How To Beat The Aggressive Gunman If The Game Is Important For You

 

How To Beat The Aggressive Gunman If The Game Is Important For You 

  

(by Yury V. Bukayev) 

 

 

Let’s consider the terrible situation. You are ready to play the chess game as Black against your opponent with a protocol and with no witnesses, but suddenly he… aims his hidden pistol at you and makes his four moves in succession: 1.e4, 2.c4, 3.Nc3, 4.Nf3. Then he shows you the filled “protocol” of the “game”: “1.e4 Nc6 2.c4 Nb8 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Nf3 Nb8. Black resigned”. 

What to do? Let’s consider the case where the result of this game is extremely important for you and where you aren’t sure that somebody can defend you and your rights effectively in future. 

The situation is really difficult. But here is the first method for you. You can say him: “Yes, I agree. Give me this protocol. Well. Approach me to sign this protocol”. He will let the pistol out of his hand to take a pen. And here you must snatch this pistol, aim it at him and say him: “Seat down. Well. You must fill the empty sheet to form another protocol with the same your moves: 1.e4 e5 2.c4 Bc5 3.Nc3 Qh4 4.Nf3 Qxf2#. You must add Black’s moves on the board, sign this new protocol and return it.” After these his acts you must contact the police. 

Thus, in fact, you beat this aggressive gunman by his own “pistol rules”, because you make your four moves in succession (1…e5, 2…Bc5, 3…Qh4, 4…Qxf2#) after his ones. So you stop this “war” by this beautiful method. 

It is normal that we don’t see a gambit here. Gambits are interesting in a real chess only. For example, in a normal chess game after 1.e4 e5 2.c4 Bc5 my following new gambit idea is possible: 3.Be2!? N Qh4 (of course, I don’t recommend the weak Jerome-ish 3…Bxf2+ 4.Kxf2 Qh4+ with …Qxe4) 4.g3 Qxe4 5.Nf3, and White has enough compensation for his sacrificed pawn.  

Jerome Gambit: One More 'Bot

I have been enjoying the YouTube videos featuring Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) games against various online computer personalities, e.g. the Play Magnus [Carlsen] bot, the Fabiano Caruana Bot, the Aman Hambleton bot, and the Ian Nepomniachtchi bot. 

The 'bot play often takes turns that I would not expect, which makes it even more entertaining.

My most recent discovery is a video of the Jerome Gambit being played against a bot personality, "MrBeast", rated 1100, by Entertaining Chess Content (creator of the GM Hambleton bot video).

When even free chess engines can destroy the average club member, how do you modify one so that it plays at the 1100 level? I suppose you could seriously limit it's "thinking" time, or have it rank-order the possible moves in any position and chose the 3rd best, or tweak it so that it plays its "favorite" piece much more often than the situation calls for.

What to you think is going on with the MrBeast bot in the following game?

NN - MrBeast bot

Chess.com, 2022

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+  

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke8 

Remarkable restraint for a beginner, who might have been counted on to grab more material.

6.Qh5+ g6 7.Nxg6 Nf6 

Attack the enemy Queen when possible - but this is an okay idea here. Black has to return some of the sacrificed materail, anyhow.

8.Qxc5 hxg6 9.f3 Rh7 

This is a bit odd. Perhaps we have found MrBeast's favorite piece?

10.d3 Rh4 11.Qg5 Rh5 

See notes to Black's 7th and 9th moves.

12.Qxg6+ Ke7 13.g4 Rh7 

14.g5 Qf8 15.gxf6+ Qxf6

Disastrous. 

16.Bg5 Rf7 

17.Nc3 Ke6 18.Bxf6 Rxf6 19.Qg8+ Rf7 20.Nd5 Ne5 21.f4 Nxd3+ 22.cxd3 Kd6 23.Rc1 Rxf4 24.Qg6+ Ke5 25.Qg7+ Rf6 26.Qxf6 checkmate

Ouch.

(If you liked that game, you might as well check out the quickie video "Crushing a 700 with the Jerome Gambit". Double Ouch.)

Jerome Gambit: And Yet More 'Bot Play

 

I will not vouch for the realism of the latest (or earlier) computer vs grandmaster bot simulation (from Chess.com, see yesterday's post, as an example), but the YouTube video showcasing "Playing the Jerome Gambit against Nepo [Grandmaster Ian Nepomniachtchi]" where Komodo 10 takes up the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) is another interesting and enjoyable game.

Would Komodo, using a "refuted" opening, actually take down the world's #5 player? I am skeptical.

But it is fun to pretend.

Jerome Gambit: More 'Bot Play

I just encountered a YouTube video featuring a Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) played against another 'bot (computer simulation of a specific real chess player; see "Can the Fabiano Caruana Bot Defend Against Stockfish 14.1’s Jerome Gambit?" and Stockfish 14 playing against the Play Magnus [Carlsen] bot for other examples) - this time

"Chess engine Komodo 10 plays the Jerome Gambit against the Aman Hambleton bot" from Chess.com.

I doubt the bot plays anywhere near the strength of the real Aman Hambleton (see "Jerome Gambit: Chess Adventures of GM Hambleton [Parts 1 & 2]") - and I suspect that the Canadian Grandmaster would defeat Komodo 10 in real life - but the game is entertaining, and it always is fun to record another "1-0" on behalf of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's creation.

The video is under 2 minutes, and the game is interesting and worth watching.

Jerome Gambit: More Explorations (Part 3)

 

 

[I would like to show a picture of Armand E. Blackmar, but the only one that I could find, on the findagrave.com website, actually appears (Google image search) to be a photo of Leonidas Polk.]

So far, my explorations have moved from a couple of games by Lyudmila Rudenko to an article by Karel Traxler to the mysterious "Blackmar-Jerome gambit".

Concerning Armand Edward Blackmar (1826 - 1888), I have not found a "Blackmar-Jerome gambit" among his works. 

Blackmar wrote an article for the July 1882 issue of Brentano's Chess Monthly, where he presented analysis and games concerning 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.f3.

 The American Supplement to Cook’s “Synopsis”, edited by J.W. Miller, (London, 1885), had analysis of two gambits attributed to Blackmar: 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.f3 and 1.d4 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3.f3. 

The only line which had any resemblance to the Jerome Gambit - a sacrifice of a Bishop on f7 - is not a good candidate for "Blackmar-Jerome": 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.f3 exf3 4.Nxf3 Bg4 5.c3 e5 6.Bc4 e4 7.Bxf7+ Ke7 8.Bxg8 h6 9.Qe2 Bxf3 10.gxf3 Rxg8 11.Qxe4+ Kf7 12.Qxb7 Nd7 13.Qd5+. 

Very intriguing, however, was the note in the Supplement

Mr. Blackmar has a manuscript book of over 300 games played at the Gambits, and his conclusion is that both lead to most interesting positions, giving White an immense variety of brilliant attacks to repay for the Pawn Sacrificed.

I do not know if that handwritten book of games was ever published. It is an odd coincidence that when Emil Josef Diemer (1908 - 1990), who extended the first Blackmar Gambit with 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3, wrote his book on the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, Vom Ersten Zug an auf Matt! (Toward Mate From the First Move), it contained 300 games as well.

In an off chance to learn more about a possible "Blackmar - Jerome gambit", I contacted Tim Sawyer, who not only has a chess blog which contains many Blackmar-Diemer Gambit games, he lists among his many books a couple dozen on the BDG.

When I contacted him to ask about the "Blackmar-Jerome gambit" he referred me back to my own post "The Blackmar - Jerome Gambit?!".

Serves me right. 

Jerome Gambit: More Explorations (Part 2)

 

[continued from the previous post]

The two Traxler variation games by Lyudmila Rudenko that Yury V. Bukayev sent me connected me with earlier explorations for this blog.

Early on, in "Tis A Puzzlement..." I noted

Lubomir Kavalek, in his Washington Post chess column of Monday, April 14, 2003, addresses Karl Traxler and his Traxler Counter-Attack: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5!?

Traxler introduced his idea in the game against J. Reinisch, played on March 20, 1890, in Hustoun.

The game was first published with his notes and analysis on Oct. 11, 1892, in the chess column of Golden Prague. I have included some of his notes. They show how he was ahead of his time. The first serious analysis by others appeared only some 40 years later.

Reinisch-Traxler 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5!? ("An original combination that is better than it looks. A small mistake by white can give black a decisive attack. It is not easy to find the best defense against it in a practical game and it is probably theoretically correct," wrote Traxler. "It somewhat resembles the Blackmar-Jerome gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+?! Kxf7 5.Nxe5+?!," he added.) 

Later on, in "Jerome Gambit: First Steps (Part 5)", I pointed out one similarity between the Traxler and the Jerome

Oddly enough, the Jerome Gambit Declined, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Ke7 can transpose, with the addition of 5.Ng5 Nf6 to the Traxler variation of the Two Knights Defense, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ Ke7. 

Where does the name "Blackmar-Jerome" come from? Almost all of my online searches linked to the article by Traxler, which did not clarify things. (The rest linked to this blog.)

I had already speculated on the name "Blackmar-Jerome gambit" in "The Blackmar - Jerome Gambit?!" 

My current hypothesis - complete speculation at this point - is that Traxler, writing in the October 11, 1892, chess column of Golden Prague, recalled the infamous Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1884 Jerome Gambit game and wanted to credit the successful master; but, in drawing up his note for Reinisch - Traxler, he erroniously attached "Blackmar" - instead of "Blackburne" - to "Jerome Gambit". 

Was it possible to explore further? 

Jerome Gambit: More Explorations (Part 1)

A recent email from Yury V. Bukayev spurred me to go exploring - again.

He sent me two games played by Lyudmila Rudenko

a Soviet chess player and the second women's world chess champion, from 1950 until 1953.

She was awarded the FIDE titles of International Master (IM) and Woman International Master (WIM) in 1950, and Woman Grandmaster (WGM) in 1976. 

Actually, we are already in the "exploration" stage of this story, as the games I received were photocopies from The Chess Variants. C48. C57 ( Moscow, 1996). Also, the player was identified simply as "Rudenko", but it is a reasonable conclusion by Yury that she was Lyudmila.

The games, played by correspondence, are examples of the Traxler variation of the Two Knights Defense, also known as the Wilkes-Barre Variation.

Zak - Rudenko

correspondence, 1954

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 

5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.Bxd5 Bg4 9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.Kxf2 Nxe4+ 11.Ke3 Qg5+ White resigned

Golovko - Rudenko

correspondence, 1955-1957

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 

6.Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.Be2 Bb6 9.exd5 Nd4 10.Nc3 Nxe2 11.Qxe2 Bg4 12.Qb5+ Nd7 13.Ke1 O-O-O 14.d6 Qh4+ 15.g3 Qh5 16.dxc7 Rf8 17.Rf1 Bf2+18.Rxf2 Rxf2 19.h4 Rh2 20.Qf1 Bf3 21.Qg1 Rh1 White resigned

What I found interesting is that I could not discover either game in my ChessBase Big Database from 2016. I realize that it is not the latest version of the CB database, but it should have included these games of the Women's World Champion.

Earlier versions of chess games databases did not include many of the correspondence games from the time periods they covered, although that has been better addressed of late.

The best source for correspondence games is Dr. Tim Harding's (of Chess Mail) UltraCorr collections. Quite surprisingly, my UltraCorr 3A (2010), does not contain the Rudenko games, either. (By the way, the 2022 version of UltraCorr has just been released.)

Why all the fuss about a couple of Traxler variation games? As Yury wrote

maybe, Mr. Traxler invented his counter-attack with 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+! (with the idea 6.Kxf2!? Nxe4+!) in 1890 (or some time before) as a result of his inspiration by the Jerome gambit!

[to be continued]