Jerome Gambit: Underestimated Again

One of the reasons that many of us play the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) is that it is so outrageous, our opponents can't help but underestimate its dangers - and, too often, they quickly tumble into the abyss.

Check out this recent game by Bill Wall.

Wall, Bill - Guest9006209
PlayChess.com, 2019

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Bd6 

Black is up 2 pieces, and generously decides to give one back, pocketing a pawn for himself in the process.

I think Bill is 14 - 0 in games from this position. It's not a guaranteed win for White, but Black is going to have to do some serious analysis to survive.

7.dxe5 Bxe5 

And, there you have it, figures Black. He would have done better to put the Bishop on e7.

8.Qd5+ 

Also, 8.Qh5+ works, and Bill has a couple of wins to show it.

8...Kf6 

Hang onto the Bishop. Bring the Knight to e7 to chase away the Queen. I got this...

9.f4 Bxf4 

All right, take the Bishop. I'm still even in material.

10.Bxf4 d6 11.Bg5+ Black resigned

Yikes.

Jerome Gambit: If You Stop and Think About It

If you stop and think about it, the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) is a pretty weak opening.

But - what if you didn't have time to stop and think about it?

Or, even better, what if your opponent didn't have time?

Well, then, you might find yourself playing the Jerome in a bullet game, 1 minute / no increment time control.

And, if you were "Cliff Hardy", playing online, you might find yourself defeating an IM.

Just saying.

[Notes by Cliff; diagrams and occasional comments by me - Rick] 

This was a bullet game (1 minute each, no increment) I played against IM Nichita Morozov from Moldova on Lichess. He held a strong position for quite a while but my Jerome pawns maintained great potential and eventually Nichita's desire to eliminate them proved to be a little too strong to resist, leading to his downfall.

Cliff Hardy (2205) - IM Nichita Morozov (2456), Lichess, 2019

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6?! -+

The same inferior defence that IM Rosen played against me long ago - 6...Kf8 -++ or 6...Ke6!? -++ were better choices.

7.Qd5+ 

I had a recent ten minute each game on Lichess where my opponent, rated in the 1700's, resigned at this point as black, for whatever reason!

7...Kf8 8.Qxc5+ Qe7 

 It helps that Cliff has already seen this position, in Hardy - Sevostianov, 1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2018 (0-1, 56) and Hardy - NN, 1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2018 (1-0, 20 ) - Rick

9.Qe3 Nf6 10.Nc3 d5!

This liberating move is Stockfish's top choice (though only after it has a long think!) I'm not sure what the stats are on how often this excellent sacrifice is found by players in this position, but I would imagine the overwhelming majority would play the much simpler 10...d6 here.

(The Database has 12 games with the position after White's 10th move; 3 of them, including this one, continue with 10...d5. Three games continue with 10...d6; five continue with 10...c6; one continues with 10...Kf7. - Rick)

11.exd5 Qxe3+?

Here Stockfish likes the deep 11...Kf7!, with the idea of eventually getting the pawn back on d5 e.g. 12.0-0 Rd8 13.Qf3 (or 13.Qd4 c6) 13...Qe5 -+, when White's doomed d5-pawn is surrounded.

12.dxe3?

After 12.fxe3! Bf5 13.d3 +=, White could then have defended his pawn on d5 with the push e3-e4, if found to be necessary.

12...Bf5 

13.Bd2

White couldn't have defended his c-pawn as 13.Kd1? Rd8 would have been too dangerous.

13...Rd8 14.f3 Bxc2 15.Rc1 Bd3 16.e4 Kf7

17.Bg5? -+

17.Na4 =+, threatening Rxc7 or Nc5, would have reduced black's advantage to a minimum.

17...Rhe8 18.Kf2 c6 19.dxc6 bxc6 20.Rhe1 Rd7?!

20...Ne5 -+ would have been better.

21.g4? 

21.Na4, threatening Nc5 again, would have equalised.

21...Rb8? 

21...h6 -++

22.b3?

22.e5!, threatening exf6 or the fork e6+, would have led to a slight advantage for White. Over the next few moves, both players kept missing that this e-pawn push was advantageous for White.

22...c5? 23.h4? 

23.e5! +-

23...c4? 24. bxc4? 

24.e5! =

24...Rb2+?

Simply recapturing with 24...Bxc4 would have been good, since if 24...Bxc4 25.e5 =+, Black's bishop would have prevented White from safely playing the fork e5-e6+.

25.Kg3 Ne5 26.Bxf6? -+

Retaining the bishop with 26.Bf4 += would have been much better, when the passed e-pawn would have created good chances for White.

26...gxf6 27.f4 Nxc4 28.Nd5 Rxa2 29.g5 Ra3 30.Kg4 

30...fxg5? -++

Fine, but 30...f5! would have been a nice sacrifice, when 30.Kh5 (30. Kxf5? Rxd5! -++) 30...fxe4 -++ would have been overwhelming for Black.

31.hxg5 Bxe4??

Black's patience for restraining the potential energy of White's passed Jerome e-pawn ran out and so he eliminated it, but attacking it instead with 31...Nd6 or 31...Nd2, would have retained Black's winning advantage.

32.Rxe4 ++-

Presumably, when Black played 31...Bxe4??, he missed the fact that 32...Rxd5 would be met by a rook capturing on c4. Despite the fact that material was now equal, White's greater central presence and passed Jerome f-pawn surprisingly yielded a winning advantage.

32...Nd6 33.Re5 Rb7 34.Rc6 Ne8 35.Rce6 Ng7 36.Rf6+ Kg8 37.Ne7+

White's advantage now becomes obvious, since 37...Kh8 would have allowed 38.Rf8 checkmate.

37...Rxe7 38.Rxe7 h5+ 39.Kh4?!

39.gxh6 would have been even better.

39...Ra4 40.Rd7 Rb4 41.g6?!

41.Rd8+ Kh7 42.Rh6 mate would have finished off the win neatly.

41...Rb8 42.Rff7 Rf8??

Blundering into a mate, though Black was clearly lost anyway.

43.Rxg7+ Kh8 44.Rh7+

and Black lost on time, before 44...Kg8 45.Rdg7 mate were to happen.

Bye.

Cliff Hardy

P.S. Too bad there are no known examples of world champions playing the Jerome Gambit, as far as I know. I do have copies of games in my records where Magnus Carlsen has beaten high rated opponents on Lichess with the Fred Opening (1.e4 f5) and the Tranvestite Opening (1..c6, 2...Qa5, 3...f6, 4...Qh5, 5...Kd8 and 6...Qe8) so there is some hope that one day he will play the Jerome Gambit against high class opposition.

Jerome Gambit: Worst vs Best (Part 4)

So far: no confirmation of a Steinitz loss to the Jerome Gambit; very likely a win by Lasker against the Jerome, but the game is unfindable - and, what about Alekhine facing the Jerome Gambit?

I turned to my trusty Big Database, did a position search with a White pawn on e4, a Black King on e8, and a White Bishop on f7. This turned up a number of games, only one of which comes near to what we are looking for.

Alekhine, Alexander
NN2 - Alekhine, Alezander, Kislovodsk, 1907

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Ng5 Ne5 6.Bxf7+ Nxf7 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxc5 d6 10.Qxd4 Nf6 11.Nc3 h6 12.Nb5 Nxe4 13.Bxh6 Rxh6 14.Qxe4 Qg5 15.Qc4+ Be6 16.Qxc7+ Kg8 17.Qxd6 Bc4 18.Nc7 Rd8 19.Ne6 Qa5+ 20.b4 Rxd6 21.bxa5 Rxe6+ White resigned

Alas, this is an example of  the Sarratt Attack or the Vitzthum Attack, which has a lot of action going on at f7, and whichI have looked into in this blog as a possible precursor or inspriation to the Jerome Gambit.

Of course, The Database does have a couple dozen Jerome Gambit games by "AAlekhine", but those are from 2007 and 2008, by an online player playing in Jerome Gambit thematic tournaments at ChessWorld.net. 

Jerome Gambit: Worst vs Best (Part 3)

As mentioned in the previous post, the line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ (5.0-0 would be the Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit) had been called the Noa Gambit or the Monck Gambit - before picking up the moniker the Open Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

It is easy to find two games defended by Emanuel Lasker, in this line, from a mondern games database but neither appear to be the game referred to by the Pittsburgh Press on October 18, 1906. 

NN - Lasker, Emanuel
consultation game, London, 1900
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe4 d5 7.Ng3 e4 8.Ng1 Bc5 9.N1e2 Qf6 10.O-O h5 11.Nc3 h4 12.Nxd5 Qe5 13.Nxe4 Qxe4 14.Nxc7 Nd4 15.d3 Qc6 16.Be3 h3 17.f3 hxg2 18.Rf2 Qxc7 19.Rxg2 Nxc2 0-1

Lenzer - Lasker, Emanuel
simultaneous exhibition, Germany, 1913
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe4 d5 7.Neg5+ Kg8 8.d3 h6 9.Nh3 g5 10.Nd2 Rh7 11.f3 Bxh3 12.gxh3 Rf7 13.Nb3 Qf6 14.Rf1 Re8 15.Qe2 Re6 16.Bd2 Nd4 17.Qd1 Nxf3+ 0-1

Recent correspondence with chess historian John Hilbert confirms the outlines of the Pittsburgh Press story - the simultaneous exhibition, the location, the city, the date, Lasker's opponent - but, alas, not the game, itself. To that, Richard Forster, who co-edited Emanuel Lasker Volume 1: Struggle and Victories: World Chess Champion for 27 Years (which, by the way, included Hilbert's chapter, "Lasker: The American Views"), unfortunately can add nothing.

It is the old story: defeat the master, and submit your game for publication; fall to the master, and keep your gamescore to yourself.

Jerome Gambit: Worse vs Best (Part 2)

While I tend to refer to 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ as the Jerome Gambit, the name has been attached to other move orders, especially in earlier years. The issue often comes down to which aspect of the opening, the Bishop sacrifice at f7, or the Queen advance to h5 (after 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+), the annotator is looking at.

For example, Joseph Henry Blackburne, in his Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess (1899) refers to the Jerome Gambit a "the Kentucky Opening". He was clearly focused on the Queen move, as my posts on "The Kentucky Opening" Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and "The Kentucky/Danvers Opening" [1.e4 e5 2.Qh5] argue.

On the other hand, some writer focus upon the Bishop sacrifice. Gerald Abrahams is, perhaps, the most extreme example, coming out of the Bishop's Opening rather than the Giuoco Piano, labeling 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Bxf7+ as The Jerome Gambit, despite no analysis or games by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome focusing on that line. See "The Abrahams Jerome Gambit" Part 1 & 2.

(For that matter, Alessandro Salvio wrote, in the early 1600s, about 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Qe2 Nc6/Nf6 4.Bxf7+, although White's Queen would subsequently go to c4, with check, instead of h5, to pick up the Bishop at c5.)

Similar is the Lewis Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.d4 exd4 4.Bxf7+, and the similar Von der Lasa Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4, 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+. Both, with their focus on the Bishop sacrifice, seem to have escaped the Jerome Gambit label, however, at least as I can tell.

Further extended are lines like 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4 exd4 5.Bxf7+, arising from either the Scotch Opening or the Giuoco Piano. The earliest game that I have with it is Wright - Hunn, Arkansas, US, 1874, which in the Dubuque Chess Journal of November, 1874, was referred to as "an unsound variation of Jerome's double opening." It has also been referred to, later on, as "the Macbeth Attack". (Of course, the first 4 moves have been recently covered in The Italian Gambit and A Guiding Repertoire For White - E4! by Acers and Laven.)

Finally, we come to 1.e4 e5. 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+, which has been referred to, variously, as the Noa Gambit, the Monck Gambit - and, more recently, as the Open Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit. A closer look will probably muddy thing further.

[to be continued]

Jerome Gambit: Worse vs Best (Part 1)

As a serious fan of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) I like to think about what would happen if the best chess players ever faced the opening - or, even more improbably, if the "best" ever played against the "worst".

Of course, I am realistic about the objective value of the Jerome Gambit, and am comfortable referring to it as "the worst." I have even written a cautionary 2-part article about the opening for Chess Life for Kids, about a decade ago (see " 'The Worst Chess Opening Ever'  - Warning or Menace??").

One of my first blog posts on this site was an introduction to the bashing that the British powerhouse Joseph Henry Blackburne gave the Jerome Gambit (see "Nobody expects the Jerome Gambit!") - even if we eventually had to show that the Blackburne Defense probably leads to a draw...

Over the years, there have been various "sightings".

There was the gathering in "No Way A GM Plays the Jerome Gambit" Parts 1, 2, & 3" which has a reference to "A GM plays the Jerome Gambit??" 

I went chasing after a game supposedly played by Alekhine ("The Jerome Gambit is Going to Drive Me..." Parts 1 & 2) only to lead to disappointment (see "Much Ado About... Nothing").

Then there was the columnist, writing in 1914, that suggested that Steinitz had lost to the Jerome Gambit the first time he had faced it. No game example was given, however, nor any specifics, like location and year played. You can read about it in an aptly titled post "Jerome Gambit: Balderdash".

Likewise, there is a 1906 newspaper chess column talking about Emanuel Lasker defeating a Jerome Gambit in a simultaneous exhibition - and, while no game is given, the name of the player (and others who challenged Lasker), the location, and the date can be assessed, making the claim a bit more authentic.

I have done a bit more researching lately. I have also been reflecting on the question: What is the Jerome Gambit? The answer to the latter may help inform the former.

[to be continued]