Superpippo!

My Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) and related openings database has about 60 internet blitz games played by Superpippo. It is clear that he enjoys the opening, plays it come fair or foul weather, and wins and loses with equanimity. I'd like to introduce Superpippo to readers of this blog with a game that is, well, kind of goofy... 

Superpippo - HarryPaul 

blitz FICS, 2001

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

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 

So far, so good. Black doesn't have to play creative chess, he only has to decide which Jerome Gambit refutation he wants to play.

7.f4 Ng6

This move, despite the soundness of the basic idea – save one piece and return another – is too "creative" and leads to an even game. With a regular opening, having Black reach equality this early is an accomplishment for the second player, but in the Jerome Gambit – where White spots his opponent two pieces – it is a sign that something has already gone wrong for Black. 

8.f5+

Rybka 3 suggests: 8.Qxc5 Kf7 9.0-0 Qf6 10.Nc3 Qc6 11.Qf2 d6 12.f5 N6e7 13.d4 Qb6 14.Qe2 Nf6 15.Qc4+ d5 16.Nxd5 as even.

analysis diagram

8...Ke5

Brave King. Foolish King.

9.fxg6+ Kxe4

See the above note.

10.Qxc5

White can now win as he likes, for example 10.Nc3+ Kd4 11.Qd5 checkmate

10...hxg6

This allows a mate-in-one

11.Nc3+

Superpippo had his finish already planned out, and so he didn't bother with 11.d3 checkmate.

11...Kf4 12.d3+ Kg4 13.h3+ Kh4 14.Qd4+ Kh5 15.Qg4 checkmate

Prized Players

Prizes have been mailed to the top three finishers of the Chessworld Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) Thematic Tournament: Piratepaul, stampyshortlegs and Sir Osis of the Liver.

I would like to express my thanks to blackburne, who hosted the tournament, and to all of the other players who combined to produce 210 interesting Jerome Gambit games: DREWBEAR 63, GladtoMateYou, Luke Warm, Haroldlee123, eddie43, TWODOGS, Black Puma, gwyn1, metalwarrior1969, Crusader Rabbit and calchess10.

Not Such A Good Idea

In the October 1881 issue of Brentano's Chess Monthly, a letter to the editors ( H.C. Allen & J.N. Babson), was printed in the "Games" section. Here is an excerpt

...Some time since, I published in the Pittsburg Telegraph a compilation of such analyses of the Jerome Gambit as I could find, with some additions from published games. Mr. Jerome justly criticized some of the moves as not being the best for either party, and we commenced as series of correspondence games more as a test of the opening than of individual skill. Unfortunately Mr. Jerome's business engagements have prevented him from playing out the full number of games originally started; yet the situation even in the unfinished games seems to me at least to prove the gambit unsound, and that while White may win against weak, he cannot do against strong play. I should add, perhaps, that Mr. Jerome does consider the defenses here given to 6.d4 to be the best but he does not suggest any others...

Very respectfully
S.A. Charles

Charles presented the incomplete games, and in one of them made mention of a Jerome suggestion

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 White now has 3 lines of attack [7.Qf5+, 7.f4, 7.0-0 ]. Mr Jerome also suggests for analysis b2-b4.

It is not clear what White achieves if Black takes the pawn with 7...Bxb4 – something to be expected in play between amateurs in the 1880s – but there is even less to recommend White's game after the reasonable 7...Bd4. If the first player intended 8.c3 as a response, it is short-circuited by 8...Nd3+. Coping with this threat can lead to something like 7...Bd4 8.Qh3+ Kf7 9.c3 Bb6 10.d4 (presumably White's idea).

White has a wonderful center, but he is down two pieces for two pawns and his only developed piece – the Queen – will have to move again after 10...d6.

Possibly Alonzo Wheeler Jerome did not think very long before making his suggestion, because it is not such a good idea after all.

Repairing a Variation (Part 4)

Once you have defined the problem (Part 1) with an opening variation, reviewed some game history (Part 2), and seen what has been written about the line (Part 3), it is time to analyze and test out new ideas.

In the case of the "Nibs" defense of the Jerome Gambit, (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) there are three strategies to choose from.


#1) Embrace the chaos

You may choose to continue to play the main line, anyway, believing that it is so complicated that your opponent will never find a way through to the advantage. (So far, only one player, peonconorejas has.) In this case, it is important to be familiar with the places (especially moves 10 through 17) where Black might slip up, so that your greater understanding of the strategic and tactical nuances gives you the better chances.

An example is perrypawnpusher - electrahan, blitz FICS, 2009.

Black did not discover the killer 10...Ne7 (and the idea behind it) and instead retreated his Queen with 10...Qh6.

Three moves later I reached the following position.

My comment at this point of the game was

My one advantage against electrahan was that I was more familiar with the positions and play, and so was significantly ahead on the clock.

The game continued to be very interesting, and I prevailed in 35 moves.

#2) Find a Jerome Gambit endgame that you are comfortable with.

Much to my annoyance, despite a lot of hard work (with the help of Rybka 3, Fritz 8 and ChessBase 8) I have not yet found a "bust" to Black's Queen sacrifice in the "His Nibs" defense.

Players who are comfortable with a Jerome Gambit endgame (blackburne and mrjoker come quickly to mind) – with one, two or three pawns for the sacrificed piece; ideally, also with an active King – can look at the following line.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Qh4+ 9.g3 Nf3+ 10.Kf1

If you are going to battle the Queen-sac line, I think 10.Kd1 is the right move. If you are looking toward the endgame, 10.Kf1 is to be preferred.

10...Ne7 The same strong move with the same strong threats. 11.Qxc5+ This move will either displease or please your opponent, depending on whether the second player knows the Queen-sac line or not. 11...Kxc5 12.gxh4

This is an interesting position. White has two pawns for a piece, although the one at h4 is threatened. As long as a lot of pieces remain on the board, Black's King is at risk; but with each exchange, he becomes more of an attacker than a defender. Black's advanced Knight may or may not be in danger, similar to the game perrypawnpusher - Temmo, Chessworld, 2008.

It's not very exciting for White after 12...Nxh4 13.Nc3 (with d2-d3 and possibly Rh1-g1 to follow) but if Black's Knight becomes dim on the rim, or if White's King can mosey over that way, there may be some play to be had.

#3) Change to another line of play.

In this case, it might be worth investigating 7.f4, instead of the 7.Qf5+ and 8.f4 line, something that I am doing right now.

(But I still hope to be able to crack the Queen-sac some day!)

graphic by Jeff Bucchino, The Wizard of Draws

Repairing a Variation (Part 3)

The next step in repairing a variation, after you have defined the problem (Part 1) and reviewed some game history (Part 2), is to see what has been written about the line.

Unfortunately, when you are dealing with a variation of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+), reading up on the "His Nibs" Variation (4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Ke6 8.f4 Qh4) can be done during a coffee break.
There are only two sources in print that I have been able to find in about 8 years of study of the Jerome Gambit.

The first, in Randspringer #6 1990-1991, was in an article by Jack Young, author of many hysterical "Bozo's Chess Emporium" articles for Chess Horizons.

"Meet Jerome"

The Jerome Gambit (also known as the "Kentucky Opening" according to Blackburne), like the Reynolds Gambit, like the Chicago Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nxe5!! Nxe5 4.d4), like the Fred (1.e4 f5!!) desrves to be in the arsenal of every serious tournament player. Don't know the Jerome? That's OK but if you play through the following game I would not be surprised if it convinced you to venture the Jerome in your next serious tournament game. This important theoretical battle featured some real "high caliber" opposition and makes a good case for the playability of the Jerome Gambit...

...Young - Computer, 1991: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+! Kxf7 5.Nxe5+! Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4?! Another computer defused the attack after 8...Qh4+ 9.g3 Qf6

I admit that this is only a snippet of a mention, but I include it for a couple of reasons. First, it is also the first game (even if a partial) after "R.F" - "Nibs", 1899, that I have in my database. Secondly, it shows that the Black Queen check-and-return was primarily to disrupt White's kingside, not the beginning of a complicated Queen sacrifice.

The second reference I reviewed is from the unusual chess book Unorthodox Chess (2005), by the even more unusually-named author, Some Loser. (I reviewed the book for Chessville here.)

...the Jerome Gambit - an old favorite of mine, back in the good old days when I used to imagine I could get away with anything. It goes like so: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+!! Kxf7 5.Nxe5+! Nxe5 6.Qh5+ White will be able to recover one of the sacrificed pieces, after which Black's exposed King position plus the two Pawns, not to mention the fabulous shock value, almost compensate for the other piece. Ah, those were the days... and hard to swallow as it may seem, it has actually been known to work from time to time.
For instance 6...Ke6?! 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Qh4+?! 9.g3 Nf3+ 10.Kf1 Nxh2+?! 11.Kg2 Qd8 [11...Qg4 12.Qd5+ Ke7 13.Qxc5+ d6 14.Qf2 Nf6 15.Rxh2 Nxe4 16.Qe3 Qe6] 12.Qd5+ Ke7 13.Qxc5+ d6 14.Qg5+ Ke8 15.Qxd8+ Kxd8 16.Rxh2 Nf6 17.d3 Ng4? 18.Rh4 Nf6 19.Be3 Bg4?! 20.Bd4 Bd1? 21.Na3 Be2 22.Kf2 Bxd3 23.cxd3 c5 24.Bxf6+ gxf6 25.Nc4 Ke7 26.Ne3 Kf7 27.Rah1 Kg6 28.Rh6+ Kg7 29.Nf5+ Kg8 30.Rxf6 d5 31.Nh6+ Kg7 32.Rf7+ Kg6 33.e5 Rhg8 [33...Rab8 34.f5+ Kg5 35.Rg7#; 33...Rag8 34.Rf6+ Kg7 35.Nf5#] 34.Rf6+ Kg7 35.Nf5+ Kh8 36.Rxh7+ Kxh7 37.Rh6#

The lesson from Some Loser's game (or analysis, it is not clear from the text) is that the White King move 10.Kf1 is not an improvement over abhailey's and R.F.'s 10.Kd1. This was confirmed in both perrypawnpusher - james042665, Chess.com, 2008 (0-1, 18) and perrypawnpusher - Temmo, chessworld.com, 2008 (0-1, 43), even though both defenders did not follow the best line of play.
Black's 10...Nxh2+ vs Some Loser was a mistake which surrendered the second player's advantage. As in abhailey - peonconorejas, net-chess, 2008, the best move was 10...Ne7 with similar powerful play against White's Queen and King. Also, 10...Qd8 gave White the advantage, whereas 10...Qg4 would have led to an equal game.

Repairing a Variation (Part 2)

It is helpful to look at some early play in the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) to develop a feel for the line that needs repairing (see "Repairing a Variation (Part 1)" ). The first example in my database of a game with 8...Qh4+ is an imaginary game presented in the June 1899 issue of the American Chess Magazine. In an article titled "A CHESS SCRAP" by "R.F." it is supposedly an early example of chess-by-telephone – filled with all of the difficulties that came from using a then new and unproven technology. "R.F." - "Nibs" telephone chess, 1899 "HULLO! Is this Nibs? I move 1.e4 --yes, I get you - 1...e5 now 2.Nf3 Black 2...Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 NOW 4.Bxf7+

"HULLO! Centr-r-r--what's up? YOU'RE not referee! -- pre-ee-kwu-ror-bing!!! "YES, I get you - Black 4...Kxf7 now 5.Nxe5+ --yes, I mean it --What opening? you'll see -- it's the END I'm after -- a variation on the Spanish -- fire away! 5...Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 all right -- "You want 1/3 OFF! Who are YOU?--Hullo--I'm not talking to Drex-irrwhixzyvilling--SAY, CENT, you've cut us off; what ails you?--Give me 725 38-- "Now, Nibs - 7.Qf5+ Kd6 I thought so -- this game adjourned till we check, Central. 8.f4 "NO, O-O -- WE'RE NOT THROUGH YET!! Hold the wire, what, your 8th? 8...Qh4+ ? Regular El Caney move -- "SPELL-ELL it - groorumbrkyxgz -- HBLLULLOOA YOU mind your biz! Send your manager to the wire - whyer-er-ert-r-roontoonmuling--Is this Central? Well, I've sent to a pay station to ring up your manager -- WHO HAS? I, I, myself, have, give me 725 38 -- You, Nibs? 9.g3 Nf3+ "Hang this-- match--You'll hang it up very soon now! 10.Kd1 Ne7 yes, not quite through- 11.e5+ Kd5 that can't draw you out, see? 12.Qd3+ check--your 8th move cooked your defence--goodbye, Central, you've mated him."

A few comments:

Fortunately, telephone service is far improved today, especially with the absence of an interrupting Central operator.

The American Chess Magazine article did not say if this "game" was based on a real game or someone's analysis.

The "El Caney" reference was to a July 1898 battle during the Spanish-American War, when 500 Spanish soldiers withstood the attack of 8,000 American soldiers for 12 hours. It is odd that the author attributes this to a Black move, as it is clear from diagram three that the second player in the game had more "troops" in the field.

The final comment – "you've mated him" – was incorrect. However, after 12...Nd4 White can play 13.gxh4, winning the enemy Queen, with a significant advantage.

Repairing a Variation (Part 1)

I know that the idea of "repairing" a variation in an opening like the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bx5 4.Bxf7+) – which has a number of refutations – seems kind of silly, if not impossible. Still, I remain troubled by the game last year in which my pal, abhailey, met a devastating Queen sacrifice by Black (see "Jerome Gambit Tournament: Chapter II", "Jerome Gambit Tournament: Chapter XVI" and "A Dangerous Place") and, along with the opening, was hammered to pieces in a miniature. That just doesn't seem right...

First, here's a closer look at the game.

abhailey - peonconorejas
net-chess.com 2008

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

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6

Defenders unfamiliar with the Jerome Gambit might find this move to be scary, but it is part of a number of established defensive schemes.

7.Qf5+

I have always preferred this nudge of the King (to in front of the d-pawn) to the straight-forward 7.f4 (see "Joker's Wild (1)", "Joker's Wild (2)" and "Joker's Wild (conclusion)" for some recent analysis of that line). That's one reason why I'd like to find a defense to peonconorejas' attack.

7...Kd6 8.f4 Qh4+ This move is reminiscent of the counter-attack first played against Lt. Sorensen (see "Bashi-Bazouk Attack" for Sorensen's take on the Jerome Gambit; and "Jerome Gambit Tournament: Chapter: X" for the game): 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bx4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.d4 Qh5.

9.g3 Nf3+

Black is clearly confused – or he has a specific plan.

10.Kd1 Ne7

Instead of moving his attacked Queen, Black counter-attacks. At first it seems that White's only task is to rescue his Queen, with checks. (During this internet correspondence game abhailey emailed me, pleased with his play and happy that he could see the win of the Black Queen.) Black's army of pieces, however, is a serious threat.

11.e5+ Kc6

The right escape square. If 11...Kd5 12.Nc3+ Kc6 13.Qe4+ Kb6 and Black's Queen can be captured.

12.Qe4+ d5

The only move, but it is very good.

13.exd6+ Nd5

Again, the best move. Leading to equality, even though Black will have only two pieces for a Queen and a pawn, was 13...Kxd6 14.gxh4, for example: 14...Bg4 15.f5 Ne5+ 16.Ke1 Bf3 17.Qa4

analysis diagram

14.gxh4 Bg4

15.Qa4+

Again, White seems to have rescued his Queen.

15...b5

Also winning, and perhaps simpler, was 15...Kxd6

16.Qa6+ Nb6

The position is not just complicated for White, but for Black, too. A better move here was 16...Bb6.

17.c4

After 17.h3 Bh5 18.d3 things are very unclear. Black might have a win in the long run, or White might eventually escape.

The text move allows a mate-in-three that Black overlooks.

17...Nd4+

This wins, but an even nicer ending would have been: 17...Ne1+ 18.Kxe1 Rae8+ 19.Kf1 Bh3+.

analysis diagram

18.Ke1 Rhe8+

There are just too many Black pieces in play.

19.Kf2 Nf5+ 20.Kf1

The alternative 20.d4 holds out longer, but why suffer?: 20...Bxd4+ 21.Be3 Rxe3 22.Qxb5+ Kb7 23.Qxf5 Bxf5 24.d7 Rd3+ 25.Ke2 Nxd7 26.Nd2 Re8+ 27.Kd1 Be3 28.Kc2 Rxd2+ 29.Kb3 Rd3+ 30.Kc2 Rd6+ 31.Kb3 Nc5+ 32.Kb4 Rb6+ 33.Ka3 Bd2 34.b3 Bc3 35.Rae1 Ra6#

20...Bh3 checkmate