In complicated chess positions, the cooler head is likely to prevail. In the following human vs computer Jerome Gambit game, the real head outplays the virtual one. Wall, Bill - Asterisk engine Palm Bay, FL, 2015 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 Qf6
8.Rf1 Ne7 A novelty according to The Database, but not the best move. 9.Qh3+ Kd6 10.d4
Very Jerome-ish. Go pawns! 10...Nd3+ 11.cxd3 Qxd4 12.Nd2 Bb4 13.Ke2 Bxd2 14.Bxd2 Qxb2
The computer's taste for pawns leads it to poison. 15.e5+ Kd5 16.Rab1 Qxa2 17.Ra1 Qb2 18.Rfb1 Qc2 19.Rc1 Qb2 20.Ra5+ b5 21.Rxc7 Nc6 22.Rxd7+
Notice how little help Black's Rooks and Bishop provide. They will soon leap to action, too late. 22...Kc5 Alas for Asterisk, after 22...Bxd7 checkmate will follow: 23.Qxd7+ Kc5 24.Qd6+ Kb6 25.Ra6+ Kb7 26.Qd7+ Kb8 27.Rxc6 Qxd2+ 28.Kxd2 b4 29.Qc7# 23.Qe3+ Nd4+ 24.Rxd4 Bg4+ 25.Kf2 Qxd4 26.Rxb5+ Kxb5 27.Qxd4
Black has two Rooks for his Queen, but his King remains unsafe - and there is still the matter of the "Jerome pawns"! 27...Rad8 28.Qc4+ Kb6 29.Be3+ Kb7 30.Qb5+ Ka8 31.Qc6+ Kb8 32.e6 h6 33.Qb5+ Kc7 34.Qc5+ Kb7 35.Qxa7+ Kc6 36.Qc5+ Kb7 37.Qb6+ Kc8 38.Qa6+ Kc7 39.Bb6+ Black resigned
To beat a human being a chess program does not have to make a great move every time, it only has to make good move after good move after good move. By way of contrast, if it makes a lesser move followed by a lesser move followed by a lesser move - it risks defeat, as the following Jerome Gambit game shows.
Wall, Bill - AnMon Engine Palm Bay, FL, 2015 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 d6 Once again the "annoying" or "silicon" defense. (A favorite among computer engines, it works well for humans, too.)
8.fxe5 dxe5 9.Qh3+ Kd6 Black's King goes directly to d6, instead of 9...Ke7 10.Qg3 Kd6 as in Wall, Bill - Comet B50 engine, Palm Bay, FL, 2015 (1-0, 16). The saved tempo improves Black's position. 10.Qg3 Nf6
The right idea: development is key for Black, and taking the g-pawn would be dangerous for White. 11.Nc3 a6 12.Rf1 Be6 13.Ne2 Nh5 14.Qf3 Qh4+ 15.g3 Qh3
White now offers a pawn which Black would do well to decline, but computers are known to be grabby. It is a small slip, but small slips add up... 16.d4 exd4 17.Qd3 Qxh2 18.Nxd4 Bxd4 19.Qxd4+ Kc6
Black has to be careful; there is a way to King safety through this messy position,
but one error can be fatal. This was the whole idea behind White giving up the h-pawn. 20.Qc3+ Kd7 21.Bf4 Ke8 22.O-O-O
Whew, says the human. 22...Nxf4 23.gxf4 Rg8
If White has not equalized, he is pretty close. In the meantime, he has his familiar "Jerome pawns" in play against Black's extra piece. The protected, passed pawn at h7 does not get a chance to play a part in the game. 24.f5 Bf7 25.e5 Qh6+ 26.Kb1 Qc6 27.Qh3 Bd5 28.e6
h6 29.Qh5+ Ke7 30.Rfe1 Raf8
AnMon is not familiar with this blog, or it would be feeling an eerie sense of deja vu. 31.f6+ Rxf6 32.Rxd5 Rxe6 33.Rxe6+ Kxe6
Black's King is too exposed. 34.Qf5+ Ke7 35.Qe5+ Kf7 36.Qf4+ Ke7 37.Qe4+ Kf7 38.Rf5+ Kg6 39.Qd3 Rd8 40.Rd5+ Kf7 41.Rxd8 Qh1+ 42.Qd1 Black resigned
As a followup to the human vs computer game Wall - Akok, 2015the following game addresses a 12th move alternative for Black. At that point things have gotten critical for the defender (see the notes in "Irrational"), but it would be a shame to hide the current contest in the notes of another game: once again, disaster strikes the computer. Wall, Bill - Amyan engine Palm Bay, FL, 2015 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 Qf6
8.Rf1 g6 9.Qh3+ Ke7 10.Nc3 Kd8 11.fxe5 Qxe5
The Black King is not as safe as it would like, and the Black Queen's capture is ill-fated. White's next move shows that the defenders are over-worked. 12.d4 Qxd4 Wall - Akok, 2015 saw 12...Bxd4 13.Bg5+ Ke8 Costing material, despite the eventual Queen exchange, is13...Ne7, i.e. 14.Bf6 d6 15.Qg3 Qe3+ 16.Qxe3 Bxe3 17.Bxh8. 14.Qf3 Qg7 15.Nd5 Bd6 16.O-O-O
Who wouldn't want to have this position with White against a computer? 16...c6 You know that Black is in trouble when the best line Stockfish recommends is 16...Be5 17.Qc3!? Things would continue dismally: 17...Bf4+ (everything else leads to checkmate) 18.Rxf4 Qxc3 19.bxc3 Ne7 20.Nxc7+ Kd8 21.Nd5 Ke8 22.Bxe7 Rb8 23.Rdf1. 17.e5 Bb8 18.e6 d6
Black, trying to keep the position closed, doesn't have time right now to take the offered Knight. Alas, undeveloped, there is also the problam of a pesky "Jerome pawn". 19.Qf7+ Qxf7 20.exf7+ Kf8 21.fxg8=Q+ Kxg8
22.Rde1 cxd5 23.Re8+ Kg7 24.Re7+ Kg8 25.Bh6 Black resigned
Here we have another human vs computer game (see "Irrational"), one which turns, curiously, on computer "psychology" and a subtle anti-computer strategy. Again, it is the human who applies brutal tactical force to close out the game. Wall, Bill - Comet B50 engine Palm Bay, FL, 2015 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 d6
Ah, yes, back to the "annoying" or "silicon" defense. Black will soon be challenged to decide which pawn(s) it wants to protect, and which one(s) it wants to let go. This is something White can take advantage of, if he pushes it. 8.fxe5 dxe5 9.Qh3+ Ke7
Ten years ago this position proved uneasy for the computer playing the Jerome Gambit, and it quickly decided to save half a point: 9...Kd6 10.Qd3+ Ke7 11.Qg3 Kd6 12.Qd3+ Ke7 13.Qg3 Kd6 14.Qd3+ drawn, Crafty 19.19 - RevvedUp, blitz 2 12, 2006. 10.Qg3 Kd6 11.Qd3+ Bd4
Again, here, in the human - computer supermatch played a decade ago, the computer, with the Jerome Gambit, decided to bail out: 11...Ke7 12.Qg3 Ke6 13.Qh3+ Kf7 14.Qh5+ Ke6 15.Qh3+ drawn, Hiarcs 8 - RevvedUp, blitz 2 12, 2006). Upon reflection, the g7 pawn is probably more valuable than the e5 pawn, despite the Comet B50's evaluations and calculations, and ...Kd6 is not Black's strongest continuation. Here it will cost a piece. (On the other hand, most computers opening with the Jerome Gambit as White would probably love to offer and receive a draw after four moves!) 12.c3 Qg5 Comet B50 goes for wild tactics. It is interesting to recall two historical games that showed the computer (in this case, an early version of Fritz) solidly surrendering the piece: 12...c5 13.cxd4 cxd4 14.b3 Kc7 (14...Nf6 15.Ba3+ Kc7 16.Qg3 Re8 17.Qxg7+ Kb8 18.d3 Qa5+ 19.b4 Qb6 20.O-O Re6 21.Nd2 Qd8 22.Nc4 Qg8 23.Qxg8 Nxg8 24.Rf5 Ne7 25.Rxe5 Rxe5 26.Nxe5 Ng6 27.Nf3 Nf4 28.b5 Kc7 29.Ne5 Ng6 30.Nxg6 hxg6 31.Bc5 Bd7 32.a4 Re8 33.Bxd4 a6 34.bxa6 bxa6 35.a5 Kd6 36.Bb6 Bc6 37.Ba7 Bb5 38.Rd1 Ke5 39.Kf2 Ra8 40.Bb6 Ba4 41.Ra1 Bc6 42.Ke3 Re8 43.d4+ Kd6 44.e5+ Kd7 45.g3 Rf8 46.Rd1 Ke6 47.Rd3 Rf1 48.Rc3 Rf3+ 49.Kd2 Rxc3 50.Kxc3 Kd5 51.h4 Ke4 52.Kc4 Bb5+ 53.Kc5 Kf3 54.d5 Kxg3 55.e6 Kxh4 56.d6 Kg5 57.d7 Kf5 58.d8=Q Kxe6 59.Qg8+ Kf5 60.Qd5+ Kf6 61.Kd6 Kg7 62.Qxb5 axb5 63.a6 b4 64.a7 g5 65.a8=Q g4 66.Qe4 g3 67.Qxb4 Kf7 68.Qf4+ Kg6 69.Qg4+ Kh6 70.Qg8 Kh5 71.Bd8 Kh6 72.Qg5+ Kh7 73.Bf6 g2 74.Qg7 checkmate, Fisher-Kirshner,M - Knight Stalker, Fremont, CA, 1993) 15.Qc4+ Kb8 16.Ba3 Qh4+ 17.Kd1 Qh6 18.Qd5 Bg4+ 19.Ke1 Qh4+ 20.g3 Qg5 21.Bd6+ Kc8 22.Qf7 Bd7 23.Na3 Kd8 24.Rc1 Ne7 25.Rf1 Rc8 26.Rxc8+ Nxc8 27.Nc4 Re8 28.Bb4 Qh6 29.Na5 b6 30.Nc4 Bc6 31.d3 Qc1+ 32.Kf2 Qc2+ 33.Kg1 Qxd3 34.Nd6 Qe3+ 35.Rf2 Nxd6 36.Bxd6 Bd7 37.Kg2 Qxe4+ 38.Kf1 Bh3+ 39.Rg2 Qxg2+ 40.Ke1 Qh1+ 41.Kd2 Qxh2+ 42.Ke1 Qxg3+ 43.Kd2 Qc3+ 44.Ke2 d3+ 45.Kf2 Qb2+ 46.Kg3 Qg2+ 47.Kh4 Qg4 checkmate, Fisher-Kirshner,M - Knight Stalker, Fremont, CA, 1993. 13.cxd4 Qxg2 14.dxe5+
14...Kxe5 The King would be relatively safer on e7. 15.Qd5+ Kf6 The Queen is now lost, but otherwise Black loses her and his King: 15...Kf4 16.d4+ Kf3 17.Nd2+ Kg4 18.h3+ Qxh3 19.Rxh3 Kxh3 20.Qh5+ Kg2 21.Qf3+ Kh2 22.Nf1+ Kg1 23.Be3 checkmate.
The idea of playing the Jerome Gambit against a computer chess engine seems almost as irrational as the Jerome Gambit itself. How is it possible to give the silicon beast a couple of pieces and expect to survive? One doesn't give the computer "Jerome Gambit odds"! Still, four years ago, I noted on this blog
It was not long after I began looking into the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) that I noticed one chess match kept turning up in the databases: in 1993, between the human Micah Fischer-Kirshner and the chess-playing program KnightStalker, an early version of Fritz. As luck would have it, I was able to interview Micah about his experience for this blog.
The Jerome Gambit seemed a natural for matches, especially ones involving computers. Jeroen_61 of the Netherlands ran one with Hiarcs, Junior 7, Shredder Paderdorn (6.02) and Fritz 7.
I tried a few myself, notably a Fritz8 vs Fritz5 encounter and a Delphi vs Wealk Delphi contest. Each attempt had its shortcomings. (Perhaps you read about them here.)
The mysterious "perfesser" played an introductory 4-game match with the Talking LCD Chess Gadget. Like the Jerome Gambit itself, it was good for some chuckles.
Topping all efforts so far, "RevvedUp" and his trusted companions Hiarcs 8, Shredder 8, Yace Paderborn, Crafty 19.19 and Fritz 8 explored the Jerome Gambit in a 30-game encounter. It was simply war.
There is also the earlier summary of Randy Tipton's computer vs computer games, and the more recent adventures of "Ionman vs the Bots". So, when I noticed that the new group of Bill Wall games had some of him playing the Jerome Gambit against some engines, I had to check them out. The following game is very interesting. The human's flurry of tactics to finish off the game is impressive. Wall, Bill - Abrok chess engine Palm Bay, Florida, 2015 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 Qf6
A mild surprise. Computers tend to delight in "the annoying defense" 7...d6. 8.Rf1 g6 9.Qh3+ Bill has a couple of cautions here:9.fxe5? Qxf1+ 10.Kxf1 gxh5 and 9.Qd1? Qh4+ 10.g3 Qxh2 11.fxe5 Qxg3+ 12.Rf2 Qxf2 checkmate. 9...Ke7 Bill has been here before: 9...Ng4 10.Qxg4+ Ke7 11.Nc3 d5 (11...d6 12.Nd5+ Kd8 13.Nxf6 Bxg4 14.Nxg4 h5 15.Nf2 Kd7 16.Nh3 Re8 17.d3 Nf6 18.Ng5 Ng4 19.h3 Nh2 20.Rh1 Black resigned, Wall,B - Guest3164644, PlayChess.com, 2013) 12.Nxd5+ Black resigned, Wall,B - Betarsolta, PlayChess.com, 2015; also 9...Kf7 10.fxe5 Qxf1+ 11.Kxf1 d6 12.Qc3 Black resigned, Wall,B - Guest1690223, PlayChess.com, 2012; and 9...Ke7 10.Nc3 c6 d6 (10...c6 11.fxe5 Qxe5 12.d3 Nf6 13.Qh4Bd4 14.Bg5 Bxc3+ 15.bxc3 Qxc3+ 16.Ke2 Qxc2+ 17.Bd2 Qb2 18.Rxf6 Qxf6 19.Bg5 Rf8 20.Bxf6+ Rxf6 21.e5 Black resigned, Wall,B - XCCY, FICS, 2011) 11.Nd5+ Kd8 12.Qg3 Qe6 13.fxe5 dxe5 14.d4 Ne7 15.dxc5 Nxd5 16.Bg5+ Ke8 17.exd5 Qxd5 18.Rf2 Be6 19.Rd2 Qxc5 20.0-0-0 Rf8 21.Qh4 h5 22.Bh6 Rf5 23.Rd8+ Rxd8 24.Rxd8+ Kf7 25.Rf8+ Qxf8 26.Bxf8 Kxf8 27.Qd8+ Kg7 28.Qxc7+ Kh6 29.h4 Rf1+ 30.Kd2 Rf2+ 31.Ke3 Rf5 32.Qd8 a6 33.Qh8 checkmate, Wall,B - Aburasian, Chess.com, 2010. 10.Nc3 Kd8
I've probably spent way too much time fussing about a comment by Fat Lady at redhotpawn.com, referring to a chess game where Alexander Alekhine reportedly defended against a Jerome Gambit - see "Much Ado About... Nothing" - no doubt it is as much an "urban legend" as the CIA killing Marilyn Monroe or Elvis Presley being in a witness protection program. The other day I ran into a simultaneous exhibition game by Alekhine, however, and I wondered: could Fat Lady have been thinking about a "reversed" Jerome?? Here we go again... Alexander Alekhine - Alfred Berman New York 1 of 26, 1924 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Bc5 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Nxe5 Bxf2+
This is reminiscent of an offshoot of the "Blanel Gambit" in the Vienna or Bishop Opening, only reversed. For reference:
14.h3 h5 15.Bg1 Ke7 16.Bh2 Qg5 17.Rad1 Ne5 18.Bf4 Qg6 19.Qe1 Ne8 20.Ne2 Surprisingly, White misses a chance to play 20.Bxe5 dxe5 21.Nd5!? with an attack. 20...f6 21.Nd4 Rd8
30.Rxd6 That's more like it. Taking the Rook with 30...Kxd6 allows White's Queen to penetrate the enemy position after 31.Qd2+. 30...Na8 Now Black's position collapses as White's pieces pour in. 31.Rfd1 Nb6 32.Qxb5 Rc7 33.Rd7+ Nxd7 34.Rxd7+ Rxd7 35.Qxd7+ Kf8 36.Qc8+ Ke7 37.Qxc5+ Ke8 38.Qc6+ Kf8 39.Qc8+ Ke7 40.Qxh8
40...Qg5 41.f6+ Cute. (41.Qa8 was stronger.) 41...Qxf6 42.Qxh5 Playing to the crowd? More solid was 42.Bd5. 42...Qf1+ 43.Kh2 Qf4+ 44.Kg1 Qc1+ 45.Kf2 Qxb2+ 46.Kg3 Qc3+ 47.Kh2 Kxe6
Interesting game. Then, I realized that Fat Lady said "Alekhine played Ke6 and then held onto both pieces", which doesn't sound like a reversed Jerome Gambit, at all. Bummer. I don't know, maybe he was mis-remembering the internet contest blackburne - AAlekhine, Chessworld, 2007!