This game is an example of the aphorism (that I just made up): It's not good enough to play an opening's refutation - you have to actually refute the opening.
perrypawnpusher - louarn
blitz, FICS,2010
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Bc4 h6 5.0-0 Bc5
The Semi-Italian Four Knights Game.
6.Bxf7+
The Semi-Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.
6...Kxf7 7.Nxe5+ Nxe5 8.d4
8...Re8
Preparing to castle-by-hand and putting the rook on a file where it hits White's center.
9.dxc5 d6
A bit better than 9...b6 10.cxb6 axb6 11.f4 Ba6 12.fxe5 Rxe5 13.Re1 c6 14.Bf4 Rc5 15.e5 Nd5 16.Nxd5 Rxd5 17.Qh5+ Kg8 18.Rad1 b5 19.Rxd5 cxd5 20.g4 Qb6+ 21.Be3 Qe6 22.Qf5 Rf8 23.Qxe6+ dxe6 24.Rf1 Rxf1+ 25.Kxf1 b4+ 26.Ke1 Kf7 27.Kd2 Kg6 28.a3 bxa3 29.bxa3 h5 30.gxh5+ Kxh5 31.Bf4 g5 32.Bg3 Kg4 33.Ke3 Kf5 34.Kd4 Bc4 35.a4 g4 36.a5 Ba6 37.c3 Bc4 38.Ke3 Ba6 39.Kd4 Bc4 40.Ke3 Ba6 41.Kd4 Bc4 42.Ke3 drawn, perrypawnpusher - catri, blitz, FICS, 2010
10.cxd6 Qxd6 11.Qe2
After the game Rybka preferred 11.Qxd6 with play against the pawn at d6.
11...Bg4
An annoying move, but I underestimated its impact.
12.f3 Bh5 13.Bf4 Kg8
Black's King is safe, almost all of his pieces are developed, and he is close to having refuted White's opening.
14.Rad1 Qe6 15.g4
Overly energetic. Best was something passive like 15.Qf2, when Black still has an edge but White hasn't destroyed his chances.
15...Nxf3+
This is a good time to "return" the extra piece, as the move destroys White's King's shelter and the proper followup leaves Black ahead the exchange, with a better position.
Clearly, this variation needs work.
16.Qxf3 Qxg4+
Wanting to blunt White's "attack," Black decides to exchange Queens and makes the wrong recapture. After 16...Bxg4 17.Qd3 Bxd1 18.Nxd1 Black is clearly better.
17.Qxg4 Bxg4
Black's advantage is now minimal.
18.Rde1 Rad8 19.Bxh6 gxh6 20.Rxf6
Despite White's extra (passed) pawn, he is only slightly better here. Black has a Bishop against White's Knight, and the passer is a long way from being promoted.
Still, I was optimistic, as I was pretty sure that I knew what my opponent would play next...
20...Rd2
Understandable oversight: Black wants to make up for the pawn lost by showing that his pieces can be active and infiltrate White's position.
21.Rg6+ Kh7 22.Rxg4 Rxc2 23.Rg2 Rxg2+ 24.Kxg2 Rg8+
The game is only half over, but the end is in sight.
25.Kf3 c5 26.e5 b6 27.e6 Re8 28.Kf4 Kg6 29.e7 Kf6 30.Nd5+ Kf7
31.Kf5 b5 32.Re6 a5 33.Rxh6 c4 34.Rf6+ Kg7 35.Rb6
35...b4 36.Rb5 Kf7 37.Rxa5 c3 38.bxc3 bxc3 39.Rc5 Ra8
40.Rxc3 Rxa2 41.Re3 Rf2+ 42.Kg4 Ke8
43.Rf3 Rd2 44.Rf8+ Kd7 45.e8Q+ Kd6 46.Qd8+ Ke5 47.Re8+ Kd4 48.Nf4+ Kc3 49.Qxd2+
The simplest.
Here Black had about 5 1/2 minutes on his clock, and he let it run until he lost on time.
The other day I was looking through the updated New Year's Database, checking out higher-rated players who had used the Jerome Gambit. I discovered vladx, playing on FICS and rated in the 2200s, who had some games from 2005-2007.
Of course, when I investigated further, I wasn't surprised to read
This is a computer account: Vlad Tepes @ Winboard 4.2.7 engine Vlad Tepes III 0.2 (Vlad the Impaler a.k.a. Dracula) written in C/C++ running on: Intel 2.0 Ghz Windows XP 64 Mb hash table written by: Henk Fennema, the Netherlands If you notice any bugs or malbehaviour please send a message to Urugxunil
I did actually find a Jerome Gambit game between two players rated 2500+, but it was a "lightning" game, which at FICS could mean 3 0 (or less)
BlackDemon (2563) - wkw (2662)
rated lightning match, FICS 2009
1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 e5 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.0-0 Nf6 6.d3 Rf8 7.Be3 Bxe3 8.fxe3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5+ Kg8 11.Rxf8+ Qxf8 12.Nxc6 Qc5 13.Qe2 bxc6 14.d4 Bg4 15.dxc5 Bxe2 16.Nd2 Bh5 17.e4 Nb4 18.c3 Nd3 19.b4 a5 20.a4 axb4 21.cxb4 Nxb4 22.a5 Nd3 23.a6 Ra7 24.Nb3 Bf7 25.Rd1 Bxb3 26.Rxd3 Be6 27.Rd8+ Kf7 28.Rb8 Rxa6 29.Rb7 Ke7 30.Rxc7+ Bd7 31.Kf2 Ra5 32.g3 Rxc5 33.Ke3 Ra5 34.Rb7 Ra2 35.h3 Ra3+ 36.Kf4 c5 37.h4 c4 38.Ke5 Rd3 39.Ra7 c3 40.Rc7 Kd8 41.Rc4 Bb5 42.Rc5 Ba4 43.Ke6 c2 44.Kf7 Rd7+ 45.Ke6 Rc7 46.Rxc2 Bxc2 47.Kd5 Rd7+ 48.Ke5 Re7+ 49.Kf4 Rxe4+ 50.Kf3 Ke7 51.Kf2 Kf6 52.Kg2 Kf5 53.Kf2 Kg4 54.Kg2 Re2+ 55.Kf1 Bd3 56.h5 Kxg3 57.h6 Re3+ 58.Kg1 Re1 checkmate
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...
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.
But, the Jerome Gambit ??
In a variation that has seen quick resignations, my opponent takes the game a bit further on down the road. No matter, his stopping point is the same.
perrypawnpusher - Gibarian
blitz, FICS, 2010
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Bc4 Bc5
The Italian Four Knights game.
5.Bxf7+
The Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.
5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.d4
7...Bb4
This has given Black trouble before although the defense surely is playable. Best was 7...Bd6 8.dxe5 Bxe5 and the second player is better.
8.dxe5 Nxe4
Or 8...Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Nxe4 10.Qd5+ Black resigned, perrypawnpusher - ohforgetit, blitz, FICS, 2010
Black stayed around longer in perrypawnpusher - obmanovichhh, FICS, 2010: 8...Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Nxe4 10.Qd5+ Kf8 11.Qxe4 d6 12.0-0 dxe5 13.Qxe5 Qe7 14.Bf4 Qxe5 15.Bxe5 c6 16.Rad1 Bf5 17.Rd2 Kf7 18.Rfd1 Rhe8 19.f4 Re6 20.Rd8 Rxd8 21.Rxd8 Re7 22.Rd2 g5 23.g3 gxf4 24.gxf4 Be6 25.a3 Bc4 26.Kf2 b5 27.Ke3 a5 28.Rd6 Bd5 29.Rh6 Kg8 30.Kd4 a4 31.Kc5 Be4 32.Rxc6 Bxc6 33.Kxc6 Re6+ 34.Kxb5 Rh6 35.c4 Kf7 36.c5 Ke6 37.c6 Ke7 38.Kb6 Kd8 39.Kb7 Black resigned,
9.Qd5+
At this point Black resigned in perrypawnpusher - kezientz, FICS 2010
9...Ke8 10.Qxe4 Rf8
An oversight, but Black plays on.
11.Qxb4 b6 12.Qe4 Rb8 13.Qxh7 Qe7 14.Qh5+ Kd8
15.Bg5 Rf6 16.Bxf6 gxf6 17.Qh8+ Qe8 18.Qxf6+ Qe7 19.0-0 Bb7
20.Qh8+ Qe8 21.Qxe8+ Kxe8 22.f4 Ke7 23.f5 Rg8
24.g3 a5 25.Rad1 c5 26.Nd5+ Kf7 27.Nxb6 Ke8 28.Nxd7 Kf7 29.Nxc5 Bc6 30.e6+ Ke7 31.f6+ Kf8 32.Rd8+ Be8 33.Nd7 checkmate
Much of this game revolves around the struggle of a "Jerome pawn" to fulfill its destiny and advance to the 8th rank for promotion.
Congratulations, persistent pawn!
perrypawnpusher - jaymen
blitz, FICS, 2010
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Bc4 h6 5.0-0 Bc5
Transposing into the Semi-Italian Four Knights Game.
6.Bxf7+
The Semi-Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit. (This game helped drag my score in this line up to 63%.)
6...Kxf7 7.Nxe5+ Nxe5 8.d4
8...Bxd4 9.Qxd4 Qe7 10.f4
Or 10.Bf4 c5 11.Qxe5 Qxe5 12.Bxe5 Ng4 13.Bg3 d6 14.Rad1 Rd8 15.h3 Nf6 16.Bxd6 Be6 17.Bxc5 Rac8 18.Rxd8 Rxd8 19.Bxa7 Bc4 20.Re1 Ra8 21.Bd4 Bxa2 22.Nxa2 Rxa2 23.Bxf6 Kxf6 24.Rb1 b5 25.f3 Kg5 26.Kf2 Kf4 27.g3+ Kg5 28.f4+ Black disconnected and forfeited, perrypawnpusher - philippemuurmans, blitz, FICS, 2010.
10...c5
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.Rae1 Kg8
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+ Kg7 28.Rh4 d4
The pawn at e7 has survived so far, but it will need help to promote.
29.Rf4 a6 30.h4 Kg6 31.Rf8 Bd7 32.Rxe8 Bxe8
33.Rf1 Bf7 34.g4
Here come the distractions.
34...c4 35.h5+ Kg7 36.h6+ Kxh6 37.Rxf7 Kg6 38.e8Q
38...d3 39.Qg8+ Kh6 40.Rh7 checkmate
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.
