Jerome Gambit: Filling

Past, light-hearted views of the future often included the idea of compressed food - a whole meal with a variety of foods, all in one tiny pill.

The following Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) game is a down-to-earth similarity. Who would have guessed that a 1-minute bullet game would be so filling?

Enjoy, but consume slowly to appreciate.

Static27o - kahaqqani

1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2021

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 

This line appears frequently - there are 3,747 examples in The Database. White scores 56%. [These appear to be the accurate numbers. For some reason I got them mixed up in the earlier post "Jerome Gambit: In the End, It Was the Pawns (Part 1)"]

7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qe3 Nf6 

10.O-O 

Static27o has the right idea, getting his King off the e-file. The danger is lessened when White has played Jerome's "nudge" 7.Qd5+ (Jerome - Brownson, Iowa, 1875) as above, but White will need to castle at some point, so it is a move well-played in bullet.

10...Kf7 11.f4 Re8 

White puts his faith in his central "Jerome pawns", Black in his Rook on the e-file.

12.f5 Rxe4 

An oversight, but a very understandable one. White has already shown that he plays fast-and-loose with the basics of "good" chess by playing the Jerome Gambit. Surely, he has overlooked the capture of his e-pawn? This is a reasonable assessment for thinking in a bullet game.

But, it is wrong. Statich27o either knows a whole lot about the Jerome, or his tactical skills are finely honed.

Black should have tried 12...Ne5, when 13.d4 would have followed in the footsteps of Vazquez - Carrington, 2nd match, 1876 (1-0, 34).

13.Qb3+ 

The primacy of check. White's Queen escapes danger.

Another way, but probably one that demanded more thinking time, was 13.fxg6+ Kg8 (13...Kxg6, unpinning the Knight which protects the Rook, falls to 14.Rxf6+ followed by 15.Qxe4) 14.gxh7+ Kh8 (not 14...Kxh7, when 15.Qd3 would pin the Rook to the King, threatening to win it with 16.Nc3; in the meantime, White would retain the threat of Rxf6) 15.Qf2.

13...d5 14.fxg6+ hxg6 15.Nc3 

Stockfish 14 give White an edge here. With a safer King, I think he would find his position easier to play.

15...Qh8 

This move is hard to explain. It could be an oversight, it could be that with the annoying pins against his pieces, Black decided to abandon the Rook. It also could be the clock.

There was something to say for 15...Re5 16.d4 Re8 17.Nxd5 Be6 18.c4 Bxd5 19.cxd5 Qd6 although White would still be better.

16.Qxd5+ 

Certainly good enough, although 16.Nxe4 would have taken full advantage of the pins.

16...Re6 17.Ne4 c6 18.Qb3 Ke7 

Freedom from the pins.

White turns to some "normal" moves to complete his development.

19.Nxf6 gxf6 20.d3 Re5 21.Bf4 Rh5 

Possibly under the impression that the enemy King is in danger - or maybe it is the only chance left? White quickly shows the true picture.

22.Rae1+ Kd7 23.Qf7+ Kd8 24.Qc7 checkmate

If you would like to cross swords with Static270, you can catch him at his online club.

Jerome Gambit: Jerome-Knight Gambit

 

I know that I said I would take leave of the Jerome Gambit variant (an "impatient Jerome Gambit") against the Two Knights Defense - 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Bxf7+ - until I had more new material (analysis and games) but it suddenly dawned upon me that I should also have mentioned the related Jerome-Knight Gambit  - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Bxf7+ - which I also took a look at, years ago.  Interested Readers can check out both the Jerome-Knight Gambit and some games (The Database currently has 445 examples.)

It might even be worth checking out "One More Thought" that I had on the relationship between those variations.

JG: The New in Its Opening Theory, in Its Psychology (Part 9)

 

JG: The New in Its Opening Theory, in Its Psychology (Part 9)   

(by Yury V. Bukayev) 

 

 

As a further development of my Part 2 (the post of October, 16, 2020 on Rick Kennedy’s blog), this continuation of my theoretical research on the standard line of the Jerome gambit (JG) is about position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qh3+! Ke7 8.Qc3!? Bd6!? 9.f4!. If your very cautious opponent (Black) is surprised by 7.Qh3+, then, most probably, he’ll prefer to play 7…Kf7: I proved it in some of my previous parts including my Part 8, where the new way of fight against the defence 7…Ke7 8.Qc3!? Bxf2+!? was considered (the post of September, 22, 2021 on Rick Kennedy’s blog). Nevertheless, you should be ready to meet this very important position in such game too.    

Here Black can find enough good defence where he returns no pieces on its first stage: 9…Ke8! N [The moves 9…Kf7!? N and 9…Kf8!? N are also possible. These my three new moves-inventions have the same idea - to open key squares for Black's Queen and Black's Bishop] 10.0-0! [10.fe? Qh4! 11.Kf1 Qf4! 12.Kg1 Be5!?, and Black wins. Although White can win here by traps 11.g3 Qe4 12.Kf2 Qh1 13.ed Qc1 14.Qg7 (or 14.Qe5 Kd8 15.dc#) 14…cd 15.Qh8 Kf8 16.a4 b5 17.ab Bb7 18.Ra4 Qb1 19.Rf4 Ke7 20.Qg7 +-, the probability of these Black’s mistakes isn’t very large.] Here Black should play 10…Nf7 or 10…Nc6. In both cases the move 11.Qxg7 isn’t good, White has two enough good ways: 11.b3 and 11.d4. It’s enough rare case in theory of JG, where on this opening stage White regains no pieces and lets opponent’s King retreat back from the centre, but can create very large difficulties for the opponent. Even a very cautious opponent can think here mistakenly that it’s very easy to achieve the score “0:1”, so he’ll start to make “active” moves without his usual caution.     

For example, here is one of “active” variations of play: 10…Nc6 11.b3 Bb4 12.Qe3 d6 13.Bb2 Bc5 14.d4 Bb6 15.c4 Qf6 16.e5 Qh6 17.c5 Ba5 18.a3 Nge7 19.b4 Bxb4 20.axb4 Nxb4 21.exd6: Black has an extra Knight, but White’s attack is strong.  

Here it becomes clear that my else new invented ways (N) - 9.0-0!?, 9.d4 Nc6 10.a3!? (10.0-0!?) - are enough good too. 

Of course, the Natural star Jerome gambit deferred (the strong deferred line of JG - the post of September, 17, 2021 on Rick Kennedy's blog) will be much more attractive for a lot of experts of the modern chess opening theory than the standard line of JG, but the defence 6…Ke6 after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ requires their new attention and large revision already now, we can understand finally.  

Jerome Gambit: Facing Up to 4.Bxf7+ in the Two Knights (Part 3)

The 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Bxf7+ game, Draper, Dr - Child, AW., Belfast - Dublin team correspondence match-2 1891-2, 1891 (0-1, 20), that we looked at in the previous post  - because of its similarity to the Jerome Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ - is creative, but does not give a lot of direction on how the opening is to be played.

Fortunately, we have some guidance from Jerome Gambit players.

Philidor 1792 (265 games in The Database, 27 with this line) wrote in the post "What's Going on Here?"

Since I wrote to you last time, I've played many Jerome games and found some fun ideas.

First of all, I explored the Modern Jerome Gambit and realized that here, in contrast to Double Jerome Gambit, one doesn't need to wait when opponent develop his bishop to c5 square (because the Qh5+ idea isn't involved), so why not to play Bxf7+ in response to Be7 or Nf6, without waiting Bc5 move? 

As you wrote in your blog some people believe that "it is bad investment to sacrifice the second piece with 5.Nxe5" and prefer to "focus on development". (If there is any soundness to be found in the Jerome, then I believe it involves replacing 5. Nxe5+ with a different move. - Gary K. Gifford). Why do we need a black bishop on c5 then? 

So I tried to play Bxf7+ after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 as a response to any black move. After that I saw that in the arising positions the main idea of the Halloween Gambit is applicable. For example after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Ng6 7.e5 the black knight doesn't have any secure square (the g4 and h5 squares are controled by the white queen and after Nd5 or Ne4, Qf3+ with a fork may follow.)

The Halloween Gambit, by the way, is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5 Nxe5 5.d4.

 You can find game examples by Philidor 1792 in "Unasked Questions".

I will return to this topic when I have more to share.

Jerome Gambit: Facing Up to 4.Bxf7+ in the Two Knights (Part 2)

As mentioned in the previous post, the earliest example that I have found of the Two Knights "impatient Jerome Gambit" line, 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Bxf7+, is the following game. It is just the start of the investigation, as it raises many more questions than it answers.

Draper, Dr - Child, AW.

Belfast - Dublin team correspondence match-2 1891-2

My source for this game is Dr. Timothy Harding's very reliable UltraCorr 3A (2010) collection of correspondence chess games (an updated version is due in early 2022).

However, examining Dr. Harding's thesis,‘Battle at long range’: correspondence chess in Britain and Ireland, 1824-1914, a social and cultural history, I immediately ran into difficulties.

Appendix III, titled "Matches between clubs" ("This appendix lists the known correspondence matches played between U.K. clubs, or between clubs and individuals, between 1824 and 1914"), does not list a Belfast - Dublin correspondence match for 1891.

[In 1891, Ireland was still part of the U.K.]

On top of that, Appendix IX, titled "A-Z of Chess People", does not list an AW Child or a Dr. Draper.

Clearly, I have more research ahead of me.

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Qe2 

Placing the Queen on e2 as a strategic and tactical idea must have been "in the air" at the time the game was played. I have looked at 4.Qe2 in earlier posts.

White has a different idea. To put it into context, see "No Way A GM Plays the Jerome Gambit! (Part 1)". 

There is also the historical perspective reflected in "Proto-Jerome Gambits? (Part 3)". 

The earliest example that I have seen with this move is Pollock, W.H.K. - Vernon, J.E., Bath vs Bristol match, 1883 (1/2 - 1/2, 29). 

It was also played in Gunsberg - Burn, 6th American Chess Congress, 1889 (1/2-1/2, 27) and Bird - Chigorin, 6th American Chess Congress, 1889 (0-1, 53).

In the current game, White's Queen puts pressure on Black's e-pawn, while readying the simple threat, 5...Bc5? 6.Qc4+.

5...d5

Black hits the center right away. He envisions trouble for White, who has his Queen and King on the same file (we have recently warned about this).

6.exd5 Nxd5 

7.O-O 

Prudent. If White had originally planned 7.Nxe5+ Nx5 8.Qxe5, perhaps he now realized that after 8...Qe7 the Queens will be exchanged, and he will not have much of an attack. As in the regular Jerome Gambit, White would have two pawns for his sacrificed piece, but that would not be a lot of comfort in a quiet game - especially an open one, where his opponent has the two Bishops. 

7...Bd6 8.d4 Re8 9.Ng5+

Optimistically putting his hopes on the chance of a Kingside checkmate.

9...Kg8 10.Qh5 Nf6 11.Qf7+ Kh8 12.Qc4 Qe7 

Black's King is secure, and now the Knight checks at f7 are dealt with.

White's tactical threats would probably amount to something in blitz, but, remember, this is a correspondence game. 

13.Be3 Be6 14.Qa4 

Allowing a tactical shot.

14...exd4 15.Bxd4 Bxh2+ 16.Kh1 

Avoiding 16.Kxh2 Ng4+ 17.Kg1 Qxg5, but it does not matter. 

16...Bd5 17.f3 

Blunting the power of Black's light-squared Bishop, but the danger comes from elsewhere.

17...Nh5 18.Kxh2 Qxg5 19.Bf2 Nf4 20.Bg3 Qh6+ White resigned

Checkmate comes after the very attractive 21.Kg1 Ne2+ 22.Kf2 Qe3+ 23.Ke1 Nc3.

 

[to be continued]