Jerome Gambit for Dummies (3)

The difficulty in the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) after 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 can be illustrated by the following diagram, after Black's best move, 6...Qh4:



White will most likely get one piece back, but it's sobering to realize that he sacrificed two pieces to get to this position...

On the other hand, if the first player opts for 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Black has many "refutations" at his disposal, but need only remember one: 6...g6 7.Qxe5 Qe7 - Whistler's Defense - to have a winning game.


So - What's a Jerome Gambit Gemeinde to do?? (Stay tuned.)

Jerome Gambit for Dummies (2)

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

This is the first Critical Position in the Jerome Gambit. Although 99% of the time (according to my database) Black captures the Bishop, the move is not forced. It is simply a choice for the second player between having an objectively winning game (4...Kxf7) and having the worse position (after 4...Kf8/4...Ke7 5.Bb3). Yet a few defenders will adopt the sly attitude If he wants me to take the Bishop, then I won't take it. There is some "psychology" in this, too: the Jerome Gambiteer suddenly finds himself or herself "stuck" with a calm, but immesurably "better" game than had been expected a move before. This change of fortune can take some getting used to. Those who resist may wish to resort to 5.Bxg8 or 5.Qe2 (if 5...Kxf7 6.Qc4+); or transpose to the Evans Jerome Gambit with 5.b4. 

  4...Kxf7 This is the second Critical Position. The "classical" Jerome Gambit continues with 5.Nxe5 (about 84% of the games in my database) while "modern" Jerome Gambits continue with alternatives such as 5.Nc3, 5.d3, or 5.0-0. For the record, after a very long think (over 12 hours) Deep Rybka 3.0 Aquarium assesses Black as being 1.91 pawns better after 5.Nxe5+ as well as after 5.Nc3. It sees White being only 1.72 pawns worse after 5.d3 or 5.0-0.

One fifth of a pawn doesn't seem like a lot to me, and I still prefer the complications of 5.Nxe5+. Jerome Gambiteers who feel they can knuckle down and simply outplay their opponents with the "modern" variations are free to disagree with me.

5.Nxe5+

This is the third Critical Position. Black's most frequent response is the logical 5...Nxe5, but he has alternatives in 5...Kf8, 5...Ke8 and 5...Ke7. The first of these "others" is a respected defense going back to Jerome - Brownson, Iowa 1875 (1/2-1/2, 29). The other two are blunders that give White the advantage after 6.Qh5.

After 5.Nxe5+ Kf8, the Banks Variation (see "Jerome Gambit and Vlad Tepes..." and "Jerome Gambit, Vlad Tepes... and Garlic!") is tempting, but probably Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's 6.Nxc6 is best.

5...Nxe5 This is the fourth Critical Position. White most frequently follows up with 6.Qh5+, although 6.d4 is also played, and there are a number of rare other moves.

Jerome Gambit for Dummies (1)

Bobby Fischer used to play with the white pieces against the Najdorf Sicilian (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6) - and win. Then he would take the black pieces in another game - and win with them. Some players - and some openings - are like that.

The Jerome Gambit is not. If you have the white pieces and play the Jerome against a knowledgeable and booked-up opponent, chances are that you are going to have a rough time of it – unless you're playing a "weaky" (Bobby's term) that you've given Jerome Gambit odds to. *

Playing 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+, you are counting on the element of surprise, shock, and awe to level the playing field. Therefore, you need to be aware of every trick, trap, and pitfall (or "caltrop" as Tim McGrew used to say) available to you so that you take advantage of every chance that comes your way.

Hence this series, "The Jerome Gambit For Dummies". (No jokes, please. We know, we know...)

* Some thoughts on the art of odds-giving, from the age of the Jerome Gambit:

Chess At Odds of Pawn and Move compiled by Baxter-Ray (1891)
Considering the large number of works published for the purpose of teaching a knowledge of the game of Chess, it must appear strange to the ordinary student to find so little information available in regard to Openings at Odds. Odds-giving has never received the attention it deserves from the analysts of the game. Yet it is very popular, and is rapidly growing in practice ; indeed, it is absolutely necessary for every Club, and a very large number of private players, to regularly introduce odds into their games, with, at present, little or nothing to guide them as to the best means of commencing play.

A Popular Introduction to the Study and Practice of Chess. Forming A Compendium of the Science of the Game by Samuel Boden (1851)
One may often hear persons declare that they think it cowardly to take odds, that they had rather be beaten on even terms ; or that the removing of a piece, in odds, must spoil the game. All this is sheer nonsense, and only bespeaks utter ignorance of Chess. A game played even, where one party should be rendering the odds of a piece in order to give the other a chance, will have no interest for the one, and little pleasure for the other. If the weaker player has no chance, of course the stronger player can have no sport.

The Australian Chess Annual Edited by H. B. Bignold (1896)
If the handicap given is a fair measure of the difference in skill of the respective players, the odds giver can only hope to neutralise his deficiency in material by superiority of development. Assuming he has the move, it immediately becomes a matter of the utmost importance to adopt a suitable opening. But what is a suitable opening ? The answer to this will vary with circumstances, and on the player's ability to gauge them will to a great extent depend his success as an odds-giver. It is very certain that every player has some particular style of opening, which is in consonance with his turn of thought, and in which he will appear to the best advantage. If you can form some idea of your adversary's penchant, and avoiding it, lead him on to less familiar ways, your chances are, perforce, improved. Assuming you are the better player, if it should seem to you that you have both the same cast of mind, it is a matter of very nice consideration whether it will pay you better to meet him on his own ground, which is also yours, or lead him on to ways strange to both of you, trusting to your greater skill to gain an advantage on the spur of the moment. In choosing a gambit it should be borne in mind that if the one adopted is familiar to the adversary, the game is almost hopelessly compromised, since the initial difference force is already increased without any positional recompense. The writer has a lively recollection of giving a 5th class player a Rook and Knight, himself being in the 1st class, and receiving 14 moves of book defence to the Allgaier he ventured on ! In this dilemma, though it may appear fanciful, perhaps your adversary may himself give you the least hint. If he is a careful, cautious man, square-jawed, deliberate of manner, apt to weigh his words — perhaps even attach too much weight to them — given to loading his pipe with the utmost deliberation, and lighting it as if it were a solemn function, is it too much to premise that he belongs to the class that loves to castle early and oppose a solid phalanx to the advancing foe ? Perchance an Allgaier, or a Kieseritzky, whereby his cherished scheme of castling is rendered impracticable, may utterly rout him ! If he is of the opposite temperament — nervous, painfully excitable, given to squirming with impatience should you appear unduly slow to move — a Giuoco, with its orderly development, may entice him from his entrenchments to be more easily dispatched. In general, of course, he will belong to neither extreme, and classifying him will be a work of some difficulty, but to one who cares to succeed, a knowledge of his rivals can never be without advantage, in chess or the sterner warfare that it dimly shadows forth.

Wasn't me!

When I was more active in over-the-board play, I played in a few tournaments sponsored by the Bishops Chess Club at Ohio Wesleyan University, Delaware, Ohio (you can check out some of Tom Green's Bishops Chess Club News). Somehow I managed to be absent when the following game was played:

Keusal - Freihofner

Trick or Treat Mini Swiss, C,

Bishops Chess Club, 2006

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nxe4 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke8 6.Qh5+ Ke7 7.Ng6+ Black resigned

White bypasses the Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit which he could have had with 4.Nc3, and instead goes Jerome-ish with 4.Bxf7+. Black was knocked out of his socks.

Although... It only seems fair to present a game that continued past the point where Black resigned: in this second game, Black outplays his opponent and achieves checkmate.

fsilverman - eforry

net-chess.com, 2002

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Nxe4 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke8 6.Qh5+ Ke7 7.Ng6+ hxg6 8.Qxh8 d6 9.Qh4+ Nf6 10.0-0 c5 11.Nc3 Be6 12.Re1 Kd7 13.d3 a6 14.Bg5 Be7 15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.Qa4+ Nc6 17.Ne4 b5 18.Nxf6+ gxf6 19.Qh4 Bf7 20.Qg4+ f5 21.Qf4 Qf6 22.c3 a5 23.f3 a4 24.Re3 Rh8 25.g3 Ne5 26.h4 Bd5 27.g4 Qxh4 28.Rxe5 dxe5 29.Qxe5 Qh1+ 30.Kf2 Qxf3+ 31.Ke1 Rh1+ 32.Kd2 Rxa1 33.Qg7+ Kd6 34.Qxg6+ Ke5 35.Qe8+ Kf4 36.Qb8+ Kxg4 37.Qxb5 Qf2 Checkmate

Which isn't the full story... as White's "killer move" in game one, forcing resignation, could have been replaced with the stronger 7.Qf7+, when White's advantage is clear after the quirky line 7...Kd6 8.d4 Qf6 (look familiar?) 9.f3 Nc5 10.Nc3 c6 11.dxc5 Kxe5 12.f4+ Kf5 13.Qh5+ Ke6 14.f5+ Qxf5 15.Qe8+ Be7 16.Qxh8.

All of which only means... that Black should have answered 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nxe4 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke8 6.Qh5+ with 6...g6 (instead of 6...Ke7). After 7.Nxg6 hxg6 8.Qxh8 Qf6 9.Qxf6 Nxf6 the game is about equal.

Which hardly seems fair - and it's not. Black should answer 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nxe4 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ with 5...Kg8 and win!

graphic by Jeff Bucchino, the Wizard of Draws

Please, don't do that...

I have said this before, nicely (see "Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit" and "Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit (2)): please don't play the Blackburne Shilling Gambit against me... I tend to go Jerome all over it.

I was finishing up a nice evening of blitz at the Free Internet Chess Server (FICS), having played some fun games with several pleasant, creative opponents. The only disappointment was that I hadn't been able to either play or defend against a Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+). I had one last chance...

perrypawnpusher - tampajake

blitz 10 7, FICS, 2009

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4

Time to insert some relevant discussion from a forum at ChessGames from 6 years ago:

Aulero: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 After 3...Nd4 4.Bxf7+, Simply 4.Bxf7+, I cannot resist to this shot, especially in a rapid game!

Cyphelium: 4. Bxf7+, as suggested above, doesn't convince me

Cyphelium: But ok, I admit that 4. Bxf7+ might be good after all. Though to play this, white has to agree to _defend_ his position, which hardly was your idea with the f7 sac. ;-)
Aulero: 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke8 My concern is about 5...Ke6 and White should prove that the attack is winning.
Honza Cervenka: 5...Ke7 is also possible.
Cyphelium: might indeed be the best move. No forced lines that I see. I guess white has to continue Cochrane gambit-style, develop his pieces and push forward his central pawns, hoping that black's king position will give him compensation. 6.c3 Might be a good start.
Aulero: 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Nxg6 Nf6 8.Qh3 [ I play 8.Qe5+ (not Qh3) and 8...Ne6 (8...Be7 9.Nxe7) 9.Nxh8 and I don't think White is worse.]
Cyphelium: 9...d5. Ok, of course 8.Qe5+ is more natural than 8.Qh3 and better too. It's not so simple though. 8. Qe5+ Ne6 9. Nxh8 and I think we should analyse further: and now white has to thread carefully. Or maybe I need more coffee and don't understand this at all?
Cyphelium: Possible, but look at this: A/ Few would play 10.exd5 I think: ( B/ 10.0-0 Bd6 11.Qf5 ( 11.Qc3 seems worse) 11...Nf4 12.Qg5 dxe4 and it's not so clear, but white might easily run into things like 13. Nc3 Nf4 14. Qg5 Bh3! Then a very nice (but not forced) variation is 15. Nxe4 Nxe4 16. Qg8+ Kd7 17. Qxd8+ (17.Qf7+!?)17.- Rxd8 18. gxh3 Rg8+! 19. Kh1 Nxh3 with mate on f2 to follow.
Cyphelium: Bd6 and now 11.Qf5 just loses to a) instead 11.Qc3 Nxd5 and black has active play and compensation. But perhaps not enough? (Though I would hate to be white.) b)There is the brilliant resource 11.Nf7 and - after 11...Bxe5 ( b)Why not 11...Kxf7 instead of 11.- Bxe5? 12.dxe6+ Bxe6 and it seems to me that white is lagging _somewhat_ in development and that black has compensation and plenty of it too.For a start, which square will you put your queen on? Rooks and queens and stuff are soon coming to e-files and g-files....
Aulero: Ok, White's development is late and it must be very carefully. I should admit one point to Black's favour, White started with a sacrifice in order to mate and now is up in material but it must defend! I don't know which is the best square for Queen: impulsively I would play Qe2 trying to follow with d3, Be3, Nc3, 0-0-0 ... yes, I know, Black will not watch passively, but it is hard to foresight all possibledevelopments.

Cyphelium: On 13.Qe2 I thought 13...Qg8 would be a good answer. (pawn g2 hanging, Re8 coming etc) But as you say, it's very complicated. In a rapid game, I might well go for your 4.Bxf7+. In a long game I'd prefer 4. Nxd4

Aulero: 12.Nxd8 Nxd8 - White is not worse.
Cyphelium: 11...Nf4 12.Qg5 Qe7+
Cyphelium: 8...hxg6 9.Qxh8 Nxc2+ and black will end up with a piece for two pawns.

Admit it, readers: you skipped a bit of that discussion to get here, didn't you? Me, too, as it turns out...

4.Bxf7+ 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke8 6.Qh5+ g6

The alternative leads to mate: 6...Ke7 7.Qf7+ Kd6 8.Nc4+ Kc5 9.Qd5+ Kb4 10.a3+ Ka4 11.Qa5 checkmate

7.Nxg6 hxg6 8.Qxh8

Here's another good reason not to play the Blackburne Shilling Gambit against me: I don't know enough about my favorite lines to stay out of trouble. Instead of grabbing the Rook White should play 8.Qxg6+ and then capture the Black Knight: 8...Ke7 9.Qg5+ Nf6 10.Qc5+ Kf7 11.Qxd4 with a slight disadvantage (four pawns for a piece) that should be comfortable for any Jerome Gambiteer.

8...Nh6


Phew! Good luck is better than a license to steal...

After 8...Nxc2+ the position is a mess, especially following 9.Kd1 Nxa1 10.Qxg8 Qg5. Even if White captures the Knight at a1, it will cost him a couple of pawns and Black is liable to maintain an edge.

9.Qxd4 Qg5 10.0-0 Bc5 11.Qh8+ Ke7 12.d4 Black resigns




graphic by Jeff Bucchino, the Wizard of Draws

Dii minorum gentium

Chessfriend Anders Thulin, some good time back, mentioned that page 155 of The Chess Monthly, Volume 8 (1886-1887) contained "a long diatribe against the naming of Gambits and Openings, which ends..."

...The new mania among Chess-players to affix their names to some sub-sub-sub variation makes it anyhow a small honor indeed to be an inventor of an Opening, and when Labourdonnais, Anderssen, Morphy, Kolisch, Blackburne, and other good names are among the not decorated, we at least would prefer to belong to the same section and not aspire to those honours which seem to be the pride of the Dii minorum gentium [of the inferior orders]. No offense to anybody, but it is difficult enough already to know what is meant when every new year is marked with new Gambits, like Jerome, Blackmar, Pierce, Rosentreter, Qaade, &c...

History Mystery

From the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, March 1, 1900, page 14:

...Theodore M. Avery of Poly Prep encountered a team of the Manual Training School players in a simultaneous exhitition and won every game but one, which he drew. He defeated Caffall in a Scotch Gambit, Saunders in a Ruy Lopez; Baker and Fuchs, consulting, in a Max Lange; Lehman and Stillman, consulting, in a Two Knights Defense, and Steiner and Dennett, consulting, in a Jerome Gambit.

The Poly Prep Country Day School continues to this day in Brooklyn, New York, and I emailed Mr, Malcolm Farley, Director of Communications, to see if he could direct me to other sources of information about Avery's simultaneous exhibition.

Oh, and although the name "Steiner" leaps out to the eye as one of the players defending against the Jerome Gambit, the game took place several years before either Herman or Lajos Steiner were born...

Mr. Farley's response came quickly:

Dear Mr. Kennedy:

Many thanks for your interest in Poly Prep and its history.

As you know our school—which prepares students from nursery through 12th grade for college and for life—was founded in 1854. So, we have a long and storied past in Brooklyn.

Alas, our archivist has searched Poly’s extant records for 1900 and can find no information about Mr. Avery’s chess activities. Should we come across any such information in the future, we will forward it to you.

Once again, thank you.

Cordially yours,

Malcolm G. Farley