Jerome Gambit games keep pouring in...
Another mystery (see "Jerome Gambit: Ghosts in the Defense") arrived the other day, followed, a few days later, by, yet, another. I want to share the games, and some perspective. I have made the name of the players of the Black pieces anonymous.
Eelco_Niermeijer - NN
10 0 blitz, Chess.com, 2020
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 7.Qd5+
Black resigned
Okay... How about
Eelco_Niermeijer - NN,
10 0 blitz, Chess.com, 2020
1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5
Black resigned
What was going on??
Three things, about the world of the Jerome Gambit.
I wanted to share something from GM Nigel Davies' fantastic book, Gambiteer I.
“Having examined literally thousands of club players’ games over the years, I have noticed several things:
1) The player with the more active pieces tends to win.
2) A pawn or even several pawns is rarely a decisive advantage.
3) Nobody knows much theory.
4) When faced with aggressive play, the usual reaction is to cower.”
That might explain the defender's behavior. Meanwhile, to explain the attacker's attack, some input from Geoff Chandler, chess player, coach, and raconteur. I quote from one of his posts
Here is a one-move blunder table showing how severe the blunder needs to be in a game between two players of the same grade.
All players should be able to spot their opponent leaving a mate in one on.
A 1200 player should win if an opponent blunders a Queen or a Rook. But not necessarily if they pick up a Bishop or Knight.
1500 players often convert piece-up games into a win, but this is not the case if a pawn or two up.
An 1800 player usually wins if they are two pawns up.
In a game between two 2000+ players a blundered pawn is usually enough to win.
I think that Chandler's blunder table can be applied to time limits, as well. In correspondence play, a little material means a lot. In blitz or bullet play, though - sacrifice away!
Finally, an assessment from the Jerome Gambit player, himself, concerning the first game, although it could apply to the second as well.
The game started off with a normal Jerome Gambit. After ...Nxe5 I decided to go for the Queen check variation rather than the theoretically more solid d4 move forking the bishop and knight, mainly because I consider it to be a more active way to attack the king and eventually gain compensation for the sacrificed pieces. As soon as I checked the king with my queen, black started burning some serious time which suggests that this gambit might have caught him by surprise which is in my opinion the biggest advantage of the Jerome Gambit together with its fierce attack on the king side. As you can see in the game I sent you he eventually burned approximately 1 minute and 25 seconds, only in his sixth and final move. Which shows that the spontaneous nature of the gambit is its main advantage, as if this had been a quick 3 minute blitz game where this gambit is originally intended to be played, he would have already used half of his time in his first six moves. My opponent was probably considering the best way in which he could get out of check. He eventually decided to block the queen's check with his knight going for ...Ng6 probably because he was scared of playing something like ...g6 which would run into Qxe5 delivering a fork on the bishop and rook, or protecting his knight with a move like ...Ke6 which would expose his king in a very dangerous way. After my opponent played ...Ng6 both protecting his knight and blocking the check I decided to play Qd5+! which is as you already know the theoretical novelty that GM Aman Hambleton introduced in his video about the Jerome Gambit which has the idea of inviting black to play either Kf8 or Ke7 which allows white to capture the bishop with another check to continue his attack and to stop black from developing. Surprisingly enough, shortly after I played this move my opponent resigned because despite being objectively better, as he was two pieces up, he thought that he was losing because of the speed in which I played my moves which suggested that the Jerome Gambit was either some kind of tactic which he had blundered into or a very strong attack which I had brought prepared from home. The moral of the story is that he resigned a six move game being two pieces up and with plenty of time on the clock solely because of the speed of my moves and the position of his king...
Recently I received the following Jerome Gambit game. At first, I did not know what to make of it.
Anonymous - Anonymous
5 3 blitz, lichess.org, 2020
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qxh8 Nf6 9.Qxd8 White won
That was kind of strange... Except, a couple of days later, the same line played out in another game, a 3 0 blitz, although the defender struggled on for a dozen more moves before resigning.
How to explain Black's 8th move? A weak chess player? A hurried-by-the clock chess player? A scared-by-the-Jerome-Gambit chess player? An overconfident-and-therefore-inattentive chess player?
I finally decided that I had been onto something when I wrote "Half a defense is worse than none at all..." a decade ago.
My guess is that 7 out of 10 players who have ever heard of the Jerome Gambit had been exposed to Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1884: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.O-O Nf6 10.c3 Ng4 11.h3 Bxf2+ 12.Kh1 Bf5 13.Qxa8 Qxh3+ 14.gxh3 Bxe4#
What if the defenders in both recent games remembered only a part of Blackburne's defense, or remembered it incompletely?
"Hmm... silly Jerome Gambit... accept the sacrificed Bishop... accept the sacrificed Knight... give back a Rook... trap the enemy Queen with my Kight - No, wait, I was supposed to play 8...Qh4 first!!"
I found an earlier game with even more pain.
KONB - elmflare
standard, FICS, 2011
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.O-O Nf6
This time the Queen is trapped, but take note of White's next move. Meanwhile, Black repeats Blackburne's killer attack on the King, including sacrificing another Rook, and his Queen.
10.Nc3 Ng4 11.h3 Bxf2+ 12.Kh1 Bf5 13.Qxa8 Qxh3+ 14.gxh3 Bxe4+ 15.Nxe4 Black resigned
White's Knight on c3 - instead of a pawn, as the Amateur played against Blackburne - ruined Black's fireworks display.
So, is 10.Nc3 White's way out of his Blackburne nightmare?
Actually, a game played at the end of May of this year said: No!
flash_ahaaa - thefinalzugzwang
2 1 blitz, lichess.org, 2020
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.O-O Nf6 10.Nc3
10...Bh3 11.Qxa8
Best might have been 11.Qxf6+ Kxf6 12.gxh3 Qxh3, with a Rook, a Knight and a pawn for his Queen, although Black would still be better.
11...Qg4 12.g3 Qf3 White resigned
Surprisingly enough, Grandmaster Larry Evans had discussed this line in his Chess Catechism (1970). He gave 10...Bh3 a "!". In discussion on this blog, "GM Larry Evans and the Jerome Gambit", Bill Wall pointed out 10...Ng4, that elmflare played, above.
(Is 10.Qd8!? the real solution to White's trapped Queen? That's a long story, and one that will have to wait for another day.)
In the following game, Black denies his opponent the wild attack that often comes with the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+). White soon has the better game, and, in time, the win.
M4G1CK - HubRekt
lichess.org, 2020
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5
Now, Black has 7...d6, the Blackburne Defense (named after the game Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1884, in which Blackburne sacrificed 2 Rooks and his Queen), or 7...Qe2, Whistler's Defense (named after Lt. G. N. Whistler, who played it in a correspondence match against Jerome).
Instead, he chooses what I have begun to call the Jerome counter-gambit.
7...Bxf2+ 8.Kxf2 Qf6+ 9.Qxf6+ Kxf6
The good news for White is that he is no longer down a couple of pieces - in fact, he is up a pawn.
The bad news is that he doesn't have a dashing, smashing attack. He will have to grind out the win, starting in a Queenless middlegame.
10.Rf1 Kg7 11.Kg1 d6 12.d4 Nf6 13.Nc3 Re8 14.e5 dxe5 15.dxe5 Rxe5 16.Bf4 Rf5 17.Bxc7 Rxf1+ 18.Rxf1 Bg4
White plays on without risk.
The only "danger" he faces is the possibility of a drawish Bishops-of-opposite-colors endgame, should the Knights and Rooks come off the board. That is not going to happen, though, as he is ready to win a piece.
19.Be5 Rf8 20.Nd5 Re8 21.Bxf6+ Kh6
White has enough to win. It will take a few more moves.
22.Rf4 Bh5 23.g4 g5 24.Rf5 Bf7 25.Bxg5+ Kg7 26.Bf6+ Kh6 27.Bg5+ Kg7 28.h4 Bxd5 29.Rxd5 h6 30.Bd2 Re4 31.Bc3+ Kh7 32.Rd7+ Kg6 33.Rd6+ Kh7 34.Rd7+ Kg8 35.Rg7+ Kf8 36.Rg6 h5 37.gxh5 Rxh4
You can see how the game is going to end.
38.h6 Kf7 39.Rg7+ Kf8 40.h7 Re4 41.Rxb7 Rg4+ 42.Kf2 Rh4 43.h8=Q+ Rxh8 44.Bxh8 Kg8 45.Rxa7 Kxh8
46.Rd7 Kg8 47.c4 Kf8 48.c5 Ke8 49.Rd1 Ke7 50.c6 Ke6 51.c7 Ke5 52.c8=Q Ke4 53.Qc4+ Kf5 54.Rd5+ Ke6 55.Qc6+ Ke7 56.Rd7+ Ke8 57.Qc8 checkmate
Slow and steady wins the race. Nice.
The following Jerome Gambit blitz game arrived with notes from the chess site's computer. Often, the computer analysis is helpful. Sometimes, however, it just highlights the differences between silicon and human play.
CasualGames4ever - lankesh1941
10 0 blitz, lichess.org, 2020
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
The lichess.org analysis engine labels this move a "Blunder". Well, yes, technically it is. However, in human vs human blitz play at the club level, it is more of an invitation to interesting play!
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6
The engine labels this an "Inaccuracy", which is a bit harsh. The move is played frequently and keeps Black's piece for two pawns advantage.
7.Qd5+ Ke7 8.Qxc5+ d6 9.Qe3
9...Be6
The know-it-all chess engine calls this a "Blunder". It allows White to play 10.f4, with the threat of f5, forking Black's pieces.
10.d4 Kf8 11.Nc3 12.f4 Re8 13.O-O Bf7
Black says: Come and get me!
Any Jerome Gambit player would oblige.
14.f5 Nh4 15.Qg3 h6
Planning something drastic.
16.Rf4 g5
This would work, if White couldn't capture en passant.
17.fxg6 Nxg6 18.Qxg6 Qe6 19.Qxe6
The cranky computer doesn't like this move, but it is perfectly reasonable: White is playing a blitz game, and he is happy to move on to a Queenless middlegame two pawns up.
19...Rxe6 20.d5 Rg6 21.Nb5 c5 22.Nxa7 Nf6 23.Nb5 Rhg8 24.Nxd6
Cold-blooded. White's Knight has been collecting pawns, even though this means that his King will have to take a vacation on the Queenside. Perhaps the clock was beginning to influence play?
24...Rxg2+ 25.Kf1 Rg1+ 26.Ke2 Bh5+ 27.Kd3 Rd1+ 28.Kc4 Ke7
White is still winning, but he is no longer comfortable.
29.Kxc5
A slip, as Black can now kick the enemy King away with 29...Nd7+, and then grab the Knight. Instead, 29.Nf5+ Kd8 30.Ne3 would have consolidated his position and won more material.
It definitely feels like the clock is affecting both players, now.
29...Rgg1
To win the Bishop, of course.
30.Nc8+ Kd7 31.Rxf6 Kxc8 32.Be3 Rxa1 33.Bxg1 Rxg1 34.Rxh6
Whew! White now has 5 pawns for Black's extra piece. Push those pawns!
34...Bd1 35.e5 Bxc2 36.e6 Rg6 37.Rxg6 Bxg6 38.d6 Bf5 39.Kd5 Bh3 40.a4 Bg2+ 41.Ke5 Kd8 42.b4 Bc6 43.b5 Bf3 44.a5 Be2 45.a6 bxa6 46.bxa6 Bxa6
47.h4 Ke8 48.h5 Bd3 49.h6 Bc2 50.Kf6 Kf8 51.d7 Black resigned
Another victory for the "Jerome pawns"!
Not every Jerome Gambit game is a quick smash. Sometimes the attacker has to settle down and work a bit - even in a blitz game. The following game is a good example.
spicyindianswag - AyujVerma
3 2 blitz, Chess.com, 2020
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Kf8
A safe move. White will recover a piece. Then he will need a plan.
7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qf4+ Nf6 9.c3
White will extend his pawn center. Meanwhile, Black will return some material and castle-by-hand.
9... Kf7 10.d4 Bb6 11.O-O Rf8 12.e5 dxe5 13.dxe5 Kg8 14.exf6 Qxf6
Often I talk about psychology in the Jerome Gambit: how the defender can be surprised or become anxious, or become over-confident and dismissive. This can affect his move choice in a bad way.
Black wields his own psychology here: his King is safe, and he wants to exchange Queens. Sure, he will be a pawn down, but with the two Bishops, he can resist for a long time. In the meantime, White has to deal with the disappointment of his attack disappearing.
15.Qc4+ Be6 16.Qd3
Suddenly, it appears that Black's development is overwhelming. Can he punish White? Remember, this is a 3-minute game.
16...Bxf2+ 17.Kh1 Bf5
This is why we study chess puzzles to get better. Komodo 10 suggests 17...Rad8 18.Qe2 Bd5 19.h3 Rde8 20.Qg4 Bg3 21.Bf4 Qxf4 22.Qxf4 Bxf4 and White's game has become very painful.
But - White now wriggles his way out!
18.Qf3 Bd7 19. Rxf2 Qxf3 20. Rxf3 Bg4 21. Rxf8+ Rxf8
If you strike at the king, you must kill him.
Black had his chance against a higher-rated opponent, but that time has passed quickly. Now White has the extra piece.
22.Kg1 c5 23.Be3 b6 24.Nd2 a5 25.Rf1 Re8 26. Re1 Re5 27.Bf2 Rd5
Black does not want to exchange pieces, but, as White's pieces come into play, the danger increases.
28.Ne4 b5 29.Bg3 b4 30.Nd6 Bh5 31.cxb4 axb4 32.Nc8 Kf7
Like in a scary movie, we want to say "No! Don't leave the house!"
33.Nd6+ Kf6 34.Bh4+ g5 35.Ne4+ Kf5 36.Ng3+ Kg4 37.Re4 checkmate
Very nice!
By promoting the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ ) I am not encouraging "perfect chess" for masters and grandmasters. Rather, I am supporting enjoyable and educational chess for amateur and club players.
The following game shows that while Black might be able to "solve" the Jerome Gambit, if he has enough time - a 3-minute blitz game is often not enough time. jamezad's attack flows like running water.
jamezad - loganwrites
3 0 blitz, lichess.org, 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+ Ke8 9.d4
According to The Database, this is a novelty - at move 9.
9...d6 10.Qc4 N8e7 11.O-O Qd7 12.Nc3 Rf8 13.Bg5 Nc6 14.e5
White offers a pawn to open central lines against Black's King and Queen.
14...dxe5 15.dxe5 Ncxe5 16.Rfe1 Rf5
Both protecting the Knight and attacking the enemy Bishop, but he begins to let the game slip away.
17.Qg8+ Nf8
Instead, the Rook needed to return, but it can be hard to undo what we have already done. White now completes the lesson.
18.Rad1 Qc6 19.Rd8 checkmate
About a week-and-a-half ago, I started getting emails suggesting that I check out a certain online link. It led to a video of a program originally on Twitch that had taken up residence on YouTube.
In it, a grandmaster was having a humorous time with the Jerome Gambit, this blog, and me. That wasn't much of a surprise - except that most top players would not give the Jerome even a second glance, while the video was 17 minutes long.
So, everyone in the video, including those in the scrolling comments - and, later, those who commented in YouTube - had a good laugh at a chess opening that was probably refuted shortly after it was first played. The Jerome Gambit certainly had a great future behind it.
Okay.
A video lampooning a blog running for 12 years, posted to every day or every-other-day on that bizarre opening? Are you kidding? Hilarious.
Okay.
The amusement grew. For real, a weird guy who has been researching the Jerome Gambit for a couple of decades, and keeping that blog up-to-date? I mean, come on, does he actually think that it's a good opening?
The grandmaster just had to play some Jerome games online, and then send one to me, borrowing a username and changing his rating. Would it wind up posted on the blog? It was! Untold amounts of ROTFL!
Okay, too.
The guy was funny. He got into the Jerome Gambit with bravado, looking like its second-biggest fan. He had played fair with me, too - when he sent his game to me, it was in an email with his own name on it. I figured something was up.
Then, Pepe the Frog made an appearance in the video. Originally in Matt Furie's comic, "Boy's Club", the character was later adopted by far-right groups to espouse their causes, much to the creator's embarassment. Despite claims that the anthropomorphic amphibian has been white-washed back to decency, for a lot of people today, the meme still screams hatred and prejudice.
Not okay.
About that point in the video, things started getting awkward, as when the GM was trying to play a game online, and exclaimed "Dammit, I'm black.... Maybe it works for black as well. I mean it is called the Jerome". Huh?
Then came a brilliant suggestion that Jerome might have originally blundered away a couple of pieces, and then just claimed that he had invented a new opening. Good stuff - if it hadn't been voiced in a stereotypically offensive imitation of a Black person's voice. Not much later, there was an energetic lampooning of the "privilege" that the Jerome, with the white pieces, was all about. The observers in the comments caught it all, and loved it, too.
It took me several runs-through, with CC, to catch much of it.
It was not okay.
Why spoil a surreal chess performance, with such racist offensiveness? What a sense of timing. With with what seems like an endless string of killings of Black people in this country - the most recent, of George Floyd - and the widespread protests of endless police violence being met with more police violence, was any of that necessary? Is it ever necessary?
No.
Even if our prejudices cling to us like a shadow we can't outrun - we can try.
Imagine my excitement at getting an invitation to join the grandmaster on his chess show this week, via Zoom, to further discuss the Jerome Gambit - that passion of mine for 20 years.
Imagine my disappointment, too.
Of course, I declined the offer.
