Another Asterisk

A general warning can be made as this year comes to a close, and another year prepares to open itself up to us: Those who do not remember (and prepare for) the "Jerome Gambit (or similar) experience" are quite likely doomed to repeat it...


bartab - VeniceOdyssey
standard, FICS, 2011

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

The Semi-Italian Opening.

4.0-0 Na5

I probably said all I needed to say about this move in "Asterisk" earlier this year, but some things bear repeating. (Especially since that earlier post contained a game with the same variation as today's game, and Black, who lost in that earlier game, is the same player who loses today.)

It seems fair to describe this move as being "Like walking around with a Kick Me! sign pinned to the seat of your pants..." as I did in "A Hot Rocket to Oblivion". The game provides "Too much 'shock and awe' or something..." as I said in "Bully".

It is interesting to note that bartab played (and lost) a similar, earlier game (0-1, 36) against the same opponent which saw 3...Na5 4.Bxf7+, but which did not include the further-weakening ...h6. In the current game, bartab demonstrates the difference a move makes.

5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Ke8

If, instead, 6...Ke6, then 7.Qh5 is a good response. 

7.Qh5+ Ke7

Interposing the g-pawn does not help much: 7...g6 8.Qxg6+ Ke7 9.Nc3 c6, etc.

8.Ng6+ Kd6

There is no relief in going "home": 8...Ke8 9.Nxh8+ g6 10.Qxg6+ Ke7 11.Qf7+ Kd6 12.Qd5+ Ke7 13.Qe5 checkmate 

9.Nxh8

The Reader might be thinking "Okay, you win your way, I'll win my way..." An alternative to the text move was 9.Qd5 checkmate. 

9...Nc4 10.Nf7+ Black resigned

To add insult, Black will lose his Queen.

Hurry! (You first...)

The standard advice when your opponent is low on time is to take your time and play good moves. Good moves will cause your opponent more problems, and cause him to take even more time, or force him into making bad moves.

The temptation is great, however, to blitz an opponent who is short on time. I think that this is what happened in the following game, when Black should have spent a bit more time on his own moves instead of trying to hurry me and mine.

perrypawnpusher - HGBoone
blitz, FICS, 2011

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5

I had forgotten at the time of this game, but HGBoone and I had played twice previously, both games being Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambits: perrypawnpusher - HGBoone, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 27) and perrypawnpusher - HGBoone, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 46)

4.Bxf7+

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6

7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qe3 Qf6

10.Nc3

I played 10.0-0 previously, in  perrypawnpusher - TJPOT, blitz, FICS, 2009 (1-0, 48) and perrypawnpusher - LeiCar, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 25). 10.d4 was an option of about equal strength.

10...b6

Instead, the more prudent 10...c6 was my opponent's choice in perrypawnpusher - pitrisko, blitz, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 28).

11.Nd5 Qd8 12.0-0

White could grab a pawn, instead, and have a roughly equal game after 12.Qc3, e.g. 12...Kd7 13.Qxg7+ N8e7 14.d4 Bb7 15.Nf6+ Kc8.

The text move is okay, but it shows the shallowness of my planning.

12...Bb7 13.f4 N8e7 14.f5 Ne5

15.d4

This is the standard Knight-kick, but 15.f6 was probably better.

15...Ng4 16.Qe2 h5

Black has aggressive intentions, or else he would have played 16...Nf6.

17.Nf4 a5 18.Ne6 Qd7 19.Nxg7+ Kd8 20.Nxh5

Knocking the prop out from under the advanced enemy Knight.

My time was getting short, and I noticed that a few times my opponent replied almost instantly. His next move was too quick.

20...Nf6

Bad. I had expected the straight forward 20...Rxh5 21.Qxg4.

21.Nxf6 Qc8 22.Qg4 Ba6

At long last my opponent gets to play a move that he had planned for when my Queen and Rook were on the same diagonal.

23.Re1

Stronger was 23.Qg7, now or on the next move.

23...Rf8 24.e5 Nxf5 25.Bg5 Ne7 26.Qxc8+

I think this surprised my opponent, the idea that I would swap Queens in the middle of an attack; but I figured that the Bishop pin was enough to win. I did not want to waste too much time figuring out better alternatives that also won.

26...Rxc8

The rest of the game is just the playing out of White's advantage.

27.Nd5 Re8 28.exd6 cxd6 29.Bxe7+ Rxe7 30.Nxe7 Rxc2

31.Nf5 Bb7 32.Ne3 Rxb2 33.Reb1 Re2 34.Re1 Rd2 35.d5 Rd3

Black is down a Rook. Winning the d-pawn will only un-complicate the game further for White by removing the minor pieces.

36.Rab1 Kc7 37.Kf2 Rd2+ 38.Re2 Rd4 39.Rc2+ Kb8 40.Rxb6 Rf4+ 41.Kg3 Re4 42.Kf3 Rb4 43.Rb2 Rxb6 44.Rxb6 Ka7 45.Rxd6

45...a4 46.Ke4 a3 47.Ke5 Ka8 48.Rd8+ Ka7 49.d6 Bc6 50.d7 Kb7 51.Kd6 Bb5 52.Rh8 Bxd7 53.Kxd7

53...Kb6 54.Rh5 Kb7 55.Nc4 Kb8 56.Rb5+ Ka7 57.Kc7 Ka6 58.Nxa3 Ka7 59.Ra5 checkmate

Lion Tamer

While Bill Wall and I were exchanging emails the other day, I was looking for a way to illustrate the risk that the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) player takes. Eventually, as the graphic on the left shows, I settled on the lion tamer putting his head in the mouth of a lion – dangerous, yes, but the tamer knows what he is doing.

Later, I thought about the stage hypnotist, whose success lies not only in his skill in mesmerism, but in his ability to choose the right volunteers to come up front and perform.

Bill has reminded me on more than one occasion that he selects his Jerome Gambit victims with care. By the time they realize "I should have..." the game is over, and Bill has moved on.

Wall,B - Mathieubuntu
blitz 10 0, FICS, 2011

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

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 Qe7

This is Whistler's Defense, an improvement over Blackburne's 7...d6. It is supposed to be one of the "final words" on the Jerome Gambit, as (unlike in the Blackburne gambit) it is clear that White cannot take the Rook and survive.

8.Qxh8

I suspect that this was quite a surprise for Black.

What now??

Would it help the second player to point out that Wall - Sepoli, Chess.com, 2010 continued 8...Qf6 9.Qxh7+ Kf8 10.0-0 Black resigned. Probably not.

Mathieubuntu decides to avoid further ontoward revelations and sues for peace.

8...Qxe4+ 9.Kd1 Qxg2 10.Re1 Qf3+ 11.Re2 Qh1+ 12.Re1 Qf3+ 13.Re2 Qh1+ 14.Re1 Qf3+ draw

Again, someone learns that the Jerome Gambit is a forced draw...


Readers are encouraged to imagine themselves as Black, and fill in the blank: I should have...

A Distant Relative?

While the origin of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) appears to have been some time after Alonzo Wheeler Jerome was mustered out of the army as a 2^nd Lieutenant in August 1865, at Hilton Head, North Carolina (he returned to Mineola, New York, where he worked in a factory that manufactured agricultural machinery); and before "New Chess Opening" appeared in the April 1874 edition of the Dubuque Chess Journal, it is possible that the inventor was influenced by contemporary or past games and analysis.

The spectacular game Hamppe - Meitner, Vienna 1872, has been explored in this column as a possible inspiration: see "Godfather of the Jerome Gambit?" Parts I, II, III, and endnote, as well as "Hamppe - Meitner Revealed" and "Godfather of Oz?".

To this I would like to add an "offspring" game, clearly a decendent of "Hamppe - Meitner", and therefore related, if only by analysis, to the Jerome Gambit.

The game receives coverage in one of Edward Winter's "Chess Jottings" which notes

The game was published in the March 1957 BCM [British Chess Monthly], page 59, the source being Leonard Barden’s The Field column of 17 January 1957. That must mean that Le Lionnais’ ‘1957’ was wrong. The BCM (D.J. Morgan’s Quotes and Queries column) gives ‘1956 Swiss Boys’ Championship’ and states that the players were R. Frauenfelder and M. Gschwend.  

Rudolf Frauenfelder – Max Gschwend

Oerlikon, July 1956  

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.Qe2 Na5

Although this is not a Giuoco Piano game, readers have seen both the Qd1-e2 and ...Nc6-h5 themes covered here. The following move is no surprise, either.

4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Qh5+

White's two Queen moves have "reversed colors" for the opening, and what follows are the moves of Hamppe - Meitner.

5...Ke6 6.Qf5+ Kd6 7.d4 Kc6 8.Qxe5 Kb6 9.Na3 a6 10.Qxa5+ Kxa5 11.Nc4+ Kb5 12.a4+ Kxc4 13.Ne2 Bb4+ 14.Kd1 Bc3 15.b3+ Kb4 16.Nxc3 Kxc3 17.Bb2+ Kb4 18.Ba3+ Kc3

Drawn by perpetual check.

Rise of the Planet of the 'Jerome Pawns'

I do not get to play the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+), or even chess in general, very much any more, so I was pleased to be able to get in the following game, which certainly has its shortcomings but which shows (again) that "won" games often do not "win themselves," they need proper follow-up...

perrypawnpusher - hamaru
blitz, FICS, 2011

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

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5

The classical variation of the Jerome Gambit. Black now has a won game. *Yawn*

6.Qh5+ Ng6

7.Qd5+ Kf8 8.Qxc5+ d6 9.Qe3 Nf6 10.0-0 Kf7 11.f4 Re8 12.f5 Nf8

This is a new move, according to The Database. Instead of moving the Knight to e5, where it can be kicked with d2-d4, he keeps it closer to home.

13.Qb3+ d5 14.d3 Qd6 15.Bf4 Qb6+ 16.Qxb6 axb6

Black has forced the exchange of Queens, and soon will castle-by-hand, so he feels relatively comfortable and is not aware of impending dangers.

Were this a movie, however, instead of a chess game, it might be titled "Rise of the Planet of the 'Jerome Pawns' " as White puts his compensation for the sacrificed piece to good use.

17.e5 Nh5 18.e6+ Kg8 19.Bxc7 b5 20.Nc3 b4 21.Nxd5 Nf6 22.Nxb4

In this kind of a situation it is natural to think about Black exchanging his stabled Knight at f8 for White's two advanced pawns, relying, perhaps, on the possibilites of a Bishops-of-opposite-colors endgame to save 1/2 a point.

However, White's compensation for his sacrificed piece has grown to 5 pawns, so simply getting 2 pawns back may not be enough for the defender.

As Black works on his strategy, White moves his pawns forward.

22...Ng4 23.d4 b5 24.d5 Bb7 25.d6 Rec8

26.Rae1 Nf6 27.h3 g6 28.fxg6 Nd5 29.gxh7+ Nxh7 30.Nxd5 Bxd5 31.e7 Bc6

32.Bd8

White is clearly winning. I focused my planning on getting a pawn (or some pieces) to the 8th rank. After the game, Houdini suggested that I could combine this with a mating attack, i.e. 32.Re1-e3-g3+

The text offers Black the possibility of sacrificing the exchange for a pawn, which would slow White's plans down; but Black does not go in that direction.

32...Be8 33.Rd1 Bd7 34.g4 Rxc2

I decided to kick Black's Knight protecting f8. In turn, my opponent decided it was time to counter-attack.
35.g5 Bxh3

An oversight, as the tension mounts... 

36.e8Q+ Black resigned

Merry Christmas

It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again... who spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly.

- Theodore Roosevelt

(Who knew that TR understood the Jerome Gambit player???)

An Early Christmas Present

I was thumbing through the awesome-looking and greatly-titled 1.d4 – Beat the Guerrillas! A Powerful Repertoire Against Annoying Black Sidelines by Valeri Bronznik when my eyes were drawn to his chapter on the Marshall Defense to 1.d4, that is 1...d5 2.c4 Nf6.

I always get a smile when a "real" chess writer (especially a professional, titled player) makes reference to one of my games (it has happened in Blackmar Diemer Gambit and Latvian Gambit books) or some of my analysis.

His favorable reference to my article "Alexander Alekhine and Marshall’s 1 d4 d5 2 c4 Nf6!?" in Kaissiber #27 (it appeared in both the German language and Italian language editions; and later on in English, online) was an early Christmas present for me.