Jerome Gambit: Yet, Ever Onward

The third round of Chess.com's "Italian game Classic" tournament has started, and I find myself in Group 1 - which consists of me, LttlePrince, pitman63, Sp1derR1c0 and Winawer99. (I am the next-to-lowest rated.)

With two Whites to start off with, I faced a couple of Two Knights Defenses, and was able to wrangle one of them into an Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

The other game could have evolved into a Noa Gambit, but I haven't recovered the suffering I experienced at the hands of  RemoveKubab1, last year. (That is quite funny, given that Komodo 10 rates Black 3 3/4 pawns ahead in the Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit; while it assesses Black to be only 1 1/2 pawns ahead in the Noa Gambit.)  I keep thinking that I should try the Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit, but will probably return to using a couple of ideas from Yury V. Bukayev.

Jerome Gambit: The Choice of Chess Hooligans!

Searching the internet the other day, I ran across a couple of videos (Russian language, I believe), each covering an online Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) game, with commentary by the player of the White pieces - in this case, Chess-For-All, at lichess.org.

One was aptly titled "Jerome Gambit - A Killer Weapon in the Italian Game!" and the other was referenced as "Jerome Gambit - the choice of chess hooligans!"

Chess-For-All has appeared in these posts, before - see "Jerome Gambit: A Day in the Life".

A check at lichess.org showed me that Chess-For-All is the handle of Alexey Pugach, of Dnepr, Ukraine (FIDE rating 2166). Pugach has his own collection of educational chess videos on YouTube, by the way.

That name might sound familiar to Readers, and a quick look back at the post "Jerome Gambit: More GMs? (Part 1)" would show that he had previously played under the handle ChessCoachUA.

A check of Chess-For-All's games at lichess.org turned up 25 Jerome Gambits, most played at a 3 0 blitz, or 1 0 bullet, time control, scoring an impressive 78%.

I have added Chess-For-All's Jerome Gambits to The Database.

Here is one of the YouTube games. 

Jerome Gambit: Horrible Innovation

One of my favorite chess writers is GM Andy Soltis. With over 100 books to his name, and almost 50 years as a chess columnist for the New York Post, he continues to write the longest-running column in the United States Chess Federation's magazine, Chess Life. "Chess to Enjoy" reflects Soltis' ongoing appreciation of both the weird and the wonderful in the Royal Game.

So, it is not surprising to run across "GM Follies", his August, 1997 Chess Life column. After acknowledging that Chess Informant had 57 symbols used in its annotations, he noted

Among them is "N" for "Novelty" - formerly known as "TN" for "Theoretical Novelty" - to designate some new and wonderful addition to opening theory.

However, GM Soltis has a caution, and a suggestion

Of course, not every good move is new - and not every new move is good. In fact, the last few years have seen a remarkable plague of HIs - Horrible Innovations...

After giving a couple of modern HIs, by a National Master and by a Grandmaster, he added

Those innovations are not likely to be repeated. But some really bad, yet not immediately refutable, novelties were tried more than once - and became famous enough to be recognized with their own name...

Why was I not surprised to read

THE JEROME GAMBIT 

1. P-K4 P-K4 2. N-KB3 N-QB3 3. B-B4 B-B4 4. BxPch?? KxB 5. NxPch NxN 6. P-Q4 which gets it[sic] name because someone named Alonzo Wheeler Jerome, of Paxton, Illinois, recommended it in the American Chess Journal in 1876. Its only discernable value is showing how to sack two pieces as quickly as possible.

The reference to the American Chess Journal of 1876 is worth noting. As we have seen in earlier posts, Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's first recommendation of his gambit came in the Dubuque Chess Journal, April 1874, Vol. VI, No. 50, p. 358-9.

In pointing out that earlier recommendation by AWJ, I mean no disrespect to GM Soltis; he appears to have relied on The Oxford Companion to Chess (1984, 1992) by Kenneth Whyld and David Hooper as his source - and there were several Jerome Gambit references in the 1876 American Chess Journal. (Add to that a curious series of naming and re-naming of chess magazines  reference...)

Jerome Gambit: Finish Quickly

There are so many ways for those who defend against the Jerome Gambit to wander off of the main lines. In the following game, the attacker strikes quickly, before his opponent has any more ideas.

Wall, Bill - Guest2021162
PlayChess.com, 2020

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5. Nxe5+ Ke7 

Ah, yes. As I noted in the game ZahariSokolov - mmamaju
standard, FICS, 2015 (0-1, 44) - See"Jerome Gambit: Chaos Rules")

Here we have the "Jerome Gambit, Paulsen Variation", otherwise known as "An Odd Line in an Odd Line". It is more of a psychological ploy than a solid defense...

It is a rare line - there are only 13 examples in The Database, with White scoring 77 percent - but it is worth knowing the best response, if only, like in the current game, you want to finish quickly.

6.Qh5

Brute threat.

6...Nf6

Okay, it turns out that Black is not messing with his opponent's head, he's lost in an opening that he was not prepared for.

Komodo 10 suggests that the defender's only hope is 6...Bxf2+ 7.Kxf2 Qf8+ when White can settle for a somewhat boring pawn-up Queenless middlegame: 8.Kg1 Nd4 9.Nf3 Nxf3+ (if 9...Nxc2, then 10.Qc5+ will win the Knight) 10.Qxf3 Qxf3 11.gxf3 Nf6.

On the other hand, perhaps a Jerome Gambiteer, seeking a wild attacking game, would be upset by a boring, pawn-up Queenless middlegame? Perhaps, with the right opponent, at the right time, Black might do well to try...

7.Qf7+ Kd6 8.Nc4 checkmate

Jerome Gambit: Return to the Literary Digest

In mid-1900, Alonzo Wheeler Jerome convinced the chess columnist for the Literary Digest to start a Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) consultation game involving the magazine's readers. The tale of this match was told on this blog in "A Jerome Discovery (Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5)".

I found myself returning to the last of Jerome's suggestions, which I had reported without comment.

The game had proceeded this far -

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5 Nxe5 6.d4 Qh4 7.0-0 Ng4 8.h3 Bd6 

This position was seen as far back as Sorensen - NN, Denmark, 1888 (1-0, 27).

9.f4 h5

At this point, the Literary Digest continued (descriptive notation changed to algebraic)

Mr. Jerome suggests White's 9th move instead of e5, and writes: "This looks like a sure move for White." Black has, in reply, two moves: ...Nh6, saving the piece, or ...h5. We prefer the latter, as it is evident that Black [sic: it should read White] can not play hxg4.

I have to admit that Jerome was not at his sharpest in "improving" upon Sorensen's play. (According to The Database, 9.f4 is a novelty.)

For starters, the chess columnist at the Literary Digest was correct, that 10.hxg4 was unplayable, as, after 10...hxg4, Black would be threatening 11...g3 with checkmating threats that would cost White his Queen, unless he played the best (but still inadequate) 11.Re1 - the immediate 11...g3 would be strong, while developing moves such as 11...Nf6 or 11...b6 (preparing ...Ba6, covering the escape square f1) would be even stronger.

White would have to answer 9...h5 with 10.Qd3 (keeping the enemy Queen out of g3) when some caution by Black, such as 10...Bf8 or 10...N4h6 should allow him to eventually take advantage of his two-pieces-for-two-pawns material imbalance.

Of course, Black's alternative line of play, 9...N4h6, also allows him to hang onto material, and as long as he avoids opening lines for White's Rook, his advantage should tell.

Kicking the enemy Bishop with 9.e5, as in the Sorensen game, seems best for White, although Black should retreat his Bishop with 9...Be7 (a novelty, according to The Database) - not return it for pawns, as Sorensen's opponent did, with 9...Bxe5. White can then grab the Knight with 10.hxg4, and side-step the thematic 10...h5 with 11.g5, but his game will still be worse after 11...Qg4 (not 11...Bxg5, because of 12.g3!?, which will cost Black the Bishop.

Jerome Gambit: Eminently Unsound

Recently, a little bit of online research took me to the pages of The Daily Colonist, of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, and, in particular, the issue of  December 31, 1906 (page 19).

Chess Column 
To Correspondents: 
F. G. C. (Nanoose) ...We do not recognize the opening outlined by you, although a similar early sacrifice occurs in the Jerome Gambit, as follows: 1. P-K4 P-K4 2. Kt-KB Kt-QB3 3. B-B4 B-B4 4. BxP ch KxB 5.K[sic]xP ch Kt x Kt 6.Q-R5 ch, etc. It is of course eminently unsound, a criticism which we should also be inclined to address to your suggestion.

Of course, if you know anything at all about the Jerome Gambit, you probably have heard all sorts of comments and evaluations. Contrast Raymond Keene’s assessment in The Complete Book of Gambits (1992) -“This is totally unsound and should never be tried!” - with that of the creator of the opening, Alonzo Wheeler Jerome, who considered it

...only a pleasant variation of the Giuoco Piano, which may win or lose according to the skill of the players, but which is capable of affording many new positions and opportunities for heavy blows unexpectedly.

A few years later, Jerome was quoted in the Pittsburgh Telegraph, which noted

Mr. A. W. Jerome calls attention to the fact that he does not claim the Jerome Gambit to be analytically sound, but only that over the board it is sound enough to afford a vast amount of amusement. 

Still, the opinions started early, and flowed easily. William Hallock, of the American Chess Journal, in 1877, referred to “Jerome’s Absurdity” - but, later, he referenced the Gambit as "the daring and brilliant debut".

Lieutenant Soren Anton Sorensen, whose article in the May 1877 issue of the Danish chess magazine Nordisk Skaktidende was the first serious, in-depth look at the Jerome Gambit - one which was translated into several different languages and informed chess players around the world - was still light-hearted in his assessment

...with a Bashi-Bazouk attack, over which the learned Italians would have crossed themselves had they known it came under the idea of piano, but which is in reality of very recent date - 1874, and takes it origin from an American, A.W. Jerome. It consists in the sacrifice of a piece by 4.Bxf7+. Naturally we immediately remark that it is unsound, and that Black must obtain the advantage; but the attack is pretty sharp, and Black must take exact care, if he does not wish to go quickly to the dogs.

In 1879, the chess columnist for the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, in its chess column, struck the right tone in its review of G. H. D. Gossip’s Theory of the Chess Openings, noting gleefully

...the Jerome Gambit, which high-toned players sometimes affect to despise because it is radically unsound, finds a place, and to this it is certainly entitled. 

The February 2, 1881 Pittsburgh Telegraph column noted that the gambit

…although unsound, as shown by Mr. Charles' analysis in this column, yet [it] leads to some interesting and critical positions. 

Likewise the chess column  in the New Orleans Times-Democrat, for October 19, 1884, referred to the Jerome as "brilliant but unsound".

Skepticism rightly persisted. E. Freeborough and C. E. Rankin's Chess Openings Ancient and Modern (1889), proceeded

The Jerome Gambit is an American invention, and a very risky attack. It is described in the American Supplement to Cook's Synopsis as unsound but not to be trifled with. The first player sacrifices two pieces for two Pawns, and the chances arising from the adversary's King being displaced and drawn into the centre of the board. "The defense requires study, and is sometimes difficult." It may be added that it is equally difficult for the first player to maintain the attack. 

I could go on,  but I will leave the final word to a World Champion, who, in the March 1906 issue of  his Lasker’s Chess Magazine, responded to an inquiry

No; the Jerome gambit is not named after St. Jerome. His penances, if he did any, were in atonement of rather minor transgressions compared with the gambit.

Jerome Gambit: Risk Upon risk

If it is risky to play the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+), it is even more so to play it at the time control of one minute, no increment. And, to do so - blindfold?

If risky, also exciting, as the latest game from private eye Cliff Hardy shows us. He even shares one of his "secret weapons" in bullet play. Enjoy! [I have added diagrams, but the commentary is by Cliff. - Rick]

Hi Rick!

OK, I'm sorry to inflict this on you again but I like to try playing the Jerome Gambit under different conditions and against different opponents and have included a blindfold bullet Jerome Gambit game I played. Naturally, my opponent would not have played the game blindfolded (well, actually, I guess you never know, but there aren't many of us who are crazy enough to do it, so I rather doubt it 😉). 

Cliff Hardy - NN
1 0 bullet, Lichess, 2020

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 

7.Qd5+ Kf8 8.Qxc5+ d6 9.Qe3 Qf6 

10.0-0 N8e7?! =+

Stockfish gives best as 10...Nf4! 11.d3 g5, grabbing space, with a clear advantage for Black, but I admit that it doesn't seem quite so clear an advantage to me.

11.Nc3?! -++

And better here would have been 11.d3!, to stop the ...Nf4! move from being playable again.

11...c6? +=

11...Nf4!

12.d4 Kf7 13.f4 Rf8 14.f5 Nh4?! +-

14...Kg8! += would have left the knight on g6 immune from capture, due to mate on f1.

15.Qd3 

I missed that I could have trapped the knight here with 15.g3?, though Stockfish says that after that, Black could then have given back the piece advantageously with 15...Nhxf5! 16.exf5 Nxf5, upon which he then would have had a slight edge.

15...Kg8 16.g3? -+

Surprisingly a mistake, for reasons along the line of those given on the previous move. Better would have been to have grabbed space with 16.g4! +-.

16...Nhxf5! 17.exf5 Nxf5? =

17...Bxf5! -++ would have been a more forcing and better way to capture here, as it would have attacked the queen and forced White to have wasted a tempo to save it.

18.Ne4 Qg6?! =

18...Qxd4+! 19.Qxd4 Nxd4 20.Rxf8+ Kxf8 21.Nxd6 Nxc2 -++ was a bit too hard to see under the conditions of a bullet game.

19.Be3 d5 20.Nf2? 

20.Ng5 =+ would have been less defensive.

20...h5?! =+

20...Nxe3 21.Qxe3 Qxc2 -++ would have won a pawn.

21.Rae1 h4 22.Bf4 hxg3 23.Bxg3 

23...Nxg3?? 24.hxg3??

Oops? OK, taking the free queen with 24.Qxg6 would have been rather better. Hopefully if I'd been playing sighted I might have seen that! But hey, at least missing it made it more of an even game! 😉

24...Qxd3? = 

24...Bf5! 25.Qc3 Bxc2 -++ would have won another pawn.

25. cxd3?! =+ 

25.Nxd3 = would have kept a better pawn structure.

25...Bh3?? ++- 

Another oops!

26.Nxh3 Rxf1+ 27.Rxf1 Rf8 28.Rf2 Rxf2 29.Kxf2 Kf7 

30.Ke2 g6 31.Kd2 Kf6 32.Kc1 

I admit that my blindfold bullet games often deteriorate into this sort of thing. I'd forgotten where the pieces were and was just shuffling my king back and forth, aiming for the win on time! Sorry, but that's the advantage of having no shame!

32...Kf5 33.Kd1 Kg4 34.Kd2?? Kxh3 -++

Black's position was now totally winning as his g-pawn was unstoppable, though he now had less than 0.1 of a second left on his clock.

35.Ke1 Kxg3 36.Kd2 Kg2 37.Ke2 and White won on time, still with a good 22.1 seconds left on the clock 😉.

Bye,

Me