Jerome Gambit: I Would Prefer Not To

The Jerome Gambit, from an "objective" standpoint, has to be considered a wonderful gift to the defending player - the gift of at least one piece, sometimes two. After all, the opening has been refuted many times - what more could Black want?

Yet, sometimes, the gift is not accepted. Consider the following game.

Wall, Bill - Guest9273483
PlayChess.com, 2018

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kf8 

As Herman Melville's character Bartleby, the scrivener, said, "I would prefer not to."

I was surprised to see 312 games with this position in The Database. I was even more surprised to see that White scores only 56%. Still, that is an improvement over the results for the main line 4...Kxf7 - 14,373 games in The Database, where White scores 46%.

At the same time, it is useful to point out Bill Wall's statistics on the matter: for 4...Kxf7, Bill has 509 games, scoring 92%. It only gets better for 4...Kf8, with 6 games and White scoring 100%.

5.Bb3 Nf6

In this position we must imagine that Black is the gambiteer, and that he has given up a pawn for a slight lead in development (a somewhat larger lead, if we consider his King to be developed).

6.Nc3 Nd4 

Instead of the principled 6...d6, planning to develop his light square Bishop, Black decides to be a bit tricky, no doubt planning to answer 7.Nxe5 with 7...Qe7. Bill is not interested, though, and simply safeguards his King.

7.O-O Nxb3 8.axb3 d5 

You have to admire Black's confidence - open lines for his pieces, attack the center. Still, he did not get much for his first "sacrificed" pawn, and he does not get much for this next one, either.

9.exd5 Bg4 10.h3 Bh5 11.g4 Bg6 12.Nxe5 

12...Be8

The alternative, winning back a pawn, was not attractive: 12...Bd4 13.Nxg6 hxg6 14.Kg2 Bxc3 15.dxc3 Qxd5+ 16.Qxd5 Nxd5 White would be up a couple of pawns, have a Bishop for a Knight, and have pawn majorities on both sides.

13.d4 Bb4 14.g5 Nxd5 15.Qf3+ Black resigned

Black's Knight is attacked twice and defended only once; it wil perish.

Tournament Update: Ahead of the Scrum

As J.M. Barrie wrote in Peter Pan, 

All of this has happened before, and it will all happen again.

And, so it is that, once again, somehow - thank you, Jerome Gambit - I find myself at the top of the heap in my section in the second round of the "Italian Battleground" tournament at Chess.com.

With one game not yet completed, it looks like I will be followed in the standings by four players who will each have the same score. It will be up to the tie breaks to decide which two, among warwar, docfb, manospawn, and vasbur, will join me in advancing to the third round. (I won a Jerome Gambit against warwar, the only player in this group to allow the opening. If he is interested in a return match, I supect he is happy to have the edge in the tie breaks at this point.)

In the other section, two games remain to finish, but XristosGikas and 275Jukka have secured their advance, while Abhishek29 and Alfonso10 are likely to be the ones relying on tie breaks to secure an advance for one of them.

If my predictions hold, I am likely to be the 4th highest rated amongst the final 6 - but, then again, I will have my secret weapon.

No Way A GM Plays the Jerome Gambit (Part 3)

[continued from previous post]

Here is another recent game between two 2700+ rated Grandmasters, contesting an opening that had its heyday more than 150 years ago - an opening which may have inspired Alonzo Wheeler Jerome to create the Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+.

Yes, even lacking the element of surprise, Grischuk played the Sarratt Attack, again. Even in blitz, that's saying something.

Grischuk, A. - Dominguez Perez, L.
St. Louis Blitz, St. Louis, 2018

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 

Scotch Gambit.

4...Bc5 5.Ng5 

The Sarratt Attack. As long ago as 1860, in Morphy's Games of Chess, Johann Lowenthal noted

This mode of proceeding with the attack is comparatively obsolete, as, with correct play, the defence to it is perfectly satisfactory.

All is new that has been forgotten.

Perhaps both players recall Lajos Portisch's wisdom, that the goal of the opening is to reach a playable middlegame.

5...Nh6 6.Nxf7 Nxf7 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxc5 d5

10.O-O dxe4 11.c3 Qd6 

Varying from 11...Be6, played by Karjakin.

12.cxd4 Nxd4 13.Qxd6 cxd6 

Grischuk is comfortable with exchanging Queens, as he no doubt is sure to recover a pawn, leaving his opponent with an isolated pawn - and an unsafe King. In fact, he now offers the exchange, expecting proper compensation.

14.Nc3 Bg4 15.Nxe4 Nc2 16.f3 Nxa1 17.fxg4+ Ke6 18.Ng5+ Kd7

19.Rf7+

The computer has a minor grumble with this move, preferring 19.Ne4 Nc2 20.Rd1 Kc7 21.Nxd6. This would remove the central passer, while Grischuk would prefer to improve his Kingside pawn majority.

19... Kc6 20.Nxh7 Rae8 21.Bd2 

Again, Stockfish 9 grumbles, preferring 21.Bg5, but I am not comfortable criticizing super-Grandmasters playing blitz. It comes down to what is adequate compensation for the exchange. White's Knight does seem to wander around a bit.

21...Re2 22.Bc3 Rhe8 23.Nf8 g5 24.Nh7 Nc2 25.Rf2 d5 26.Nxg5 

Mission accomplished: White has a 3 vs 0 pawn advantage on the Kingside. On the other hand, Black's overlooked passer quickly becomes a menace.

26...d4 27.Bd2 d3 28.Nf3 Rxf2 29.Kxf2 Re2+ 30.Kg3 Kd5 

White has 2 pawns for the exchange, but Black's isolani has become a troublesome passer, and his "unprotected" King is rushing into the action. Black certainly looks better - but things continue to be complicated, as the clock ticks. (For example, 30...Ne3!?, forcing 31.Bxe3 Rxe3 32.Kf4 Re2 33.h4 Ke6!? led to crazy play, with Black for choice.)

31.g5 Ke6 32.h4 Kf5 33.h5 Re4 

Black drafts the Rook to help defend against the advancing pawns, but it proves overmatched. Possibly better was returning the exchange with 33...Rxd2 34.Nxd2 Kxg5.

In the meantime, White has some interesting ideas.

34.g6 Nd4 35.Nxd4+ Rxd4 36.Kf3 Rg4 37.g3 b5 38.Bf4 

The Rook is locked up by the Bishop and pawns. White's King is free to munch on Black's pawns. Amazing.

38...a5 39.Ke3 b4 40.Kxd3 a4 41.Kc4 a3 42.bxa3 bxa3 43.Kb3 Black resigns

No Way A GM Plays the Jerome Gambit! (Part 2)

[continued from previous post]

It's true: Sad to say, you are not going to see a Grandmaster play the Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+, in a serious, competitive game, any time soon.

However - what about a couple of 2700 players contesting a line of play that might have inspired Alonzo Wheeler Jerome to create his fantastical gambit?

It is quite reasonable to suspect that American chess players back in the mid- to late-1800s were familiar with the Sarratt Attack, if only because of the games Meek - Morphy, Alabama, 1855 (0-1, 21) and Kennicott - Morphy, New York, 1857 (0-1, 24). They also had access to Staunton's The Chess-Player's Handbook (1847) and Chess Praxis (1860), along with various chess magazines and newspaper chess columns.

But - modern Grandmasters?

Grischuk, A. - Karjakin, Sergey
St. Louis Blitz, St. Louis, 2018

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 

The Scotch Opening.

3...exd4 4.Bc4 

The Scotch Gambit.

4...Bc5 5.Ng5 

The Sarratt Attack. It has received a number of posts on this blog. For coverage, check out "Capt. Evans Faces the Sarratt Attack".

Grischuk plays it against the previous challenger in the world chess championship!

5...Nh6 6.Nxf7 

Of course, 6.Bxf7+ was also possible.

6...Nxf7 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qh5+ 

Look familiar?

8...g6 9.Qxc5 d5 

The proper, "scientific" response, going back to at least Mongredien, Augustus - Williams, Elijah, London Chess Club, 1853 (0-1, 23). The game is about even, but, surely, White has the element of surprise on his side.

10.O-O dxe4 11.c3 Be6 12.Bf4 Qd5 13.cxd4 Qxd4 14.Qc1

Grischuk does not want to exchange Queens. The difference in King safety is probably compensation enough for Karjakin's extra pawn.

14...Bc4 15.Re1 Bd3 16.Nc3 Rhe8 17.Bxc7 Rac8 18.Bg3 Kg8 

19.Qg5 Rf8 20.Rad1 Rf5 21.Qg4 Re8 22.Kh1 Re6 23.f3 Ne5

Quite a complicated position - and at blitz speed, too.

Instead of the text, the computer suggests exchanging pieces with 23...exf3 24.Qxd4 Nxd4 25.Rxd3 Rxe1+ 26.Bxe1 f2 27.Bxf2 Rxf2 28.Kg1 Rf4 and an even game.

Now, White gains a pawn - temporarily.

24.Bxe5 Rfxe5 25.Nxe4 Kg7 26.b3 Qb4 27.h3 Bxe4 28.Rxe4 Rxe4 29.fxe4 Rxe4 

The game is less than 1/2 over, move-wise, but it is effectively "over" - barring a blunder, which 2700s don't do very often, even at blitz.

30.Qg3 Qe7 31.Kh2 Kh6 32.Rd5 a6 33.Qd3 Qc7+ 34.Qg3 Qxg3+ 35.Kxg3 

35...Re2 36.Rd7 b5 37.a4 Re3+ 38.Kf4 Rxb3 39.axb5 Rb4+ 40.Kf3 axb5 41.Rb7 Rb1 42.Kf4 g5+ 43.Kg4 b4 44.Rb6+ Kg7 45.Kxg5 Rc1 46.Rb7+ Kg8 47.Rxb4 

The Rook + 2 pawns vs Rook + 1 pawn, pawns on the same side of the board, is a known draw. Twenty or so more moves, perhaps with a nod to the clock, do not change things.

47...Rc5+ 48.Kf6 Rc6+ 49.Ke5 Rc5+ 50.Kd6 Rc2 51.Rg4+ Kf7 52.Ke5 Rc5+ 53.Kd4 Ra5 54.Ke3 Ra3+ 55.Kf4 Ra5 56.Rg5 Ra3 57.Rg3 Ra5 58.Rf3 Kg6 59.Rb3 Ra4+ 60.Kf3 Rc4 61.g4 Ra4 62.Kg3 h6 63.Kh4 Ra5 64.Rb6+ Kg7 65.Rc6 Rb5 66.Rc3 Ra5 67.Kg3 h5 68.Rc7+ Kg6 69.Rc6+ Kg7 drawn

Wow. That was fun. White uncorked an ancient opening and managed to "lose" only half a point.

Now that the element of surprise has evaporated, Grischuk wouldn't play the Sarratt Attack again, would he??

[to be continued]

No Way A GM Plays the Jerome Gambit! (Part 1)

Readers of this blog have seen a lot of creative and historical coverage of the Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+, and related openings, such as the Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Bxf7+. In addition, there have been explorations of "proto-Jerome Gambits" - earlier lines of play that might have inspired Alonzo Wheeler Jerome to create his opening. 

One such Jerome Gambit "relative" was showcased in "Adolf Albin Plays the Jerome Gambit (Part 1 & 2)", highlighting the game Albin,A - Schlechter,C, Trebitsch Memorial Tournament Vienna, 1914. The game began 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Qe2 Bc5 5.Bxf7+, which easily could have been a transposition from 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Qe2 Nf6, a "modern" (no 5.Nxe5+) Jerome Gambit.

White's 4th move was anticipated at least by James Mason, who, in the August 1895 British Chess Magazine, gave a game “played recently by correspondence between Brandfort and Bloemfontein, South Africa” which went 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Qe2 d6. Mason suggested the move 4…Nf6, because “there would be plenty of time to play the Pawn - perhaps two squares instead of one. For, as the Cape Times remarks, if White adopts the ‘Jerome Gambit’ 5.Bxf7+ Black replies 5…Kxf7 6.Qc4+ d5 7.Qxc5 Nxe4 with advantage.”

The Salvio Gambit (see"The Salvio Gambit??" and "The Salvio Gambit?? [more]"), from analysis from the early 1600s, is related: 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 and now 3.Qe2 Nf6/Nc6 4.Bxf7+.

It is probably timely to reiterate that I refer to 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Bxf7+ as the "Abrahams Jerome Gambit" (see "Abrahams Jerome Gambit" Part 1 & Part 2), not because Alonzo Wheeler Jerome ever played the line, nor Abrahams, as far as I know, but because it was referred to as the Jerome Gambit in The Chess Mind (1951) and The Pan Book of Chess (1965), by Gerald Abrahams.

It is hard to overlook another possible precursor: the game Hamppe - Meitner, Vienna Club, 1872, which begins a little bit like a reversed Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Bc5 3.Na4 Bxf2+ and is covered in "Godfather of the Jerome Gambit? (Part I, Part II, Part III, and Endnote)".

Another opening with themes akin to the Jerome - with an initial Knight sacrifice at f7 - which may have caught Alonzo Jerome's eye - is the Sarratt Attack, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Ng5 usually followed by 5...Nh6 6.Nxf7 Nxf7 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7. Similar (although I occasionally mix them up) is the Vitzthum Attack, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Ng5 Nh6 followed by 6.Qh5. A good review can be found in the post "Capt. Evans Faces the Sarratt Attack".

Then, of course, there was the rumor that culminated in the post, here,"A GM plays the Jerome Gambit??", followed by "Here, have a Bishop..." and "Here, have another...".

That was topped by the rumor that Alexander Alekhine had defended against the Jerome Gambit - see "The Jerome Gambit is Going to Drive Me... (Part 1 & Part 2)"; and then, sadly "Much Ado About... Nothing".


Oh, oh, oh... Can we get back to the time when a modern, 2700+-rated Grandmaster didn't play the Jerome Gambit??

[to be continued]

The Jerome Gambit Continues to Spread Globally

Well, the Jerome Gambit continues to spread globally...

I do not think that this will affect the current Carlsen - Caruana match for the world chess championship, but I think it could mean more fun for the average chess player.

Just ran across the Twitter feed for Urdu Chess (@UrduChess), "Chess News from Pakistan", that, in turn, links to the "Jerome Gambit Trap" at ChessOnly.com, previously mentioned on this blog.

It only stands to reason that if players are going to learn about the Jerome, they should start with the refutation. I'm just saying...

(p.s. I tried to explain the Jerome Gambit and this blog to a non-chess-playing psychologist the other day - quite unsuccessfully, as it turns out.) 

BSJG: Why?

The Blackburne Shilling Gambit - 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4!? - has one really risky response from White - 4.Nxe5?! - but several very acceptable responses for the first player: 4.Nxd4, 4.d3, 4.0-0 and 4.c3. So, why engage with 4.Bxf7!?, the Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit? As we have seen recently, the move can be a surprising, unsettling challenge to Black, who had high hopes to be the one attacking.

The following game, played online at GameKnot.com, and recently retrieved, is a brutal example of White quickly wresting the game from his opponent.


xuam - maiden_coritiba
League division D2
GameKnot.com, 2014

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Bxf7+ 

I have long referred to this as the Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit, with a knowing smile. Although the Bishop sacrifice - often followed by a Queen move - is typical Jerome play, there is actually no evidence that Alonzo Wheeler Jerome actually played it. On the other hand, there is no evidence (beyond assumption) that Joseph Henry Blackburne played "his" Shilling Gambit, as well.

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke6 6.Qh5 

White shows an interest in finishing off Black's King, quickly, even if the thematic move is risky.

It is interesting to note that "book" is 6.c3 Kxe5 7.cxd4+ Ke6 
with a balanced game, although Black's King has to be feeling uncomfortable. Indeed, White has scored 12 - 3 in games in The Database. Stockfish 9 recommends the followup 8.O-O Kf7 9.Qf3+ Qf6 10.Qb3+ Qe6 11.Qf3+ Qf6 with a draw by repetition.

6...Nxc2+ 

It is tempting to go after White's Rook at a1, and this move has been a bit more successful for the second player, who has scored 19 - 17 - 1 in The Database. The "boring" but upright alternative is 6...Nf6!?.

7.Kd1 Nxa1 

Black has the Rook. One indication that he may have been hasty in doing so (a "deep sacrifice" by White, that often occurs in the BSJG) is that The Database shows Black's results dipping a bit, to 12 - 15 - 1.

Another indication is that Stockfish 9 now rates White as being almost a Rook ahead.

(Take a second to ponder the difference between club play, as represented by The Database, and "objective reality", as represented by the computer.)

8.Qf5+ 

Oh, dear. Given that Black's "best" response is now 8...Kd6 9.Nf7+, giving up his Queen, White has been amply rewared for his aggression.  

8...Ke7 

Find the checkmate.

9.Qf7+ Kd6 10.Nc4+ Kc5 11.b4+ 

Or 11.Qd5+ Kb4 12.a3+ Ka4 13.b3+ Nxb3 14.Nc3#

11...Kb5 12.Nc3+ Kxb4 13.Ba3 checkmate