It Takes More Than Just One Move

I have to take my openings more seriously. That's funny coming from someone who has been blogging here daily for almost three years, but what it means is: I need to be more prepared for opponents who, more and more, are more prepared... suprise alone won't work.


perrypawnpusher  - wred
blitz, FICS, 2011

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5

I have called this "A Line of Play Everyone Should Know About". In response, White doesn't have to sacrifice his Bishop: 4.Nxe5 is good for a small advantage.

4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke7

As I've suggested,

Black's best chance for advantage... – if only for confusion's sake – is 5...Ke7.

After a lot of thought, Rybka thinks that the game should continue 6.Nc3 Qe8 7.d4 Kd8 8.0-0 Nc6 9.Bf4 d6 10.Nf3 Bd7, which looks about even

6.Qh5

Looking at The Database, I see that about 1/4 of those faced with 5...Ke7 chose the reply 6.Qh5. More popular was 6.d4, played by about 1/2 of those who faced 5...Ke7.

Only 8 players (3%) played the "best" move, 6.Nc3.

As an aside, my opponent faced and defeated 6.b3 in FabricioF - wred, FICS, 2010 (0-1,29); while he has lost twice to 6.d3, in brokenSpoke - wred, FICS 2011 (1-0, 22) and Kuehner - wred, FICS 2011 (1-0, 32).

6...Qe8

The only move, and an improvement over 6...d6 7.Qf7 checkmate, Longandsons - wred, FICS, 2011.

7.Qg5+ Nf6

8.Ng4

After the game Rybka 3 suggested 8.0-0 d6 9.Nc3, when Black had a small advantage.

Lucky for me (see "Another Refutation, Another Win"), it takes more than just one move to completely finish off my game.

8...Nc6 9.e5

A straight-forward idea that has a hole in it, although both wred and I missed it.

9...Qg6

This leads to an even game.

Instead, Black's 9...Kd8 would have uncovered his Queen, attacked White's e-pawn, and made the first player's game difficult, e.g. 10.0-0 h6 11.Nxf6 hxg5 12.Nxe8 Kxe8.

10.exf6+ gxf6 11.Qe3+ Ne5

Black had 11...Kf7 keeping a roughly even game.

12.Nxe5 fxe5 13.Qxe5+ Qe6 14.d4 d6 15.Qxe6+ Bxe6

I have stumbled into a much better game.

16.Bg5+ Kd7 17.Nd2 Re8 18.0-0-0 Bg7 19.Nf3 Bxa2

An error: Black's Bishop will not get out alive. Even worse, he will wind up sending in a Rook on a rescue mission, and that will get stuck, too.

20.b3 Re2 21.Rd2 Rhe8 22.Kb2 Bxb3 23.cxb3 Rxd2+ 24.Bxd2 Re2 25.Kc3 Rxf2 26.Rg1 b5

Black needed to play 26...c5 to free his Rook. Now Black will have to give it up for a  piece, falling further behind in material.

27.Kd3 a5 28.Ke3 Rxd2 29.Kxd2 a4 30.bxa4 bxa4 31.Ra1 Bh6+ 32.Kd3 c5 33.dxc5 dxc5 34.Rxa4 Bf4

A final slip.

35.Rxf4 Black resigned

Clarifying

While Bill Wall has done a good job of naming the different lines of play in the Jerome Gambit (see "Jerome Gambit Nomenclature"), I wanted to take a post to do the same for the various "Jerome Gambits".

At the center of it all is the Jerome Gambit itself, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+. As mentioned in a recent post, Alonzo Wheeler Jerome published analysis of the opening in the April 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal, played it over-the-board and in correspondence games for about 30 years, and was still defending it in 1900 (two years before his death) in the pages of the Literary Digest.

After 4...Kxf7 Jerome followed with 5.Nxe5+. I call this main line the "classical Jerome Gambit" to differentiate it from other 5th move choices for White (5.0-0, 5.Nc3, 5.c3, 5.d4, etc.) which are popular with modern (mostly internet) chess players. This class of "not-5.Nxe5+" lines are referred to as comprising the "modern Jerome Gambit".

I have not found any examples of A.W. Jerome analyzing or playing "modern" variations. The Dubuque Chess Journal, however, in its November 1874 issue, referred to 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4 exd4 5.Bxf7+ as "an unsound variation of Jerome's double opening", which anticipated the "modern" Jerome Gambit, by transposition.

After establishing the "modern" Jerome Gambit, is then easy to understand the Semi-Italian Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 4.0-0 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 to simply be a transposition into a "modern" line, i.e. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.0-0 h6.

Likewise, the Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7, and the Semi-Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 4.0-0 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bc5 6.Bxf7+ Kxf7, are transpositions to the "modern" as well, i.e. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nc3 Nf6 and 5.0-0 h6 6.Nf3 Nc6.

That leaves the Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Bxf7+ whose name is a double pleasantry. While the Shilling Gambit has been named after Blackburne, and the title seems to have stuck well, no game or analysis has (yet) been discovered to link the British master with the line. Likewise, Alonzo Wheeler Jerome (as far as I know) never met the Blackburne Shilling Gambit with 4.Bxf7+, either. I've attached the BSJG name because of its similarities to the Jerome Gambit.

In his The Chess Mind (1951) and again in The Pan Book of Chess (1965), Gerald Abrahams referred to the line 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Bxf7+ as the Jerome Gambit (see "Abrahams Jerome Gambit" Part I and Part II). I have not found any examples of Jerome analyzing or playing the Bxf7+ sacrifice out of the Bishop's Opening, as opposed to the Giuoco Piano. Abrahams could have been a better researcher than I am; or he could simply have been in error. A third possibility is that he focused his understanding of the Jerome Gambit on the Bishop-sacrifice-in-the-double-e-pawn-openings, to the neglect of the other supporting moves (i.e. Nf3 and Nc6).
This focus on Bxf7+ seems to have been the case when a reader at Chess.com explained that the Salvio Gambit was also known as the Jerome Gambit. I believe that he was in error, but the discussion is worth reviewing (see "Salvio Gambit??" and "Salvio Gambit?? [more]").

Too, there is the case of Joseph Henry Blackburne referring to the Jerome Gambit, in his Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess, as "the Kentucky Opening." I believe that I have solved this "mystery" – see "The Kentucky Opening" Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 and "The Kentucky / Danvers Opening" – in this case, Blackburne was focusing on the move Qh5 for White, which was used in both the Jerome Gambit and in 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5, which was known in the 1870s and 1880s as the Kentucky Opening.

Two guys are walking...

Two guys are walking in the savannah, when a tiger wanders into the clearing.


The first guy reaches into his backpack, takes out his running shoes and starts to put them on.


"Forget it. You'll never run faster than that tiger" says the second guy.


"I don't have to," replies the first. "I just have to run faster than you."

I remembered that joke when I played over the following game. I don't think that my play was very good. However, it turned out to be better than that of my opponent, and that was enough.


perrypawnpusher - BigKalamar
blitz, FICS, 2011

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bc5

5.Bxf7+

The Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.d4 Bxd4

8.Qxd4 Qe7 9.0-0

Preparing f2-f4, which I have also played immediately, as in perrypawnpusher - HGBoone, blitz, FICS, San Jose, California US 2010 (1-0, 27).

9...Re8 10.Bg5

Because of the arrangement of Black's King Knight and Queen, I would have done better to think of 9.Bc1-g5, possibly following up with Nc3-d5, saving the f2-f4 thrust for another time.
 

 
10...Kg8
 
Castling-by-hand, a standard defensive move in the Jerome Gambit.

After the game, Rybka 3 suggested: 10...Nc6 11.Qd2 Qe5, slipping the Black Bishop's pin . With some work, White then can win a pawn, 12.Bxf6 Qxf6 13.Nb5 Qe5 14.Qd5+ Re6 15.Rfe1 b6 16.c4 g5 17.Qxe5 Rxe5 18.Nxc7 but Black still maintains the advantage (piece vs 2 pawns).

10...c6 was seen in HauntedKnight - greeneel, FICS, 2010 (1-0,35), when 11.f4 would have led to an even game.

11.f4

Missing the opportunity for 11.Nd5, as after 11...Qd6 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.f4 Nf7 White can win the exchange with 14.Nxf6+. That will leave the first player with a Rook and two pawns against two pieces, a small advantage in an endgame (if he plays 14...Kf8 15.Qxd6+ Nxd6; and he can add to his positional advantage with the further 16.e5 Nc4 17.b3 Ne3 18.Nxe8 Kxe8 19.Rf2; thank you, Rybka).

11...Nc6 12.Qd3

White's routine play of the position (with one exception, which will show up, shortly) has given him his usual situation: Black is better.

12...Qf7 13.e5 Nh5

It was time to play "kick the Queen" with 13...Nb4 14.Qd2 Nfd5, letting Black's King Knight escape toward the center.

14.g4

Prelude to a Kingside traffic jam that I somehow survive.

14...h6 15.Bxh6 gxh6 16.gxh5 Qxh5

Rybka 3 now sees the game as about even, based on the strength of White's next possible move, 17.Nd5, which will allow him to either win the c7 pawn or play the annoying Nf6...

17.Kh1 Kh8 18.Nd5 Rg8

This is a critical error, if it is caught.

19.Nf6 Qg6

Compounding the problem.

20.Nxg8

Clueless.

Instead, 20.Rg1 Ne7 21.Rxg6 and White mates.

20...Qxg8

Fortunately, my opponent was keeping pace with me. Instead, 20...Qxd3 21.cxd3 Kxg8 produced a safer (and better) position for Black.

21.Rg1 Qf7 22.Qg6

Wrong piece! Instead, 22.Rg6 is crushing.

22...Qxg6

In turn, Black did better to leave the Queens on the board.

Can you tell that this is a blitz game between club players??

23.Rxg6 d6

Offering a pawn to distract me from doubling Rooks. It works.

24.exd6 cxd6

Black needs development: 24...Bf5 would be about equal.

25.Rxd6

Ouch. I could at least have taken the h-pawn first.

25...Kh7 26.Rf1 Bf5 27.c3 Rg8

We have reached an interesting endgame, where Black's Knight and Bishop are at least the equal of White's Rook and two pawns.

I win because at a critical moment my opponent is unable to counter my evil plan... Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

28.h4 Be4+ 29.Kh2 Rg2+ 30.Kh3 Rxb2 31.Re1 Bg2+

Instead, the Bishop should check from f5, leaving the g-file open for the Rook.

32.Kg4 a6

Missing the point of White's King advance.

33.Ree6

Heh, heh, heh... Me too: 33.Rd7+ Ne7 34.Rexe7+ Kg8 35.Rd8# 

33...Rxa2 34.Rxh6+ Kg7 35.Rhg6+ Kf7 36.h5

This is my idea. I was convinced that it would be successful, so I was blind to faster solutions, like checkmate.

36...Be4 37.Rgf6+ Kg7 38.f5 Rg2+ 39.Kf4 Bc2 40.h6+ Kg8

41.Rg6+ Rxg6 42.fxg6 a5 43.h7+ Kh8 44.Kg5 a4

Black had one last chance, a swindle: 44...Bxg6 45.Kxg6 Ne5+, as White can reflexively, but erroneously, protect his passer with 46.Kh6?, losing his Rook to 46...Nf2+. Instead, 46.Kf5, attacking the Knight, gives White time, after 46...Nc6, to protect the pawn with 47.Rd7.

45.Kh6 Bxg6 46.Rxg6 Ne7 47.Rf6 Ng8+ 48.hxg8Q+ Kxg8 49.Rb6 Black resigned

The Jerome-Kennedy Gambits!?

Wow.

The other day I received an email from Yury V. Bukayev, in Russia, suggesting the description "Jerome-Kennedy Gambit in different opening systems."

It was similar to the encouragement that Bill Wall made a while back, that we begin to talk about the "Jerome-Kennedy Gambit"  when we look at 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+, in the manner of the "Smith-Morra Gambit".

Thanks, guys.

For now, I'd like to stick with using Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's name for the gambit, as I further research his efforts: the earliest being analysis published in the 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal, and the latest (that I have found) a correspondence game against readers in the Literary Digest in 1900.

As I noted in my afterward to the posts on the Literary Digest game [1, 2, 3, 4], Mr. Jerome has had a hard time holding on to "his" opening: sources such as Cook's Synopsis of the Chess Openings (1882), The American Supplement (1884), and Freeborough and Rankin's Chess Openings Ancient and Modern, (1889) were happy to keep the name "Jerome Gambit", but identified the chief analyst of the opening as "Mr. S. A. Charles of Cincinnati, Ohio." Sic transit gloria mundi.

Plus,

However...

If my Jerome Gambit article ever appears [insert laugh track] in Kaissiber, or if I do succeed in completing a book on the Jerome Gambit and it's relatives; then, I'd consider adding my name...

graphic by Geoff Chandler

It's my birthday! It's my birthday! It's my birthday!

Well, actually, it's not my birthday.

It just feels like it is.

I got an email from Welton Vaz ("Ghandybh") that had three attachments. Welton had gone through the FICS database for January, February and March 2011 and had filtered out the Jerome Gambit and Jerome-ish games.

Many, many thanks!

Of course, I will share. After I play the games over, I will add them to The Database, which is available to anyone who asks for it.

It's a shame

It's a shame that Joseph Henry Blackburne did not play the Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+, (as opposed to playing against it; see "Mars Attacks!") – he had a nice touch with the Bxf7+ sacrifice. We've seen his 1862 blindfold win against Evelyn. Here's a later game from a blindfold simultaneous exhibition

Blackburne,J - Frankland
Leigh, 1879
blindfold simultaneous exhibition (one of six)

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 Bc5

An unusual response in the Danish Gambit.

It is rare enough that I will include in the notes all of the games that I have discovered with the line (plus the following move by Blackburne, of course).

5.Bxf7+

5...Kxf7

Or 5...Kf8 6.Bxg8

a) 6.Bc4 Qf6 7.Qe2 (7.Qc2 Bb4 8.Nxc3 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 d6 10.Nf3 Ne7 11.Rb1 h6 12.Nd4 c5 13.Nb5 Na6 14.0-0 Bd7 15.Re1 b6 16.Re3 Bxb5 17.Bxb5 Nc7 18.Rf3 Ng6 19.Rxf6+ gxf6 20.Bc6 Rd8 21.Qa4 Ne5 22.Qxa7 Ne6 23.Ba4 b5 24.Rxb5 Nd3 25.Bb3 c4 26.Bxc4 Ndc5 27.Bxe6 Nxe6 28.Rb7 Nc5 29.Rf7+ Kg8 30.Rg7+ Black resigned, wurscht - monaliza, littlegolem.net, 2007) 7...Bb4 8.Nxc3 Bxc3+ 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 d6 11.Ne2 Nc6 12.0-0 Be6 13.Bb5 Nge7 14.Rac1 Kf7 15.Rc3 Rhf8 16.Rf3 Bf5 17.exf5 Kg8 18.Bc4+ Kh8 19.Rc1 Ne5 20.Re3 Nxf5 21.Rh3 Rae8 22.g3 Nf3+ 23.Kh1 Nxd2 24.Bd3 Ne4 25.Kg1 Qxb2 26.g4 Nd4 27.Rxc7 Nxe2+ White resigned, Lebiedowicz,B - Lachowicz,J, Wroclaw, 2005;

b) 6.Bb3 Qh4 7.Qe2 Nf6 8.Nxc3 Bb4 9.e5 Qd4 10.exf6 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Qxc3+ 12.Kf1 Qxf6 13.Bb2 Qg6 14.Re1 Nc6 15.Qf3+ Black resigned, Wall,B - Martinez,I, Colorado Springs Fundraiser, G/30, 2011;

c) 6.bxc3 Qf6 7.Qd5 Qxf2+ 8.Kd1 Qf1+ 9.Kc2 Qxg2+ 10.Nd2 Nf6 11.Qxc5+ Kxf7 12.Ba3 Qxh1 13.Qe7+ Kg6 14.Rf1 Nc6 15.Qc5 d6 16.Qf2 Nxe4 White resigned, Perry,J - Rambousek,J, ICCF Email, 1997;

6...Bxf2+ 7.Kxf2 Qh4+ 8.g3 Qf6+ 9.Qf3 Qxf3+ 10.Nxf3 cxb2 11.Bxb2 Rxg8 12.Nc3 c6 13.Rhf1 b6 14.Ke3 Ba6 15.Rf2 Ke8 16.Rd1 Bc4 17.Rd4 Be6 18.Ng5 h6 19.Nxe6 dxe6 20.Rd6 Ke7 21.Rfd2 Re8 22.h4 Kf8 23.Ne2 e5 24.g4 Kg8 25.Ng3 Kh7 26.Rd8 Re6 27.Rc8 c5 28.Rdd8 Black resigned, Kichinski,R -Connell,J, 1988. 

6.Qd5+ Kf8

Or 6...Ke8 7.Qxc5 Qe7

a)7...Nf6 8.Nxc3 d6 9.Qg5 h6 10.Qxg7 Rg8 11.Qxh6 Qe7 12.Bg5 Rf8 13.Nf3 d5 14.Nxd5 Qxe4+ 15.Ne3 Ng4 16.Qh5+ Rf7 17.Qxg4 Bxg4 18.Rd1 Bxf3 19.Rd8# Konig,M - Kus,M, Most, 1999;

b)7...d6 8.Qxc3 (8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qe2 Be6 10.Nxc3 Nc6 11.Nd5 Nge7 12.Nf6+ Kf7 13.Qf3 Nd4 14.Qd1 c5 15.e5 dxe5 16.Ne4 Bd5 17.Ng5+ Kf6 18.N1f3 h6 19.Nxd4 exd4 20.Nf3 Kg7 21.0-0 Rf8 22.Ne5 Bxg2 23.Kxg2 Qd5+ 24.Nf3 Rf5 25.a4 Raf8 26.Ra3 g5 27.h3 Kg6 28.Kg3 Nc6 29.Ng1 Qe5+ 30.Kg2 c4 31.Qe2 Qxe2 32.Nxe2 d3 33.Ng3 Rd5 34.Bd2 Nd4 35.Rc3 Rc8 36.Re1 h5 37.Re7 Nb3 38.Bc1 Nxc1 39.Rxc1 Rdc5 # Poulhalec,J - Bigotte,S, Guingamp, 2001) 8...Nf6 9.Bg5 (9.Nf3 Nc6 10.0-0 Bd7 11.e5 dxe5 12.Nxe5 Nxe5 13.Qxe5+ Kf7 14.Bf4 c6 15.Nc3 Re8 16.Qc5 b6 17.Qc4+ Be6 18.Qxc6 Qd7 19.Qxd7+ Bxd7 20.Rad1 Be6 21.Nb5 Rf8 22.Nc7 Rac8 23.Nxe6 Kxe6 24.Rfe1+ Kf7 25.Bd6 Rfe8 26.Rxe8 Rxe8 27.Kf1 Rd8 28.Ke1 Re8+ 29.Kf1 Rd8 30.Rd4 Ne8 31.Be5 Rxd4 32.Bxd4 Nd6 33.Ke2 g6 34.f4 Ke6 35.g3 Nb5 36.Bc3 Nxc3+ 37.bxc3 Kd5 38.Kd3 Ke6 39.Ke4 Ke7 40.Ke5 Kf7 41.g4 a5 42.f5 gxf5 43.gxf5 Ke7 44.f6+ Kf7 45.Kf5 Kf8 46.Kg5 a4 47.c4 a3 48.h4 Kg8 49.h5 Kf8 50.h6 Kg8 51.Kf5 Kf8 52.Ke6 Ke8 53.f7+ Kf8 54.Kf6 b5 55.c5 b4 56.c6 b3 57.c7 bxa2 58.c8R# Walters,K - Lin,B, California, 2003) 9...Nc6 10.Nd2 Be6 11.Ngf3 Kd7 12.0-0 Qe7 13.Rfe1 Rae8 14.Nd4 Nxd4 15.Qxd4 h6 16.Bh4 g5 17.Bg3 Nh5 18.Nf3 Kc8 19.Qxa7 Nxg3 20.hxg3 c6 21.b4 h5 22.b5 Black resigned, Feuerstack,A - Reinelt,T, Neumuenster, 2000.

c) 7...cxb2 8.Bxb2 Nf6 9.e5 d6 10.Qe3 Ng4 11.Qe4 dxe5 12.Nf3 Nc6 13.0-0 Qf6 14.h3 Bf5 15.Qa4 Nh6 16.Nxe5 Kf8 17.Nc4 Qf7 18.Nbd2 Rd8 19.Nf3 Bd3 20.Nce5 Nxe5 21.Nxe5 Qf5 22.Rfe1 Nf7 23.Ba3+ Kg8 24.Qb3 Bc2 25.Qc4 Bd3 26.Nxd3 Qxd3 27.Qxd3 h6 28.Qc4 Rh7 29.Re7 g5 30.Rae1 Rf8 31.Rxc7 Rd8 32.Ree7 Rd1+ 33.Kh2 b5 34.Rxf7 bxc4 35.Rf8# Goeke,B - Arroyo Felices,J, Dos Hermanas, 2004;

8.Qh5+ (8.Qxc3 Qxe4+ 9.Ne2 Ne7 10.Bg5 Nbc6 11.0-0 h6 12.Ng3 Qd4 13.Bxe7 Qxc3 14.Nxc3 Kxe7 15.Nd5+ Kd8 16.Rad1 d6 17.Rfe1 Bd7 18.Rd2 Ne5 19.f4 Ng6 20.f5 Ne5 21.f6 gxf6 22.Nxf6 Rf8 23.Nxd7 Nxd7 24.Nh5 Rf5 25.Ng7 Re5 26.Rf1 a5 27.Nf5 h5 28.Rdf2 Ra6 29.Nh6 Ke7 30.Rf7+ Ke6 31.Ng8 Ra8 32.Re7+ Kd5 33.Rxd7 Rxg8 34.Rxc7 b5 35.Rc2 Rg4 36.Rd2+ Rd4 37.Rxd4+ Kxd4 38.Rd1+ Kc5 39.Rc1+ Kb6 40.Kf1 b4 41.b3 Kb5 42.Rc8 d5 43.Rb8+ Kc6 44.Rc8+ Kd6 45.Ra8 d4 46.Rd8+ Kc5 47.Rc8+ Kd5 48.Rd8+ Ke4 49.Ke2 Rg5 50.g3 h4 51.Re8+ Kd5 52.Ra8 Kc6 53.Kd3 hxg3 54.hxg3 Rxg3+ 55.Kxd4 Kb6 56.Re8 Rg4+ 57.Kd3 Rg5 drawn, Goebl,W - Jantschuk,V, Rieneck 1998; 8.Qxe7+ Nxe7 9.Nxc3 Nbc6 10.Bf4 d6 11.Nf3 Bg4 12.Nd2 Rf8 13.Bg3 Ng6 14.f3 Bd7 15.0-0 Nd4 16.Bf2 Nb5 17.Nd5 c6 18.a4 cxd5 19.axb5 dxe4 20.Nxe4 Ke7 21.Rfe1 Bxb5 22.Nc3+ Kd7 23.Nxb5 a6 24.Nc3 Rad8 25.Rad1 Kc8 26.Bd4 Rf7 27.Bb6 Rdf8 28.Rxd6 Rd7 29.Rxd7 Kxd7 30.Rd1+ Kc6 31.Bd4 Rf7 32.Re1 Rd7 33.Re6+ Rd6 34.Rxd6+ Kxd6 35.Bxg7 Nf4 36.g3 Nd3 37.Ne4+ Ke7 38.Bd4 a5 39.Kf1 b5 40.Ke2 Nc1+ 41.Kd2 Na2 42.Kc2 Nb4+ 43.Kb3 Nc6 44.Bf2 Kf7 45.Nd6+ Kg6 46.Nxb5 Kf5 47.Nd4+ Nxd4+ 48.Bxd4 Ke6 49.Bb6 a4+ 50.Kxa4 Kd5 51.f4 Ke4 52.b4 h5 53.b5 Kf5 54.Ba7 Kg4 55.b6 Kf5 56.b7 Kg4 57.b8Q h4 58.Qc8+ Kf3 59.Qc6+ Kg4 60.Qe6+ Kf3 61.gxh4 Black resigned, Machet,R - Gowor,R, Australia, 1999) 8...g6 9.Qe2 c2 10.Nc3 Nf6 11.Bg5 Qe6 12.Qxc2 c6 13.Nf3 Nh5 14.0-0 Qg4 15.Nd5 Na6 16.Ne3 Qe6 17.Nc4 b5 18.Nce5 h6 19.Be3 g5 20.h3 Nb4 21.Qc3 a5 22.Nxc6 dxc6 23.Qxh8+ Kd7 24.Rfd1+ Kc7 25.Qd8+ Kb7 26.Qb6# Bereziuk,S - Petuchovsky,E, Rimavska Sobota,1992.

7.Qxc5+ Qe7

Or 7...d6 8.Qxc3 Qe7 9.Ne2 Nf6 10.Bg5 Kf7 11.Qb3+ Qe6 12.Qc2 c5 13.Nbc3 h6 14.Bh4 Re8 15.f3 Nbd7 16.Nb5 Rb8 17.Nc7 Qe5 18.Nxe8 Kxe8 19.Bxf6 Qxf6 20.Qc3 Qg5 21.g3 Nf6 22.Qd2 Qe5 23.0-0-0 Ke7 24.Nf4 Kf7 25.Qxd6 Qxd6 26.Rxd6 Ke7 27.Rd2 b6 28.Nd5+ Nxd5 29.Rxd5 Be6 30.Rd3 Bxa2 31.Ra3 Be6 32.Rxa7+ Kf6 33.Rd1 g5 34.Ra6 Ke5 35.Ra7 Kf6 36.Rd6 Ke5 37.Rc6 Bh3 38.Rxh6 Bg2 39.Re7+ Kd4 40.Rg6 Bxf3 41.Rxg5 Ra8 42.Kd2 Ra2 43.Kc2 Bxe4+ 44.Kb3 Ra1 45.Rg4 Black resigned, Scepanik,K - Klein,M, Bonn 1996

8.Qxc3 Qxe4+ 9.Ne2 Nc6 10.Be3 Nf6 11.Nd2 Qe7 12.0-0 Kf7 13.Ng3 Re8 14.Rae1 d6

15.Bg5 Qf8 16.Bxf6 gxf6 17.Nh5 Re5 18.Nxf6 Bf5 19.f4 Re6 20.Rxe6 Kxe6 21.Re1+ Kf7 22.Nf3 Qg7 23.Ng5+ Kf8 24.Nfxh7+ Kg8 25.Nf6+ Kf8 26.g4 Bxg4 27.Nxg4 Qxc3 28.bxc3 Re8 29.Nh7+ Kf7 30.Nh6+ Black resigned

Not Worth the Time

The Jerome Gambit is not a "cool" opening.

Once upon a time, the King's Gambit was cool. The Evans Gambit was cool (and maybe is cool again). Even the Benko Gambit had a time when it was very, very cool.

For some, apparently the Jerome Gambit isn't worth their time.

perrypawnpusher  - obmanovichhh
blitz 14 0, FICS, 2011

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Bc4 Bc5

The Italian Four Knights Game, transposing from the Petroff Defense.

5.Bxf7+

The Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+

Last year, duraysteeus played 6.Ng5+ against my opponent, not very successfully (0-1, 49)

6...Nxe5 7.d4 Bxd4

This is the most popular response in The Database, occuring in 34% of the games.

Previously, my opponent had tried 7...Bb4, which certainly has its positive attributes.

The strongest response, 7...Bd6, appears only 6% of the time. (Perhaps that is one reason that people play the Jerome Gambit.)

8.Qxd4 d6 9.f4 Nc6 10.Qd3 Be6

This move prevents a possible Qd3-c4+ in response to a careless ...Nc6-b4 – a tactic that has won more points for me than it should have.

It is likely that 10...d5 is stronger than the text, however, something that has me thinking about changing my opening move order, perhaps back to 10.0-0 as I played against jomme.

11.0-0 Re8

This is a bit stronger than 11...Rf8, where White had the annoying 12.f5 Bd7 13.Qc4+, as in perrypawnpusher - hklett, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 18) although Black was still  a bit better.

12.b3 Nb4 13.Qe2 c5 14.Bb2 Bg4 15.Qc4+ Be6

Was my opponent thinking of repeating the position, for a draw? I would have been okay with that, as I was getting nothing out of this game. 

16.Qe2 Qb6

No, this does not look like a peaceful move.

17.Na4 Qc6 18.a3

My Knight move weakened the pawn at e4, so 18.Bxf6, taking some pressure off of the center, was appropriate, now and/or later. As it is, my opponent overlooked chances for counterplay.

18...Bg4

Instead, 18...Nxc2 19.Qxc2 Qxe4 was a creative way to return Black's extra piece, as his backward d-pawn would have a bright future to advance as a protected passer.

19.Qc4+ Kf8 20.axb4

After the game Rybka 3 showed me what was really going on in the game: 20.Bxf6 Rxe4 21.Bxg7+ Kxg7 22.Qc3+ Kf7 23.axb4 Rae8 24.b5 Qd5 25.Qd3 Qxd3, about even.

20...cxb4 21.Qxc6 bxc6

22.Bxf6

Finally thinking to get rid of the Knight, although later Rybka 3 corrected me:  22.e5 Nd7 23.exd6 Re2 24.f5 Rd2 25.Rae1 Rxd6 26.h3 Bh5 27.Re6 Rd5 28.Rxc6 Re8 29.Rf2 a5 30.Rc7 Bf7 with an advantage for White.

22...gxf6 23.Rae1 Rac8 24.Nb2 c5 25.Nc4 Be6

My Knight has returned to play, and Black's Bishop has returned to its favorite square, e6. Unfortunately, the latter was an error (25...Rcd8 would have kept the game balanced).

26.Nxd6 Bg4

On revient toujours à ses premiers amours.

27.Nxc8 Rxc8 28.e5 f5 29.Ra1

White is up the exchange and a protected passed pawn and will now add another pawn and a strongly placed Rook to his list of small advantages.

29...Rc7 30.Ra6 Kf7 31.Rfa1 Be2 32.Rxa7 Rxa7 33.Rxa7+ Kg6 34.Rc7

At this point my opponent still had over half of his time left on the clock. Still, he let all 7 plus minutes run out, and lost on time, rather than resign. I guess finishing the game, again, was not worth his time.