Jerome Gambit: A Refutation A Mile Wide and An Inch Deep

Sometimes a defender may appear ready to deal with the Jerome Gambit, and might even start off looking prepared - but if that preparation is "a mile wide and an inch deep", it won't be enough.

Consider the following game.


Wall, Bill - Guest5643953
PlayChess.com, 2018

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Qh4 

This "pie-in-the-face" variation is another example of an early ...Qh4 by Black, which immediately challenges White to find a way to survive.

7.O-O Nf3+

Okay, this is kind of strange...

Black's 6th move was one of the strongest ways to meet 6.d4, by ignoring possible material loss and, instead, initiating a counter-attack; but this move looks like the second player is suddenly upset at having two minor pieces attacked, and so he decides to give one up.

8.Qxf3+ Nf6 9.dxc5 Qxe4

What a difference a few moves can make! Instead of being down two pieces, White is up a pawn.

The game is not over, but certainly there is no talk of a refutation any more.

10.Qb3+ d5 11.cxd6+ Be6 12.Qa3 Qxc2 13.Nc3 cxd6 

Here we have a subtle position. Material is even. White's advantage is the weakness of Black's pawn on d6.

Black hurries to protect the pawn, but this makes his position worse.

14.Bg5 Ne8 15.Qb4 Bc8 

There was less danger in 15...b6. Black has un-developed two minor pieces and dis-connected his Rooks.

16.Rae1 h6 17.Re7+ Kg6 18.Be3 

After the game Stockfish 8 showed a preference for 18.Bxh6!? but there was no need to chase complications after 18...gxh6 19.Qd4 Rf8 20.g4!? The text move is fine.

18...Rf8 19.Qd4 Qf5 20.Nd5 

White's pieces cooperate and close in on the enemy King. In the mean time, it is again relevant to point out Black's Bishop at home, blocking his Rook, at home. Black now develops the Bishop, but it is too late.

20...Bd7 21.Re4

Threatening 22.Ne7+, forking the Queen and King. 

21...Qh5 22.g4 Qh4 23.Ne7+ Kh7 24.g5 

It is a tossup as to which is in more danger, Black's King or his Queen.

24...Qh3 25.Rh4 Qe6 26.g6+ Kh8 27.Rxh6 checkmate

Very nice!

Jerome Gambit: Refutation is Just the Start

One of the reasons that few chess players open a game with 1.f3 e5 2.g4 is that there is a one-move refutation - 2...Qh4 is checkmate.

For other refuted openings, however, the demands upon the defender are more onerous. Even the Jerome Gambit, which has a number of refutations, can require consistent play by Black, or the attacker will not only escape unpunished, he will win.

The following game is a good example.

Wall, Bill - Guest436030
PlayChess.com, 2018

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Bb4+ 7.c3 Qh4

Black does not waste time saving either of his minor pieces, but makes the same "mistake" that White often does in the Jerome Gambit - early development of his Queen.

The position, with Black's great lead in development, shows how White can see the tables turn and subject the attacker to an attack.

Before this game, The Database had 10 games with this line - all wins for Black.

(A well-timed ...Qh4 is one reason that I prefer the 6.Qh5+ variations over the 6.d4 variations; but Bill is not troubled by such things!)

8.O-O Ng4 9.h3 Be7 

Black prefers to save his Bishop, instead of withdrawing his Knight with 9...N4f6. 

10.hxg4 d6 11.Qb3+ Ke8 12.f3 Nf6 

White's pawn wall defense seems to scream for 12...h5!? by Black. 

13.Be3 b6 

Planning to put his Bishop on b7 to further pressure White's pawn chain and Kingside is reasonable, but slow. The move also creates deadly weaknesses on the light squares for Black, as his opponent quickly shows.

14.e5 dxe5 15.dxe5

15...Nxg4 

Black insists that he still has an attack, and is willing to give back his extra piece to prove it. Stockfish 8 is not convinced, however, and recommends, instead, 15...h5 16.g5 Nh7 17.g6 Ng5 18.Qd5 when 18...Nh3+ 19.gxh3 Qg3+ 20.Kh1 Qxh3+ 21.Kg1 Qg3+ 22.Kh1 Qh3+ etc. would lead to a draw by repetition. 

16.fxg4 Qxg4 

Compounding his error. Better was 16...Bb7, but White would still be better. Now White's counter-counter-attack wins.

17.Qf7+ Kd7 18.Qd5+ Ke8 19.Qc6+ Bd7 20.Qxa8+ Bd8 21.Nd2 Black resigned

Black is down a Rook with almost nothing to show for it.

Tournament Update

Things are happening in the "Italian Battleground" tournament at Chess.com.

With 8.5/10, it looks like I will top Group 2 and move on to the next round - with JohnDuh2 (6.5) and Abhishek29 (5.5). With the Jerome Gambit I scored 2.5/3.

Likewise, xtfabio (8.5) is set to win Group 4, and advance with two of the following three: vasbur, XristosGikas, and nand_1996, who are still battling.

In Group 1 there are still plenty games to complete, but  FM_Andy_Markk, Marek_Sturmvogel and warwar are likely to make it to round two.

Group 3 is too hard to call at this point. There are too many important games left to complete. One player - the second-highest rated on in the group - has completed only 1 of his 10 games, to date, but could still walk away with the whole thing. All six players still have chances to be among the three who advance to the next round!

Jerome Gambit Unreality: More of the Same

Continuing the thread of the last few posts, it is no surprise that I have also been unable to find support for the suppossed Jerome Gambit game "Halpern, Jacob - von Scheve, Theodor, London, 1880".

I could find no game reference for Halpern earlier than 1883, and only four games by von Scheve earlier than that year - all games against Siegbert Tarrasch.

As interesting - if, in some ways, unfortunate - as it would have been for Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1884 to have been anticipated, it remains an exciting and original "first".

Jerome Gambit: Unreality is Real

Responding quickly to my question concerning the suspect Jerome Gambit game Amateur - Neumann, London, 1880 - almost identical to Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1884 - (see "Jerome Gambit History: Real?") - publisher McFarland and Company forwarded my query to Hans Renette, one of the authors of the forthcoming title, Neumann, Hirschfeld and Suhle19th Century Berlin Chess Biographies with 711 Games.

Mr. Renette was equally skeptical 

 ...I am pretty sure this game was not one played by Neumann (it is not in the book) and, very likely, is a variation of the Blackburne game. Neumann played his last known game in 1872 and afterwards fell into a mental oblivion - he spent the last years of his life in a mental clinic in East Prussia. 

Accidently, this reminds me quite a lot of a game Bird - Pfander, which is at chessgames.com, allegedly played in 1903 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1028251) - when Bird was out of public sight. This is game 512 in my book on Bird, and was played in 1879.

For Readers, here is the game, a King's Gambit Accepted, Allgaier Gambit:   

Henry Edward Bird - Pfander
England, 1879

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ng5 h5 6.Bc4 Nh6 7.d4 f6 8.Bxf4 fxg5 9.hxg5 Nf7 10.g6 Ng5 11.Qd2 Nxe4 12.Bf7+ Ke7 13.Bg5+ Nxg5 14.Qxg5+ Kd6 15.Qc5 checkmate

My thanks to Mr. Renette - author, as well, of H.E. Bird: A Chess Biography with 1,198 Games and the forthcoming Louis Paulsen: A Chess Biography With 668 Games - and the good people at McFarland and Company.

Jerome Gambit: More Unreality?

My early years of research into the Jerome Gambit had spots of sloppiness, which I have since regretted - most often, not recording the source of the games that I discovered.

For example, consider the following game

[Event "England"]
[Site "England"]
[Date "1880.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Halpern, Jacob C"]
[Black "Von Scheve, Theodor"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C50"]
[PlyCount "28"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.O-O Nf6 10.c3 Ng4 11.h3 Bxf2+ 12.Kh1 Bf5 13.Qxa8 Qxh3+ 14.gxh3 Bxe4# 0-1

It should leap out at you that this is the same as Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1884.

Supposedly played 4 years before the "original".

Is this another bogus game created by database publishers, or the product of a "junk base", or even a chess "joke" that caught on?

Alas, I will have to research my research to know...

Jerome Gambit History: Real?

I recently emailed a contact at McFarland and Co., publishers of some very fine chess books

I have a question: Is there a way for me to contact the authors of the forthcoming  Neumann, Hirschfeld and Suhle19th Century Berlin Chess Biographies with 711 Games ?  

I understand that it might not be possible directly, and I don't need any of their actual emails. Would it be possible for someone at McFarland to forward an email? 

It is certainly not a matter of great import. I have been investigating the outrageous Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) for almost two decades, and have puzzled over the following game, the source of which, alas, my notes to not reveal: 

[Event "London ENG"][Site "London ENG"][Date "1880.??.??"][Round "99"][White "Amateur"][Black "Neumann, Guestav R.L"][Result "0-1"][ECO "C50"][PlyCount "28"][EventDate "1880.??.??"]1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. Bxf7+ Kxf7 5. Nxe5+ Nxe5 6. Qh5+ g6 7. Qxe5 d6 8. Qxh8 Qh4 9. O-O Nf6 10. b3 Ng4 11. h3 Bxf2+ 12. Kh1 Bf5 13. Qxa8 Qxh3+ 14. gxh3 Bxe4# 0-1 

I suspect the game is specious, for a number of reasons: 

- Except for the move 10.b3, the game, including the Queen sacrifice, is identical to Amateur - Blackburne, London, frequently given as also played in 1880 (the actual date is 1884), and the most infamous of Jerome Gambit games. (Blackburne's opponent had played 10.c3.) 

- Neumann was alive in 1880 (he died the next year) but, according to Wikipedia (not always the best source, I know) "severe mental illness stopped him playing after 1872" 

- Commercial chess database producers have had a habit of salting their collections with occasional bogus games, in order to identify any mass copying of their intellectual property; and this game has an ersatz feel about it 

Still, it would be nice to have a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" from an authority. 

Thank you, very much.

I will let Readers know what responses I receive.