Jerome Gambit: Assessment

 

The Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) is a very active opening that involves the sacrifice of a piece or two. What does the player of the White pieces risk? What does he receive in return?

Those questions have been raised and answered on this blog many times.

A bit of perspective can be found in IM Gary Lane's enjoyable book The Greatest Ever Chess Tricks and Traps (2008), where he presents a system to assess the openings he looks at - including the Jerome Gambit.  

At the end of the majority of opening tricks I have added a ratings chart. This is just a fun way of assessing the trick with marks out of ten.

Surprise value. An indication of how surprised an opponent will be to see the trap on the board. A surprise value of 8/10, for example, means that the opponent will be very surprised; while a rating of 5/10 implies that he might have seen it before so it will work occasionally

Risk. The amount of risk involved in playing the opening that contains the trick. A mark of 5/10 indicates it is a solid continuation in any case, but something like 8/10 will mean that a pawn or even a piece has been sacrificed.

Chance of success. The chance of a trick working in the game. This is a difficult one because it depends upon the level of your opponent. Therefore I made a judgement from my tournament experience by watching and coaching other players. 5/10 indicates an average chance, i.e. sometimes it will work and sometimes it won't; wheras a mark of 6/10 would mean that there is an above average chance of it working. A mark of 10/10 means that someone should resign quickly.

Reward. What you should expect to gain if the trick works. A mark of 6/10 roughly indicates a pawn has been won. With 8/10 the reward would be a piece, while with 10/10 it is checkmate.

It is just a bit of fun and certainly not a scientific report... 

How does the Jerome Gambit grade according to IM Lane's system?

Surprise value 10/10

Risk 10/10

Chance of success 2/10

Reward 3/10

Jerome Gambit: Part of the Future

Vist the Delancey UK Schools' Chess Challenge website and make your way to the Hall of Fame page, and you will learn about over a couple dozen young chess players, including

Kenneth Hobson

UKCC 2020 Variant Championship 1st U12, Terafinal 2nd U12

Age Group: U11

ECF grade (Jan 20): 150

School: Windmill Primary School

Favourite Opening: The Jerome gambit

Favourite Player: Mikhaïl Tal

Hobbies: Football, cricket, French horn

Other Comments: I love playing variant chess and also playing for Ojays in the fortnightly team battles online.

 

 Certainly looks like a champion!

Jeome Gambit: Slip

My opponent in the following Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) game played well, until a few tactical slips did him in. I can not blame the time control - one move per day - but perhaps the "outside world" provided some unfortunate distractions.

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 

Here it comes again, Whistler's Defense. It is strong and offers Black serious attacking chances if White gets greedy with 8.Qxh8.

8.Qf4+ Qf6

Or 8... Kg7 as in perrypawnpusher - tmarkst, blitz, FICS, 2009 (1-0, 43).

9.Qg3 d5 

According to The Database, this is a novelty. 

I have seen 9...Ne7 in perrypawnpusher - Yaku, blitz, FICS, 2011 (1/2-1/2, 26); 9...d6 in perrypawnpusher - alvarzr, blitz, FICS, 2014 (1-0, 49); 9...Kg7 in perrypawnpusher-Tacotopia, Chess.com, 2020 (1/2-1/2, 61); and 9...Qe6 in perrypawnpusher - NN, Chess.com 2021 (1-0, 32).

10.Qxc7+ 

I was willng to take my chances in a Queenless middlegame with 3 pawns for a piece.

10...Qe7 11.Qxe7+ Nxe7 12.Nc3 Re8 13.d3 dxe4 14.Nxe4 Nf5 15.O-O 

After the game Stockfish 13 recommended 15.Bd2 Bd7 16.O-O-O.

It is clear that in either case that Black's extra piece (vs my 3 extra pawns) is useful, his two Bishops are dangerous, and his King is more developed than in danger.

15...Bb4 

Perhaps to keep a White Rook off of e1, or to provoke c2-c3, possibly weakening the pawn at d3. In any event, this was not the best retreat.

16.c3 Bd6 

A tactical slip 

17.g4 Rxe4 18.dxe4 Nh4 19.f3 Bc5+ 20. Kh1 Be6 

21.Bg5 Bc4 

Puzzling. I had expected 21...Be7 when 22.Bxe7 Kxe7 23.h3 is pretty level, even after 23...Rf8 24.Rad1 Rxf3 25.Rxf3 Nxf3+ 27.Kg2 

22.Bxh4 Bxf1 23.Rxf1 Re8 

Black hopes to hold back the "Jerome pawns" but he will not succeed.

24.Bf2 Bxf2 25.Rxf2 b5 26.Rd2 Kg8 27.Kg2 a5 28.a3 Re5 29.Rd5 Rxd5 30.exd5 Kf7 31.f4 Kf6 32.Kf3

Black resigned

Jerome Gambit: Cast A Scary Shadow

Sometimes facing the Jerome gambit can be scary. White is attacking in a frenzied manner, and it is easy to see danger everywhere - real and imagined. Larger than life.

In the following game I unleashed the "Jerome pawns" and my opponent was suitibly impressed and somewhat intimidated. You might want to consider if you think his resignation was premature, however.

 

perrypawnpusher - JohnGHughes

10 0 blitz, FICS, 2021

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 

The Semi-Italian Opening.

4.O-O Bc5 5.Bxf7+

The Semi-Italian Jerome Gambit. White could also have used 4.Nc3 as a tempo move, waiting for 4...Bc5.

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 

Even if my current blitz play is rusty, I felt reassured that I have been here before. The Database shows my record as 47 - 5 - 4, scoring 88%.

7.d4 

The question here was how much the "extra" moves (0-0, ...h6) have changed the regular Jerome Gambit position.

I usually have played 7.Qh5+. In fact, before this game I was only 1 - 1 with 7.d4. Stockfish 13 shows a slight preference (about 1/2 a pawn) for the Queen move. 

7...Qf6 

Often the Black Queen comes to f6 in the Jerome. This move also avoids spending time deciding which minor piece to save - White can decide.

That said, Black would have done better with the straight-forward 7...Bxd4. 

8.dxc5 Ne7 9.Nc3 

What is going on here? 

Black has kept up with his development, and he should consider castling-by-hand with ...Rf8 and ...Kg8. He needs to liberate his Bishop and the Rook that it locks in.

White can bring his Knight to d5, if allowed. He can play for f2-f4, and enjoy the threats of his Rook on f1 against the enemy Queen and King on the f-file.

9...c6 

This keeps White's Knight off of d5, at the cost of delaying his development. Compare this with 9...d5 opening the diagonal for the Bishop. According to Stockfish 13, after 10.cxd6 cxd6 11.f4 N5c6 12.Nb5 (attacking the d-pawn) Rd8 13.c4 Be6 14.Nxd6+ Kg8 15.c5 Nc8 16.Rf2 Nxd6 17.cxd6 Rd7 18.Be3 Rad8 19.e5 Qg6 20.Qf3 Rf8 21.Qg3 Qxg3 22.hxg3 Re8 Black is better - you can see White has 3 pawns for his sacrificed piece, but the pawns are blockaded.

10.f4 Nc4 11.e5 Qf5 

White's pawns hold back Black's d-pawn, which blocks the Bishop, which hems in the Rook... Plus, there is that f-file.

12.g4 Qg6 13.f5 Nxf5 

Giving back a piece for a pawn or two is a reasonable idea.

14.Rxf5+ 

After the game Stockfish criticized this move as hurried. White would do better with the casual 14.Kh1 which unpins his g-pawn and allows a better recapture, i.e. 14...d5 (has to be played) 15.exd6 Kg8 16.gxf5 Bxf5. White would be up a pawn, and his passer at d6 would need to be watched.

Here Black resigned.

What would have happened, though, if he had played 14...Kg8 ? White would probably have to reinforce his g-pawn with 15.h3, and worry about a possible future ...h6-h5. That would give Black time for the hearty 15...d5, when White's Rook would have to shuffle over to h5. After Komodo 11's suggested 16.Rh5 Qe6 17.Qd4 b6 18.cxb6 axb6 19.b3 g6 20.Rxh6 Rxh6 21.Bxh6 Qxe5 the position would be quite a mess, White would be up a pawn up, but anything could happen in a blitz game.

analysis diagram

Every Gambit Refuted: Jerome Gambit

The Chess.com website is a great place to play chess.

It also has a "Learn" area, under which can be found various "Lessons" which include GM Eugene Perelshteyn's "Every Gambit Refuted" series of challenges.

Of course you can find "Every Gambit Refuted: Jerome Gambit"

Have you ever faced the Jerome Gambit? This little-known attacking idea has gone viral in the last year and GM Eugene Perelshteyn is here to put it to bed with a clear refutation.

If you play the Jerome Gambit or face the Jerome Gambit, it is worth taking about 15 minutes to try your tactical skills on this one.  

 

Jerome Gambit: This "Refuted" Thing (Part 2, What to Do?)

 

[continued from previous post]

So - what do you do, if your favorite opening is not appreciated by grandmasters or chess computers?

Of course, the easiest thing is to do nothing. Win. Lose. Draw. Set the pieces up again. Play some more. No need to get excited. It's only a game. A few minutes after you leave the board, it's all forgotten.

Similarly, if you are having success with the Jerome Gambit against humans, but are getting crushed by computers - don't play against computers. Some people like the challenge (see "Beating Beth Harmon With the Worst Opening Ever" and "Jerome Gambit: How He Did It") but others find it exhausting and unrewarding. 

As we saw in the previous post, it is possible to take advantage of  factors that tilt things more in the Jerome Gambit player's favor. Two of these are time and knowledge.

For example, as we saw in a couple of earlier posts (see "Jerome Gambit: GM vs GM!?" and "Jerome Gambit: Oops, He Did It Again?!") Grandmaster Hikaru Nakamura benefitted from limiting his opponent's thinking time - Nakamura is one of the top blitz players in the world - and benefitted from the fact that his Grandmaster opponent was not familiar with the Jerome Gambit to score two wins in a couple of 3-minute games.

On the other hand, when GM Nakamura later faced Grandmaster Peter Michalik (see "Jerome Gambit: GM vs GM, Upset" and "Jerome Gambit: Gm vs GM, Upset Again"), GM Michalik seemed to know enough about the Jerome Gambit that the result was a couple of losses for White.

(I am not sure where time and knowledge for Grandmasters fit into Chandler's "blunder table".)

Of course, one thing that the Jerome Gambit player can do is examine his own games. Which moves seemed to advance his cause, which moves seemed to set him back. While we are always competing against our opponent, we also are also playing a game against ourselves. Increasing our own knowledge decreases the defender's, relatively.

The next step is to play over more Jerome Gambit games, like the ones on this blog, simply to absorb the strategy and play. Familiarity is a form of knowledge, and the more the gambiteer knows abut the opening, the better his chances.

On top of that, it is sometimes useful to examine the notes to the games, and to analyze the play of the game. 

It is also possible to create (see "You, too, can add to Jerome Gambit theory!") your own solutions to some of the Jerome Gambit's problems. A good example of how this is done is the series of posts " JG: The New in Its Opening Theory, in Its Psychology  (Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5)" by Yury Bukayev, as he examines a new idea for White after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6.

  

Jerome Gambit: This "Refuted" Thing (Part 1, A Basic Truth)

I recently received an email from a Reader of this blog who has been playing the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) successfully, and who has been enjoying the opening quite a bit.

There was this one line, however, that gave him trouble when he played it against a computer engine (set at a reasonble level of strength) - did I have any ideas for how he could succeed against it?

Other Readers have written to me with similar concerns.

Some Readers have written expressing puzzlement, that while the Jerome Gambit had led to a series of smashing, fun wins for them - a computer chess engine evaluated the opening as just plain no good, so how could that be? 

Those questions sent me into a deep think...

I have some answers. Please read along.

Let me start with a basic truth: The Jerome Gambit is a refuted opening. But - what does that mean, exactly?

What that means is: If your opponent is familiar with the Jerome Gambit and has enough time to think things through, he will probably have the advantage and may very well defeat you.

Of course, it's not that simple.

It is worth going back 13 years to a blog post titled "But – Is this stuff  playable?? (Part I)" where I reframed the discussion

Maybe a more useful question would be --
Under what conditions might the Jerome Gambit be playable?

I then shared some of Grandmaster Nigel Davies' wisdom from his book Gambiteer I (2007)

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.

 It is important to quickly pair GM Davies's thoughts with Geoff Chandler's "Blunder Table" (substitute "gambit" for "blunder")

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.

One conclusion to be drawn here is that an opening that is "refuted" at the Grandmaster level is not necessarily "refuted" at the beginner or club player level.

Another conclusion is that if you play the Jerome Gambit in a blitz or bullet game, your opponent may not have enough time to figure things out - much to his disadvantage.

Finally, if your opponent is unfamiliar with the Jerome Gambit - and many players are not familiar - he is more likely to make errors, much to your advantage. (As GM Nakamura cautioned "Once everybody knows about it, it won't be as good... as it has been")

So - how to respond to the questions mentioned at the start of this post? The answers range from the very simple, to the rather complex.

[to be continued]