Distant Cousin, Twice Removed

I don't spend every waking minute on the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+). For example, the other day I was playing through some games in the very interesting, educational and entertaining The Alterman Gambit Guide by GM. Boris Alterman (whom I've mentioned before).

What especially caught my eye was the chapter on the Cochrane Gambit in the Petroff Defense: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7!? – not surprisingly, a line where White sacrifices a piece for two pawns and an attack on Black's displaced King. (Where have we seen that idea before??)

You might think that such an attack would be perfect for a Jerome Gambit player*, and you would be right – at least as far as Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member Louis Morin is concerned (he has shown up on this blog numerous times as "mrjoker").

The Alterman Gambit Guide includes an exciting Cochrane Gambit game played by Louis. You can see the game, without most of the notes, at GM Alterman's site. (I've mentioned it before, but now it has made it from the website into the book in expanded form.)

Nice work, mrjoker!

(* At least one who didn't want to try to transpose to the Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Bxf7+, etc.)

Take the Draw??

In the following position (from a Semi-Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit), White is ahead the exchange and a pawn. Black, to move, could choose to force a draw by repeatedly checking White's King. On the other hand, Black is rated 350 points higher than White, so that might give him second thoughts...

neni - radup, blitz, FICS, 2011

26...Qe4+

Going for the draw?

27.Kg1 Bxf6

No, winning the pawn.

Unfortunately, this leads to a sparkling finish for White.

28.Qc8+ Ke7 29.Bg5+ Kf7 30.Rxf5+ Kg6

31.Qe6+

A wry move, causing Black to resign.

Playing it out 31...Qxe6 32.dxe6 Kxf5 (What else??) 33.e7 Rh8 34.Rf1+ Kxg5 (might as well) 35.Rf8 and the e-pawn will Queen, whether or not Black exchanges Rooks.

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.