Bxf7+ Leads to Execution

The main idea behind 4.Bxf7+ in the Jerome Gambit and related openings is to checkmate the enemy King. Tactics are the key that lead to execution, as in the following game.

Guest5673273290 - Guest2514575685

10 0 blitz, Chess.com, 2021

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 

The Two Knights Defense.

4.Bxf7+ 

Anyway.

The move seems to be growing in popularity. This game will help.

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Nc6 7.e5 Qe8

According to The Database - which is somewhat incomplete on this line - this is a new move, although 7...Qe7 was seen at least as early as Philidor 1792 - guest1334, 3 0 blitz, 2014 (1-0, 20).

We have recently seen 7...Ne4.

8.O-O Nd5 

This is a reasonable move, although Stockfish 13 prefers 8...Nxe5, returning some material directly. It then further recommends 9.Re1 d6 10.dxe5 dxe5 11.Bf4 Bg4 12.Qd2 Rd8 13.Qc3 Qc6 14.Qxc6 Bxc6 15.Bxe5 Bd6 where White has a pawn and better pawn structure as (insufficient) compensation for his sacrificed piece.

9.Qf3+ Ke7 

It is hard to believe, with Black two pieces ahead, but this move, as opposed to the saving 9...Kg8, signals "Game Over".

It is time for White to hunt the enemy King.

10.Bg5+ Ke6 

The alternative 10...Nf6 allows White to grab material with 11.exf6+ Kf7 12.fxg7+ Kxg7 13.Bf6+ Kg8 14.Qg3+ Qg6 15.Qb3+  (with the idea of moving Black's King away from protecting his Rook) Qf7 16.Qxg7+ Kxf7 17.Bxh8 when White would be up the exchange and a couple of pawns. The Bishop will escape.

11.c4 Nxd4 

This leads to checkmate.

Black's best was to give back a piece with 11...Nce7 12.cxd5 Nxd5. Then Stockfish 13 has an interesting Queen maneuver for White: 13.Qh3+ Kf7 14.Qh5+ g6 15.Qf3+ Kg8 16.Qxd5+ when the first player has recovered his sacrificed material.

The point of the Queen's efforts can be seen by comparing them to 13.Nc3 c6 14.Nxd5 cxd5 when White has an edge, despite being behind in material, because of the unsafe enemy King. Once the point f6 has been weakened - 14.Qh5+ g6 - then it becomes extra dangerous for Black to move his King to f6 - e.g. 15.Qf3+ Ke6 16.Nc3 when the Knight exchange is forced 16...Nxc3 17.bxc3 and the only move to prevent checkmate would then be 17...d5, although lines of attack would open after 18.exd6 e.p.

That seems like a lot to look at, but it is helpful to have a good understanding of the attacking position.

12.cxd5+ Kxe5 13.Re1+ Ne2+

Or 13...Kd6 14.Bf4+ Kc5 15.Qc3+ Kxd5 16.Qa5+ b5 17.Nc3+ Kc4 18.b3+ Kc5 19.Rxe8 Bb7 20.Na4+ Kd5 21.Re5+ Kd6 22.Qb4+ Kc6 23.Qc3+ Kd6 24.Qc5# 

14.Rxe2+ Kd6 15.Qa3+ 

Brutal. White doesn't even bother to win the Queen.

15...Kxd5 16.Nc3+ Kc6 17.Qa4+ b5 18.Qxb5+ Kd6 19.Rd1 checkmate

BSJG: Can He Do That??

Watching a player who has mastered bullet games - one minute on the clock, with no increment - it is easy to believe that just about any move is playable at that time control. It is an interesting science to balance unexpectedness with strength in moves and come out with a win.

angelcamina - Gab20

1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2021

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 

The Blackburne Shilling Gambit.

4.Bxf7+ 

The Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit.

Often Black, having unleashed an opening surprise, is not ready to face one by White.

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke6 6.Qh5 Qf6 

A little bit stronger was 6...Nf6, as in angelcamina - rabirabi, lichess.org, 2019 (1-0, 13),  angelcamina - shahramkhoshseffat, lichess.org, 2019 (1-0, 13) and angelcamina - luquitas2018, lichess.org, 2020 (1-0, 21). 

7.Qe8+  

Shocking - and I think that is the idea behind the move. "Objectively" it is bad, but Black has to recover and analyze, all while the clock is ticking.

Instead, 7.Ng4 worked in angelcamina - regullele, lichess.org, 2020, (1-0, 16). 

7...Be7 8.Nd3 

White withdrew his Queen with 8.Qh5 in angelcamina - Skhokho1507, lichess.org, 2019, (1-0, 12). 

8...Nxc2+ 

In the BSJG, sometimes this fork is a distraction from Black's proper course of play, and should not be essayed; sometimes, however, it gains useful material.

In this case? It is quite playable, and increases Black's advantage. I wonder, though, how much time he spent deciding on the move.

9.Kd1 Nxa1 10.Qh5 c6 

White was threatening mate.

11.Nc3 Kd6 

Ouch.

This brings to mind the quote from Alexander Alekhine

The fact that a player is very short of time is, to my mind, as little to be considered an excuse as, for instance, the statement of the law-breaker that he was drunk at the time he committed the crime. 

12.e5+ Qxe5 13.Nxe5 

(Or capture with the Queen.)

l3...g6 14.Nxg6 Nf6 15.Qe5 checkmate

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.)