As I wrote earlier, now "it will be interesting to see which one of us unveils his 'improvement' on the play first."
18...Nxf6!? My opponent takes the pawn, with a move not seen in any of the games in The Database, in effect saying "Show me!". I think the text move leads to an edge for White, despite Black being up a piece, but it is necessary to prove that - and my opponent had a defensive plan in mind. 19.Rf4 Kg7 20.Raf1 Be6 21.Qg3+
21...Ng4 A scientific idea - the proper way to deal with a gambit is to take the material, and then return it at a time when it will intefere with the attack. 22.hxg4 Later, I became curious and asked Stockfish what I should have decided upon, here. It cranked out 22.d5!?. I could see some of that - capturing the pawn with 22...Bxd5 would allow White to swing a Rook over to the g-file, doubling with the Queen, i.e. 23.Rxg4+. It turns out that, then, White would have a mate in 30-something moves, but I would never have figured that out. But, what if Black did what he sometimes does, protect his King while giving White the choice of which piece to grab back - as with 22...Kh8!? ? Stockfish was confident that after 23.dxe6 Ne5 White would still be better (almost 3 pawns better, according to the computer), but even now I can not become excited by the position. All in all, I am happy with having just captured the Knight. 22...Qg5
Black's idea. It falls victim to my initiative, however. 23.Ne4 Qd5 24.Nf6 Qg5
25.Nxe8+ Later, I discovered that this was not Stockfish's choice, either. It liked 25.Re4!?, with White holding the advantage of almost a Queen. I still don't understand that. 25...Rxe8 26.Qc3 Kg8 27.Qxc7
Okay, White is the exchange and a pawn better. A win, right? "Won" games don't win themselves. 27...Qe7 28.Qxe7+ Rxe7 29.Re1 Wrong Rook. I had better with 29.Re4 d5 30.Re5 Re8 31.Rf6!? when, after an exchange of Rooks, Black's pawns are too weak to save from attack. 29...Rf7 30.Rxf7 Kxf7
Black's King and Bishop are more active than they should have been allowed to be.
Here we have another Jerome Gambit game by Bill Wall, where he experiments and stretches the boundaries of the opening even further. What to say of his 5th move? Well, in his notes he gives it a "?" - but that may be because he scored only a draw with it. Still, that is another argument that in the Jerome Gambit, "having said A, one must say B", that is, having played 4.Bxf7+, one must play 5.Nxe5+. On the other hand, so many players still essay the "modern" Jerome Gambit variations... Wall, Bill - Guest709058 PlayChess.com, 2018 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
Black has castled-by-hand and his position looks rock solid. White will have to work hard to get the game back in his favor. 11. c3 Bb6 12. a4 a6 13. b4 Be6 14. a5 Ba7 15.Nf3 Qd7
Black is ready to attack. White defends - but he also distracts. His resources will draw upon the psychological. 21.Be1 g5 22.Kh2 Ne8 23.f3 Ng7 24.Bf2 Bxf2 25.Qxf2 Nh5 26.b5 Nf4 27.Qa7 axb5 28.Qxb7 bxc4 29.dxc4 Qxc4 30.Rg1 c5
White fights on. 31.Qc6 Qe6 32.Rb6 Nxh3
Somewhat impatient (but playable) - why won't White give up?? 33.gxh3 Rxf3 34.Qd5 Qxd5 Exchanging Queens should take the starch out of White's resistance, Black figures. Bill points out that 34...Rxh3 was stronger - but he wasn't under the pressure to "win a won game", as his opponent was; he was simply "losing a lost game", and that is easier (sometimes). 35.exd5
35...R8f6 And, suddenly, weirdly, the game is drawn, as both players realize. It's not just the "all Rook endings are drawn" situation, White's passed a-pawn is a danger, and it will cost too much to sideline it. 36.Ra1 Rf2+ 37.Kg1 R2f3 38.a6 Rg3+ 39.Kh2 Rff3 40.Rb8+ Kg7 41.Rb7+ Kg6 42.a7 Rxh3+ 43.Kg2 drawn
I just received the latest batch of Jerome Gambit games from Bill Wall, and I found myself scratching my head over the moves in some of them, asking myself "Can he do that?"
Black has the typical Jerome Gambit piece for two pawns. It can be argued that it is his game to lose; and, so, he does. It is interesting to see how White helps him along this path. 14...c6 15.Ba3 d6 16.f3 Be6 17.Qe2 Kg8 18.c4 Qd7 19.d3
Steinitz said that the player with the advantage was required to attack, lest the opportunity slip away. Black should try something like 19...d5 now, to open the position. Instead, he works to close it, and then maneuver with his Queen. 19...c5 20.Bb2 Qc6 21.f4 Qb6 22.Bc3 Qc6 23.f5
White fights for the initiative with a typical Jerome Gambit move. 23...Bf7 24.Qd2 a6 Mis-reading the intent of White's last move. 25.Bxf6 gxf6 26.Qh6
White has a winning attack. Black has much less time than he thinks. 26...b5 27.Rf3 Bxc4 28.Rg3+ Kf7 29.Qg7 checkmate
I just received the latest batch of Jerome Gambit games from Bill Wall, and I found myself scratching my head over the moves in some of them, asking myself "Can he do that?" Some of the moves are odd or downright scary. Let's take a look. Wall, Bill - Guest604541 PlayChess.com, 2018 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.h3 Sure. I mean, why not? To play like this, you have to be a bit of a gambler - but you have already decided to play the "Jerome Gamble", so what's a bit more risk? The move can't be any worse than the usual sacrifice of a piece with 5.Nxe5+, right? Oh, Stockfish 9 says that 5.h3 is clearly worse than 5.Nxe5+ ? Well, what do you know about that... (Actually, Bill knows something, as he has played the move before.) 5...d6
So far, so good. As long as Black doesn't get overconfident or careless. (The watchwords of many Jerome Gambits.) 11.d4 exd4 12.cxd4 Bb6 13.Nc3 Ng5 14.Nxg5 hxg5 15.Bxg5 Bxh3
Excellent! Steady as she goes, now... 16.gxh3 Rxh3 This looks good, but it isn't. As Bill points out, ...Qd7 on this move or next was better. 17.Nd5 c6 Black was clearly not expecting a counter-attack to his counter-attack. 18.Bxf6 gxf6 19.Qg4 Qd7 Not now. 20.Qg8 checkmate
Oh, my... According to Alexa, the global rank of this blog is 9,425,472. I suppose that means that at any given moment, 9,425,741 people have something better to do than check in on the Jerome Gambit. Alas, a good many of them do not know what they are missing. For the rest: excitement always lies ahead!
The title of today's post was laid out, previously
Like Pinocchio or the Velveteen Rabbit, the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) longs to become a "real" chess opening, or at least a "normal" one.
Of course, that is a bit of a stretch for something so often refuted.
I mean, I play a game, I publish it on this blog, someone takes that information and uses it in another one of my Jerome Gambits. I publish that game in this blog, someone elses uses that information in another of my Jerome Gambits...
Just like a real opening. perrypawnpusher - warwar "Italian Battleground", Chess.com, 2018 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6
This variation does not have a name, but it could well be titled the Brownson Defense, after O.A. Brownson, who played it in Jerome - Brownson, Iowa, 1875 (1-0, 28), shortly after the Jerome Gambit's debut. The defense was subsequently played by William Carrington in the first game of his second match against the Mexican champion, Andres Clemente Vazquez, in 1876 (1-0, 34). It should be noted that Vazquez played a match against Steinitz in 1888, and one against Blackburne in 1891. The latter match included two Giuoco Piano openings played by Vazquez, and it would have been fascinating - if downright risky for the first player - if one of the strongest players of the Jerome Gambit at that time had used it against the player whose crush of it against "Amateur" a few years earlier had covered the attack in ignomy. Alas, Vazquez opted for 4.0-0 both times. 7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qe3 Nf6
There are 186 games with this position in The Database, with White scoring a surprising 71%. This more likely reflects the comfort, knowledge and experience of the player with the White pieces, rather than an "objective" evaluation of the state of affairs. 10.O-O Kf7 Black will castle-by-hand, bringing his Rook to the e-file. White will urge his "Jerome pawns forward." 11.f4 Re8 12.f5 Ne5 13.d4
13...Neg4 After enticing White's pawns forward, Black takes a swipe at his Queen. 14.Qb3+ Kf8 15.h3 Nh6
16.Bxh6 gxh6 17.Nd2
Here we have a strange looking position, quite possibly even, with White's extra (and healthy) pawns and development balancing Black's extra piece and unsafe King.
Like Pinocchio or the Velveteen Rabbit, the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) longs to become a "real" chess opening, or at least a "normal" one. Of course, that is a bit of a stretch for something so often refuted. Yet, occasionally, I experience a sense of "normality", as I noted a while back in my post "Still More Errors in Thinking 4.0"
I mean, I play a game, I publish it on this blog, someone takes that information and uses it in another one of my Jerome Gambits. I publish that game in this blog, someone else uses that information in another of my Jerome Gambits...
Not long ago, in "Jerome Gambit: Too Fast, Too Furious", I published a recent Jerome Gambit game of mine which featured an interesting 18th move. I had played the move a couple of years earlier, based on analysis of a game Bill Wall played 8 years ago. I found it curious that a third game was chugging along the same old tracks... (all wins for White, mind you) I am currently playing an online game that follows all 3 of the earlier games, 17 moves deep, so far. I suppose that it is possible that my opponent is simply reflecting what I posted on this blog - in which case, it will be interesting to see which one of us unveils his "improvement" on the play first. (Especially since it is my only Jerome Gambit of this round in the tournament, and I am not likely to progress to the next round, for more opportunities.)
