1 Qxc5+ 14.Qd4 Rd8!! White resigns

While Cordel (1888) and Bilguer (1916) updated the analysis of Salvio (1604) (see "Worth a Second Look... (Part 1)"), Busch and Gass have taken the opening in a different direction: that of a reversed Boden - Kieseritzky Gambit, a move down.

That, too, deserves a second look...