It's time again (see the earlier "Opening Report" parts 1, 2, and 3) to use ChessBase's Opening Report function to take a look at the games in The Database.
The Report gathers what lines are being played, and what lines are being used by the top players in the database. It gives a good "real life" view of the play of the Jerome Gambit, even if it does not always identify the objectively best move or line. (That would require a process called backsolving, which is not available in my ChessBase8.)
The Opening Report again also highlights a number of games from an interesting 2008 30-game human vs computers match (starting with "Jerome Gambit: Drilling Down (1)"
This post starts an extended series (which may be interrupted from time-to-time for news, games or analysis) wherein the intrepid "RevvedUp" (a good chess player) and his trusted companions Hiarcs 8, Shredder 8, Yace Paderborn, Crafty 19.19 and Fritz 8 explore the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) by taking turns playing the White and Black pieces.
The human moves first, and takes notice of the defense the computer plays. In the next game, where he moves second, the human plays that defense against a new computer – and sees how it attacks. In the third game, the human plays the recent attack against his new computer foe. Collectively, the players drill deeper and deeper into the Jerome Gambit.
Opening Report
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5
3618 games in 'TheDatabase'
1. History
Earliest game:
Jerome,A - Shinkman,W, Iowa, 1874
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Qf6 9.fxe5+ Qxe5 10.Qf3 Nf6 11.d3 Ke7 12.Nc3 g5 13.Rf1 c6 14.g3 d5 15.Bd2 Bg4 16.Qg2 Rhf8 17.h3 Nxe4 18.Bf4 gxf4 19.gxf4 Rxf4 20.Nxe4 Rxf1+ 21.Kxf1 and Mr. Shinkman announced loss of the Queen or mate in six moves. 0-1
Latest grandmaster game:
Hiarcs 8 (3074) - RevvedUp (2037)
blitz 2 12 2, 2006
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 d6 8.fxe5 dxe5 9.Qh3+ Ke7 10.Qg3 Kd6 11.Qd3+ Ke7 12.Qg3 Ke6 13.Qh3+ Kf7 14.Qh5+ Ke6 15.Qh3+ 1/2-1/2
Latest game:
Wall,B - Filipmihov
FICS, 2012
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Kf8 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qg3 Nf6 9.d3 Ng4 10.0-0 Qf6 11.c3 Bxf2+ 12.Rxf2 Qxf2+ 13.Qxf2+ Nxf2 14.Kxf2 Be6 15.Nd2 Ke7 16.Nf3 Rhf8 17.h3 Rf7 18.Bg5+ Kd7 19.Kg3 h6 20.Bd2 g5 21.Rf1 Raf8 22.c4 c6 23.b4 b6 24.c5 g4?! 25.hxg4 Rg8 26.g5 hxg5 27.Rh1 g4 28.Ng5 Re7 29.cxd6 Kxd6 30.Rh6 Kd7 31.a4 Bf7 32.a5 b5?! 33.Bf4 Rg6?? 34.Nxf7 Rxh6 35.Nxh6 c5 36.bxc5 Kc6 37.Nf5 Re8 38.Bd6 Rd8 39.Nd4+ 1-0
2. Players
a) Strong grandmasters who used this line as Black:
Fritz 8 Result=6/9 2003-2006
Hiarcs 8 Result=5/6 2002-2006
Shredder 8 Result=3/3 2006
Crafty 19.19 Result=3/3 2006
Yace Paderborn Result=2.5/3 2006
YOUCANWIN Result=2/2 2009
birdcostello Result=1/1 2009
b) Other notable players:
thhZ Result=10/11 2005-2010
Knight Stalker Result=8/11 1993
pavlo Result=7.5/11 2007-2011
polite Result=7/11 2003-2010
3. Statistics
Black scores above average (47%).
Black performs Elo 1364 against an opposition of Elo 1385 (-21).
White performs Elo 1403 against an opposition of Elo 1382 (+21).
White wins: 1845 (=51%), Draws: 150 (=4%), Black wins: 1611 (=45%)
The drawing quote is very low.
White wins are shorter than average (33).
Black wins are shorter than average (33).
Draws are long (51).
4. Moves and Plans
a) 6.Qh5+
2660 games, 1874-2012,
White scores averagely (55%).
Elo-Ø: 1404, 2203 games. Performance = Elo 1416
played by: Shredder 8, 3376, 3/3; Yace Paderborn, 3126, 2.5/3; Hiarcs 8, 3076, 2.5/6; Fritz 8, 3076, 6/10; Crafty 19.19, 3025, 2.5/3
You should play: 6...Ng6
RevvedUp (2034) - Shredder 8 (3377)
blitz 2 12, 2006
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 7.Qd5+ Kf8 8.Qxc5+ d6 9.Qe3 Qh4 10.0-0 Nf6 11.d3 Kf7 12.Qg5 Qxg5 13.Bxg5 Bd7 14.Nc3 Rhf8 15.h3 Nh5 16.Rae1 Nhf4 17.Kh2 h6 18.Bxf4 Nxf4 19.Ne2 Ke7 20.Nxf4 Rxf4 21.f3 Raf8 22.Rf2 Ke6 23.Ree2 h5 24.Kg1 h4 25.Kf1 Ke5 26.Kg1 Ke6 27.Kf1 Ke5 28.Kg1 Be6 29.a3 Re8 30.Kf1 Ref8 31.Ke1 Bd7 32.Kd2 c5 33.c3 Ke6 34.Ke3 Bb5 35.Kd2 a5 36.Kc2 b6 37.Kd2 Ba4 38.Kc1 b5 39.Kd2 Bb3 40.Ke3 R8f6 41.Rd2 Rf8 42.Ke2 R8f7 43.Ke3 a4 44.Rfe2 R4f6 45.Rf2 Rf4 46.Rfe2 Rf8 47.Rf2 d5 48.Rfe2 dxe4 49.dxe4 Ke7 50.Re1 Ke6 51.Rf1 Ke7 52.Re1 Ke6 53.Rf1 Ke5 54.Re1 R4f7 55.Ree2 Be6 56.Rf2 Rf4 57.Rde2 Bd7 58.Rd2 Bc6 59.Rde2 R4f7 60.Rd2 Bb7 61.Rde2 Rd7 62.Rd2 Rfd8 63.Rxd7 Rxd7 64.Rd2 Rxd2 65.Kxd2 Kf4 66.Ke2 Bc8 67.Kf2 Be6 68.Kf1 Kg3 69.Kg1 Bc4 70.Kh1 Bf1 71.Kg1 Bxg2 0-1
RevvedUp (2034) - Yace Paderborn (3127)
blitz 2 12 2 12 (2.9), 28.06.2006
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qe3 Qh4 10.0-0 Nf6 11.Nc3 Ng4 12.Qg3 Qxg3 13.hxg3 Be6 14.f4 Bf7 15.d3 Kd7 16.Bd2 Ne7 17.Rae1 Rhf8 18.a3 Rae8 19.Nd1 Bh5 20.Ne3 Kc8 21.Nxg4 Bxg4 22.Kf2 Nc6 23.Bc3 Rf7 24.Rh1 h6 25.Rh4 h5 26.Rhh1 Ne7 27.Rc1 Kb8 28.b3 Nc6 29.Bb2 g5 30.Ke3 d5 31.Rhf1 dxe4 32.dxe4 Rfe7 33.e5 Rf7 34.c4 Rd8 35.Rc2 Rfd7 36.Rff2 gxf4+ 37.gxf4 Ne7 38.Bc3 Rd3+ 39.Ke4 Bf5# 0-1
RevvedUp (2033) - Fritz 8 (3077)
blitz 2 12 2, 2006
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 7.Qxc5 Nf4 8.0-0 d6 9.Qe3 Qg5 10.g3 Nh3+ 11.Kg2 Qxe3 12.dxe3 Ng5 13.f3 Bh3+ 0-1
RevvedUp (2033) - Hiarcs 8 (3077)
blitz 2 12, 2006
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 7.Qd5+ Kf8 8.Qxc5+ d6 9.Qe3 Be6 10.f4 N6e7 11.0-0 d5 12.d3 dxe4 13.dxe4 Nf6 14.Nc3 Ng4 15.Qd3 Qxd3 16.cxd3 Rd8 17.Rd1 c5 18.h3 Nf6 19.Be3 b6 20.g4 Nc6 21.Rac1 Ke7 22.a3 Bb3 23.Rd2 Rhf8 24.Kf2 Rd7 25.e5 Nxe5 26.fxe5 Ne4+ 27.Ke2 Ng3+ 28.Ke1 Rf1# 0-1
RevvedUp (2032) - Crafty 19.19 (3027)
blitz 2 12, 2006
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 7.Qxc5 Nf6 8.Nc3 d6 9.Qe3 d5 10.Qf3 dxe4 11.Nxe4 Re8 12.d3 Bg4 13.Qe3 Rxe4 14.dxe4 Qd1# 0-1
Shredder 8 (3377) - RevvedUp (2034)
blitz 2 12, 2006
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 7.Qd5+ Kf8 8.Qxc5+ d6 9.Qe3 Qh4 10.Nc3 c6 11.d3 Nf6 12.Qd4 Ke7 13.h3 Qh5 14.0-0 Qc5 15.Qa4 Re8 16.Be3 Qe5 17.f4 Qe6 18.f5 Qf7 19.fxg6 Qxg6 20.Rf3 h6 21.Raf1 Be6 22.Qb4 b6 23.e5 Nd5 24.Qxd6# 1-0
Main line:
7.Qxc5 d6 8.Qe3 Nf6 46%, 1337 285 games
7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qe3 71%, 1501 170 games
Critical line:
7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qc3 Nf6 43 % Black.
Plans White:
..(Ne5-g6)/Qh5xc5/Qc5-e3/0-0/Nb1-c3/d2-d4/f2-f4 (17)
d2-d3/0-0 (433)
..(Ne5-g6)/Qh5xc5/Qc5-d5/ ..(Bc8-e6)/Qd5xb7/0-0 (29)
..(Ne5-g6)/Qh5-d5/Qd5xc5/Qc5-e3/0-0 (224)
0-0/f2-f4/h2-h3 (77)
Plans Black:
d7-d6/Ng8-f6/Rh8-e8/Kf7-g8/d6-d5 (49)
d7-d6/Ng8-f6/Nf6-g4/Qd8-h4 (18)
d7-d6/d6-d5/d5xe4 (113)
d7-d6/Bc8-e6 (259)
Ng8-f6/Rh8-f8 (179)
d7-d6/Ng8-e7/Rh8-f8 (69)
As a therapist in my "day job" I often have the opportunity to help my clients expand their understanding of consequences of behaviors by asking them to look further: "And then what...?"
In the following game Black does a good job of defusing the primar threat behind White's 6th move, but he then becomes lax at just about the time he should have asked himself "And then what...?"
Wall,B - Guest1459913
Playchess.com, 2013
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.Bxf7+
5...Kxf7 6.Qe2
A quiet move that you can find in a number of Bill's Jerome Gambit games.
6...d6
Dodging the misfortunes of 6...h6 7.Qc4+ in Wall,B - DarkKnight, Cocoa Beach, FL 2012 (1-0, 23); 6...Rf8 7.Qc4+ in Wall,B - Roberts,C, Chess.com, 2010 (1-0, 17), Wall,B - Hamilton,E, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 22) and Wall,B - NFNZ, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 15).
An alternate was 6...d5 as in the rare Wall,B - Samvazpr, Chess.com, 2010 (0-1, 25)
7.Qc4+ Be6?
You can almost read Black's mind: I took care of that move with 6...d6. Now I strike back by attacking the Queen with my Bishop!
8.Ng5+
Oh, well, yes, there is that...
8...Kg6 9.Nxe6 Qd7
10.f4
Threatening 11.f5+ Kf7 12.Nxc5+, winning the Queen.
10...h6 11.fxe5 Nxe5 12.Nxc5 Nxc4 13.Nxd7 Nxd7 14.d3 Nce5 15.0-0 c6
Players like myself (and perhaps Guest1459913) are often relieved, if not downright hopeful, when we find ourselves facing a strong player like Bill, being "only" a pawn down - with Queens off of the board, to boot.
This is usually an error in thinking: strong players can wield that extra pawn the way ordinary players wield an extra piece.
16.h4 Rhf8 17.Bd2 Kh5 18.Ne2 Kxh4 19.Nd4 g5 20.Nf5+ Kh5 21.Nxd6 b6
In case anyone is paying attention, White now has a protected passed pawn.
22.d4 Ng4 23.Nf5 Kg6? 24.Ne7+ Kh5
25.Nxc6
This wins another pawn, although Bill points out that 25.Rf3! was stronger.
25...Ndf6 26.Bb4 Rfc8 27.Ne7 Rxc2? 28.Rf3
Threatening 29.Rh3 mate
28...Ne3 29.Rxe3 Rxb2 30.Rh3+ Kg4 31.Rf1 Nxe4 32.Nd5 Re2 33.Ne3+ Rxe3 34.Rxe3 Ng3 35.Rff3 Nh5 36.Bd6 Rd8 37.Re4+ Nf4 38.Bxf4 Black resigned
I just played my first blitz Jerome Gambit in a few months, and am again amazed that it seems the more I study the opening (to prepare these posts) the worse my chess play seems to get. (Detractors can laugh here.) Having staggered through a blunder-fest to reach a R+P vs R+2Ps endgame which I drew as time was running out on both myself and my opponent (the game has been discretely inserted into The Database), I again wondered if I finally needed to take up playing the Catalan...
Nah. Where's the fun in that?
If a defender decided not to take on Philidor1792 in his favorite Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit variation, that would make a lot of sense - but it would not be a guarantee of success. Sometimes, there is no escape.
Philidor1792 - guest2723
Internet online game, 2013
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.Bxf7+
5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.d4 Bxd4
Passing on the 7...Bd6 variation which he played earlier.
8.Qxd4 Qe7 9.Bg5 Nc6 10.Qd3 d6 11.0-0-0 Be6
White has a pawn for his sacrificed piece, but his Queenside castling adds a dynamism to the game.
12.f4 h6 13.Bh4 Bg4 14.Rde1 Rad8
Black plans to forestall e4-e5, but trouble arrives from another direction.
15.Nd5 Qe6 16.Bxf6 gxf6 17.h3 Bh5 18.g4 Bxg4 19.hxg4 Qxg4
Under pressure, Black returns a piece for a couple of pawns, but his position contains danger for his King.
20.Rhg1 Qe6 21.e5 dxe5 22.Qg6+ Kf8 23.Qg7+ Black resigned
Today, Philidor1792, two pieces down, could have pushed for a tiny but more, but settles for a draw in "his" variation.
Philidor1792 - NN
2013
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.Bxf7+
Again, the Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.
5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.d4 Bd6 8.f4
And, again, the pawns vs pieces variation.
8...Nc4 9.Qd3
This is a TN and an improvement upon 9.e5 of Philidor1792 - Guest1895, internet online game, 2013 (1-0, 28).
9...Nb6 10.e5 Bb4 11.0-0 Bxc3 12.bxc3 Nfd5
13.c4 Ne7 14.f5 d5 15.e6+ Kg8 16.f6 Bxe6 17.fxg7 Kxg7 18.Bg5 Qd6
The "Jerome pawns" have advanced and torn a hole in Black's Kingside position. Despite the fact that Black is two pieces up, he should have looked at 18...Qe8, when White can force a draw as in today's game.
19.Bxe7
White is willing to split the point today. If he wanted to continue with complications, he could try Rybka 3's recommendation : 19.Bf6+ Kg8 20.c5 Qd7 21.cxb6 Ng6 22.bxc7 Qxc7 23.Rae1 (White's Bishop is, for the moment, more useful living at f6 then being exhanged at h8) Bf7 24.Qd2 Qd6 25.Qh6 Qf8 26.Qh3 Re8 27.Qd7 Rxe1 28.Rxe1 h6 29.Bxh8 Kxh8 30.Qxb7 when White has an edge.
19...Qxe7 20.Qg3+ Kh6 21.Qe3+ Kg7 22.Qg3+ Kh6 23.Qe3+ Drawn
graphic by Jeff Bucchino, The King of Draws
Here we have Philidor1792 demonstrating another example of the opening presented in the previous post. How can White possibly win?
It has been said before: the Jerome Gambit may not be anything to try against a computer, but it continues to provide interesting play against people.
Philidor1792 - guest2723
Internet online game, 2013
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.d4 Bd6 8.f4 Neg4
Rare, but recently seen in Skirving - PAMpamPAM, standard, FICS, 2012 (0-1, 32)
9.e5 Bb4 10.O-O Bxc3 11.bxc3 d5
Deviating from Philidor1792 - Computer, 2011 (0-1, 43)
12.f5 Nxe5
Black logically returns a piece, missing the fact that his Knight on f6 cannot move away, so it will actually cost him two. He would do better with 12...Re8 13.exf6 Nxf6
13.dxe5 Ne4 14.Qh5+ Kf8 15.f6 g6 16.Qh6+ Ke8
Black's lack of development proves his undoing. Of course, the "Jerome pawns" contribute.
17.Qg7 Rf8 18.Bh6 Rf7 19.Qg8+ Kd7 20.e6+ Kxe6 21.Qxd8 Black resigned
graphic by Jeff Bucchino, The Wizard of Draws
Sometimes it seems that if the Jerome Gambit didn't look so bad, it wouldn't turn out so good...
Philidor1792 - guest1895
Internet online game, 2013
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Bxf7+
The Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.
5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.d4 Bd6 8.f4
This is a line that Philidor1792 has explored a number of times (see the series started with "Where Do Ideas Come From? Part 1").
The central conflict between three White pawns and three Black pieces seems overwhelmingly in the defender's favor, especially since he has two extra pieces. However, veteran Jerome Gambit players know that appearances are often deceiving, and against human players (especially those who become overconfident, and, thus, inattentive) the play can often become favorable for the attacker.
8...Nc4
This move seems to have first been played in a couple of games against Rijndael/Ryndael at FICS (see "New Player, Old Line" and "Updated").
9.e5 Bb4 10.0-0 Bxc3 11.bxc3 Ne4
Now we have another curious pieces vs pawns matchup.
12.d5 Nxc3 13.Qd3 Nb6 14.Qxc3 Nxd5 15.Qb3
Black's advantage seems to have shrunk (15.Qe4 and 15.Qf5+ were interesting alternatives) and his King looks vulnerable. Can White scare up threats quickly enough?
15...c6 16.Qh3 d6 17.Qh5+ g6 18.Qh6 Qf8 19.Qh4 Bf5 20.Bb2 Rg8
21.Qxh7+
It was a bit more accurate to precede this with 21.c4 Nc7 22.exd6 Qxd6, but Black's game falls apart any way.
21...Ke8 22.exd6 Kd8 23.c4 Bd3 24.cxd5 Bxf1 25.Qc7+ Ke8 26.Re1+ Be2 27.Rxe2+ Qe7 28.Qxe7 checkmate
graphic by Jeff Bucchino, The Wizard of Draws
