I was playing an interesting Semi-Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit (where it looked like I had just taken the advantage) on FICS when my opponent disconnected. I sent him a message that I hoped we could continue the game.
My opponent signed back on, I offered a resumption of the game, but, he started one with another player.
When that game ended, I again offered a resumption. Instead of accepting, my opponent disconnected. I never got a response to my message.
Although I have been through disconnection hassles on FICS before (see "A Sneaky Way to Defeat the Jerome Gambit") I forgot that none of the above was relevant when it came to the adjudication of a game. The rules state
The outcome of an adjudication is primarily based on position and clocks. Who disconnected is rarely a decisive factor.
I was confident in my position, so I requested an ajudication.
My mistake.
It turns out that out of 35 possible moves that my opponent could make, 33 left me with a winning advantage, and one led to a drawn game. One move, however – one that I had not seen – led to a winning game for Black.
So the game was adjudicated a win for Black.
Which leads me to wonder, would my opponent ever have agreed to resume our game? If so, would he have found the one winning move? If not, did my own request for adjudication turn a game in which I still had practical chances into one in which I was dead lost?
Something to think about...
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
A while back (see "Ed Yetman's Gambit Challenge Quads") I wrote about an adventurous chess player in Tuscon, Arizona, USA, who had offered to play the White side of the Smith-Morra Gambit (1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3), the Paris Gambit (1.Nh3 d5 2.g3 e5 3.f4 Bxh3 4.Bxh3 exf4 5.0-0 fxg3 6.hxg3) or the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) in his games in a quad.
He even published a link to an early analysis of the Jerome Gambit to give potential opponents an opportunity to study beforehand. (From the analysis: "[W]e give the Jerome Gambit as a representative form of this kind of attack on its merits, showing its strength and weakness apart from accidental circumstances, which in actual play may materially affect the result.")
I recently checked with Ed Yetman and he reported, surprisingly, that not a single player was brave enough to take up his challenge!
I can understand someone not wanting to face the Smith-Morra Gambit: many who play it are booked to the eyeballs and dangerous as a rattlesnake.
Maybe the Paris Gambit was a bit to odd or foreign for people's tastes.
Illustrating the principle: when your piece is attacked, don't immediately withdraw it, look for a greater threat against your opponent.
Unfortunately, that doesn't hold in this case, and 10...Nc6 was necessary to preserve Black's advantage.
11.Qxe5 Re8
One benefit to White of playing 10.f4 instead of 10.Bf4 is that if Black had exchanged Queens here, White would have a pawn on e5 attacking Black's pinned Knight on f6. Therefore Black acquiesces to losing a piece.
12.Qxe7+ Rxe7 13.e5 Ne8 14.Bd2
On this and the next move for White, Rybka prefers Nd5.
14...b6 15.Rae1Kg8
Black has castled-by-hand, but is down a pawn and, more importantly, remains cramped and behind in development
16.f5 Ba6 17.Rf2 Rd8
18.f6
After the game Rybka suggested a more positional approach: 18.Nd5 Rf7 19.g4 Bb7 20.Nf4 Nc7 21.c4 Rc8 22.Ng6 Re8 23.h3 Ba6 24.b3 Bb7
analysis diagram
18...Rf7 19.Ne4 d5
Black lashes out, and gets a defensible game if White captures the d-pawn en passant, but probably better was to exchange pawns on f6.
20.e6 Rxf6 21.Nxf6+ Nxf6 22.e7 Re8
23.Bxh6 gxh6
Too cooperative. Instead 23...Ne4 24.Rf8+ Rxf8 25.exf8Q+ Kxf8 26.Bf4 eliminates White's passer in what amounts to an exchange of pawns.
24.Rxf6 Bc8
25.Rxh6
Next time I'll see 25.Rf8+ Rxf8 26.e8Q.
25...Kf7 26.Rh7+ Kf6 27.Rh6+Kg728.Rh4 d4
The pawn at e7 has survived so far, but it will need help to promote.
The Jerome Gambit Thematic Tournament taking place at Chess.com looks like it is close to crowning its winner.
Daves111 leads with 21 points, having finished all 24 of his games.
If TWODOGS, at 8 points from 11 games, wins all of his remaining games (13) he could catch Daves111 and tie for first.
Of course, if dark horse CheckmateKingTwo, at 2 points from 4 games, wins his final 20 games, he could leapfrog over both Daves111 and TWODOGs...
Not in the battle for top honors, but fighting for second place, are DREWBEAR (17 points out of 21 games) and stampyshortlegs (9 points out of 16 games).
Blackburne (12 points out of 21 games) and Crusader Rabbit (10 points out of 18 games) are on their heels.
This is for all of my friends in the United States Chess Association of the Deaf, as well as the good people under the auspices of the International Committe of Silent Chess.
We'll be back to the Jerome Gambit tomorrow – scary enough for you?
Figuring, I guess, that since he is going to lose a piece no matter which one he moves, he might as well prepare to safegard his King by castling-by-hand. Under other circumstances this would be a fine idea, but his best move here was 7...Bd6.
8.dxe5 Ne8
Understandably wanting to stay a piece ahead, but it was necessary to surrender one with 8...d6 9.exf6 Qxf6 10.0-0 Qe5 when White will have an edge.
9.Qd5+ Ke7
After the game Rybka showed that Black's King could reach safety in a round-about way: 9...Kg6 10.Qxc5 d6 11.Qd4 Kf7 12.Be3 Kg8. However, after 13.0-0-0 White is clearly better.
10.Bg5+ Black resigned
What an uncomfortable position!
After 10...Nf6 11.exf6+ gxf6 12.Qxc5+ d6 it looks like White has won two pieces, only to have left two en prise himself, but with 13.Nd5+! he can give the Bishop back and maintain the attack, e.g. 13...Kd7 14.Qd4 fxg5 15.Qg7+ (or 15.0-0-0).
