Jerome Gambit: Sometimes Things Fall Apart

Finding a successful defense to the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) usually takes more than a spur-of-the-moment construction. Sometimes these homemade protections fall apart under pressure. Witness the following game where White's attack crushes his opponent.

petyrseta - al_bino

iPhone, Chess.com, 2021

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 

7.f4 Bd6 

Interesting, and somewhat rare. Black would do better with 7...Qf6.

8.Qf5+ 

The right idea. There are a couple of games in The Database where 8.d4 was tried, but that falls to 8...Nf7 9.e5 Ke7 10.O-O Kf8 11.exd6 Nxd6 where Black has a piece for a pawn, and White will have to work to make something of his position. (He can always take hope in the fact that Black's Knight blocks his pawn which blocks his Bishop which hems in his Rook... a typical defender failing.)

Instead, 8.fxe5 Bxe5 9.Qf5+ is also good for White, but not as strong as the text.

8...Ke7 9.fxe5 Bc5 

Where to put the Bishop?

The move played is probably best, but ultimately not a solution, because Black has moved beyond that already.

If instead 9...Bb4 things begin to look dangerous for Black after 10.O-O, and 10...Nh6 11.Qg5+ Ke8 12.Qh5+ g6 13.Qxh6 drops a piece in a humorous way.  

10.d4 

White both threatens the Bishop and threatens 11.Bg5+.

10...Bb6  

The strongest counter was 10...d6, attacking White's Queen, when 11.Bg5+ Ke8 12.e6 Nf6 13.dxc5 wins the poor Bishop and 13...Qe7 14.cxd6 Qxe6 15. Bxf6 Qxf5 16.exf5 gxf6 17.dxc7 Bxf5 18.O-O Bg6 would lead to a much simplified game, still in White's favor.

Of course 10...Bxd4 would be met by 11.Bg5+  when both 11...Ke8 12.Bxd8 and 11...Nf6 12.Bxf6+ would be disastrous for the defender. 

11.Bg5+ Nf6  

12.exf6+ gxf6 13.Bxf6+ Kd6 14.Bxd8 Rxd8 Black resigned

It is checkmate on the move.

Jerome Gambit: Take It Seriously

The Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) does not get a lot of respect, and, as a "refuted" opening, it probably does not deserve much.

Nonetheless, it is important for players to take it seriously. (If you know the refutation, play it.)

There are times and ways where the Jerome Gambit can be quite dangerous, and many defenders have discovered that dismissal, inattention, overconfidence and general chess sleepwalking can easily lead to disaster.

Still, there are those who do not heed the warnings.

Wall, Bill - Guest558550

PlayChess.com, 2021

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ 

6...Ng6 7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qa3

Bill likes to experiment. Guess who was the only other Jerome Gambiteer, according to The Database, to play this move? 

It is quite possible that White's Queen's deployment far from the center encouraged Black's next move - or maybe the defender misjudged his opponent, based on the "refuted" opening and the "obviously bad" placement of Her Majesty.

9...Ne5 

Not really an improvement over 9...Nf6 in Wall,B - Guest2360621,  2013, (1-0, 37).

I am reminded again of the Joker's taunt to Batman,"Come on. Hit me."

10.d4 Nc4 

Taking it all a bit too casually. 

11.Qa4+ Bd7 12.Qxc4 Ne7 

White not only has a 2-pawn advantage, he has the better pawn center and easy play. Black, in the meantime, has a King who can not castle out of danger.

13.Nc3 c6 14.Bf4 d5 15.exd5 cxd5 16.Nxd5 Nxd5 17.Qxd5 Qb6

18.O-O-O Be6 19.Qg5 g6 20.d5 Black resigned

Black's position is grim, and it is likely that it now dawned on him that moving his Bishop would allow White to play a Rook to e1, with check and checkmate to follow.

Jerome Gambit: Extra Material to What End?

If you have the advantage in material in your game, you can use the extra piece or pieces to attack or counterattack - our you can return some of it to blunt the aggression of your opponent. 

The following game seems to blend the opening thoughts of the previous blog post (see "Jerome Gambit: Borrowed") with a contribution to the the one a day earlier (see "Jerome Gambit: Artificial Wha?").

Black is overwhelmed by his opponent because he can not or will not or doesn't know that he needs to give back some of his gains in exchange for some safety.

Guest6049406280 - Guest0484608109

10 0 blitz, Chess.com, 2021

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 

The Two Knights Defense.

4.Bxf7+ 

Playing the sacrifice anyhow.

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ 

This feels a bit like the Halloween Gambit, as well.

5...Nxe5 6.d4 Nc6 7.e5 

Here we go. How should Black respond?

A cold-blooded computer might suggest 7...Ng8, because it assesses that White has nothing. 

A warm-blooded club player might try something like 7...d6, because with 2 extra pieces 8.exf6 Qxf6 seems safe enough.

In the game, Black wants to be more active. 

Remember, this is a 10 minute blitz game, so neither player can think too deeply. 

7...Ne4 8.Qf3+ Nf6 9.Be3 

Now what?

9...Kg8 

Reasonable.

10.O-O Ne8 

Oh, no.

A moment ago he was willing to return a piece, and 10...d6 was a great and "scientific" idea.

Clinging to extra material. Oddly enough, this is why we can't have good things.

11.Qd5 checkmate

Ow.

Jerome Gambit: Borrowed

Readers of this blog continue to share games that they have played where they have "borrowed" the Jerome Gambit's idea of Bxf7+ and had success in the attack on the enemy King that followed. Who am I to object??

marcopuc91 - danielhenriqueslopes

3 0 blitz, Chess.com, 2021

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 

Interesting. Knowingly or otherwise, Black offers the Bush-Gass Gambit.  See "Worth A Second Look..." Part 1, 2 and 3.

3.Bc4 Nf6 

Now we have the Petroff Defense, Italian Variation. Check out the early "Not Quite the Jerome Gambit"

4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5. Nxe5+ Ke8 6.d4 Bb4+ 7.c3 Bd6 

It was a better idea to retreat the Bishop to e7, but Black is thinking aggressively.

8.O-O Bxe5 9.Bg5 

Very tricky. Is it unsound? Many "unsound" ideas are sound in a 3-minute game.

9...Bd6 

The messy way out for Black was 9... h6 10.Bh4 Bf4 11.e5 g5 12.Bg3 Ng8 13.c4 Kf7 14.Qf3 d6 15.Bxf4 gxf4 16.Qxf4+ Kg7 17.Nc3 Qg5 when his 2 extra pieces - and a possible Queen exchange - would help.

10.e5 Bxe5 

Stockfish 13 suggests that Black "allow" White to force the draw with 10...Be7 11.exf6 Bxf6 12.Re1+ Kf8 13.Bxf6 gxf6 14.Qh5 Nc6 15.Re3 Rg8 16.Qxh7 d6 17.Qh6+ Kf7 18.Qh5+ Rg6 19.Qh7+ Rg7 20.Qh5+ Kf8 21.Qh8+ Rg8 etc. I don't think either player would go along with that.

11.dxe5 Rf8 

Black is right, the pressure on his Knight is difficult, but there is no way out at this point. 

12.Re1 Nc6 13.exf6+ Ne7 

Black's pieces are trying to help, but it's really all over. 

14.Qh5+ g6 15.Qxh7 d6 16.fxe7 Qd7 17.exf8=Q+ Kxf8 18.Bh6+ Black resigned

Jerome Gambit: Artificial Wha?

Sometimes a chess computer program can act as an interesting model of a human chess player.

Lately, in part because of my interest in the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) and my interest in the notion of "errors in thinking", I have been exploring ways to make a chess computer program dumber. 

I have done this before: see "Artificial Stupidity" and "Artificial Ignorance (Part 1)".

I mean, I have already learned from chess programs some ideas on how to play chess smarter, like

-give myself a reasonable amount of thinking time per move;

-increase the number of choices that I consider each time I get ready to move, not just look at the "obvious" one; and

-force myself to look one or two ply deeper than I would normally, when evaluating alternatives    

Conversely, if I want my chess computer program to be less smart, I could decrease the available "thinking" time per move, decrease the number of search nodes for each move, or decrease the search ply depth.

One of the more interesting ideas I found in an internet discussion was to have the computer chess engine vary how often it plays what it has calculated as the "best" move, versus playing alternatives it saw as less strong. For example, it could consider any move it evaluated as anywhere near (a pawn's difference, a piece's difference, etc.) the top move as equally playable as the "best". Or, the engine could be set to play the "best" move a certain percentage of the time, and a random move the rest of the time.

Much of this thinking was spurred by the following game.

At the time, I was bored, but not too bored; I wanted a challenge, but not too much of a challenge; I was ready to go to sleep, but not quite ready. 

So I turned to the Chess Titans chess program (for an earlier example see "Contempt?!"), which was set to the Beginner level.

Rick - Chess Titans

beginner level, casual game, 2021

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

Of course, the Jerome Gambit. I probably would have just turned the thing off if it had wanted to play the Nadjorf Sicilian.

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ 

6...Ke6 7. Qf5+ Kd6 8. f4 Qh4+ 

Wow! The computer is interested in playing the very sharp "Nibs" variation. That has to be part of its "book".

Funny thing, this has happed before, but I forgot about it. See "Jerome Gambit: Against the Titans (Part 1)"

9.g3 c6 10.Qxe5 checkmate

Well... uh... okay.

I suspect that many chess computer programs would have found 9...Nf3+, instead, and that others would have opted for 9...Qf6.

Quite possibly Chess Titans went for a random suggestion, instead of the best, on move 9.

(The Database points out that 3 of my earlier games - blitz, against human opponents - continued 9...Nf3+ 10.Kd1 Qe7 11.Qd5#. Ahem.)

Jerome Gambit: Sometimes Enlightenment Does Not Come (Part 2)

 

[continued from the previous post]

perrypawnpusher - DaniyarManat

1 day/move, Chess.com, 2021

I suddenly realized that my d-pawn was pinned, and that Black could grab my Knight with 15...Qxe5. But - he didn't! 

What had I missed? What had he missed?

Although it was too late - a bad habit, mulling over missed moves while the game is still in session, but I at least had the benefit of the time control being a day per move - I was able to reassure myself that 15...Qxe5 could have been met by 16.f6!?, threatening to deliver checkmate, capture the Knight on e7, or advance the pawn to f7 with a fork of the enemy King and Rook.  After 16...Ng6 17. f7+ Kh8 18.fxe8=Q+ Rxe8 I would have been up the exchange and a pawn.

I was not sure if my opponent had missed 15...Qxe5 like I had, or if he saw the move and its repercussions and so avoided it. After the game was finished, I checked and Stockfish 13's recommendation was that 15...Qxe5. Sigh.

15...Rad8 

Completing his development and putting further pressure on the White pawn center.

I was agog after the game to see that the computer evaluated me at this point as being more than a Queen ahead. This was somewhat explained by its recommendation 16.Kh1 (breaking the pin) Kf8 (huh?) 17.Bg5 Ng8 (huh?) 18.Bxf6 Nxf6. I would have thought Black's best after 16.Kh1 was 16...Bxd4 17.cxd4 Rxd4, being only a piece down, but Stockfish 13 disagrees and suggested a very elaborate series of moves, some of them threats to the Queen, that are hard to fathom.

16.Be3 

Breaking the pin on the d-pawn. This much I still understand.

16...Rd6 

I had expected 16...Rf8, and was not really sure how to respond. Let me get back to you on that...

In the meantime, the text move and the next give the opportunity for some tempo moves. 

17.Nc4 Rd7 18.e5 Qf8 19.f6 Black resigned

The Rook on d7 is threatened, along with the Knight at e7. 19...Rd5 would fall to the 20.f7+ fork and subsequent promotion.

I think my opponent played well in this game, except for his slip on move 12. I would give more feedback, but the play was rather complicated, and the insights of my silicon analyst helper were too much over my head. 

Jerome Gambit: Sometimes Enlightenment Does Not Come (Part 1)

When I finish a complicated game of chess I am often happy to turn it over to one of my silicon friends - nowadays, Stockfish 13 - to help me understand more about what was going on in the play, and how things could have been improved.

Sometimes, however, enlightenment does not come.

Take the following game. I am happy to share what I was thinking about, and I am willing to explain what I can about what was happening, but my computer friend let me down, with analyses that I too often could make no sense of at all. (That is part of the reason that I have linked to so many of my earlier games.)

Here we go.

perrypawnpusher - DaniyarManat

1 day/move, Chess.com, 2021

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

 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8 

This move was mentioned in Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's first published analysis of his gambit in the April 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal. Black is not interested in gathering in more sacrificed material and keeps his King relatively safe.

6.Nxc6 dxc6 

Preventing White's d2-d4, and thus stronger than 6...bxc6 as in perrypawnpusher - badhorsey, blitz, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 26). 

7.O-O 

Or 7.d3 as in perrypawnpusher - fortytwooz, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 29); perrypawnpusher - Jore, blitz, FICS, 2011 (0-1, 16); perrypawnpusher - Conspicuous, blitz, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 13); perrypawnpusher -Lark, blitz, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 12); and perrypawnpusher - pitrisko, blitz, FICS, 2011, (0-1, 30).

Also 7.Nc3 as in perrypawnpusher - Ykcir, blitz, FICS, 2009, (1/2 - 1/2, 11). 

7...Qf6 

Black puts pressure on the two long dark diagonals.

I have also faced

7...Bd6 in perrypawnpusher - Lark, blitz, FICS, 2009 (1-0, 18) 

7...Be6 in perrypawnpusher - CorH, blitz, FICS, 2009 (0-1, 74); perrypawnpusher - spince, blitz, FICS, 2013 (1-0); perrypawnpusher - PasayDefence, "Piano Piano" tournament, Chess.com, 2020 (1/2-1/2, 57); 

7...Ne7, in perrypawnpusher - smarlny, blitz, FICS, 2011,(1-0, 25); and 

7...Qh4 in perrypawnpusher - pitrisko, blitz, FICS, 2011 (0-1, 30) and perrypawnpusher - Al-der,"Italian Game Classic", Chess.com, 2019 (1-0, 26); 

8.c3 

This was something new for me, but building a Jerome pawn center was not.

8...Ne7  9.d4 Bb6 

The Bishop's pin on White's d-pawn will weigh heavily in the play to come.

10.Nd2 Kf7 11.f4 Rf8 12.Nf3

White's broad pawn center just about balances out Black's material advantage, although the open lines for his two Bishops have to be attended to.

After the game Stockfish 13 rated the position as equal, and recommended instead of the text move, 12.a4 (I am not sure why) a5 13.f5 Kg8 (finishing castling-by-hand) 14.Nc4 Nxf5 (returning material) 15.exf5 Bxf5.

12...Bg4 

This is a tactical oversight. My first thought was to reply 13.h3 and to follow 13...Bxf3 14.Qxf3 with 15.g4 and some serious pawn action on the Kingside. After the game Stockfish 13 suggested that it was not impressed, giving 14...c5 as a counter that gave Black a clear advantage. Maybe it is my club player perspective, but it looks like 15.d5 then would leave White okay.

Anyhow, a second look - drawn by the fact that Black has only partly castled-by-hand -  gave me the correct response.

13.Ne5+  Kg8 14.Qxg4 Rfe8 15.f5 

15...Rad8 

This move threw me into a panic. Had I missed something? Had my opponent, in turn, missed something? Suddenly there seemed to be a lot more going on than my planned 16.Bg5.

[to be continued]