Role Reversal

Sometimes in a Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) game, the players' roles can be reversed, and Black can become the attacker. In those cases, the second player must use everything he has, or risk seeing the game slip away.

Valverde,M (2136) - Krause,V (1683)

CiF-4er/0114 Remoteschach.de, 2008

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

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5

7...Qe8

This is new. Blackburne's defense is 7...d6. Whistler's defense is 7...Qe7. The text looks like a finger-slip, but it is an interesting counter-gambit that almost works.

8.Qxc5

Taking the Rook leads to a painful death after 8.Qxe4+, as in the Whistler see – "Whistling by the graveyard..."

8...Qxe4+ 9.Kf1 Nf6

Instead of this natural move, Rybka 3.0 suggests 9...b6. The idea is the pawn sacrifice 10.Qxc7, which would allow Black to whip up a scary attack with 10...Ba6+ 11.d3 Nf6. Black's threat of ...Bxd3+ and then ...Qxd3+ is annoying. White can try 12.Qd6, and then face 12...Rhe8 when things are quite unclear.

Passing on the pawn doesn't avoid all the danger, for example 10.Qc3 Bb7 11.f3 Qe6 12.Kf2 (White could trade a Queen for two Rooks with 12.Qxh8 Nf6 13.Qxa8 Bxa8) 12...Re8 13.Rf1 Nf6 14.d3 Qd6 15.Kg1 Re2 and even though White has castled-by-hand, the game is still unclear.

10.d3 Qe6 11.Nc3 Re8 12.Bg5 b6

The pawn offer isn't as strong here (although it may lead to a drawish Bishops-of-opposite-color ending), and White isn't thinking "material," anyhow, he's thinking "safety."

13.Qd4 b5

This is a tactical oversight that allows White to wrap up the game. More energetic was the thematic 13...Bb7, when Black still has some pressure for his pawn.

14.Qxf6+ Qxf6 15.Bxf6 Kxf6 16.Nd5+ Black resigned

Keep the shilling...

For those Readers who like to apply the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) treatment to the Blackburne Shilling Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4), the following game should bring a smile to their faces.

By the way, a number of years ago, a Hindemburg Melao wrote an interesting article analyzing Amateur - Blackburne, London 1885, “Ajedrez a la Ciega”,(not currently available). Could he be the same player as below?

Melao Jr.,H - Danilo
Centro Cultural, 1996
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Bxf7+

This game pre-dates all of the 4.Bxf7+ Blackburne Shilling Gambit games that I have in my database.

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke6 6.c3

The recommended line, as in perrypawnpusher - TheProducer, blitz 10 0, FICS, 2009 (see "Jerome Gambit: Reeling Sequel") but here Melao plays much better than I did.

6...Kxe5 7.cxd4+ Kxe4 8.Qh5

Black should not have taken that pawn on e4.

8...Kxd4

Sadly, Black's best move is 8...g5, to try and limit the White Queen. Still, after 9.Qg4+ Kd5 10.Nc3+ if Black's King isn't mated, he will eventually lose a Rook to a Queen check at e5.

9.d3 Bb4+ 10.Nc3 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3+ Kxc3

12.Qc5+ Kxd3 13.Qd5+ Kc3 14.Bd2+ Kb2 15.Qb3+ Kxa1 16.0-0 checkmate

Tips for Advanced Chess Tutors

At the RedHotPawn chess site I ran into a discussion titled "Tips for Advanced Chess Tutors" which had an interesting post from Fat Lady (rated 2145) about an creative use of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+)


Fat Lady
rated 2145
04 Nov '06 21:20 :: 0 recommendations
I find it quite difficult to go over other people's games as they often have their own way of playing which is completely different to mine. I try to be careful not to force my style onto them. This is especially true of attacking players - if I'm going over a game between a couple of ten year olds, then it's likely I'm going to be able to find an adequate defence to the winner's sacrifical attack. But does that mean I should tell them their sacrifice was unsound? I tend to just refute the really obviously bad sacrifices and attacking ideas and suggest better ways of carrying out a similar idea. My theme for tomorrows lesson is "How to survive a sacrificial attack". One of the things I'll be doing is pairing them up and asking them to continue the following game: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. Bxf7+ Kxf7 5. Nxe5+ Nxe5 6. Qh5+ I will try to pair them up so that a player with an attacking style in Black, and one with a more positional style is White, just to see how it works out.

A Jerome Gambit Motif

I do not know if James Lenz's opponent, Lyle Hansen, was even aware of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) or not, but when I saw the game Hansen - Lenz from the 2008 South Dakota State Tournament on the South Dakota Chess Association website, I recognized a Jerome-ish quality to White's play – even if it was against 1...b6 and 2...Bb7.

The notes below are by Lenz, who was annotating his "best" and his "worst" games of the tournament. 

Queen's Fianchetto Defense, Nimzowitsch Defense (B00)

Lyle Hansen (1800) James Lenz (1555) 

2008 South Dakota State Tournament, 

My worst game. 

 1. e4 b6 2.Nf3 Bb7 3.Bc4 Crude oil at $148/barrel and I had no gas left, it was the last round, trophy out of reach, I thought h6 was safe, I didn't even consider the Bxf7+ sacrifice until.

3...h6 4.Bxf7+?!

It does win many lines but all you need is one line out. The simple 3.Bc4 e6 is all Black needs to stalwort White's development from exceeding the "line of demarcation". The h6 oversight will infringe on Black's defense of his King. On the other hand, it will cost White two minor pieces and if Black plays without error into the 10-15 move range, Fritz 6 shows Black as winning. For Black there are many ways to lose.

4...Kxf7 5.Ne5+ Kf6

If 5...Ke8 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxg6#

6.Qf3+ Kxe5 It is not wise not to take the knight.

7.Qf5+ Kd6

Not 7...Kd4 8.d3 Nowhere safe for king, Be3#. Also 7...Kc4 8.b3+ Kb4 9.a3#, or 7...Kc4 8.b3+ Kd4 9. c3+ Kd3 10. Na3 Bxe4 11. helpmate Qb5#

8. e5+

If 8...Kd5 9.Nc3+ Kc5 10.e6+ Kd4 11. Nb5+ Kc4 (only safe square) 12.b3 Kb4 13.a3+ Ka5 14.Nxa7+ Ka6 15. Qb5+ Nxa7 and Black may be out of immediate danger? Although instead of 14.Nxa7+, much better 14.Nxc7+ d5 15.b4+ Ka4 16. Qd3 Qxc7 17. c4 with no protection from18.Qc2#. As I mentioned earlier, there are many losing lines.

Also instead of 8....Kd5, try 8....Kc5 9. d4+ Kxd4 10. Be3+ Kd5 11. Nc3+ Kc6 12. Qe4+ d5 13. Qa4+ b5 14. Qxb5#. Also with 8....Kc5 9.d4+ Kc6 10 c4 d5 [e6 en garde' 11.d5+ exd5 12. Qe4 "big trouble in little china"] 11. Qe6+ Qd6 12. cxd5 Kb5 13. Nc3 then either Kc4, Kb4 or Ka5 loses Queen to exd6.

8...Kc6 9. Nc3

Good for Black, 9...d5 10. exd5 e.p. exd6 11. Qe4+ Kd7 12. QxB Nc6 13. Qa6, Black has a 2 point material advantage and winning chances.

IM Sandor Kustar suggested 9....b5, after observing the position and "scolding me for moving too fast", and Fritz 6 agrees, 9....b5 10. a4 (#1 line) or Qe4+, Qg4, Qd3 and Qg6+ as other White options has Black at a 3 point advantage. Following the #1 line of 9....b5 10. a4 Kb6 here are three lines of play. 9...b5 10. a4 Kb6 11. axb5 c5 12. 0-0 e6 13. Qh3 Kc7 14. d4 cxd4. #2 line, 9....b5 10. a4 Kb6 11. Qd3 c6 12. axb5 Kc7 13. 0-0 e6 14. Qe3 Ne7. #3 line, 9....b5 10. a4 Kb6 11. Qg6+ e6 12. axb5 a6 13. Na4+ Ka7 14. d3 (Black is mated unless c5 with 15. Be3) so 14. d3 c5 or 14. d3 (give a Knight back strategy with Nc6) Nc6 15. Be3+ Kb8 16. bxNc6 Bxc6 17. Nc5 BxN 18. BxB d6 19. exd and Black may have a line out.

My worst game at the 2008 South Dakota State Championship continued as

9....e6 10. Qe4+ d5 11. Qa4+ Kc5 12. d4#.

Isn't chess fun?! There wasn't a lot of editorial because I was mentally spent and didn't have much of a "from this side of the board" observation. I did observe one thing, winning isn't everything but losing stinks.

Critical Line: 5...Kf8 (3)

In "Stats (1)" – where I began to take a look with ChessBase's "Opening Report" at the games in my Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) database – I mentioned that a
Critical Line for White came after 4...Kxf7 when he scored only 29% with 5.Nxe5+ Kf8 6.Nxc6 dxc6. In "Critical Line: 5...Kf8 (1)" and "(2)" this variation has been explored further.

I've faced 5...Kf8 three times, and twice my opponent recaptured with the other pawn, 6...bxc6:
perrypawnpusher - hdig, blitz 7 4, FICS, 2007 and perrypawnpusher - mika76, GameKnot.com, 2008 .

By the way, there's the odd game tonik - mika76, GameKnot.com, 2008, where Black recaptured with neither pawn, but instead started his own counter-attack: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8 6.Nxc6 Bxf2+ 7.Kxf2 dxc6 8.Rf1 Qd4+ White resigned. Giving up the game was premature, as after 9.Ke1+ the first player had time to protect his e-pawn with 10.d3, and maintain a small advantage.

Still, in the diagram above, while it is possible to see Black's typical advantage in the Jerome Gambit (piece for two pawns), it is smaller than usual; and it is hard to see why White can't go about his standard plan of castling, developing pieces, and advancing his Kingside pawns with the usual play. My one game with the line, perrypawnpusher - Ykcir, blitz 14 0, FICS, 2009, ended in a quick draw, and things did not appear nearly as dire as to attract the label "Critical Variation."

Critical Line: 5...Kf8 (2)

In the series of posts starting with "Stats (1)", where I began a look with ChessBase's "Opening Report" at the games in my Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) database, I noticed that there was a Critical Line given, beginning (after 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5) with 5...Ke8.

Here we follow the discussion started in "Critical Line: 5...Kf8 (1)".

THE BANKS VARIATION

With 5...Kf8 Black side-steps the excitment of White's invasive Queen in the main line of the Jerome Gambit: 5...Nxe5 6.Qh5+.

But what if White played 6.Qh5, anyhow?
The move was introduced successfully in Banks - Rees, Wolverhampton, 2003, a game later annotated by International Master Gary Lane in his "Opening Lanes" column at ChessCafe.com. "Yes, it is always nice to threaten checkmate after just six moves" Lane commented.

The following year, Banks won with the variation again: 6.Qh5 Nxe5 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qf4+ Qf6 9.Qxf6+ Nxf6 10.d3 Kf7 11.Nc3 Bd7 12.0-0 Rhf8 13.Bg5 Ng4 14.Nd5 Kg8 15.Nxc7 Rac8 16.Nd5 Bxf2+ 17.Rxf2 Kh8? 18.Rf4 Rxf4 19.Bxf4 Rxc2 20.Bxd6 a6 21.Rf1 h6 22.h3 Rc6 23.Bf8 Kh7 24.hxg4 Bxg4 25.Rf7 Rg6 26.Rxb7 Black resigns, blackburne - hollandia, ChessWorld, server game, 2004

Only an endgame slip kept Banks from at least a draw, last year as well: 6.Qh5 Qf6 7.Nxd7+ Bxd7 8.Qxc5+ Nge7 9.Nc3 Kf7 10.d3 Rhf8 11.0-0 Kg8 12.f4 Qd4+ 13.Qxd4 Nxd4 14.Rf2 b5 15.Be3 b4 16.Ne2 Nxc2 17.Rc1 Nxe3 18.Rxc7 Rad8 19.Rf3 Nd1 20.b3 Ng6 21.Kf1 Bg4 22.Rg3 Bxe2+ 23.Kxe2 Nc3+ 24.Ke3 Rc8 25.Rb7 a5 26.f5 Rb8 27.Ra7 Ra8 28.Rb7 Rfb8 29.Rc7 Nb5 30.Rd7 Ra7 31.Rxa7 Nxa7 32.fxg6 Nc6 33.gxh7+ Kh8 34.Rh3 Rd8 35.g4 Ne5 36.d4 Nxg4+ 37.Kd3 Nf2+ White resigns, blackburne - Rail2Rail, ChessWorld, 2008

The variation again looked very good in vlad-tepes - splott, GameKnot, 2008 and vlad-tepes - Mika76, GameKnot, 2008: 6.Qh5 Nxe5 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qh5 Nf6 9.Qf3 Bg4 10.Qf4 Qe7 11.d3 d5 12.0-0 Re8 13.Nc3 c6 14.exd5 cxd5 15.Nxd5 Qe6 16.Nc7 Qb6 17.Nxe8 Kxe8 18.Qb8+ Qd8 19.Re1+ Be7 20.Qxb7 Bd7 21.Bg5 Kf7 22.Qxa7 h6 23.Bh4 g5 24.Bg3 h5 25.h3 Kg6 26.Re2 g4 27.Rae1 Re8 28.Bc7 Qc8 29.Rxe7 Rxe7 30.Rxe7 gxh3 31.Qb8 Qa6 32.Qb6 Black resigned.

Alas, the game splott - Mika 76, GameKnot, 2008 (0-1, 17), and the move 6...Qe7, had a chilling effect on the Banks Variation. As pointed out in "Jerome Gambit, Vlad Tepes... and Garlic!"

Suggested by International Master Gary Lane in his "Opening Lanes" (see "International Master Gary Lane") column at Chess Cafe. (Readers: when was the last time you heard of an IM making a substantive contribution to Jerome Gambit theory??)
Mika76, however, tells me that he came up with the move on his own.

Critical Line: 5...Kf8 (1)

Back in the series starting with "Stats (1)" – where I took a look with ChessBase's "Opening Report" at the games in my Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) database – I pointed out that

"the 'Critical line' for White [after 4...Kxf7] in which he scored only 29%, is 5.Nxe5+ Kf8 6.Nxc6 dxc6, which certainly bears some looking into."

HISTORY

As early as his first Jerome Gambit article (Dubuque Chess Journal April, 1874), Alonzo Jerome considered the possibility that Black might refuse to capture the second piece with 5...Nxe5, and instead play for King safety instead with 5...Kf8.
In a letter to the American Chess Journal, March 1877, Jerome wrote

5...Kf8 leaves White's pawns intact while Black has lost two strong pawns and doubled another. This defense was adopted by G.J. Dougherty of Mineola, NY, a strong amateur, against whom I first played the opening, and I think he will agree that 5...Kf8 is not a good defense. He generally played 6.bc and that was the play of Mr. J. C. Young of Danville, KY, who subsequently abandoned the game. Why, I do not know, as it was not necessarily lost to either of us. It is a question with which Pawn it is best to take.

The earliest game example that I have of this line is Jerome - Brownson, Iowa, USA, 1875 (1/2-1/2, 29) [correcting a misstatement in "Jerome Gambit and Vlad Tepes..."] – Brownson being the editor of the Dubuque Chess Journal – the game appearing in the March 1875 issue.

The Mexican chess champion, Andres Clemente Vazquez, familiar with the DCJ, played the Jerome Gambit in his second match against Carrington in 1876, and met 5...Kf8, winning in 43 moves.

This was, in fact, the defense that Hallock, the skeptical editor of the American Chess Journal, used in a correspondence game played “by special request” to test the gambit (ACJ February,1877) – defeating the promising young player, D.P. Norton, in 18 moves.

The 5...Kf8 defense received a great boost from an article in the "Chess for Beginners" series by Lt. Sorensen in the Nordisk Skaktidende of May 1877 – which was translated into several languages and printed around the world. Sorensen recommended 5...Kf8 as “more solid and easier to manage.”

After 6.Nxc6 dc (Jerome gave 6…bc 7.d4 “putting Black’s KB out of play”) analysis has generally followed Jerome – Brownson, 1875, with 7.O-O Nf6 8.Qf3 (Sorensen said 8.e5 would be met by 8…Bg4 9.Qe1 Kf7! which was how Norton – Hallock had continued ) Qd4 9.d3 Bg4 10.Qg3


At this point, Brownson played 10…Bb6. Jerome responded with 11.e5, and drew the game, with help from his opponent, in 29 moves. Brownson (DCJ, March, 1875) suggested 11.Kh1 and 12.f4 as an improvement for White.

Sorensen (NS, May, 1877) gave the alternative line 10…Bd6, attacking White’s Queen, and followed this up with 11.Bf4 g5 12.Bxd6+ cd 13.h3 Be6 14.Qxg5 Rg8 15.Qh6+ Ke7 16.Nc3 Rg6 17.Qh4 Rag8 with a better game for Black.

However, S.A. Charles – see "A Jerome Discovery (Afterword)" – in the Pittsburgh Telegraph a few years later (April 27, 1881) offered 11.c3 as an improvement, suggested to him by Jerome, which they both believed reversed the valuation of the line.

As an historical aside, later sources, relying on Sorensen’s analysis, miss 11.c3; those that follow Charles’ work, based on his Brentano's Chess Monthly article (October 1881) or on the American Supplement (1884) – see "A Jerome Discovery (Afterword)" – include it.

There has been little change in the assessment of this line during the ensuing 125 years.