Jerome Gambit: Overlooking Something

One of the scariest defenses to the Jerome Gambit is what I have called a pie-in-the-face variation. After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 comes 6...Qh4!?, first seen, as far as I can tell, in Sorensen - Anonymous, Denmark, 1888 (see "Jerome Gambit Tournament: Chapter X").

By the way, I do not think that Alonzo Wheeler Jerome ever faced 6...Qh4, or covered it in his published analysis.

The following game shows the power of the counter-attack, as well as at least one of its weaknesses. After all, Bill Wall is playing White; and, for the record, he has faced 6...Qh4 34 times, scoring 87%.

Wall, Bill - Guest8885375
PlayChess.com, 2018

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 

This was originally A.W. Jerome's choice, although he later moved on to 6.Qh5+.

6...Qh4 

Here we go. White has sacrificed, but Black attacks.

7.O-O Ng4 8.h3 d6 

Black's light-squared Bishop now hungrily eyes g4 and h3. How sad to see that Komodo 9 (welcome to the analysis team) sees the game as even.

9.dxc5 N8f6 

More development! White isn't the only player who can sacrifice a piece.

10.hxg4 Nxg4 11.Bf4 

White's Bishop arrives in time to protect h2.

The computer now suggests that Black retreat his Knight, and after 11...Nf6 12.Bg3 Qxe4 13.cxd6 cxd6 14.Qxd6 things have settled down, and White has an extra pawn. But why should Black's Knight retreat?

11...Rf8 12.cxd6 Kg8 13.Qd5+ 

Oh, okay, I get it: 11...Nf6 would have prevented this check.

13...Kh8 14.dxc7 Rxf4 

Overlooking White's snappy response.

15.Qd8+ Black resigned

I suspect in his analysis Black saw that the d8 square was covered by his Queen, and so White's check would be harmless, but he missed the fact (in his chess vision?) that White's Queen would be protected by the pawn at c7, waiting for its chance to promote, i.e. 15...Qxd8 16.cxd8/Q+, with mate to follow.

Jerome Gambit: Yet Again, I Would Prefer Not To

The Jerome Gambit brings along with its sacrifices a certain amount of psychology - many defenders are surprised and/or shocked at the brutal and crude attack (What did I overlook in my opening preparation?).

Some defenders choose a defense along similar grounds: if White wants me to take the piece, I won't. I don't this is a strong approach for Black, but it certainly changes White's situation and goals. As we saw in the previous game, suddenly it is Black who is the gambiteer, and White who needs to adjust.

Wall, Bill - Guest5240605
PlayChess.com, 2018

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kf8

So: no Bashi-Bazouk attack. As I wrote, previously

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%.

It is probably fair to add: I have only faced 4...Kf8 once, and I lost.

5.Bd5

White retreats his Bishop. Some day, I should look at games in The Database where White leaves the piece on f7, and pursues the attack as if the sacrifice had been accepted.

5...Qf6

More development, and preventing d2-d4. "How do you like being the defender, Mr. Jerome Gambiteer?" Black hurls.

6.O-O d6 7.c3 Bg4 8.b4 Bb6 9.Na3 Bxf3 10.Qxf3 Qxf3 11.gxf3 Rb8 

A lot has happened. White still retains his 1 pawn advantage, but it is a doubled on on f3. Neither side has an attack - but only one has the advantage, and he knows how to use it.

12.Nc4 Nf6 13.a4 a6 14.b5 Nxd5 15.bxc6 Nf6 

We have seen an interesting skirmish on the Queenside, and I was surprised not to see White go for the Knight-for-Bishop exchange at b6. That is because Bill has a different idea, based on the location of Black's King.

16.Ba3 bxc6

It was a bit better to unpin the d-pawn immediately with 16...Kf7.

17.Nxe5 c5 

Blocking the diagonal of the White Bishop, and thus activating the pawn threat against the White Knight. However, this leads to both strategic (the Bishop is stifled) and tactical issues.

18.Nc6 Ra8 19.a5 

When we talk about annoying "Jerome pawns", we usually overlook the a-pawn. But, for today, a little applause.

19...Ba7 20.e5

Here you go.

20...dxe5 21.Nxa7 Kf7 

A sad necessity, for it 21...Rxa7, then 22.Bxc5+, picking up the Rook on the next move.

Now, White gets to play on with an extra piece, first consolidating his position. 

 22.Nc6 Rhe8 23.Bxc5 Kg8 24.d4 exd4 25.cxd4 Nd5 26.Rfe1 Rec8

 Black does not want to exchange Rooks and move a step closer to a bad endgame, but this move is unfortunate. The Knight fork on e7 is a constant threat.

27.Re5 Rd8 

Retreating the Knight falls to 28.Ne7+.

28.Rxd5 

Same idea.

28...Rxd5 29.Ne7+ Kf7 30.Nxd5 Black resigned

So: even in the Jerome Gambit Declined, there are tactics to beware of!

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]