While I think that the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) is ideal for blitz play - where the defender often does not have enough time to effectively construct a defense - I know a number of players have been successful with the opening at much slower time controls.
In the following game (time control: one day per move), White faced an opponent who was familiar with the Jerome Gambit, and who did not panic or foolishly over-rate his chances. As the game ground on, the Gambiteer kept alert for his chances, even as the scales begin to tilt against him. Still, he showed faith in the "theory of infinite resistance".
Just at the point where Black reached what the computer, post mortem, mischievously assessed as a "mate in 26" Black slipped - and, with a couple more sacrifices, White reached a drawn endgame.
If you do not laugh out loud (or, at least, chuckle) at White's 47th move, you are taking this whole Jerome Gambit thing too seriously.
Anonymous - Anonymous
1 d / move, Chess.com, 2020
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6
7.f4 d6
Ah, yes, "the annoying defense" or the "silicon defense". The line is the choice of a number of computer programs, with the idea of giving back one of the sacrificed pieces while leaving Black's King relatively safe - White's attacking chances relatively diminished. Annoying.
8.fxe5 dxe5 9.Nc3
This move is solid, if somewhat rare, according to The Database. Interestingly enough, 4 of the 7 previous games with the move were played by the computer program Comet B48 in a computer vs computer tournament in 2009. White scored 2 - 2, reasonably enough.
9...Nf6 10.Qe2 c6
A novelty, according to The Database.
11.d3 Rf8 12.Rf1 Kd7 13.Be3 Bxe3 14.Qxe3 Qb6 15.Qxb6 axb6
White's plan for the middle game is a basic one: to develop solidly, create weaknesses in the opponent's position while avoiding over-reaching. Wasn't it Steinitz who said that if you have the advantage, you must attack - or risk losing the advantage. So, White reasons: let Black attack - let him make the mistakes.
16.O-O-O Kc7 17.h3 Be6 18.a3 b5 19.g4 h6 20.Ne2 Nd7 21.Ng3 Rxf1
One recommendation I learned long ago was "When you are ahead in material, exchange pieces; when you are behind in material, exchange pawns." For a while, Black seems to be aware of this.
22.Rxf1 Rf8 23.Rxf8 Nxf8 24.Nh5 g6 25.Ng3 h5
Eliminating the Kingside pawns has to be helpful for White.
26.gxh5 gxh5 27.Nxh5 Bxh3
28.Kd2 Ne6 29.c3 Nf4 30.Ng3 Kd6 31.Ke3 c5 32.d4 cxd4+ 33.cxd4 Ng2+ 34.Kd3 Nf4+ 35.Ke3 Ne6 36.dxe5+ Kxe5
White is hanging on. Black is better, but there are not that many pawns to get rid of now.
37.Ne2 Nc5 38.Nd4 Bg2 39.Nxb5 Bxe4 40.b4 Bc6 41.Nd4 Ne6
42.Ne2
Swapping the Knight for the Bishop would make things worse, as after 42.Nxc6 bxc6 Black would be able to retreat his Knight to c7 and control White's pawns.
42...Kd5 43.Kd2 Kc4 44.Kc2
I mean no disrespect for the player of the white pieces, as I quote from the very interesting The Complete Chess Swindler, by David Smerdon
I completely agree that a player should try to play the best moves - but I disagree that "best" always equals the engine's first choice. The computer evaluates a position assuming that our opponent will play perfectly at every turn; it doesn't (and cannot) consider the myriad of important human factors in a contest, such as fatigue, time pressure, risk-aversion complacency, frustration, impulsiveness... the list goes on.44...Nd4+ 45.Nxd4 Kxd4 46.Kb3 b5
Nailing down White's a-pawn. But - wait!
47.a4
The move of the game, surpassing even 4...Bxf7+.
47...bxa4+ 48.Kb2 Kc4 49.b5 Bxb5 50.Ka1 Kb3 51.Kb1 drawn
Yes, indeed. The game has reached the notorious "Rook pawn + wrong Bishop" ending, which is drawn because White's King can control or occupy the pawn's Queening square, and the enemy Bishop is of the wrong color to chase him out.
Very well played!
