We interrupt this regularly scheduled blog post...

News reports indicate that on January 12, 2010, a devestating 7.0 magnitude earthquake hit Haiti, about 10 miles south-west of the capital, Port-au-Prince.

Prayers go out for all the Haitian people, and for the many people from other countries who were in Haiti to provide security or aid.

Many, many thanks, as well, go out to the nations who have so generously promised aid and support.

Word is that "Kennedy Kid" Jon, a teacher at the Louverture Cleary School, northeast of Port-au-Prince, is okay, although a few of his students may have been injured by a collapsing wall.

I am pond scum

I'm proud of some of my chess games, (a few of them, justifiably so).

The following game, however, a Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Bxf7+), does not make that list. It was a pretty sorry contest, and afterwards I felt as low as pond scum – especially because I won it.

Perhaps it is time to focus on analysis and theory for a while, and leave the over-the-board (or over-the-internet) play alone.

perrypawnpusher  - Macgregr
blitz FICS, 2010

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Bxf7+

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke7 6.c3 Ne6

Not a new move (I have 70 examples in my database) but the first time that I have seen it. Black has the typical piece-for-two-pawns advantage, as well as the typical problem of the uncastled King.

7.d4 Nf6 8.Bg5

You have to admit, pinning the King's Knight looks like a good idea – until you realize that it can simply be taken.

Dumb.

So why didn't my opponent and I see this immediately?  Well, hats off to Macgregr, who saw it first...

8...d6

arcanglej - geppa, FICS, 2005 continued : 8...Nxg5 9.d5 Ngxe4 10.Kf1 d6 11.Nc4 c6 12.dxc6 bxc6 13.Qe2 Ba6 14.Nbd2 d5 15.Rd1 Kf7 16.Nxe4 Bxc4 White resigned

However, Maguey - snob, FICS, 2003 saw White escape: 8...h6 9.Bxf6+ Kxf6 10.Qf3+ Ke7 11.Qf7+ Kd6 12.c4 Nxd4 13.Qd5+ Ke7 14.Qxd4 d6 15.Ng6+ Kf7 16.Nf4 Be7 17.Qd5+ Kf8 18.Ng6+ Ke8 19.Nxh8 Bf6 20.Qf7 checkmate

9.Ng4

Ouch. Necessary was 9.Bxf6, of course.

9...Nxg5

Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
             "Ozymandias", Percy Bysshe Shelley

10.Nxf6 gxf6 11.0-0 Bg7

Not a pretty sight for White. For Black, having the advantage of "the two Bishops" in this case means having two more Bishops than I do...

Still, I like my games to last more than a dozen moves, so I soldiered on.

12.Nd2 Bd7 13.f4 Nf7 14.e5

My only chance: Black's "centralized" King.

14...dxe5 15.fxe5 fxe5 16.dxe5 Bxe5

Aha! A lucky break for me. I can capture two pieces for a Rook – and only be down a Rook.

17.Rxf7+ Kxf7 18.Qh5+ Ke7

What is this? A touch of hope in the air?

Black could keep his lead with 18...Kg7, as after 19.Qxe5+ Qf6 20.Qxc7 White has only two pawns for his missing Rook. 

19.Qxe5+ Be6

My mind was full of the possibilities of a draw through repetition of position. Could it be?

20.Qg7+

While I was pleased, after the game, to learn that Fritz 8 said this led to a draw, I was astonished to see its suggestion: 20.Re1 Qd7 21.Ne4 Raf8 22.Nc5 followed by White capturing Black's Bishop after 22...Qd6 23.Qg7+ Rf7 24.Qg5+ Rf6. White would still be threatening Qg7+, picking up a Rook.

analysis diagram






20...Bf7 21.Qe5+

This looked like the way to a draw (i.e. check, check, check...) but it was not. Whatever happened to the old adage Three pieces and an attack"? After the game Fritz 8 gave the right approach: 21.Re1+ Kd7 22.Qg4+ Kc6 23.Qa4+ Kb6 24.Qb4+ Kc6 25.Nf3 Re8 26.Qa4+ .

21...Be6

My opponent didn't mind repeating the position while he thought things over. If Black's King had retreated along the c8-h3 diagonal (...Ke7-d7-c8) he could have found safety, perhaps at b8.

22.Qg7+

Repeating the position; again missing 22.Re1

22...Kd6 23.Qd4+ Bd5

Well, if I didn't force a draw, perhaps I could annoy my opponent into submission.

24.Nc4+ Kc6

Wow! This is either an angry move or a careless move.

Black takes the draw with 24...Kd7 25.Ne5+ Kc8 26.Qg4+ Kb8 27.Nd7+ Kc8 28.Nf6+ Kb8 29.Nd7+ etc. 

25.Ne5+

This is sufficient, although 25.Na5+ was even stronger.

25...Kd6

Black realizes to his dismay that 25...Kb5 leads to mate: 26.a4+ Ka6 27.Qd3+ Bc4 28.Qxc4+ b5 29.Qxb5.

26.Nf7+ Kd7

Now the full shock has set in: instead, 26...Kc6 would have saved the Bishop.

27.Nxd8 Raxd8 28.Qxd5+ Kc8

Breathless, I realized that I had a winning advantage. What to do with it before time ran out??

29.Qe6+ Kb8 30.Re1 a6 31.g3 Rhf8 32.Rf1 Rfe8 33.Qf7 h6 34.Qf6 h5 35.Qf5 Rh8

Three quick conclusions: my opponent wasn't going to help me by exchanging pieces, he was going to let me do the thinking while he hunkered down, and chasing the h-pawn didn't seem to get me anywhere.

36.Re1 Rdf8 37.Qd7 Rfg8 38.Re7 Rc8 39.Rh7 Rhe8

Nothing accomplished so far. My opponent was content to let me run out of time first. That might or might not happen – but surely I could convert a Q vs R advantage...

40.Qd2 Rcd8 41.Rd7 Rc8 42.Qf2 Rh8 43.Rd5 Rhf8 44.Rf5 Rh8 45.Qc5 h4 46.Rh5 hxg3 47.hxg3 Rhg8 48.Kg2 Rcd8

I managed to create a passed pawn (although winning the h-pawn would have given me two connected passed pawns) which was something accomplished.

49.Rh7 Rc8 50.b4

Ah, here's an idea... at long last.

50...Rge8 51.a4 Re2+ 52.Kh3 Ree8 53.b5

53...a5

A final bit of luck for me. Instead, after 53...axb5 54.axb5 b6 Black's King is still safe, and I would probably have had to go pack to the plan of advancing the g-pawn.

54.b6 cxb6 55.Qxb6 Red8 56.Qxb7 checkmate

What a mess of a game, even if my opponent was rated a few points above me.

Ending in the Wilderness

I continue to be amazed at how much chess "education" can be found in my Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) games, when I play them over afterwards. I guess the use of an oft-refuted opening does not negate interesting problems in the middle game and end game (if I survive that long, of course). 

perrypawnpusher - Xasquete
blitz FICS, 2010

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6

The Semi-Italian Opening.

4.O-O Bc5 5.Bxf7+

The Semi-Italian Jerome Gambit.

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.Qh5+ Ke6

This position is similar to one of the main lines in the Jerome Gambit, with 0-0 added for White and ...h7-h6 added for Black.

I think the King move might be a bit stronger than ...Ne5-g6, but it leads to some uncomfortable play for the defender.

Chess, well-known as a "thinking" game, is also a "feeling" game. Grandmasters may look at a particular move because their highly developed intuition suggests that it "feels" right. Club players are more likely to avoid certain lines because they "feel" dangerous or scary.

8.Qf5+ Kd6 9.d4

This move is most often played, although 9.Rd1 was tried in prettyhip1 - cubs0_0, GameKnot, 2007: 9.Rd1 Ne7 10.Qh5 g6 11.Qh3 Bd4 12.Qa3+ Bc5 13.b4 Bd4 14.c3 Bxf2+ 15.Kxf2 Rf8+ 16.Ke3 White resigned.

White's play can be improved, but 9...Ne7 is a good response to 9...Rd1.

9...Bxd4 10.Rd1 c5

Two pieces ahead, Black must be better. As is typical for the Jerome Gambit, however, White has targets: in this case, the Bishop on d4 and the King on d6.

11.c3 Ne7 12.Qf4

Alternate Queen placements were seen in

joev6225 - liverpool, GameKnot, 2006: 12.Qh3 Qb6 13.cxd4 cxd4 14.Qa3+ Ke6 15.f4 N5c6 16.f5+ Kf7 17.Nd2 Re8 18.Nc4 Qc7 19.Nd6+ Kf8 20.Nxe8 Kxe8 21.Qf3 Ne5 22.Qg3 Kf8 23.Bf4 d6 24.Rac1 Qa5 25.f6 N7g6 26.Bxe5 Qxe5 27.Qxg6 Be6 28.Qxg7+ Ke8 29.Qe7 checkmate

perrypawnpusher - Lakritzl, blitz FICS, 2009: 12.Qh5 Kc7 13.cxd4 cxd4 14.Qxe5+ d6 15.Qxd4 Nc6 16.Qxg7+ Bd7 17.Bf4 Rg8 18.Qxh6 Qe7 19.Bxd6+ Qxd6 20.Qxd6+ Black resigned

12...Qf8

This is a nifty defense that addresses both Black's strategic and emotional needs (even if 12...N7c6 is a bit stronger). With Queens off the board, how unsafe can the King be?

13.cxd4 Qxf4 14.Bxf4

Too routine. Better was 14.dxc5+ first, minimizing Black's advantage.

14...cxd4 15. Rxd4+ Kc5

With 15...Ke6, Xasquete could have made me pay for the above move-order error. Now I get a piece back and have a clear advantage (King safety, ease of development).

16.Bxe5 Nc6 17.Rd5+ Kb6 18.Na3 Nxe5 19.Rxe5 d6

20. Re7 Bg4 21. f3 Bh5 22. Rc1 Rhe8 23. Rcc7 Rxe7 24. Rxe7 Rc8

White's initiative persists.

25. Rxg7 Rc1+ 26. Kf2 Ra1 27. Rh7 Rxa2

I suppose if this were a game between two Grandmasters, the annotator would say "the rest is just a matter of technique." Neither Xasquete nor I are GMs, however.

28.Kg3 a5

Black plans to make the most of his Queenside advantage; the most practical choice.

29.Rxh6 Bf7 30.Rxd6+ Kc5 31.Rd2

Things are going to become interesting as Black works to get (and Queen) a passed pawn. But, certainly my 4 connected passed pawns should count for something?

31... b5 32.Kf2 

After the game, Fritz8 preferred 32.Rc2+ Kb6 33.f4 b4 34.Nb1 a4 35.f5 Ra1 36.Nd2 b3 37.Nxb3 Bxb3 38.Re2, when White has traded his Knight to settle things on the Queenside. The Kingside pawns will win the game.

analysis diagram





32...b4 33.Nb1 Ra1

Here, things get stranger. Fritz8 argues that after the stronger 33...Bb3, White can force a draw by repetition of position – after he sacrifices his Rook and Knight!

The line goes: 33... Bb3 34.Kg3 Ra1 35.Rd3 Kc4 36.Nd2+ Kxd3 37.Nxb3

analysis diagram






37...Rb1 38.e5 Rxb2 39.e6 Rc2 40.f4 a4 41.e7 Rc8 42.f5 axb3

analysis diagram





43.f6 b2 44.f7 b1Q 45.e8Q Qc2 46.Qd7+ etc.

analysis diagram






Wow! I didn't see any of that during the game. Instead, I kept wandering through the wilderness. 

34.Rc2+ Kd4

35. Nd2 Kc5

Here's another line that Fritz8 suggested led to equality: 35...Ke5 36.Rd1 Ba2 37.Nc3 bxc3 38.Rxa1 cxb2 39.Rxa2 b1Q 40.Rxa5+ Ke6 41.Rd5

analysis diagram







Uh, okay, if you say so...

 36. Rc2+ Kd4 37. Nd2 Kd3 38. Rc7

White's play is more active than in the analysis.

38...Kxd2 39. Rxf7 Kc2

The Fritz8 recommendation strangeness continues: "stronger" for Black (but still losing) was 39...Rb1 40.g4 (40.Ra7 Rxb2 41.Rxa5 b3 42.h4 Kc3+ 43.Kg3 Rb1 44.Rc5+ Kb4 45.Rc8 Rg1 46.Rb8+ Kc3 47.f4 b2 48.Rxb2 Kxb2 49.e5.

analysis diagram






40. e5 b3

This finally blows the game open, although I did not realize it at the time. 

41.e6 Kxb2 42.e7 Kc1

42.Rc1 is not much better.

43. e8=Q Ra2+ 44. Kg3 b2 45. Rc7+ Kb1 46.Qe1 checkmate

Correctness

The Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) is not the Blackmar Diemer Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxd4 3.Nc3 Nf6) which in turn is not the Sicilian Defense (1.e4 c5)...

Alonzo Wheeler Jerome was not Emil Josef Diemer who was not Mikhail Tal...

Still, I had to smile the other day as I was catching up on Tom Purser's Blackmar Diemer Gambit blog (see the "Tom'sBDGPages" link on the lower right) when I ran across his post on "Correctness".

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

"Correctness"

In his book, Vom Ersten Zug an auf Matt [Toward Mate From the First Move], Diemer included a short essay on correctness (a propos -- KORREKTHEIT!, p. 129), in which he insisted that if the BDG were a "correct gambit" then it would be no gambit at all. Tonight I read an interesting piece by Dutch grandmaster Jan Hein Donner, (who once wrote a separate devastating article on Diemer called "The Prophet von Muggensturm").

He didn’t care about correctness, complications were more important to him. To drag his opponent with him into the labyrinth, he gave everything for it. I’ve seen it in Zürich, the growing feeling of unease when he sacrificed a piece or more in every game, and won, but when afterwards it turned out the whole enterprise had been rather risky if only the opponent would have found the right moves behind the board. In analysing, too, it turned out that, although he had calculated much and much more than the average player, he did very much tend to calculate in his own favour. Even then it became clear that only Keres could stand up to him in such analysis sessions where hands grab and reach over the board. ‘Aber mein Lieber, was machen Sie denn darauf!’ [But my darling, what do you play now?] and Tal just laughed. ‘Wer hat gewonnen?’ [Who has won?] (…)

Tal? Tal? Forgive me if I mislead you. Here Donner was writing about Tal. Not about Diemer. You can read the entire piece in this post in Chess Vibes. (scroll down to the bottom of the page).

Of course, neither Purser nor Donner were writing about playing the Jerome Gambit, either; but I hope I did not mislead any Reader.

Still, isn't that what we do when we play the Jerome: drag our opponents with us "into the labyrinth"?

I expected better...

I just got clobbered in a 3-minute online game at FICS (I know, I know, I should know better than to play such fast games), playing the Black pieces against a Modern Jerome Gambit, by transposition (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.d3).

My opponent, rated at the time about 300 points above me, shows up in about 75 games in the New Year's Database, scoring a reasonable 47% with the Jerome Gambit and its relatives. He has a legitimate claim to membership to the Jerome Gambit Gemeinde.

I will share the game, but a summary of it would be: I defended well for a half-dozen moves or so, then began to slip up, and then my opponent poured it on, crushing me.

Hats off to RattyMouse for some serious attacking play with the Jerome Gambit!  His co-ordinated pieces over-whelmed me.

My enthusiasm for the game paled, however, when my opponent immediately posted upon my resignation: I wish I knew the words to express the contempt that I have for you.

Bruce: Do you know what it means to have "contempt" for your opponent?

Josh: No.

Bruce: It means to hate them. You have to hate them Josh, they hate you.

Josh: But I don't hate them.

Bruce: Well you'd better start.

Searching for Bobby Fischer 1993

I expected better, from myself.

I expected better, from my opponent, as well.

Maybe next time.

RattyMouse  - perrypawnpusher

blitz 3 0, FICS, 2009

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.d3 Nf6 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Ng5+ Kg8 7.c3 h6 8.Qb3+ d5 9.Nf3 Kh7 10.exd5 Qxd5 11.Qc2 Rd8 12.d4+ g6 13.dxc5 Qxc5 14.0-0 Bf5 15.Qb3 Qb6 16.Qf7+ Kh8 17.Qxf6+ Kg8 18.Bxh6 Rd7 19.Ng5 a5 20.Nd2 a4 21.Nde4 a3 22.b3 Ra5 23.Ng3 Ra8 24.Nxf5 gxf5 25.Qg6+ Kh8 26.Nf7+ Rxf7 27.Qxf7 Rg8 28.Qxf5 Qc5 29.c4 Qe7 30.Bg5 Qg7 31.Bf6 Black resigned