...said the spider to the fly

If you play the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) against an opponent twice (like my games against BronxBoyII, JoeJox and tejeshwar), you may ruin the advantage of surprise – and your opponent may have his own surprise waiting for you...

perrypawnpusher - marbleschess

blitz 10 0, FICS, 2009

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

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6

Improving on 6...g6 7.Qxe5 Nf6 from our first game.

7.Qd5+ Kf8 8.Qxc5+ Qe7

This looks like a TN, and a good one at that. Now the pawn-grab 9.Qxc7 for White is a good way to commit suicide: 9...Qxe4+, etc.

9.Qe3 Nf6 10.d3 d5 11.f3

Falling back and digging in. See my game against Mooncat for a similar idea.

11...dxe4 12.fxe4 Ng4 13.0-0+

Well, that's one worry (King safety) taken care of, and a second piece developed, but Black is still clearly better.

13...Ke8 14.Qg3 Qc5+ 15.Kh1 Be6

A good developing move, although 15...Rf8 might have been stronger.

16.Nc3 Kd7

Preparing to both swing the Queen Rook into play and castle-by-hand. Marbleschess, it is clear, was no longer in awe of the Jerome Gambit.

Perhaps that is what saved me.

17.h3

Better might have been 17.Bf4, but I had a pretty good guess how my opponent was going to respond to my move, and I had an unsettling surprise.

17...N4e5 18.d4

Perhaps what Ossip Bernstein was thinking about when he mentioned "the equalizing injustice of chess."

Now White would have a slightly better game after Black plays 18...Qc4 19.Rd1 Raf8 20.dxe5+ Kc8, but instead his opponent goes to pieces.

18...Qxd4 19.Rd1 Qxd1+ 20.Nxd1 Rad8 21.Bf4 Kc8 22.Bxe5 Nxe5 23.Qxe5

23...Bd7 24.Nc3 Rhe8 25.Qg3 g6 26.Nd5 Black resigns

"Come into my parlor..."

Every chess game that I play, especially one involving the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) contains something – a move, a position, an idea, a combination, an error – that makes it memorable. At times it's even the lack of something that makes the game stick with me.

perrypawnpusher - marbleschess
blitz 12 0, FICS, 2009

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

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

7.Qxe5 Nf6

This is such a reasonable move, protecting the Rook, and I've seen it before (vs Alternative, MsD and Brain50). The problem is, of course, that after eight moves White is two pawns up, instead of being two pieces down. In light of Geoff Chandler's "Blunder Table", it is clear that at my level of play, this need not be terminal – but it is bad form for play against the Jerome Gambit.

8.Qxc5 Qe7 9.Qxe7+ Kxe7 10.Nc3 d6 11.d4

There's nothing really exciting going on, just the two-pawn edge.

11...Re8 12.Bg5 Kf7 13.Bxf6 Kxf6 14.0-0 Be6

15.f4 d5 16.e5+ Kf5

Now this is interesting.

17.h3 h5

18.Rae1

White does better with 18.Ne2, as in 18...Bc8 19.g4+ hxg4 20.Ng3+ Ke6 21.hxg4.

18...c6 19.Ne2 h4

Black holds back the White g-pawn – he thinks – to further safeguard his King. Instead, the mating net is put in place.

20.g4+ Ke4 21.c3

Readers no doubt have noticed that there was a mate, instead, with 21.Rd1 Bf5 22.Nc3+ Ke3 23.gxf5 gxf5 24.Rd3#

21...Kd3 22.b3

Looking for a way to keep the intruder trapped.

22...b5

Black sends a commando to help his King escape.

23.Rf3+

I take my hat off to any reader who spotted that with 23.Rd1+, instead, the Black King is forced to c2, when 24.Rb1 would set up a mating net due to the threat of Kg1-f2-f3 and then mate with the Rooks. Black would have to sacrifice heavily to avoid that.

23...Kc2

24.Rf2

The key move here is 24.Nc1: 24...Kb2 25.a3 ( 25.a4 Bf5 26.gxf5 gxf5 27.Re2+ Ka1 28.Nd3 Rg8+ 29.Kh2 Rg1 30.Kxg1 Rg8+ 31.Kh2 Rg2+ 32.Kxg2 bxa4 33.Rf1#) 25...Bxg4 26.hxg4 Rxe5 27.fxe5 Rf8 28.Re2+ Kb1 29.Rxf8 h3 30.Nd3 h2+ 31.Rxh2 g5 32.Rf1#

24...Kb2 25.f5

Phooey! Enough time wasted on mates that I can't find. Let's put those extra pawns to work!

25...gxf5 26.gxf5 Bg8 27.Nf4+ Ka3 28.Ng6

Not the best series of moves, but I've got a general outline of what I need to do.

28...b4 29.cxb4 Kxb4 30.Nxh4 c5 31.dxc5 Kxc5

Black has a passed pawn now, too, but it is too late for it to change the outcome of the game.

32.f6 Be6 33.Nf5 Rf8 34.Rc1+ Kb4 35.h4

As much psychology as chess play.

35...Rh8 36.Nd4 Rae8 37.Nxe6 Rxe6 38.f7 Rf8 39.Re1 Rg6+ 40.Kh2 Rh6 41.Kh3

41...Rh7 42.e6 Kc5 43.e7 Rfxf7 44.Rxf7 Rxf7 45.e8Q

45...Rf3+ 46.Kg2 Rd3 47.Rc1+ Kd4 48.Qh8+ Ke4 Black resigned

NOT the Jerome Gambit

Occasionally I have taken a break from the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) on this web site to give an update on the adventures of my son, Jon, the youngest of the three "Kennedy Kids" (above, at his recent graduation from the University of Notre Dame, with brother Matt and sister Mary): see"And Now For Something Completely Different..."; "A Short Break from the Jerome Gambit"; and "Ugandan Chess Master" for his summer in Uganda.

I probably should have mentioned that he spent Spring Break 2009 in El Salvador. He was observing the election, however, not playing chess. Still, Ajedrez El Salvador is an interesting and informative site.

In the fall Jon will be off to Haiti. I haven't found out much about the Haiti Chess Federation, but I'll keep you posted.

SIRMO

While preparing "Jerome Gambit for Dummies (5)" I realized that I had published only two games of the Jerome Gambit thematic tournament winner, SIRMO: plummy - SIRMO, chessworld.net, 2007 (0-1, 49) and Bullit52 - SIRMO, chessworld.net, 2007 (0-1, 12).

I think I may have unfairly shied away from his games because SIRMO prefers the "modern" Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) variations – not playing 5.Nxe5+ after 4...Kxf7 – and because a number of his wins feature a certain amount of wizardry...

Here are SIRMO's Jerome Gambit wins with white.

SIRMO - AAlekhine

thematic www.chessworld.net, 12.2007

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kf8 [Hardly the way to refute the Jerome Gambit! - Rick] 5.Bxg8 Rxg8 6.c3 Qf6 7.d3 d6 8.a4 Ke8 9.Bg5 Qg6 10.h4 h6 11.h5 Qe6 12.Bd2 Bd7 13.b4 Bxf2+ 14.Kxf2 Rf8 15.Rh3 Ke7 16.Be3 Rae8 17.b5 Na5 18.Nbd2 Kd8 19.Ke2 Kc8 20.c4 g5 21.Nh2 Qf6 22.Rf3 Qe6 23.Qf1 g4 24.Rxf8 g3 25.Rxe8+ Bxe8 26.Nhf3 Bxh5 27.Qh1 Qf7 28.Qh3+ Kb8 29.Qxg3 b6 30.Bxh6 Nb7 31.Qg7 Qxg7 32.Bxg7 Nc5 33.a5 Ne6 34.Bf6 Nf4+ 35.Kf1 Nxd3 36.axb6 cxb6 37.Be7 Kc8 38.Bxd6 Kd7 39.Nxe5+ Nxe5 40.Bxe5 Ke6 41.Bc7 Kd7 42.Rxa7 Kc8 43.Bxb6 Kb8 44.c5 Bd1 45.Nc4 Bb3 46.Nd6 Bc2 47.Rd7 1-0

SIRMO - Bullit52

thematic www.chessworld.net, 11.2007

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.c3 Nf6 6.a4 [The use of c3 + a4 with the threat against the Bishop of a4-a5 in the Jerome Gambit could well be called the "SIRMO maneuver" - Rick] a5 7.Qb3+ Ke8 8.Ng5 Rf8 9.Qc4 Bd6 10.Qe2 Ne7 Here, Black lost on time. 1-0

SIRMO - Ratscales

thematic www.chessworld.net, 01.2008

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.d3 h6 6.c3 d6 7.a4 Qf6 8.b4 Bxf2+ 9.Kxf2 g5 10.h3 Ke8 11.Be3 Be6 12.Ke2 d5 13.Rf1 Qe7 14.a5 Nf6 15.Nh2 Nh5 16.Rf3 Kd8 17.Na3 a6 18.Kd2 Qd7 19.Kc2 d4 20.Bd2 Nxa5 21.bxa5 Qa4+ 22.Kc1 Bb3 23.Qe1 Nf4 24.Bxf4 exf4 25.c4 Re8 26.Ng4 Re6 27.Kb2 b6 28.Nb5 Rxe4 29.dxe4 Qxc4 30.Na3 Qc5 31.Rxb3 b5 32.e5 h5 33.Nf6 Ra7 34.e6 c6 35.Ng8 Ke8 36.e7 Qd5 1-0

SIRMO - plummy

thematic www.chessworld.net, 12.2007 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.0-0 Nf6 6.c3 Nxe4 7.Nxe5+ Nxe5 8.d4 Bd6 9.dxe5 Bxe5 10.Qd5+ Kf8 11.Qxe4 d6 12.Na3 Qf6 13.f4 Bf5 14.Qf3 Ke8 15.fxe5 dxe5 16.Qxf5 Qxf5 17.Rxf5 Kd7 18.Rxe5 c6 19.Bg5 Kc7 20.Re7+ Kb6 21.Rxg7 h5 22.Nc4+ Ka6 23.Nd6 b5 24.b4 h4 25.a4 c5 26.axb5+ Kb6 27.Ra6 checkmate 1-0

SIRMO - BrainFreeze

thematic www.chessworld.net, 02.2008 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.c3 Nf6 6.a4 Nxe4 7.d4 exd4 8.0-0 dxc3 9.Qd5+ Kf8 10.Qxe4 cxb2 11.Bxb2 d6 [A "Danish - Jerome Gambit"?? White can now draw with 12.Qf4+ - Rick] 12.Nbd2 Qe7 13.Qf4+ Qf7 14.Qg3 Rg8 15.Rfe1 Bf5 16.Ng5 Qg6 17.Re2 h6 18.Nge4 Qxg3 19.Nxg3 Bd3 20.Ree1 Bb4 21.Bc1 Nd4 22.a5 Nc2 23.Ra4 Nxe1 24.Rxb4 Rb8 25.Bb2 Nc2 26.Rb3 Bg6 27.Kf1 c5 28.Nde4 Bxe4 29.Nxe4 Re8 30.f3 Re6 31.Rxb7 a6 32.Bc1 g5 33.h3 Rg7 34.Rb8+ Ke7 35.Rb6 d5 36.Nxc5 Rxb6 37.axb6 Rg8 38.Nxa6 Nd4 39.b7 Nc6 40.f4 Rf8 41.Ba3+ Kf7 42.Bxf8 Kxf8 43.f5 Kf7 44.g4 d4 45.Ke2 Kf6 46.b8Q Nxb8 47.Nxb8 Ke5 48.Kd3 Kf4 49.f6 Kg3 50.f7 Kxh3 51.f8Q Kxg4 52.Nc6 Kh4 53.Nxd4 g4 54.Qxh6+ Kg3 55.Ke3 Kg2 56.Ne2 1-0

SIRMO - karmmark

thematic www.chessworld.net, 12.2007 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.0-0 Nf6 6.c3 d6 7.h3 Rf8 8.d4 Kg8 9.dxc5 dxc5 10.Qxd8 Rxd8 11.Bg5 Rd6 12.Nbd2 b5 13.Rad1 h6 14.Bh4 Be6 15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.Rfe1 a5 17.Nh4 Rad8 18.Nhf3 Ne7 19.b3 Ng6 20.Re2 Nf4 21.Re3 Kh7 22.Kh2 Rg8 23.Nh4 Rd3 24.Rxd3 Nxd3 25.f3 Nf2 [The game is even here, but the endgame proves to be a nail-biter - Rick] 26.Rf1 Nd3 27.g4 Nf4 28.Nf5 h5 29.Ne7 Re8 30.Nc6 Ra8 31.Nb1 c4 32.Nd2 Ne2 33.bxc4 bxc4 34.Nb1 Ra6 35.Ne7 Nf4 36.Na3 Rd6 37.Nb5 Rd2+ 38.Kg3 Rg2+ 39.Kh4 Kg7 40.Nxc7 Bd7 41.Ncd5 Rxa2 42.Nxf4 exf4 43.Kxh5 Rh2 44.Kh4 Rc2 45.Nd5 a4 46.Ra1 Rf2 47.Rb1 Rxf3 48.Nb6 Be8 49.Nxc4 Rxc3 50.Nd2 Bg6 51.Rb7+ Kh6 52.e5 fxe5 53.g5 checkmate 1-0

SIRMO - manago

thematic www.chessworld.net, 01.2008

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.d3 Nf6 6.a4 Rf8 7.c3 d6 8.0-0 [ The thematic 8.b4!? led to about an even game: 8...Nxb4 9.Qb3+ Be6 10.Ng5+ Kg6 11.Nxe6 Nxd3+ 12.Kd2 Nxc1 13.Kxc1 Qe7 14.Nxf8+ Rxf8 - Rick] 8...Kg8 9.Ng5 [ I'm for 9.b4 again - Rick] 9...Bg4 10.Qe1 Nh5 11.h3 Bxh3 ["All according to plan", but the stronger plan was 11...Nf4!? 12.hxg4 Nxd3 - Rick] 12.Nxh3 Ng3 13.b4 Nxb4 14.cxb4 Bd4 15.Ra2 Nxf1 16.Kxf1 Qh4 17.Be3 Rf6 18.Bxd4, White has an advantage, but Black lost on time 1-0

SIRMO - NMTIGER

thematic www.chessworld.net, 12.2007 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.c3 Nf6 6.a4 Nxe4 7.d4 exd4 8.0-0 Qf6 9.Qd3 Qg6 10.cxd4 Nb4 11.Qc4+ Qe6 12.Qxe6+ dxe6 13.dxc5 Nc2 14.Ra2 Nb4 15.Ra1 Nxc5 16.Bf4 Nc2 17.Ra2 b5 18.axb5 Nb4 19.Ra5 Ncd3 20.Ne5+ Nxe5 21.Bxe5 Nc2 22.Bxc7 Nd4 23.h3 Ne2+ 24.Kh2 Rf8 25.b6 a6 26.Nc3 Nxc3 27.bxc3 Bb7 28.Re1 Ke7 29.Rae5 Rxf2 30.Rxe6+ Kf7 31.R1e2 Rf5 32.Re7+ Kg6 33.R2e6+ Rf6 34.Rxf6+ Kxf6 35.Bd6 Bc6 36.b7 Bxb7 37.Rxb7 a5 38.Rb3 Ke6 39.Bc5 Kd5 40.Bd4 g6 41.Rb5+ Kc4 42.Rc5+ Kb3 43.Rb5+ Kc4 44.Rc5+ Kd3 45.Rb5 a4 46.Rb2 a3 47.Ra2 Kc4 48.Bf6 Kb3 49.Ra1 a2 50.g4 Rc8 51.g5 Ka3 [Here or on the next move, ...Rc4 looks like a save for Black - Rick] 52.Kg3 Rb8 53.c4 Rb1 54.Kf2 Kb3 55.c5 Rxa1 56.Bxa1 Kc2 57.c6 Kb1 58.Bf6 h5 59.gxh6 g5 60.c7 a1Q 61.Bxa1 Kxa1 62.c8Q g4 63.Qb8 gxh3 64.h7 h2 65.h8Q+ Ka2 66.Qhb2 checkmate 1-0

Jerome Gambit for Dummies (5)

The study mentioned in "Jerome Gambit for Dummies (4)" used Candidate Masters and Masters for its subject pool, and the two openings that one group or the other specialized in were the Sicilian Defense and the French Defense.

While it is reassuring to think that specializing in the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) might give the Jerome-player a 200 point advantage when playing someone familiar with the Gambit, it is important to share information from a study I did last year, published in Unorthodox Openings Newsletter #21, June/July/August 2008, "Nobody Expects the Jerome Gambit",

Before diving into some of the lessons to be learned from the 156 games of the Jerome Gambit Tournament, I wanted to share something from GM Nigel Davies' fantastic book, Gambiteer I.

“Having examined literally thousands of club players’ games over the years, I have noticed several things:1) The player with the more active pieces tends to win.2) A pawn or even several pawns is rarely a decisive advantage.3) Nobody knows much theory.4) When faced with aggressive play, the usual reaction is to cower.”

- GM Nigel Davies

This wisdom is relevant to the tournament under consideration, where players ranged from the1200s to the1800s according to chessworld's rating system, and where knowledge of the “book” lines of the Jerome Gambit ranged from a good bit to not very much at all. We are not going to be looking at masters searching out the ultimate truth of the opening, we are going to see how it is played at club level.

Please remember, too, that we are not looking at the Ruy Lopez, or even the Blackmar Diemer Gambit. We are looking at the duck-billed platypus of the chess opening world.

In fact, I have to say that my first prediction for the result of the competition was a 13-way tie for first place, with the players losing all of their games with the white pieces and winning all of their games with the black pieces. After all, the Jerome Gambit has a number of clear refutations – how could it be otherwise?

After some thought, however, I realized that there was more to consider than just White vs Black. As I wrote in UON #17, the Jerome Gambit "is playable in the way that 'giving odds' is playable.” So I looked at all of the match-ups in the tournament, and when White was rated several hundred points above Black, I predicted a win for the first player.

Carrying this reevaluation through all of the games, I estimated that the tournament winner would score 18 points out of 24.

As it turns out, blackburne (Pete) scored 18 ½ points, winning 10 out of 12 times with white!

This was only good enough for fourth place, however, as SIRMO, who won a still-impressive 8 times with white and drew twice, won every game he played with the black pieces, for a total of 21 points! This allowed him to place ahead of savage13 and drewbear, each who won 9 times asWhite, scoring 20 and 19 points each.

Contrary to my initial impressions, White won 63 games in the Jerome Gambit Tournament, lost 90, and drew 3, for a score of 41% – this is unimpressive in comparison with “legitimate” chess openings, but a bit surprising for an opening that GM Keene once wrote “should never be played.”

Jerome Gambit Tournament 2007-2008
-------------------------1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--0--1--2--3--Total
1 SIRMO 1857 +13-------- ** 01 01 ½1 1½ 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 21.0/24
2 savage13 1712 +109---- 10 ** 10 01 11 11 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 20.0/24
3 drewbear 1562 +222---- 10 01 ** 01 11 10 11 11 11 10 11 11 11 19.0/24
4 blackburne 1795 -51--- ½0 10 10 ** 10 01 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 18.5/24
5 Nestor250168 1684 -106 0½ 00 00 01 ** 01 10 10 11 10 11 11 11 13.5/24
6 Ratscales 1383 +158--- 00 00 01 10 10 ** 01 11 1½ 10 00 10 11 11.5/24
7 AAlekhine 1607 -130--- 00 01 00 00 01 10 ** 01 00 10 01 11 11 10.0/24
8 Bullit52 1541 -58----- 00 00 00 00 01 00 10 ** 01 10 11 11 11 10.0/24
9 BrainFreeze 1594 -164- 00 00 00 00 00 0½ 11 10 ** 01 01 01 11 8.5/24
10 karmmark 1373 +59---- 00 00 01 00 01 01 01 01 10 ** 01 10 00 8.0/24
11 plummy 1463 -38------ 00 00 00 00 00 11 10 00 10 10 ** 01 11 8.0/24
12 NMTIGER 1292 +72----- 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 10 01 10 ** 11 6.0/24
13 manago 1202 -65------ 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 11 00 00 ** 2.0/24

Analysis of the results shows that the difference in ratings between White and Black (ratings rose and fell during the tournament after wins and losses) was a significant factor in the outcome of the games, with the correlation being about .7 (that is to say about ½ of the variance in the results was due the difference in strength of the players).

Charting each win and loss against a range of strength differences between the players – White is 0-100 points higher (or lower) than Black, White is 101-200 points higher (or lower) than Black, White is 201-300 points higher (or lower) than Black, etc. shows that in this Jerome Gambit Tournament, White needed to be rated only 200 points higher than his opponent to overcome the handicap of “giving Jerome Gambit odds” and have strong winning chances.

Jerome Gambit for Dummies (4)

Question: When it comes to playing the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) what happens if I don't know the best lines for White, and my opponent doesn't play one of the best defenses, anyhow?

Answer: Ha, ha, ha, ha...

Playing the Jerome Gambit is very risky business, and a serious member of the Jerome Gambit Gemeinde learns enough about the opening (starting with this blog, of course) to at least understand the imbalances that favor him (e.g. lack of the enemy King's safety) and the strategic ideas (e.g. advancing the "extra" pawns, attacking the enemy King) that are most likely to lead him to victory.

One significant advantage that the Jerome player has is that often his opponent is unfamiliar with the opening. A recent paper by Merim Bilalić and Peter McLeod, "Specialization Effect and its influence on Memory and Problem Solving in Expert Chess Players" has some interesting conclusions regarding familiarity with a position.

Expert chess players both remembered and solved problems arising from their area of opening specialization better than problems out side their specialization. We were also able to quantify the specialization effect - players remembered and
solved the problem stimuli within their specialization roughly at the level of players one SD [standard deviation] above them in skill but who lacked the specialized knowledge...

Looking at the Elo rating system, one standard deviation is 200 points. The study showed that players solving problems related to an opening that they played regularly performed that much better than those whose opening repertoire (i.e. specialization) was not related to the problems.
Under those circumstances, the unfamiliar players searched wider for solutions, and thus less deep. Those players familiar with the problem formations (because they came from openings that they played) were able to focus their search for solutions narrowly, and thus searched deeper.
Thus, the advantage (200 Elo points) of playing and knowing your openings against one who does not.

Stats (Huh?)

Readers might come away from examining the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) database statistics – see "Stats (1)", "Stats (2)" and "Stats (3)" – with a small sense of confusion, as the Opening Reports seem to both show that White scores "better than average" in a number of lines; yet there are Critical Lines where White scores poorly.

(Readers might also want to compare the analysis with the "A Closer Look" series, which took a look at the Ninja Knights T3 Jerome Gambit thematic tournament: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ; as well as look at the Comments following "Jerome Gambit: Transylvanian Terror!")

This result reflects both the nature of sampling bias (that is, because of how the games were collected – that Jerome Gambit wins are more likely to be published and available to the researcher than Jerome Gambit losses – there are more opening successes than failures, despite the opening's "objective" strength); and the nature of the opening itself (defenders are often taken by surprise, become intimidated, and do not take advantage of the winning opportunities that are presented to them).

A comparable case would be a database that collected all available games in which Queen-odds were given. Although being a Queen up is usually considered enough of an advantage for all but the rankest of amateurs to win with (see Geoff Chandler's "Blunder Table"), it is highly likely that the results of the database would highly favor the odds-giver.