How much work do you have to do..?

The question arises, again: how much work do you have to do to beat Bill Wall's Jerome Gambit?

Wall,B - JKBK
FICS, 2012

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 7.Qd5+ Ke7 8.Qxc5+ 

There is also the interesting 8.Qg5+, seen in Wall,B - CKFM, FICS, 2012 (1-0, 44). 

8...d6 9.Qa5 

Or, for variety, there still is 9.Qg5+ as in  billwall - buhov, Chess.com, 2010 (1-0, 32). 

9...Nf6 10.0-0 b6 11.Qa3 Rf8 

This certainly seems correct: while White runs his Queen around, Black castles-by-hand and safeguards his monarch.

12.f4 Kf7 13.f5 Ne7 14.Qb3+ d5 15.e5 Ne4 16.d3 Nc5 17.Qc3 Kg8 

18.b4 Nb7 19.f6 Ng6 20.a4 gxf6 21.exf6 Be6 22.Bb2 Bf7 

23.Qd2 Nd6?

How fragile the position... This allows White to equalize, which is almost like a winning advantage for Mr. Wall.

24.Qh6 Ne8 25.Nd2 d4 

How can shutting out the White Bishop be wrong? When it lets the White Knight in.

26.Ne4 Bd5 27.Ng5 Qd7 28.f7+ 

Remember me?

28...Rxf7 29.Rxf7 Bxf7 30.Qxh7+ Kf8 31.Rf1 Nd6 32.Qxg6 Black resigned

Black will lose significant material.

Refocused

After "A Correction" concerning how to play against the line 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 4.Nf3 Nd4!? I decided that I needed to look further into the Jerome approach, 5.Bxf7+!?, recommended by Yury Bukayev, after all (despite the fact that I still thought 5.Nxe5!? Qg5!? to be playable for White).

In the meantime, however, another Jerome Gambit game from Bill Wall has arrived via email, and I just finished another two Jerome Gambit games in my Chess.com "Italian Game" thematic tournament, winning one and losing one, so the next few posts will focus on them as an interlude.

A Correction

In my email comments to Yury Bukayev about the line we were discussing, 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 4.Nf3 Nd4, 5.Bf7!?, I did not show much enthusiasm. In short order, I got a very bright email, enlightening me.

How do you do, dear Mr. Kennedy!

Dear Rick, thank you very much for your 2 letters! But I disagree with your appraisals of 5.Bxf7 and of 5.Nxe5. I suggest you discuss with me or publish (it will be better) my following analysis (5.Bf7! Kf7 6.Ne5 Ke6 7.Qh5+- ) and my words about 5.Ne5 Qg5-+:

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 (Vienna game: Max Lange variation) 4.Nf3 (Italian game/ Three Knights game) …Nd4?

Paragraph 1. 5.Bf7! Kf7 6.Ne5 Ke6 7.Qh5!? (White stands better.)

I)  7…Nc2 8.Kd1 Na1 9.Qf5 Kd6 (9…Ke7 10.Ng6 Kd6 11.Qd5 mate) 10.Nc4 Ke7 11.Nd5 Ke8 12.Qg6 mate;

II) 7…Qg5 8.Qf7 Kd6 [8…Ke5 9.d3 (with the idea 10.Bf4 mate) …Nc2 10.Kf1!?+-] 9.Qd5!? Ke7 10.Qd4 Qg2 11.Nd5 Kd8 12.Rf1 White stands better.

III) 7…Qf6 8.Ng6!? (White stands better.)

     A)    8…Nc2 (8…Rh7 9.Qd5 mate) 9.Kd1 Na1 10.Qd5 mate;

B)   8…Qg5 9.Nf8!? Ke7 10.Ng6 White stands better.
C)   8…c6 9.Qg4!? Kf7 10.Nh8 Ke8 11.0-0!? Nc2 12.Rb1 Nge7 13.e5 White stands better.

D)  8…d6 9.Nf8 (or 9.Nd5) …Qf8 (9…Ke7 10.Nd5!? Kf8 11.Nf6+-) 10.Qd5 White stands better.

E)  8…Ne7 9.Nd5 Qg5 (9…Qg6 10.Nf4+-; 9…Qf7 10.Ngf4+-) 10.Qg5!? White stands better.

IV) 7…g6 8.Qg6!? (White stands better.)

A)  8…Ke5 9.f4 Kf4 10.0-0+-;

B)  8…Nf6 9.Qf7 Ke5 10.f4 Kd6 (10…Kf4 11.0-0 Ke5 12.d3+) 11.e5 with the very strong attack;

C)  8…Qf6 9.Nd5!? Qg6 10.Ng6 (White stands better.) …Nc2 11.Kd1 Na1 12.Nc7 (or 12.Nh8) …Kf6 (12…Kd6 13.Na8 Rh7 14.Nf8 White stands better.) 13.Nh8 Rb8 14.b3 (with the idea 15.Bb2) +-

V) 7…Nf6 8.Qf7 Ke5 9.f4 Kd6 [9…Kf4 10.0-0 Ke5 11.d3 (with the idea 12.Bf4 mate) …g5!(11…Nc2 12.Bf4 Kd4 13.Qc4 mate) 12.Rf6!? c6 (12…Qf6 13.Qd5 mate; 12…Qe7 13.Rf5+-; 12…Bg7 13.Rg6!? White stands better.) 13.Be3 White stands better.] 10.e5 with the very strong attack.

Paragraph 2. 5.Ne5?! Qg5.

Probably, Black stands better both after 6.Nf7 and after 6.Bf7, because Black has a very strong attack in both cases: Qg2, Nf3, d5, Bg4.

Do you agree with me, dear Rick? I suggest you to discuss with me or to publish (it will be better) my analysis.

Best wishes! Yury V. Bukayev (“Bruno’s Chess Problem of the Day”)

Thinking again...

Despite my initial skepticism about Black's chances in the line Yury Bukayev recently asked me about, 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 4.Nf3 Nd4 (a line I once dismissively suggested transposed to "the Improved Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit" after 5.Bxf7+), further examination indicates that things can get pretty tricky for White, if he does not respond properly.

Certainly White can simply 5.0-0 and have the better game (because of his lead in development), but the question arises: does the addition of Nb1-c3 for the first player "detoxify" the dangerous-in-the-original-Blackburne-Shilling-Gambit move 5.Nxe5? Of course, Black will respond with 5...Qg5.

Here, as with the original BSG, the greedy 6.Nxf7 leads to all sorts of complications and inevitable pain for White: 6...Qxg2 7.Rf1 d6 and Black's threat of ...Bg4 means that the first player doesn't even have time to win the Rook, safely (check out 8.Nxh8 Bg4 9.f3 Be7! 10.Ng6 Bxf3 11.Nxe7 Bxd1 12.Nf5 Nxf5 13.Rxf5 Bxc2 as one example, where White does not get enough for his Queen). 

He can carry on with 8.Nd5 Bg4 9.Ne3 Bxd1 10.Nxg2 Bh5 11.Ne3 Bxf7 12.Bxf7+ Kxf7 where White has a pawn for his sacrificed piece. Clearly it is not a line to go into voluntarily, if there are alternatives!

There is also the defensive-minded 6.Ng4, which can lead to either messy or kempt positions where White has two pawns for his piece: 6...d5 7.Nxd5 Qxg4 8.0-0 (or the messy 8.Nxc7+ Kd8 9.Nxa8 Nxc2+ 10.Kf1 Nxa1 11.Bxf7 Kc8 when both a-Knights are likely to eventually expire) Qxd1 9.Rxd1 Bd6 10.Ne3 Be6.

My preference, until recently, has been 6.Bxf7+, since after 6...Kd8 White can play 7.Ng4 and answer 7...d5 with 8.Ne3, covering the White g-pawn.

Of course, not everyone will agree with me. In fact, in my next post I will share a very educational email from Yury, taking this discussion in a new direction!

What do you think?

About a month ago, Yury Bukayev asked me about the following line of play: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 4.Nf3 Nd4.

It had a certain familiarity to it, especially since he suggested 5.Bxf7+!? as a response.

I told him that I would share the opening and my thoughts about it with Readers.

In the meantime, I went to the online ChessLab site and searched for games with the line. I found exactly zero.

Silly me, I was looking in the wrong place. A check of the 26,685 games in The Database showed me 10 examples (White won 9).

One was Wall - Surr, Chess.com, 2010 (1-0, 11), which has already appeared on this blog.

So, clearly, it was time for me to pay attention. First, a brisk walk-through.

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6

Starting out as a Vienna Game.

3.Bc4 h6 4.Nf3

The game has transposed to a Semi-Italian Opening, i.e. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 4.Nc3 (I usually play the alternative 4.0-0).

4...Nd4

Reaching the diagram above.

This Knight move is seen in the Blackburne Shilling Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4. The idea in the BSG is that White's greedy 4.Nxe5 can be met by 4...Qg5. 

Then the classic BSG punishment by Black follows 5.Nxf7 Qxg2 6.Rf1 Qxe4+ 7.Be2 Nf3#. The pluckier 5.Ng4 is met by 5...d5, with Black advantage. "Best" at this point for White might be 5.Bxf7+ followed by 6.0-0, When Black has the advantage of a piece for two pawns, but many Jerome Gambiteers would be used to that.

Of course, against the Blackburne Shilling Gambit, many Jerome Gambiteers would reply with 4.Bxf7+!? to begin with.

Can the Knight jump work for Black in the delayed form, however? What do you think?

Once Again Into the Fray

I have mentioned earlier (see "Only Seemed Fair" and "Through To Two" for two accounts) my participation in a couple of Chess.com's Italian Game thematic tournaments where opportunities to play the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) surfaced.

In one tournament I failed to advance (see "You have been eliminated") but in the other, I have just started the second round in a 4-player group, alongside two 3-player groups.

As always, I will do my best to uphold the, ahem, good name of the Jerome Gambit (while trying not to make a fool out of myself), and will share my games with readers, come what may.

I am again matching wits with JoseSoza, whom I defeated in the first round with the Black pieces (against his Evans Gambit), but who defeated my Jerome Gambit, giving me my only loss. In this second round I gave him the opportunity to play the Jerome against me, but he decided on 4.c3 instead. We drew in 10 moves.

Guess what opening he allowed me to play with the White pieces? 

Meanwhile, LeeBradbury has also allowed me to play 4.Bxf7+, and perhaps Philip6Esq will as well (ooops, he lost that game on time).

Philidor1792 vs The Annoying Defense (Part 3)

Starting two days ago, and continuing with yesterday's post, we have been looking at recent (and not-so-recent) games by Philidor1792 against what can generally be called The Annoying Defense to the Jerome Gambit.

The current game has reached the following diagram, where White has two pawns for his sacrificed piece; but Black's two Bishops look dangerous, and White's pawn center alone does not make up for his lack of development.

15.d4 Bb6 16.Kf2 Rf8+ 17.Ke3 Nf6 18.Nd2 Ng4+

19.Ke2 Rf2+ 20.Kd3 Bg2 21.Re1 Nxh2 22.Nc4 Bf1+ White  resigned

And so Philidor1792 continues to bravely explore the difficult terrain of "The Annoying Defense"... and enlighten the rest of us with his discoveries.

Thank you.