perrypawnpusher - warwar
"Italian Battleground" , Chess.com, 2018
17...Nxe4 18.f6
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.
[to be continued]
?????
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+
4...Kxf7 5.Qe2
The culprit.
5...d6
Bill has also faced 5...Nf6 6.Qc4+ d5 7.Qxc5 Qd6 (7...dxe4 8.Nxe5+ Nxe5 9.Qxe5 Re8 10.Qb5 Qd4 11.O-O c6 12.Qb3+ Nd5 13.Nc3 Be6 14.Qxb7+ Ne7 15.Re1 Bd5 16.b3 Kg8 17.Bb2 Rf8 18.Qxe7 Qxf2+ 19.Kh1 Rae8 20.Qg5 e3 21.Nxd5 exd2 22.Qxg7 checkmate, Wall,B - Asesino, Chess.com, 2010) 8.Qxd6 cxd6 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.d3 Bg4 11.Ng5+ Kg6 12.Ne4 Rad8 13.f3 Bf5 14.Bd2 Rhe8 15.h4 Bxe4 16.dxe4 Ndb4 17.Kd1 Rc8 18.Nc3 Nd4 19.Rc1 Nbc6 20.h5+ Kf6 21.Be3 Red8 22.Kd2 d5 23.Nxd5+ Ke6 24.h6 g6 25.c3 Nb5 26.c4 Nbd4 27.b4 a6 28.Rhd1 Ne7 29.Bg5 Rd7 30.Nxe7 Rxe7 31.Bxe7 Kxe7 32.Ke3 Rd8 33.c5 Nc6 34.Rxd8 Kxd8 35.Rd1+ Ke7 36.Rd6 Nxb4 37.Rb6 Nxa2 38.Rxb7+ Ke6 39.Rxh7 Nb4 40.Ra7 Kf6 41.h7 Black resigned, Wall,B - Guest933324, PlayChess.com, 2018.
6.O-O Nd4 7.Nxd4 Bxd4 8.d3 Nf6 9.h3 Rf8 10.Nd2 Kg8
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
16.Ng5 h6 17.Nxe6 Qxe6 18.Bd2 Rf7 19.c4 Bd4 20.Rab1 Raf8
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
?????
Like I wrote, last post:
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?"
Here's another example.
Wall, Bill - Uli
PlayChess.com, 2018
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.a4
Golly...
This is clearly an un-gambit-style move, as White makes a pawn move - instead of sacrificing another piece. Logic is twisted in the Jerome Gambit.
Black should be able to survive - if he doesn't lose his way. Famous last words in the Jerome Gambit.
5...Bd6
Bill has also faced:
5...Nf6 6.O-O Rf8 7.Nxe5+ Nxe5 8.d4 Ng6 9.dxc5 d6 10.cxd6 Qxd6 11.Qxd6 cxd6 12.Nc3 Be6 13.f4 Bc4 14.Rd1 Nxf4 15.Bxf4 Kg8 16.Bxd6 Rf7 17.e5 Ng4 18.b3 Be6 19.Nb5 Rc8 20.Rd2 Ne3 21.c4 a6 22.Nd4 Black resigned, Wall,B - Guest3303570, PlayChess.com 2018; and
5...h6 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.d4 Bxd4 8.Qxd4 d6 9.Nc3 Nf6 10.f3 Re8 11.Bf4 Nc6 12.Qd2 d5 13.O-O-O dxe4 14.Qf2 Qe7 15.Rhe1 Qb4 16.Bxc7 Kg8 17.h3 Na5 18.Bd6 Qc4 19.fxe4 Be6 20.Kb1 Rad8 21.Qxa7 Ra8 22.Qb6 Ra6 23.Qb4 Qxb4 24.Bxb4 Nc6 25.Bd6 Rd8 26.b3 Na5 27.e5 Ne8 28.Bc5 Rxd1+ 29.Rxd1 Nc6 30.Bd6 Nxd6 31.exd6 Nb4 32.d7 Bxd7 33.Rxd7 Rb6 34.a5 Ra6 35.Rxb7 Black resigned, Wall,B - Guest2021465, PlayChess.com, 2018.
6.Nc3 Nf6 7.O-O Re8
8.Qe2 Kf8 9.Qc4 Nd4 10.Nxd4 exd4 11.Qxd4 Be5 12.Qb4+ Qe7 13.Qc4 Bxc3 14.bxc3
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
Bill has also faced:
5...Bxf2+ 6.Kxf2 Nf6 7.Nc3 d6 8.d3 h6 9.Rf1 g5 10.Kg1 Rf8 11.h4 g4 12.Bxh6 Rh8 13.Bg5 gxf3 14.Qxf3 Bg4 15.Qxg4 Black resigned, Wall,B - Guest468009, PlayChess.com, 2018; and
5...Nf6 6.Nc3 Rf8 7.Qe2 d6 8.Qc4+ Be6 9.Ng5+ Kg8 10.Nxe6 Bxf2+ 11.Kxf2 Nd5+ 12.Nxf8 Qxf8+ 13.Kg1 Black resigned, Wall,B - Stick,K, Chess.com, 2010.
6.O-O Nd4 7.d3 Nf6 8.Ng5+ Ke8 9.c3 Ne6 10.Nf3 h6
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.
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 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.
[to be continued]
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.)
