Jerome Gambit: First Steps (Part 2)

 Before you are able to play the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) you may have to dodge a distraction or two that your opponent could toss your way. 

For example, you might start play with the Italian Game in mind, specifically the Jerome Gambit, only to discover that your opponent would like to gain the "minor exchange" (Bishop for Knight) instead: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5

Black is planning on 4.Bb3 Nxb3, when he would have traded his Knight for the Bishop. 

White does not have to cooperate.

This is one of those situations where White can choose between the "right" way and the Jerome way.

The simplest play is 4.Nxe5 Nxc4 5.Nxc4 when Black has achieved his goal - at the price of a pawn. There are players who are willing to give up material to get their opponents out of their opening preparation (sound familiar?) but the fact remains: the "boring" response to 3...Na5 produces for White a pawn-up position with little risk.

However, there is also the Jerome-style response to 3...Na5, that is 4.Bxf7+. After 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ White has 2 pawns for his sacrificed piece, while Black's King is in danger.

White answers 5...Ke8 with 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Nxg6 hxg6 8.Qxh8; 5...Kf6 with 6.Qh5; and 5...Ke6 and 5...Ke7 with 6.d4.

Of course, it is always a good idea to look at the latest blog posts, check out the links in the recent games, and browse through past posts - or use the "Search This Blog" function to find specific items of interest.

The Database shows that White wins 72% of the time in games with 4.Bxf7+.

An example to take a look at is perrypawnpusher - Aborygen87, Chess.com, 2019 (1-0, 21).

Jerome Gambit: First Steps (Part 1)

With so many new Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) players these days, I thought it might be a good idea to outline some basics of Jerome-style play.

Of course, it is always a good idea to look at the latest blog posts, check out the links in the recent games, and browse through past posts - or use the "Search This Blog" function to find specific items of interest.

It can be helpful to get a bit of grounding in the play, as well.

So, the three things a Jerome or Jerome-style Gambit will usually have are

- the sacrifice of White's light-squared Bishop at f7

- an active White Queen, often venturing to h5 to check the enemy King

- some enemy material that can either be grabbed by White, or which will cause Black's King danger, if he decides to protect it

If one or two of those three are missing, the line of play is likely more Jerome-style or Jerome-ish than the full Jerome Gambit. It can still be a lot of fun - providing that you do not take the game too seriously - but the risks will escalate.

For example, if in the Petroff Defense, the game continues 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Nxe4 4.Bxf7+, the sacrifice at f7 can upset the defender, drag him out of his preparation, and give White some kind of psychological compensation; but recovering material will be difficult beyond 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+, and if Black finds the unintuitive 5...Kg8, his King will actually be safe from attack - as long as he avoids catastrophies like 6.0-0 d6 7.Qe2 dxe5 8.Qc4+ Tg Z - Lai, W, Kuala Lumpur, 1992.

It can also be exciting to sacrifice the Bishop against the Two Knights Defense, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Bxf7+, although, again, after 4...Kxf7, Black's King is relatively safe, and there is no material lying around to scoop up. White can go completely Jerome-ish with 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4, but he could have a long battle ahead of himself.

There is also the Bishop's Opening 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Bxf7+ (The Database has about 450 examples) and a whole lot of other openings where Black doesn't even play 1...e5.

The question comes down to how much of a risk you want to take. Of course, that is the question that underlies the Jerome Gambit, itself.

Before getting into things Jerome, it can be helpful to visit "But – Is this stuff playable?? (Part I)" and get a little perspective from Geoff Chandler's "Blunder Table". 

Sacrifice away.

Jerome Gambit: Weaving

Sometimes I get so busy talking about the effect of the pawns in a Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.Bxf7+) game that I neglect to point out the work the pieces do.

For that matter, I am more likely to discuss the tactics that arise in a 1 0 bullet game than I am to point out the strategic awareness of the gambiteer as well.

The following game shows angelcamina weaving all of the threads into an enjoyable win.

angelcamina - AbhishekNM

1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2021

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 

7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 Qh4 

A sharp idea. This is only the third example in The Database. (For a real horror show, check out perrypawnpusher - Toscolano, blitz, FICS, 2015 [1-0, 36], for Mature Audiences Only.)

9.Nc3 Nf6 10.d3 Nf4 11.O-O Qg4 

Simply threatening checkmate.

12.Bxf4 Qxf4 13.g3 Qf3 

Stronger is 13...Qd6 14.Qxd6 cxd5, but someone thinking about mate is not going to suddenly swap Queens and retard his development.

14.Qxc7 Kf7 15.Rae1 

Time to eject the enemy Queen.

15...Rf8 16.Re3 Qg4 

With three pawns for the sacrificed piece, the game is about even.

17.Qc4+ Kg6 18.Kg2 

A slip that neither player noticed. Instead, 18.f4 would build on White's initiative and highlight Black's stagnation.

18...Qg5 

Essential was 18...d5, when it would be White who would be in grave danger.

Not the kind of positions to have to evaluate with only a few seconds of thinking time per move!

19.f4 

White is back in charge.

19...Qa5 20.f5+ Kh6 21.e5 Ne8 22.Qh4 checkmate

Where the Jerome Goes, Strangeness Follows

Take a close look at the following Jerome Gambit game, particularly Black's 14th move & White's 15th move, and White & Black's 16th moves.

Poleshchuk, Nikolay Nikolaevich (2477) - Konovalenko, Anatoly Nikolaevich (2110)

RUS/FC/pr3 (RUS), 2020

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Ke7 5.Bxg8 Qxg8 6.O-O d6 7.d4 Nxd4 8.Nxd4 Bxd4 9.c3 Bb6 10.a4 a5 11.Bg5+ Ke8 12.c4 Qxc4 13.Nc3 Be6 14.Nb5 Qxb5

15.Qh5+ g6 16.Qxg6+ 

16...Bf7 17.Qf6 Black resigned

What was happening? This was not blitz or bullet chess, it was correspondence chess played at a time control of 10 moves in 40 days.

The answer can be found on the International Correspondence Chess Federation website, where the tournament in which the game was played is described as "Zvezda Forbidden chess".

Yury Bukayev, chess friend and contributor to this blog - a Sherlock Holmes of chess openings, including the Jerome Gambit -  helped me to understand the nature of this pseudo-chess tournament. He identified "forbidden chess" and sent a link to a discussion on a Russian language chess forum

What is "Forbidden Chess"? This is the same classical chess with all the rules, goals and objectives, but with one important addition: during the game, each side can ban the opponent's retaliation three times.

Note No. 1.A ban can be imposed along with the next move on the opponent's retaliatory move. Making his move on the ICCF server, White (Black) in the message indicate which retaliatory move they prohibit. For example: White makes the move 1.e2 - e4 and writes in the message - "ban 1....c7 - c5". This means that Black can answer whatever he wants, but not 1….c7 - c5. 

Note No. 2.The forbidden move can be indicated by each side only three times, but once in each allotted period. The first period: from the 1st to the 10th move inclusive, the second - from the 11th to the 20th move inclusive, the third - from the 21st to the 30th move inclusive. That is, when Black makes his 30th move, he can make a ban for White for the last time (if he did not use it earlier from 21 to 29 moves). Starting from the 31st move, the ban cannot be imposed. The ban rule is voluntary. If one of the parties (or both) did not use the ban in the first period, then it seems to automatically disappear. But two more prohibitions remain at the disposal: one in each of the subsequent periods. The same happens further.

Note No. 3.A ban cannot be made if the opposite side has only one move left. A ban can be made when the opponent has at least a minimal choice. 

Note No. 4.All the rules of classical chess (checkmate, stalemate, castling, threefold repetition of a position, endgame tables, and so on) in forbidden chess are valid. After White's 31st move, forbidden chess really turns into classic, since the forbidden rules can no longer be applied.

Now the game makes more sense: we can see that White and Black, in turn, were forbidden from capturing the enemy Queen. My guess is that White also prohibited 4...Kxf7, turning the game into a Jerome Gambit declined.

Jerome Gambit: Do Not Hold Your Breath Waiting For It To Make Sense (Part 2)

 

[continued from the previous post]

perrypawnpusher - NN

Chess.com, 2021

15.d3 Qd4+ 16.Kh1 

16.Rf2 was probably a bit better.

16...b6 17.Qd8 Bb7 18.Qxc7 Qd5 

My Queen was free, but my opponent was threatening checkmate. I was having a hard time seeing myself as being 1,000 rating points better than him.

19.Qc4 

I hated this move as soon as I played it, but it is probably best. 

19...Qxc4 20.dxc4 Re8 

At this point I was pretty sure that Black could focus his pieces on g2 and the game would be drawn. I began to look for a way to escape this outcome.

First off, 21.Kg1 would be hopeless: 21...Re2 22.Rf2 Re1+ 23.Rf1 Re2 24.Rf2 Re1+ etc., repeating the position and drawing.

Also 21.b3 did not look like it would provide an escape: 21...Re2 22.Rg1 Ne4 23.h3 (to escape checkmate) Ng3+ 24.Kh2 Nf1+ 25.Kh1 (25.Rxf1 would allow the windmill 25...Rxg2+ 26.Kh1 Rxc2+ 27.Kg1 Rg2+ 28.Kh1 Rxa2+ 29.Kg1 Rxa1 30.Bb2 Rxf1+ 31.Kxf1 with a drawn Bishops-of-opposite colors end game) Ng3+ 26.Kh2 Nf1+ etc. again repeating the position and drawing. (That Knight work reminds me of the recent "Jerome Gambit: Practical Underpromotion".)

What I missed in the above line - and Stockfish 12 reminded me after the game - was 23.h4! instead of 23.h3, when White's King would have a needed escape square at h3. Still, things would have been complicated.

21.f5 

To open the path for my Bishop.

21...Ba6 

Hungry for pawns. Still 21...Re2 was the move.

22.fxg6+ Kxg6 23.Bf4 Bxc4 

After the game, Stockfish 12 rated White the equivalent of a Rook better. I still can not figure out why.

24.Rfe1 Ne4 25.Kg1 Kf5 26.g3 h5 

27.Rad1 Re7 28.Rd4 Ng5 

This move took me by surprise. There is an answer, but it only came after I woke up from a dream.

29.Rxe7 Nf3+ 30.Kf2 Nxd4 

I was content to grind out the exchange-up endgame, when I noticed something humorous.

31.Re5+ 

Bumping the King away.

31...Kf6 32.Re4 Black resigned

He must lose one of the pieces.

Quite a tough game from my opponent.

Jerome Gambit: Do Not Hold Your Breath Waiting For It To Make Sense (Part 1)

After our first game (see "Jerome Gambit: Beware Free Hugs") where I successfully defended against the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) with Whistler's Defense, it was time to swap colors.

I played the Jerome, and guess what defense my opponent chose?

There is a lot more to Whistler's Defense than the advice Don't take the Rook, and it took a while for me to develop an advantage in the game - ironically, by taking the Rook.

Do not hold your breath waiting for the Jerome Gambit to make sense.

perrypawnpusher - NN

Chess.com, 2021

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 Qe7 

The American Chess Journal of December 1876 carried a correspondence game (one of several, but the only game score I have) between A.W. Jerome and Lt. G.N. Whistler, Secretary of the Lexington Kentucky Chess Club. Of the text move, it said

This is the key move to Lt. Whistler's defence, adopted in all his games with Mr. Jerome.

Before this game, I had a couple of wins and a couple of draws against the defense.

8.Qf4+  

Do not take the Rook.

I know, I know, Jerome Gambit fans like angelcamina, chessmanjeff, petasluk, shugart, UNPREDICTABLE, Wall and ZahariSokolov, among others, have done so and made their way through the complications to tell of it, but that is what I call Borrowing Trouble.

8...Qf6 

This move is for choice

The text is a better way to block White's Queen check than 8...Nf6, showing that Black has to have some idea about how to play the Whistler Defense if he wants to keep his advantage. After 9.e5 Re8 10.d4 Bxd4 11.Qxd4 Qxe5+ 12.Qxe5 Rxe5+ 13.Be3, Black outplayed White with 13...Ng4 in Jerome - Jaeger, correspondence, 1879 (0-1, 45) while Black was outplayed by White after 13...Nd5, in abhailey - cruciverbalist, net.chess.com, 2008 (1-0, 51). The problem with 8...Nf6 is that it leads to a rather small edge for Black, nothing more.

I have also faced 8...Kg7, in perrypawnpusher - tmarkst, blitz, FICS, 2009 (1-0, 43).

9.Qg3 Qe6 

Or 9...Ne7, perrypawnpusher - Yaku, blitz, FICS, 2011 (1/2 - 1/2, 26);

Or 9...d6, perrypawnpusher - alvarzr, blitz, FICS, 2014 (1-0, 49);

Or 9...Kg7, perrypawnpusher -Tacotopia, Chess.com, 2020 (1/2-1/2, 61).

10.Nc3 Bd6 

Harassing my Queen. As the Bishop blocked the d-pawn which blocked the light-square Bishop, which hemmed in the Rook (classic Jerome Gambit defender error), I was okay with this.

11.f4 Bb4 

My opponent and I had figured out the next few moves. It turns out we both were wrong, starting with this move. Black wants to play ...Nf6 without having to worry about e4-e5, forking his two minor pieces. A more straight-forward plan was 11...Nf6 12.d3 Be7 13.0-0 d5 and Black would be doing well.

12.O-O Bxc3 

Better was 12...Ne7, but Black was setting a trap.

13.Qxc3 

After the game Stockfish 12 suggested that 13.dxc3 was stronger, with advantage to White. I hadn't even considered a pawn capture, as I was intent on falling into Black's trap.

13...Qxe4 

Better was 13...Qf6 with about an equal game once White grabs the pawn at c7. 

14.Qxh8 

Yippee, I thought, I am up the exchange and a pawn.

14...Nf6 

Yippee, my opponent thought, the Queen is trapped.

[To be continued]

Jerome Gambit: Practical Underpromotion

 

Visiting Tim Krabbé's "Open Chess Diary" website, I was intrigued by his "Practical Underpromotion" post 

In 1912, in The Theory of Pawn Promotion, Alain White wrote that he had 'never heard of a game where victory was won by a promotion to Rook or Bishop'. In 1936 the great endgame connoisseur Harold Lommer wrote something to that effect too. In my own Chess Curiosities (1985) I mentioned the 'extreme rareness of such promotions', and quoted 12 examples from all of chess history, including trivial ones. Ten years later Harold van der Heijden, in his Pawn Promotion, extended the list to 27. We had entered the database era - he had used a 400,000 game one. Over the following two years, in the magazine EBUR, he showed some 15 new cases. My turn again - in the meantime the databases have grown to almost 2,000,000 games, and if I used the same criteria as in 1985, I could show over 60 examples now.

And what of the world of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) ?

Checking with The Database, which contains over 63,500 games, I discovered 60 games that ended with either White or Black promoting a pawn to a Queen, giving checkmate.

I discovered 7 games that ended with the promotion of a pawn to a Rook, giving checkmate - although in each case promotion to a Queen would have been equally effective.

While I did not find a game that ended with a pawn promotion to a Bishop, I did find the following Jerome Gambit game

Mafiyah - AnderssenA, blitz, FICS, 2018 

White is not having a good day, down a couple of pieces, and things are about to turn even worse

22...Ng3+ 23.Kh2 Nxf1+ 24.Kh1 Ng3+ 25.Kh2 f1/N checkmate

A small gift to the spirit of Alain White, whose White Collection in the Cleveland Public Library is one of the largest publicly-accessible chess collections in the world.