Not Exactly An Advertisement

The following Jerome Gambit game is not exactly an advertisement for the benefits of the opening. It's just that twice when I stopped to think "what do I do now?" my opponent gave up a piece. Why argue?


perrypawnpusher - yuriko
blitz, FICS, 2010

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

The Semi-Italian Opening.

4.0-0 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bc5

The Semi-Italian Four Knights Game.

6.Bxf7+

The Semi-Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

6...Kxf7 7.Nxe5+ Nxe5 8.d4 Bxd4 9.Qxd4 d6 10.f4 Nc6 11.Qd3 Re8

After a rough start – 2 points out of my first 5 games – I have done better with this line – 4 1/2 points out of my last 5 games (including this one).

12.Bd2 Kg8 13.Rae1

White's pieces are developed and Black's King has castled-by-hand. I have very little compensation for my piece. What do I do next?

13...Nb4

Don't laugh – this is the 5th time an opponent has played this move here (and one of those games I lost). Must be some kind of "optical illusion".

14.Qc4+ Kh8

Also possible was 14...Be6, but probably 14...d5 was best.

15.Qxb4 c6

White has an extra pawn and is better developed, but with Black's King safe it will take some work to put these advantages to good use.

Fritz likes the idea of 16.f5 with the plan of containing Black's Bishop and re-deploying his own to f4, but Black can use the time to stir things up on the Queenside: 16...a5 17.Qd4 b5 18.a3 Ba6!? 19.b4 axb4 20.axb4 c5 21.Qd3 Bb7.

analysis diagram








White is better, but Black has interesting counterplay.

16.h3 b6 17.Qc4 c5

After the game Rybka suggested a better way for Black to tussle: 17...a5 18.Rf2 Ba6 19.Qb3 Re7 20.e5 dxe5 21.fxe5 Nd7 22.Bf4 Nc5 23.Qa3 Qd4 24.Bg3 Rae8 25.Rd1 Qb4 26.Rd6 Qxa3 27.bxa3 Bb7

analysis diagram







Black has White's extra, passed pawn under control. Chances exist, too, for a drawish Bishops-of-Opposite-colors endgame.

18.Nd5 Be6 19.Bc3 Nxd5 20.exd5 Bf5 21.Rf2

This is reasonable, but after the game Rybka suggested 21.Rxe8+ Qxe8 22.Re1 Qf7 23.Qe2 as a way to try to squeeze more out of the position.

analysis diagram








Now Black cannot take the d-pawn, as after 23...Qxd5 comes 24.Qh5 Kh7 25.g4 Be6 26.g5 Rf8 27.Bxg7!? Kxg7 28.Qxh6+ Kg8 29.Qxe6+ Qxe6 30.Rxe6 Rxf4 31.Rxd6 leads to a better Rook + pawns endgame for White.

After 23...Bg6 instead, Rybka helps White squeeze his opponent with 24.Qd2 Bf5 25.g4 Bd7 26.f5 Kg8 27.Kg2 Re8 28.Kg3 Rxe1 29.Qxe1 Qxd5 30.Qe7 Qf7 31.Qxd6 Be8 32.b3 Qd7.

analysis diagram






White is better, but "1-0" is still a long way off, and "1/2-1/2" still waits in the shadows.

Not exactly an advertisement for a wild attacking gambit.

21...Qh4

Putting pressure on my position.

22.Qf1 Rxe1 23.Qxe1

Okay, now what do I do?

23...Bxc2

It was nice to see that my opponent was having just as much trouble with the position as I was. He probably saw the Rook "pinned" to my Queen, but only saw my Bishop facing "forward" toward his g7... 

24.Rxc2 Qxe1+ 25.Bxe1 Re8 26.Kf2

Finally I know what to do.

26...g5 27.fxg5 hxg5 28.Re2 Rf8+ 29.Kg1 Kh7 30.Re6 Rf5 31.Rxd6 Rf4 Black resigned

Philidor Defense with a Jerome Touch

As an aside in the post "A New Opening?" which discussed an article from the September 1958 Precita Valley Chess Herald wherin George Koltanowski named John Ishkan's Jerome Gambit the "Trashcan Opening", I presented a Koltanowski game that was a Philidor Defense with a Jerome touch. For extra measure, I added a 2004 Kosteniuk - Skripchenko game with the same line.

It would have been appropriate then to have mentioned a related game and analysis by Francesco Recchia of Italy that had been posted to this blog a year and a half earlier in "A Kind of Jerome Gambit That Wins".

Here is the earliest example that I have found of the opening variation.

Hahlbohm,H - Moorman,L
Chicago, 1917

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nd7 4.Bc4 h6 5.dxe5 dxe5 6.Bxf7+

6...Kxf7 7.Nxe5+ Kf6 8.Qd5

Instead, Kosteniuk chose 8.Qd4. Recchia energetically recommended 8.Nc3.

Now 8...Qe8 is Black's only move.

 8...Ne7 9.Qf7+ Kxe5 10.Bf4+ Kd4 11.Qe6 Nc5 12.Be3 checkmate

After posting this, I hoped to try the line in a FICS blitz game. I was not able to reach the exact position, but I put the lessons that I had learned to good use in perrypawnpusher - NN, blitz, FICS, 2010: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 h6 4.d4 Nc6 (4...Nd7 would reach Hahlbohm - Moorman, above. Best was 4...exd4) 5.dxe5 Nxe5 (5...Bg4 is an interesting gambit; otherwise, 5...Qe7 seems necessary) 6.Nxe5 dxe5 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qxd8 Black resigned

A Modern Jerome Gambit With A Retro Twist

Speaking of "modern" Jerome Gambit lines – see "A Closer Look at the Big Picture (Part 3)" – here is a Bill Wall game where White bypasses the "classical" 5.Nxe5+ in modern style, only to replace it with 5.b4!?, an Evans Gambit-style blast from the past similar to Charlick's "Evans Jerome Gambit".

Is the line any good? It certainly is, when Black responds with a variation of the "Anti-Bill Wall Gambit".

Wall,B - WNXR
FICS, 2010

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

4...Kxf7 5.b4

5...Bxf2+

Well, it looks like we'll have to save analysis of 5...Bxb4, 5...Bb6 and 5...Be7 for another day.

Black seems to be following the idea I laid out in "Here's my plan..."

Whatever White gets from his sacrifice at f7, Black will now get from his sacrifice at f2.

I also noted the downside for Black in this "I want what you have" reaction

what White typically gets from his sacrifice at f7 is a lost game

6.Kxf2 Nf6 7.Rf1 Nxe4+ 

Pawn-grabbing does not look like a good idea here.

8.Kg1 Rf8 9.b5 Kg8

Another puzzling move: Black seems intent upon returning all the material that White gives him.

Certainly it is a good idea to castle-by-hand (like White did) but can Black afford a piece in order to do so? Perhaps he was relying on the relatively transparent trap mentioned in the next note.

10.bxc6 dxc6 11.d3

Of course 11.Nxe5? falls to 11...Qd4+. Is that what Black had in mind?

11...Nc5 

In a reversal of traditional Jerome Gambit roles, White has the extra
piece while Black has the extra pawns.

12.Ba3 b6 13.Qe1 Bg4 14.Nbd2 Bxf3 15.Nxf3

15...Rxf3

This has to be a mis-calculation.

16.Rxf3 Qd4+ 17.Kh1 Re8 18.Bxc5 bxc5

19.c3 Qd5 20.Qf2 e4 21.Re1 h6 22.Rxe4 Rxe4 23.dxe4 Qd1+ 24.Qf1 Qc2 25.Rf8+ Kh7 26.Qf5+ g6 27.Qf7 checkmate 

 

A Closer Look at the Big Picture (Part 3)

We continue responding to Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member Pete Banks' (blackburne) request for opening statistics (see his comment on "Another Closer Look"), based on the updated New Year's Database. 

For earlier numbers see "A Closer Look at the Big Picture (Part 1)" and "(Part 2)".

Currently the database contains 7, 074 games that begin 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7, with White scoring 44%.

Modern variations of the Jerome Gambit (which make up 47.4% of the Jerome Gambit Accepted games) are designed to either avoid the classical continuations (and refutations) by not playing 5.Nxe5 or they may represent new ways of conceptualizing the old gambit. 

They can be the choice of a competitor in a Jerome Gambit thematic tournament who simply decides no more sacrifices, or that of a higher-rated player giving "Jerome Gambit odds" who figures one sacrifice is enough to stir up things, let's see what happens now.

Since some lines can transpose into each other, the following statistics may be somewhat confounded, but here they are, nonetheless.

The most popular modern Jerome Gambit idea in the updated database is 5.d4, appearing in 1,318 games. It seems at least in part the offer of a central pawn to open lines, especially the c1-h6 diagonal to allow Bc1-g5 and Nf3-g5+.

Because of tranpositions, Black's best response, 5...exd4, shows up in the database in 1,896 games, with White scoring a difficult 37%. White does better than that against 5...Nxd4 (454 games, 45%) and worse than that against 5...Bxd4 (638 games, 27%).

After 5.0-0, seen in 768 games, White scores 36%. Again, 5.c3 fares better in 699 games with White scoring 47%; but worse in the 645 games in which White plays 5.d3 and scores 32%.

Perhaps White should explore 5.b4, which scores 63%, but in only 8 games.

There are still many variables in play in the modern Jerome Gambit besides move order, as 5.h3 has scored 75% (admittedly, in only 5 games) while 5.a3 has tallied 29% (in 28 games).

As expected, the theory of the modern Jerome Gambit is still evolving. From a practical, as opposed to a theoretical, perspective, the modern lines have not produced a line clearly more successful than the classical lines – at least at this introductory level of analysis.

Likely what is needed some time in the future is a Closer Closer Look at the Big Picture.

A Closer Look at the Big Picture (Part 2)

Yesterday – see "A Closer Look at the Big Picture (Part 1)" – responding to Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member Pete Banks' (blackburne) request for opening statistics (see his comment on "Another Closer Look") I checked the updated New Year's Database for answers. We continue today.

Currently the database contains 7, 298 games that begin 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+, with White scoring 44%.

If we look at the classical Jerome Gambit Accepted line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5 Nxe5 6.Qh5+, which scores 53% in 2,182 games, there are several defenses to investigate.

Most popular (994 games) is blocking the White Queen's check with the Black Knight, 6...Ng6. White, however, scores 49% – a bit below the classical Jerome Gambit Accepted average, but not by much. Black might well be comfortable playing a defense that gives him a better than 1 in 2 chance of winning.

Next most popular (589 games) is moving the King into the fray with 6...Ke6, where White scores 52%. The same might be said about Black's comfort level in playing this defense, even with White's minute edge.

Again, Black has a decent alternative in 6...Kf8 (289 games) against which White scores only 45%. As with 5...Kf8, mentioned yesterday, this is a line which makes intuitive sense (not over-reacting and staying out of trouble) and which deserves to be seen more often.

Most puzzling is 6...g6, appearing in 286 games and against which White scores a whopping 72%. This is the move popularized by Blackburne in his 1885 miniature, and can lead to either the Blackburne Defense (7.Qxe5 d6) or the Whistler Defense (7.Qxe5 Qe7).

Against the former, in 90 games White scores 69%; while against the latter, in 36 games, White scores 57%. This is clearly a reflection of the tactical complications involved as well as the success of the more Jerome-experienced player:  in the Whistler Defense, after the capture of a lethally poisoned Rook (7.Qxe5 Qe7 8.Qxh8) in 28 games, White still scores 57%.

Tomorrow we will take a look at the modern Jerome Gambit lines, as reflected in the New Year's Database.

A Closer Look at the Big Picture (Part 1)

Responding to Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member Pete Banks' (blackburne) request for statistics (see his comment on "Another Closer Look") I consulted the updated New Year's Database for answers.

At the moment, the database contains 7, 298 games that begin 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+.

As expected, the vast majority of the games have the Accepted response of 4...Kxf7. For those games, White scores 44%. 

Only 192 games – 2.6%, – illustrate the Jerome Gambit Declined. For the record, White scores a surprisingly low 55% against 4...Kf8 and a more robust 72% against 4...Ke7.

Of the 7,298 Jerome Gambit games in the database, 3017 (42.5% of the Jerome Gambit Accepted games ) feature the classical 5.Nxe5+, with which White scores 53%.

A tentative conclusion, then, is that classical lines (i.e. those going 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+) score better than the average for all Jerome Gambit games in the database.

At first glance, this may be surprising, as computer evaluations give most of the "modern" variations higher ratings than the classical ones. However, what may be at work is is experience and familiarity – it may turn out that those who play the classical variations are more likely to be "old hands" in playing the lines, and this provides them with a competitive edge.

The question for Black at this point is: should he take White's Knight? The statistics suggest that Black should. The alternatives: 5...Kf8 is seen in 100 games, where White scores 49%; 5...Ke8 is seen in 49 games, where White scores 60%; 5...Ke6 is seen in 18 games, where White scores 61%; and 5...Ke7 is seen in 8 games, where White scores 63%.

Those defending against the Jerome Gambit might want to look at that 5...Kf8 line, both as a surprise weapon and as the one non-main-line choice that decreases White's winning percentage in the classical Jerome Gambit Accepted from 53% to 49%.

Most of the classical Jerome Gambit Accepted lines (95.7%), then, begin with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5. The results from the database are indifferent as to whether White follows up with either 6.Qh5+ (2,182 games) or 6.d4 (699 games) as the first scores 53% for White and the second scores 52%.

An indication of how the New Year's Database can skew reality, however, is that after 6.d4, arguably the strongest reply for Black is 6...Qh4, yet in the 160 games where that move order appears, White scores 77%.

We will look at how White does against the various main line defenses to the classical Jerome Gambit, tomorrow.

Oh, By the Way...

With all of the attention that this blog has paid to the Blackburne Shilling Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4), I should have mentioned earlier an article by Paul Valle in the irrepressible Unorthodox Openings Newsletter Issue Number 3, June 2001.

It is fun to see in Chapter 6

Please excuse me for not having time... to look into 4.Bxf7+, although I doubt White has enough for his piece after 4…Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke6

Of course, not everyone has to agree with everything Paul writes...