Anybody want a (couple of) piece(s) of me?

In the previous post I bemoaned the fact that all of my games with White in first round of the most recent ongoing Chess.com Italian Game tournament were against opponents who did not want to allow the Jerome Gambit.

Now the third round of the earlier Chess.com Italian Game tournament has started, and I am in an interesting group along with Rebecca_Wiebe , who still has 200 rating points on me, but who, last round, against me chose the Hungarian Defense (3...Be7) - and gave up her only half-point (she is 13-0-1 so far in the tournament) - and djdave28 (who is 10-4-0) who lost a Jerome Gambit to me in round one.

djdave28 (I've got 100 points on him - how did that happen?) has already signaled that he is ready for a rematch by playing 3...Bc5. We will see about Rebecca_Wiebe. (No. Another Hungarian Defense.)

Anybody want a couple of pieces?

I guess not.

All of my games with White in first round of the ongoing Chess.com Italian Game tournament found opponents who did not want to allow the Jerome Gambit.

Four were Two Knights Defenses 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 that refused to turn into Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambits (4.Nc3 Bc5 5.Bxf7+) but stayed by the book with 4.Nc3 Nxe5 5.Nxe5 d5 6.Bd3 dxe4 7.Bxe4 Bd6.

The fifth game was a Semi-Italian game 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 that refused to go Jerome (with 4.0-0 Bc5 5.Bxf7+).

(The sixth game didn't happen, as the player lost on time in both games without a piece moved.)

Maybe next round.

I guess I will console myself with the knowledge that the readership of blog posts this month is likely to set a new record for jeromegambit.blogspot.com. Thanks for stopping by!

Hybrid

Chessfriend Philidor 1792 has sent another collection of Jerome Gambit, reversed Jerome Gambit, and Jerome Gambit-inspired games.

The game below is an interesting mix of opening systems. White combines the "Abrahams Jerome Gambit" - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Bxf7+ - with the "Scholar's Mate" - 1.e4 e5. 2.Qh5 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Qxf7+ - and plays it all in a 3-minute game. Black holds on for a while, but, in the end, either nerves or shortage of time lead to his downfall.


Philidor 1792 - guest1433
3 0 blitz, www.bereg.ru, 2015

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Qh5

We have seen this hybrid before. See "A Scholarly Abrahams Jerome Gambit".

3...Qf6 4.Bxf7+ Qxf7 5.Qxe5+

5...Qe7 6.Qxe7+ Nxe7 7.c3 d5 8.d4 Bb6 9.e5 c5 10.Be3 

An earlier game continued: 10.dxc5 Bxc5 11.f4 Nbc6 12.Nf3 Be6 13.Na3 Bxa3 14.bxa3 0-0-0 15.Be3 Rhf8 16.Ng5 Bf5 17.Kf2 h6 18.Nf3 Be4 19.h4 Nf5 20.Rad1 b6 21.h5 Na5 22.Bc1 Nc4 23.Rh3 Kb7 24.g4 Ne7 25.e6 Bxf3 26.Rxf3 Rd6 27.f5 Rfd8 28.Re1 d4 29.cxd4 Rxd4 30.f6 gxf6 31.Rxf6 Nd6 32.Rf4 Rd3 33.Rf7 Re8 34.Bxh6 Kc6 35.Rf8 Rxa3 36.Rxe8 Nxe8 37.Bf8 Rxa2+ 38.Kg3 Nd5 39.h6 Ra3+ 40.Bxa3 Black resigned,  Philidor 1792 -guest124, www.bereg.ru, 2014. 

10...Nf5 11.Na3 cxd4 12.cxd4 Bxd4 13.Bxd4 Nxd4 14.0-0-0

Blitz games are often about development and King safety. If White loses this game, it won't be because of the extra pawn he invested.

14...Ndc6 15.Nb5 Na6 16.Rxd5 Be6 17.Rd6 Ke7 18.Nf3 Rad8 19.Ng5 Rxd6 20.exd6+ Kd7 21.a3 Rf8 22.Ne4 Bc4 23.Nbc3 Nab8 24.Rd1 Na6 

White's advanced "Jerome pawn" is not enough compensation for the sacrificed piece, but his knowledge of this kind of play, and advantage on the clock may well be.

25.b4 b5 26.f3 Ne5 27.Rd4 Nd3+ 28.Kd2 Nb2 29.Nf2 Rf6 30.Nce4 Rg6 31.Ng4 Re6 32.f4 Kd8 33.Ne5 Rh6

White's pieces have come together, while Black's are scattered.

34.d7 Be6 35.Nc6+ Kc7 36.d8Q+ Kxc6 37.Rd6+ Kb7 38.Rxa6 Kxa6 39.Nc5 checkmate

Do YOU Remember?

The Thursday, July 11, 2013 post on Sean Press' chessexpress blog (which we have mentioned before) starts

Is chess this simple?

In one of my opening books (I cannot remember which) there was a comment attached to the variation 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+? "Chess is not that simple."

Can any reader identify the opening book to which Mr. Press refers?

Jerome vs Lasker, or Another DEJG!

Golly, I was minding my own business, calmly defending against an Evans Gambit (I like the Lasker Defense) in the new Italian Game tournament at Chess.com, when suddenly I was Jeromed!

majimba - perrypawnpusher
Chess.com Italian Game tournament, 2015

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4

The Evans Gambit.

4...Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.0-0 d6 7.d4 Bb6

8.dxe5 dxe5 9.Bxf7+

Kapow! A Delayed Evans Jerome Gambit!

Where did my opponent get the idea? If I had to guess, I would say it could have been from an old post at Chess.com by someone called skiingisfun69 (I have edited lightly for clarity):

...Only played in one grandmaster game that I could find. Is this a mistake? If so, how? It appears that no matter what Black does, his position is completely losing...
I just played this on Yahoo chess against a friend, 7 minute / 7 second increments...I was very surprised to find out we had played grandmaster chess up until move 8. I had no idea there was such a thing as the Evans Gambit - I assumed my pawn sacrifice on b4 was no longer a standard line.
On move 9 in my game I played Bxf7+. Is this move a mistake? According to the Chess.com database, it was only played in one game. Grandmasters usually choose 9.Qb3 or 9.Qxd8. How are these moves better than 9.Bxf7+? I only found one game where 9.Bxf7+ was played http://www.chess.com/games/view.html?id=144868. White won quickly.
It appears to me that no matter what Black does, his position is clearly losing. If he doesn't take the bishop his position is losing. When I then offer the knight, if it he takes it he's simply down a queen for two minor pieces - losing. If he doesn't take it, he just loses.

What a discovery! Who wouldn't want to try out 9.Bxf7+?

9...Kxf7 10.Nxe5+ Ke8!

Not according to White's plan.

Painful for Black is 10...Ke6: 11.Qg4+ Kxe5 12.Bf4+ (12.Qf4+ Ke6 13.Qf5+ Ke7 14.Ba3+ Nb4 15.Bxb4+ c5 16.Bxc5+ Bxc5 17.Qxc5+ Kf7 18.Na3 Nf6 19.Nb5 Qe7 20.Nd6+ Kg6 21.e5 Rd8 22.Qe3 Ng8 23.Qd3+ Kh6 24.Nf7+ Qxf7 25.Qxd8 Qe6 26.Qh4+ Kg6 27.f4 Qb6+ 28.Kh1 h6 29.f5+ Kh7 30.Qe7 Black resigned, Wilson,P - Wilson,J, correspondence, 1921) 12...Kxe4 13.Re1+ Kd3 (13...Kd5 14.Qd1+ Nd4 15.Re5+ Kc4 16.Na3+ Black resigned, Ford,E - Vorrath,A, Manhattan Chess Club Handicap Tournament, New York, 1891) 14.Qe2 checkmate, skiingisfun69 - NN, 7 7 blitz, Yahoo Chess, 2008;

or 10...Kf8: 11.Ba3+ Nge7 12.Qf3+ Black resigned, Eckl,J - Schoenewald, correspondence, 1967.

But I was out to disappoint my opponent.

11.Qh5+ g6 

12.Nxg6

Actually, better is 12.Nxc6 gxh5 13.Nxd8 Kxd8-+ 14.Bg5+ (14.Nd2 Nf6 15.e5 Ng4 16.Nc4 Be6 17.Nxb6 axb6 18.Bg5+ Kd7 19.a3 Ra5 20.f4 Rha8 21.f5 Bc4 22.e6+ Ke8 23.Rf4 Bd3 24.h3 Ne3 25.Rf3 Bxf5 26.Rxe3 Rxa3 27.Rxa3 Rxa3 28.e7 b5 29.Re5 Bd7 30.Re4 Ra1+ 31.Kf2 Ra2+ 32.Kg3 Bc6 33.Rf4 Rxg2+ 34.Kh4 Re2 35.Rf8+ Kd7 36.Rd8+ Ke6 37.e8Q+ Black resigned, Philidor 1792 - guest343, www.bereg.ru, 2013) 14...Ne7 15.Nd2 Rg8 16.Bh4 Bh3 17.Bg3 h4 White resigned, Girard - Corbat, IECC TH-T email 2000.

You might have noticed in the paragraph above that one of the games was played by Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member Philidor 1792. That is one reason to why majimba's Bishop sac wasn't a surprise to me.

Longtime Readers may remember that there were 4 posts to this blog on the "Delayed Evans Jerome Gambit" in October and November of 2013. That is another reason I was not fooled.

12...Nf6 13.Bg5

Overlooking my reply.

A stronger alternative, still giving Black the advantage, is 13.Qh6: 13...Rg8 14.Nh4 (14.Nf4 Ne5 15.Nd5 Rg6 16.Nxf6+ Qxf6 17.Qxh7 Bg4 18.Be3 Rd8 19.Nd2 Rd7 White resigned, Kurpnieks,V - Kovacs,A, LSS email, 2008) 14...Ne5 15.g3 Neg4 16.Qf4 Nh5 17.Qf3 Qxh4 White resigned, Kopel - Grocescu, correspondence, 1989.

13...Nxh5 14.Bxd8 Rg8

Black will remain two pieces up.

15.Nh4 Kxd8 16.Nd2 Be6 17.Rfd1 Ke7 18.a3 Rad8 19.Nhf3 Nf4 20.g3 Nh3+ White resigned

(My apologies to the Gemeinde, but a true Jerome Gambit player must know how to play against the gambit, too.)

Appearance and Reality

In the following game, Black leaps upon what he considers an error by White, only to find that he has attacked thin air, while, on the other side of the board, he allows a deadly attack!


Wall,B - Guest1468045 
PlayChess.com, 02.04.2015

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

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 7.Qxc5 d6 8.Qc3

A similar position including the "nudge", after 7.Qd5+ Kf8 8.Qxc5+ d6 9.Qc3 was seen in Wall,B - Boris, SparkChess.com, 2012 (1-0, 32),  Wall,B -Guest4149739, PlayChess.com, 2013 (1-0, 30) and Wall,B - Guest428245, PlayChess.com, 2014 (1-0, 20). 


The alternative, 8.Qd5+, looking for mischief, was seen in Wall,B-Guest4395, Microsoft Internet Gaming Zone, 2001 (1-0, 18);  Wall,B - Seven11, Chess.com, 2008 (1-0, 51); Wall,B - Chung,J, Chess.com, 2010 (1-0, 25);  Wall, Bill - CheckMe, www.Chess.com, 2010 (1-0, 23); and Wall, Bill - Guest249301, playchess.com, 2013 (1-0, 30).

8...Nf6 9.d3 Re8 

10.0-0 h6 11.f4 Kg8 12.Nd2 c6 

Houdini rates Black about a half point better here; while Stockfish sees Black as maybe nine-tenths of a pawn better. That's plenty for White to work with.

13.b4!? 

Bill and I have exchanged emails about this move. I like it - a lot. It reminds me both of the comment attributed to Bobby Fischer - "I don't believe in psychology, I believe in strong moves" - and one by Nimzovich - that a particular move was strong, because it appeared weak...

Notice how Black jumps all over the move. Notice how Black loses.

13...Qb6+ 14.Kh1 Ng4 15.Bb2 Re7 

As Bill points out, Black pauses for some defense: not 15...Nf2+? 16.Rxf2 Qxf2?? 17.Qxg7#

16.d4

Likewise, avoiding 16.Qc4+? Be6 17.Qd4 Ne3.

16...a5 

Here we go again: attacking the White b-pawn.

17.Qg3 

Which White abandons!

17...Qxb4

Black has the pawn in the bag, and forks two of White's pieces. What's not to like?

18.Bc3

Bill was aware of 18.f5? Qxb2 19.Qxg4 Qxd4 20.Qxg6 Qxd2.

18...Qb5 19.f5 

We will come back to this position.

19...Bxf5 

This looks like the beginning of panic. Black's Knights are at risk.

20.Rxf5 N4e5 21.dxe5 Nxe5 22.Raf1 Rae8

Collapse.

23.Bxe5 dxe5 24.Qg6 Qe2 25.Rf7 Rxf7 26.Rxf7 Qe1+ 27.Nf1 Re7 28.Qxg7 checkmate

Going back to the diagram after White's 19th move let's ask: What would have happened if Black had admitted that his "advantage" had evaporated, that his "right to attack" had therefore disappeared, and he had retreated with 19...Nf6?

As I had emailed Bill

Funny how 19...Nf6, admitting Black's mistake, would have mostly set things to rights.. : 20.Qxg6 Qxb4 21.e5 Nd5 22.Nb3 a4 23.f5! Bxf5 24.Rxf5 axb3 25.c3! Nxc3 26.exd6 Re2 27.d7! Nd5 28.Raf1 Re1! 29.axb3 Ne3 30.Bc3! Qxc3 31.Rf7 Rxf1+ 32.Rxf1 Nxf1 (what else?) 33.Qe8+ Rxe8 34.dxe8/Q+ Kh7 35.Qe4+ and it was a draw, after all... But even in this line White has almost all of the fun! 

Tourneys! We Have Tourneys!

I will be moving through, after all, to the third round of the Chess.com Italian Game tournament. More chances to play the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) should occur. I will share them, good, bad and ugly...

In the meantime, a 28-player Italian Game tournament has started, also at Chess.com. I am in one of four 7-player groups, and in my first 6 games I have black in 5 of them. Alas, the one game with the white pieces I have been unable to finagle a Jerome Gambit. (I am again exploring the opening line suggested by chessfriend Yury Bukayev.)

For the time being - until at least one game is completed - I will be Jerome-less in this tournament.