While it is nice to surprise an opponent with the Jerome Gambit, more and more often defenders are showing that they have an idea about how to defend - if not outright refute - the opening. What's an attacker to do?
Well, play on, of course!
Wall,B - Guest1839713
PlayChess.com, 2013
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 d6 8.fxe5 dxe5
The so-called "annoying defense" (see "Philidor1792 vs the Annoying Defense" Parts 1, 2 and 3; "Further Exploration" and "Theory from the Thematic Tournament" Parts 3 and 4), the refutation choice of most computers, which has even given Bill trouble from time to time.
It is interesting to put this in perspective, however, in light of the previous post on "refutation".
The Database has over 10,000 games starting with the Jerome Gambit sequence 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+, with White scoring 45%. Interestingly enough, against the "annoying defense" White has scored 58%.
Bill has scored 70% against the "annoying defense" which looks good until you realize that his over-all Jerome Gambit score is 96%.
It is as if a sage has warned players: After the refutation, the gods have placed the rest of the game...
9.Qh3+ Kf7 10.Qh5+ Kf8 11.Qxe5
11...Bd6
This certainly looks aggressive enough, but Bill recommends, instead,11...Qh4+ 12.g3 Qe7.
12.0-0+
Wise. As Bill points out, there is more danger in 12.Qd5? Qh4+ 13.Ke2 Qg4+ 14.Ke1 Qxg2 15.Rf1+ Nf6.
12...Nf6 13.Qg5 Kg8
Instead, 13...h6 14.Qh4 g5 was seen in Colossus - Spike1.2, Jerome Forced Computer Chess Match, 2006 (0-1, 43); while 13...Be6 was seen in several games in the legendary Fisher-Kirshner,M - Knight Stalker, Mission San Jose, Fremont, CA, 1993 match.
14.e5
White needs to push on, as Bill demonstrates. Not 14.Nc3? Bxh2+ 15.Kxh2 Ng4+
14...Bc5+ 15.Kh1 Be7 16.exf6 Bxf6
What can I say?
Bill Watterson said it best when he titled one of his Calvin and Hobbes books:
To wit, Black has "scientifically" returned the sacrificed material to calm the storm. True, he is a pawn down, but he hopes that the "two Bishops" will compensate in an open position.
17.Qc5 h6 18.Nc3 c6 19.Ne4 Bd4 20.Qc4+ Kh7
Black has castled by hand.
21.c3 Be5?
Instead, Bill recommends 21...Re8 22.cxd4 Rxe4 with about an equal game, although 22.Ng3!? might be a way for White to maintain an edge.
22.d4 Bc7 23.Qd3
This is a strong move, but Bill points out 23.Nf6+! gxf6 (23...Kg6 24.Qd3+ Kf7 25.Ne8+ kills) 24.Qf7#
23...Rf8 24.Nf6+
Better late than never: a nice discovered double check.
24...Kh8 25.Qh7 checkmate
Clever!
As much as I enjoy the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+), I have acknowledged from the beginning (see "But - Is this stuff playable??" Part I and Part II) that it is not really a "good" opening in the sense of the Ruy Lopez or Sicilian Defense.
So, when I ran across the following discussion of "refuted" at Tim Sawyer's "Playing Chess Openings" blog I had to chuckle. Tim was talking about a line in the Blackmar Diemer Gambit - which, when compared to the Jerome, is as solid as the Catalan or the Slav - but he makes good points.
"Refuted" in chess opening terminology has to do with theory or evidence. Basically, a variation is refuted if: when you play it, you lose.
There are three types of "refuted" variations:
1. When computer analysis overwhelmingly favors your opponent's side.
2. When the performance ratings are significantly below expectations.
3. When you lose regularly with this variation against your opponents.
My guess is that most of the members of the Jerome Gambit Gemeinde are satisfied that #3 is not their problem - they either win regularly against their opponents, or they play enjoyable games (and that is enough for them).
I puzzled my way through the following game, even though I didn't need to. It is Bill Wall playing the Jerome Gambit. Of course White wins.
Wall,B - PLKT
FICS, 2013
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6
Heading for the Blackburne or Whistler Defenses.
7.Qxe5 Bd6
8.Qd5+
I was puzzled by this move, as experience has shown that after this inaccurate move (better 7...d6 or 7...Qe7) the Black Rook can be taken: perrypawnpusher - tuffnut, blitz, FICS, 2007 (1-0, 33); perrypawnpusher - bakker, blitz, FICS, 2008 (1-0, 20); perrypawnpusher - Kapppy, blitz, FICS, 2009 (1-0, 34); perrypawnpusher - Sirenus, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 13); perrypawnpusher - frencheng, 7 5 blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 17); and perrypawnpusher - elyza, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 24);
Furthermore, Bill is always the first to examine the latest version of The Database and mine it for new ideas to inject into his games.
Plus, he has read the almost 1,750 posts here on this blog.
That last fact gave me a thought: with all that information, could a couple of lines of play have been crossed in his mental database? It turns out, that's quite possible.
Looking back at "By the Numbers" (see also "Pulling A Rabbit Out of A Hat" and "I think I have a win, but it will take time...") there is a game similar to today's, coming out of the Semi-Italian Jerome Gambit opening (add 0-0 for White and ...h6 for Black), where the notes indicate that the defender should have played ...Bf8!? instead of that game's ...Bd6, as then the Rook would be poisoned.
Or, maybe this is all just a lot of psychological noodling on my part.
8...Kf8 9.d4 Nf6
10.Qg5 Be7 11.Qe3 d5 12.e5 Ne4
White has his standard two pawns for a piece, while both Black's Knight and King could prove misplaced.
13.0-0 Bg5 14.f4 Bh6 15.h3 Qh4 16.Nc3 Nxc3 17.bxc3 Bf5
Black continues his aggressive play. Perhaps he is familiar with Blackburne's destruction of the Jerome Gambit?
18.c4 c6 19.Ba3+ Ke8
It may not be immediately obvious, but getting the King off of the f-file by moving him into the center is not best.
White can now generate enough excitement to even the game up - or to go for more, if his opponent cooperates.
20.Qb3
Quite possibly this is just the move Black had been hoping for. While he lines up his two Bishops and Queen to find a Blackburne-like mating attack, his opponent's strong piece abandons her monarch.
20...Bxf4
Too hopeful. His Queen had to return home, while giving up material - 20...Qd8 21.Qxb7 Rc8 22.Qxa7 dxc4 - with about an equal game.
21.Qxb7
Bill points out that White has to plunge ahead, as 21.Rxf4? Qxf4 22.Qxb7 Qxd4+ 23.Kh2 Qxe5+ is a terrible alternative.
Now Black has the opportunity to "sacrifice" both of his Rooks, as in the Blackburne game - but without getting the requisite mating attack.
21...Be3+
Best, but not saving.
22.Kh2
The only move. Certainly not 22.Kh1 Bxh3 23.Qxa8+?? Bc8 checkmate.
22...Bf4+
It was time for Black to go for the swindle with 22...Bxh3 23.Qxa8+?? Bc8 checkmate!
Instead, 22...Bxh3 23.gxh3? would have led to a draw by perpetual check 23...Bf4+ 24.Rxf4 Qxf4+ 25.Kg2 Qe4+, etc.
Of course, after 22...Bxh3 23.Qf7+! Kd8 24.gxh3 all is good with White's world.
23.Rxf4 Qxf4+ 24.Kh1 Qh4 25.Qxa8+ Qd8 26.Qxc6+ Kf7 27.cxd5 Black resigned
In the end, even the "Jerome pawns" joined in the attack.
I was wandering through the internet the othe day, and realized that I had missed sharing this humorous comment from Tom's BDG Pages
I try not to be, but maybe I am a little jealous. I'm talking about all those Jerome Gambiteers over at Rick Kennedy's blog. All those quick little knockouts. Sure some of them are Black wins, but still...Worse yet, the BDG [Blackmar Diemer Gambit] looks to be on its way to losing its title as the most disrespected opening in chess. But all we can do is fight on.
I am working my way through Tim Harding's Four Gambits to Defeat the French, a book that I've been interested in for a long time, but only recently acquired.
Dr. Harding is one of my favorite authors, and his first book, Bishop's Opening, is still a classic. In fact, his current "Kibitzer" column at Chesscafe.com, "A New Look at an Old Opening" – catch it while you can, as only current columns are free of charge, although older ones can be purchased as low-cost e-books – takes a look at that book, and updates the opening with some interesting games.
In the notes to the game Tim Harding – R. J. Stockwell, Oxfordshire - Surrey county match, 1971, Harding touches upon the line 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nxe4 4 Bxf7+?! which should catch the eye of every Jerome Gambiteer, and be reminiscent of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+, referred by Tim Sawyer as the Open Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.
Harding continues the line: 4...Kxf7 5 Nxe4 d5 6 Qf3+ Kg8 and then discusses the possibilites of 7.d4!?. Great fun. Check it out.
By the way, Harding is well into writing his biography of Joseph Henry Blackburne, which will include 1,000 of the "Black Death's" games. The moment he even hints that it is available, I will be ordering my copy!
What does it mean when a columnist at The New York Times' website starts off his analysis of Syria, the US, and Russia, with a quote from the foremost modern practitioner of the Jerome Gambit, the self-proclaimed "worst chess opening in the world"?
In all fairness, Bill Wall is also the author of thirty books on chess (as well as many more articles) and has a massive, interesting and entertaining web page.
Nowadays, our politicians can use all the help they can get.
In blitz chess, the moves come fast, but the thoughts come faster.
Much better that way, than the other way around.
perrypawnpusher - vastatorjf
blitz, FICS, 2013
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7
5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Qh4+
This put me on my guard: Danger Ahead!
9.g3 Qg4
There's something wrong with this followup, however, even if it is a TN.
10.fxe5+ Black resigned
