Jerome Gambit: Another Example of Why We Play

The following game is another example of why we play the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+): throw enough danger against the defender, and he can slip and fall...

Bucknasty94 - Lichess Opponent

10 0 blitz, lichess.org, 2021

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Kf8 

The Jerome Defense to the Jerome Gambit, successful in two correspondence games, Jaeger, Daniel - Jerome, Alonszo Wheeler, 1880.

7.Qxe5 Qe7 8.Qf4+ Nf6 9.e5 

A feint. White's pawn is still pinned to his King, so the threat against Black's pinned Knight is not yet active.

However, in blitz games, threats often loom large.

9...d6 10.d4 

Attacking the enemy Bishop, as well. 

10...Bb6 

Black flinches. With more time, he might have found 10...dxe5 11.dxe5 Bd6, when White's pawn thrust would have been thwarted.

This loss of tempo changes the evaluation of the position: White is now better. 

11.O-O dxe5 12.dxe5 Black resigned

Black has had enough.

Still, if he wanted to continue - since the game was blitz, and the clock might have been helpful - he might have pursued 12...Bd7 13.Qxe3 Bxe3 14.fxe3 Re8 15.exf6 Qxe3+ 16.Qxe3 Rxe3 17.fxg7+ Kxg7 18.Nc3 Bc6 where he would have been down a pawn, but his Bishop probably would be a bit stronger than White's Knight. 

Jerome Gambit: Analysis Leads the Way (Part 2)

 

[continued from the previous post]

Yury_V_Bukayev - WaleraG

30 0 rapid, Chess.com, 2021

15.Qb5

The Chess.com computer labels this a MISTAKE, but you can tell from its recommendation - 15.Qxc7+ Kxc7 16.Nd5+ Kc6 17.Nxf4 - that it is not thinking like a Jerome Gambit player. White's goal is to complicate, not simplify, and certainly not to exchange Queens without just cause.

15...Qg4

Once again, the computer complains that this is an INACCURACY as Black should have played 15...Qh4+ 16. g3 Nf3+ 17.Kd1 Qh3 causing White to play 18.Qf1 and of course, soon exchanging Queens.

I would like to know how much the clock figured into the rest of the defender's play.

16.Rf1 Qh4+ 17.g3 Qe7 

The computer fusses: BLUNDER 

Yury notes 

I agree that 17...Qh5 was better than 17...Qe7, but I disagree that 17...Qe7 was a blunder: in fact, after 18.Nd5! Black can play not only 18...c6!?, but also 18...a6, where Black's play is much easier

18.Nd5 c6 19.Qa5+ b6 20.Nxb6 Qc7 

The last comment allowed the computer to make: BLUNDER and Critical mistake. 

Notes by Yury, after 20...axb6 21.Qxa8! the position is complicated and unclear.

 21.Rf8+

I suppose this is what the computer was trying to warn about.

21...Ke7 22.Nd5+ cxd5 23.Qxc7+ Kxf8 24.Qxd6+ Black resigned

Sometimes Jerome gambit games are very beautiful, but blunders are psychologically sudden there mostly excluding a lack of time. Here Black's alone blunder was, probably, a result of his tiredness from a long White's attack with unceasing creating of new threats.

Jerome Gambit: Analysis Leads the Way (Part 1)

Readers are certainly familiar with Yury V. Bukayev, who has made many contributions to this blog.

He recently sent me one of his games, significant because is follows original Jerome Gambit analysis that he presented earlier - "JG: The New (Part 2)" and "JG: The New in Its Opening Theory, in Its Psychology (Part 8)"

It is worth going back to read these posts before venturing on to the game.

By the way, WaleraG is the Russian chess author Valery P. Golshev.

Yury_V_Bukayev - WaleraG

30 0 rapid, Chess.com, 2021

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

The Chess.com computer, in its annotations, referred to this move as a "MISTAKE". It certainly is a bigger error than an "INACCURACY", but I do not know why it is not considered by the silicon beast to be a "BLUNDER".

Players new to the Jerome Gambit sometimes are surprised - especially when analyzing a fast and furious win they achieved - that computer chess engines disrespect the Jerome.

The truth is, in the land of computers - and in the land of masters and experts - the Jerome Gambit is not very strong.

However, in blitz or bullet games, the Jerome appears more playable. In club games, it can approach respectability. When a stronger player gives a weaker player "Jerome Gambit" odds, it can be crushing.

So, it can be useful to look at a computer evaluation, but it is helpful to remember Jakob Aabling-Thomsen and Michael Agermose Jensen's comment, that evaluations are one thing, variations are another.

4... Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 

7. Qh3+ 

This is the strong move Yury analyzed in the posts given above and in the majority of other posts of this his series having Parts 1-9 now. 

I do not know if he realized that he was improving on play by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome, himself, from an earlier correspondence game. The "Games" column of the October 1881 issue of Brentano's Chess Monthly had a submission by S.A. Charles,

..Some time since, I published in the Pittsburg Telegraph a compilation of such analyses of the Jerome Gambit as I could find, with some additions from published games. Mr. Jerome justly criticized some of the moves as not being the best for either party, and we commenced as series of correspondence games more as a test of the opening than of individual skill. Unfortunately Mr. Jerome's business engagements have prevented him from playing out the full number of games originally started; yet the situation even in the unfinished games seems to me at least to prove the gambit unsound, and that while White may win against weak, he cannot do against strong play. 

Jerome, Alonzo W - Charles, S.A., correspondence, 1881, was an early example of what was to be called the "annoying" defense: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 d6, which Jerome decided to meet with 8.Qh3+. After 8...Ke7 the game continued for only 5 more moves, but it is clear that White had less than nothing.

By playing his Queen check a move earlier, Yury gets to play, among other things, against the unprotected enemy Bishop at c5.

7...Kf7 8.Qh5+ Ke6 9.Qh3+ Ke7 

Please note that Black decided not to play 9...Kf7, which would indicate that he would be willing to draw by a repetition of position (if White continued in the same vein). After all, why would he want to draw, when he is two pieces up (for two pawns)?

Of course, in a dozen or so more moves, he might have regretted this decision.

Perhaps WaleraG wanted to further test Yury's line. 

10.Qc3 

According to The Database, a novelty, and a very practical one, attacking both of Black's developed pieces.

Black can now retreat the Bishop to protect the Knight, repeating a positional difficulty that many defenders of the Jerome Gambit have experienced: the Bishop would block the pawn, which would block the Bishop, which would block in the Rook. Yury started to analyze this important line in his Part 2 and continued in his Part 9 

Black could also defend both pieces with a pawn, but that would mean giving one back immediately when White plays d2-d4.

Instead, WaleraG continues along with his opponent's line.

10...Bxf2+ 

Black returns a piece his own way, gets a pawn, prevents White from castling, and finds a way to get his Queen into the game.

11.Kxf2 Qf8+ 12.Ke1 

Suggested in "JG: The New in Its Opening Theory, in Its Psychology (Part 8)"

12...Qf4 13.Qc5+ Kd8 14.Nc3 d6 

The Chess.com computer labels this move an INACCURACY, preferring 14...Qh4+ when it sees 15.Qf2 Qxf2+ 16.Kxf2 Ne7 as best. I doubt that Yury would have exchanged Queens, as it would be quite un-Jeromish. He would have at least looked at 15.g3 Qe7 16.Qe3, with d2-d4 to follow.

[to be continued]

Jerome Gambit: How Bad Has It Gotten?

Ah, yes, Frederick Burr Opper's pair, Alphonse and Gaston, who remind me of the opening line we are going to take a look at today.

When I first encountered what would eventually be called the "Counter-Jerome Gambit", I agreed with Martin Moller that it represented "A rather unambitious line on Black's part". At that time I noted that

my database has 11 games with this line and White has won 10, the only loss coming in a mis-played Rook-and-pawn endgame.

It was even relevant to add

When NM Brian Wall played against this line, he commented "Luckily, there is an unwritten Law of Chess that states a lower rated player will trade any advantage, no matter how massive, for a certain draw against a higher rated player... Black sees an "opportunity" to trade queens and grabs it with both hands."

My general advice was, with the Queens gone and White a pawn up, that "Sometimes you just have to outplay the other guy...". 

Over time, my perspective began to shift. A year later, the line was considered "A Side Line to Watch". Later, I worried "Is this the new face of the Jerome Gambit??". Although I could calmly say about one of my games that "Nothing Happened" I eventually concluded

If you want to take the fun out of someone playing the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) against you, you can always count on... The Zombie Walk. That's not the official name of any of the Jerome variations, it's just a way of making the game a boring win. For White. 

Things got so bad - relatively speaking - that I began to see examples of the Counter-Jerome Gambit Declined. 

That is how we arrive at today's game.

mamen_oscar - MengalZ

5 3 blitz, lichess.org, 2021

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+  

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 

7.Qxe5 Bxf2+  

The Counter-Jerome Gambit. The opposite of the complicated Blackburne Defense, 7...d6, and the challenging Whistler Defense, 7...Qe7.

The dangers are more psychological: White may become frustrated because he no longer has his smash and crash attack that the Jerome Gambit usually promises.  

8.Ke2

The Database has 9 games with this move, with White scoring 50%.

That is to be compared with 142 games with 8.Kxf2 Qf6 where White scores 80%.

For the record, Stockfish 14 prefers 8.Kxf2 Nf6 for Black, although even then White score 77% of the time (in 24 games) according to The Database.

So, Readers: The Counter-Jerome Gambit isn't that strong, please take the Bishop.

8...Qf6 

This is the kind of thing that can happen in a blitz game, where speed can be of the essence, and analysis not so deep. 

White should now simply exchange Queens, followed by capturing the Bishop, and be happy with an even game.

9.Qd5+ 

Looking for an attack. Oddly, Black's psychology has paid off after all.

9...Kg7 10.Rf1 Ne7 11.Qc4 Rf8 

Black secures his Bishop. White's compensation - two pawns - is not enough in the face of his opponent's better development and safer King.

White staggers on, like a zombie.

12.d3 d6 13.Nc3 Bg4+ 14.Kd2 Qf4 checkmate

Jerome Gambit: The Treatment Was Successful

Every once in a while, a chess player has to administer the "Jerome Gambit treatment" to an opponent. As in the following game, success (for the attacker) arrives quickly. 

KadenSeward - hilseimou

Chess.com iPhone, 2021

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 

The Bishop's Opening. Sometimes this features 3.Bxf7+, what I have called the "Abrahams Jerome Gambit". Also, sometimes the game transposes into the regular Jerome Gambit with 3.Nf3 Nc6.

3.Nf3 h6 

Okay, you can give Black credit for recognizing the threat of Nf3-g5 by White. In fact, ...h6 is seen in the Semi-Italian Opening, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4, and  can lead to a Semi-Italian Jerome Gambit, as well.

However, in this case the defender has neglected to protect his e-pawn, and that encourages White to administer the "Jerome Gambit treatment" immediately.

4.Bxf7+ 

I have to admit that Stockfish 14 prefers 4.Nxe5 here - there are no games in The Database with the move - but things quickly get messy on White's side of the board after 4...Qg5 5. d4 Qxg2 (at which point the computer recommends 6.Bxf7+ anyhow) so it makes a lot of sense for KadenSeward to bring the action to his opponent, first.

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke8 

One side-effect of the Jerome Gambit "treatment" is that Black can have some difficulty distinguishing "good" responses from "bad" responses - or, in this case, "bad" responses from "worse" responses.

It makes perfect sense, in the abstract, to retreat the King to safety, but, in this particular case, charging ahead with 5...Ke6 was for choice, although White would still be better.

White has a forced checkmate, based in part on the seriously weakened light squares on the Kingside (3...h6 did not help in this).

6.Qh5+ Ke7 7.Qf7+ Kd6 8.Qd5+ 

It doesn't change the outcome of the game, but next time it would be helpful to remember the deft 8.Nc4+, which leads to mate, e.g. 8...Kc6 9.Qd5+ Kb5 10.Nc3+ Ka6 11.Qxc5 b6 12.Qb5+ Kb7 13.Na5#. 

8...Ke7 

Victory is at hand. White has choices.

9.Ng6+ 

Winning a Rook, while keeping the pressure on (threats: Qxc5 and Qxg8) is pretty persuasive.

There was also 9.Qf7+ Kd6 followed by 10.Nc4+ as mentioned above. 

9...Kf6 10.Qf5 checkmate

To borrow freely from the movie "Call of the Rockies" (1944)

The treatment was a success, but the patient died.

Jerome Gambit: Surprising Chances (Part 2)

 

[continued from the previous post]

farhadba - MeiND

3 0 blitz, lichess.org, 2021

We are looking at a very interesting Jerome Gambit game, where it is difficult to separate the "good" moves from the "bad" moves - especially in a 3-minute blitz game. This is one of the advantages of the Jerome - the defender either has to use extra time calculating, or he risks choosing what certainly looks like an okay move, only to discover it was not the way to go.

The uncertainty applies to White, as well. The above position arises after Black captured on c6 with the b-pawn, instead of the d-pawn. One advantage of the latter is that d2-d4 would be prevented.

However, White missed the wilder 7.Qg4+!? (instead of 7.d4). For starters, if 7...Kf7 then 8.Qh5+ Kf8 9.Qxc5; or if 7...Kf6 8.Qf5+ Ke7 9.Qxc5; in both cases Black loses his Bishop. If 7...Ke7, he loses a Rook with 8.Qxg7+ Ke6 9.Qxh8.

After 7.Qg4+ Kd6 Black's King appears to have stepped out of danger, but 8.e5+ either chased him to e7, when White would again have Qxg7+; while capturing the pawn with 8...Kxe5 would be met by 9.d4+ Bxd4 10.Bg5 which will cost Black his Queen, since 10...Nf6 leads to checkmate in 5: 11.Bf4+ Kd5 12.Qf5+ Be5 13.Qxe5+ Kc4 14.b3+ Kb4 15.Bd2#.

Finally, if 7.Qg4+ Kd6 8.e5+ Kd5 then 9.Nc3+ Kxe5 10.d4 Bxd4 11.Bg5 costs Black his Queen.

This analysis shows the benefits of playing over a game after it has finished, looking deeper into the lines than was possible during the game itself, so that you become more aware of the possibilities the next time you are in the same (or similar) situations.

7...Bb6 

The game has settled down. Black has a piece for a couple of pawns. White's pawn center confronts Black's at-risk King. The computer suggests adding to that center with 8.c4, leaving Black with an edge.

8.Qg4+

This move looks scary, reminiscent of the analysis of 7.Qg4+, above, with one small difference: If Black's King now retreats to f7, White does not have the Queen check at h5 which would allow him to pick up the Bishop, since it has vacated c5.

Everything else leads to disaster for Black.

8...Ke7

White's aggressive play is immediately rewarded. I am reminded of the lament that If White errs in his attack, he might slip into a worse game, but if Black errs in his defense, the game is likely over.

9.Qxg7+ Kd6 10.Qxh8 

Grabbing the enemy Rook, similar to the analysis at the top of the page.

You might have chosen another move, but White will now win his own way, in his own time.

10...Ne7 11.Qe5 checkmate

Triumph of the Jerome Gambit player!

Jerome Gambit: Surprising Chances (Part 1)

I have become accustomed to seeing Jerome Gambit wins. They can be difficult to come by when the defender is a computer, but for a refuted chess opening the Jerome offers surprising chances for the enterprising attacker who chooses a human as his opponent.

This all came to mind when I played over the following game between online club players. White repeatedly misses the "best" moves - in the main game and in the games in the notes - and still wins. 

How to explain it? It's the Jerome Gambit.

It's also a 3-minute game, and you can only dig so far into the analysis of any move.

farhadba - MeiND

3 0 blitz, lichess.org, 2021

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

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke6 

This is an odd defense. I have written about it a number of times, most recently in "Jerome Gambit: More Concrete" and "Jerome Gambit: Over the Rainbow (Part 1)"

The earliest example I have in The Database is an internet game from 2002. This can hardly be the first time that 5...Ke6 was played, however, given that The Cheltenham Examiner's chess column of  Wednesday February 21, 1906, suggested the move with the dubious comment that it "should win".

Suggesting otherwise, The Database has 48 games with 5...Ke6, with White scoring 71%.

Black's strategy seems to be one of opposition: If White wants me to take the Knight, I won't; if White wants my King to retreat, it won't.

White has met this line in a number of ways.

6.Nxc6 

This move makes sense: White no longer offers the piece for capture, he exchanges it.

Still, Stockfish 14, at 30 ply, rates it as only the 5th best move available. 

Slightly better is 6.Nf3, which also rescinds the offer. There are no examples in The Database.

Third best is 6.0-0, which leaves the Knight en prise, playing a move that is routine in the Jerome Gambit. There are no examples in The Database.

Second best is 6.d4, leading to an even game after 6...Nxe5 7.dxc5. There are four examples in The Database, three played by stretto. White scores 50%.

Best is the forcing 6.Qg4+, which has scored 81% in 8 games. The line is discussed in Wall, Bill - Skandervitch, Internet, 2021 (1-0, 11); Wall, Bill - Guest4105968, PlayChess.com, 2018 (1/2 - 1/2, 50); and Wall, Bill - Guest13762608, PlayChess.com, 2019 (1-0 8).

Recently, Astral1119 has won a couple of short games at lichess.org with 6.f4, but he had some cooperation after 6...Nxe5 (best), as both the terrible 7.fxe5 and the creative 7.d4 (best) are strongly met by 7...Qh4+.

White could also try 6.Qh5, since after 6...Nxe5 he will have transposed into regular Jerome gambit lines, and that might have some psychological impact on Black, if he has specially prepared 5...Ke6.

6...bxc6

Black follows the rule of thumb - capture toward the center - and surrenders his advantage.

Instead, 6...dxc6 would open the d-file so that the dark square Black Bishop and Queen could prevent d2-d4. Even more useful would be having the diagonal of his light square Bishop opened up as well. 

Also, 6...Qh4 looks quirky enough to be playable in this position, but it is well met by 7.Qe2 when the strangeness continues (according to Stockfish 14) with 7...Bxf2+ 8.Kf1 bxc6 9.Qxf2 Qxe4 10.d3 with White as better.

7.d4 

I know, I know, I just suggested that Black should have prevented this move on his last turn, but there is a far better move available to White now.

[to be continued]