The Jerome-Botez Gambit

Let me be clear from the start: twitch streamer Women's FIDE Master Alexandra Botez could defeat me in a chess game while skateboarding around the board, juggling flaming torches, and singing songs by Gordon Lightfoot.

She has been a decent sport about the creation of "the Botez Gambit". According to a "Chess Terms" post on Chess.com, 

The Botez Gambit is a chess meme evoked when someone playing chess accidentally blunders their queen. Despite being called a "gambit," the loss of the queen comes with no compensation and is not intentional...

The term "Botez Gambit" was created by viewers of the BotezLive channel. They came up with the meme after WFM Alexandra Botez, the channel's founder, repeatedly blundered her queen across multiple streams...

With the sisters' colossal success and viewership, the meme spilled over to other Twitch channels. Prominently featured in all major amateur online tournaments like PogChamps, the meme has taken off and become part of chess streamers' vernacular...

Even grandmasters are not immune to an occasional Botez Gambit. Below you can see a video of a time-troubled GM Alexander Zubov blundering his queen during a Titled Tuesday event. 

Grandmaster Simon Williams recently offered a Botez Gambit to Alexandra, herself. Check out this video. 

It should come as no surprise that someone (in the AnarchyChess subReddit, of course) has identified the "Jerome-Botez Gambit": 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qf3+.

Ouch.

And, yes, The Database has an example of the Jerome-Botez. A win by White.

I have not played the Jerome-Botez Gambit, but it is pretty easy to find a few examples of a few Botez Gambits within my Jeromes - say 1, 2, & 3. SMH.

What Makes A Gambit Playable?

I would like to return to the articles on the Rousseau Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 f5!?) by Tim McGrew that I mentioned and linked to, a couple of posts previously - see "Something to Think About". McGrew's work is certainly worth reading for what he has to say about the Rousseau Gambit.

Just as important, however, in my opinion, is how he weaves into his analysis his personal examination of What makes a gambit playable? 

Of course, this question has come up regarding the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) as well, starting in the third week of this blog's existance. See "But – Is this stuff playable?? (Part I) & (Part II)".

Here is a teaser on McGrew's ideas

Gambits in Many Dimensions

I have been thinking a lot lately about a deceptively simple question: What makes a gambit playable? It is easy enough to give an answer that must be, abstractly, approximately correct: a gambit is playable if and only if it enables the gambiteer to win a reasonably high proportion of games, at least partly because of the merits of positions he gets with it out of the opening. But as soon as we start thinking about that answer we realize that it needs to be qualified to be of any practical use. It must enable the gambiteer to win more than his fair share of games against the people he needs to win against, the people against whom he scores in the 40-60% range with “ordinary” openings. And how can one tell, in advance, which openings are likely to do that?

Various books offer various schemes of evaluation. Notoriously, MCO, ECO and their various competitors evaluate positions onedimensionally: +-, +/-, +=, =, =+, -/+, -+. One would think that these evaluations would settle the issue, and they are enormously useful, but they are not the whole of the story and often do more to confuse amateurs – even strong amateurs – than to enlighten them. Part of the trouble is that we need to know why an evaluation is put on before we can see what it really means about a position; and though sometimes this is plain enough, at other times the rationale for those GM evaluations is maddeningly opaque. In the end, from a God’s-eye point of view, any chess position can be evaluated as 1-0, ½-½, or 0-1. So the seven evaluation symbols given above, if they are not just nonsense, must be conveying something more than the bare Objective Truth about the position. But what else is there, and why should it matter?

The truth, I think, is that playability is amulti-dimensional concept. Graham Burgess begins to indicate this in his wonderful little book 101 Chess Opening Surprises, where he rates each surprise not only for soundness but also for shock value. This is a good start, but there is much more to say...

For more information - and a link to a nice interview of Tim - you might want to check out the early blog post "A Few Words With... TimMcGrew".

Jerome Gambit: What Do You Think?

When it comes to the Jerome Gambit, (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) I am always ready to ask my opponent What do you think?

Unfortunately, the reply can be something like What? DO you think??

Sigh.

Not everyone appreciates the joys of playing a "refuted" opening - especially when they lose to it. Go figure.

Fortunately, some players - like you, Readers - enjoy the Jerome Gambit, and are willing to share their appreciation.

Take for example the online player willtaylorchess, whose YouTube channel, willtaylorchess, I recommend for a number of reasons.

You may remember willtaylorchess, as about a year ago I gave a shout out in an earlier blog post, "Jerome Gambit: An Objectively Terrible Gambit". (Ah, yes, he hasn't drunk the Kool-Aid, he knows the Jerome is terrible, he just has fun playing and winning with it, anyway.) 

Well, he's back, with a video titled"Beating 2100's with the JEROME GAMBIT!!!". It showcases a fun game, highlighted by his stream-of-consciousness commentary which is very educational for those who want to know how to think about the gambit and how to choose moves as it proceeds.

But - as they say - there's more.

Who can resist a video titled "Play THESE Filthy Openings To Win Quickly!!!" ?

And what about "The Best Way To Learn Theory"? We are talking about "Chessle", a chessy variant of WORDLE.

Finally, you have to check out the new sport he has invented, "CHESSSKETBALL - The Best Chess Variant of All Time".

Go ahead, visit willtaylorchess. The videos will probably make you smile. But, more importantly, they definitely will make you think.

Something to Think About

I recently heard from my Canadian chessfriend Dan. He had some interesting ideas to share. 

Hi Rick,

I came across an opening gambit that may be an effective antidote to the tricks of the Jerome Gambit for Black. It is called the Rousseau Gambit (1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 f5). In a way this is similar to the Stafford Gambit insofar as White’s ‘natural’ moves [4.exf5 or 4.d3 or 4.Nc3] can be quickly punished by Black. Furthermore, if White proceeds with the Jerome-ish 4.Bxf7+ he is totally lost because he is denied the eventual Qh5+ because the f5 pawn blocks the way across the rank.

I have examined this line at length using Stockfish 14.1 and I am quite impressed by how difficult it is for White to discover a satisfactory response.

This Rousseau Gambit has been explored by GM Igor Smirnov at the Remote Chess Academy under the title:

The BEST Chess Opening Against 1.e4 - Every Move is a Trap!

Perhaps something for you to think about.

Best wishes,

Dan

The Rousseau Gambit

There was something about that position the seemed familiar...

Yes! From the days when I was exploring the Latvian Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Bc4 Nc6.

The Latvian Gambit

Don't laugh. This year Grandmaster Danil Dubov (2720) won a Rousseau Gambit game against an IM in 28 moves - starting with the Latvian Gambit move order. 

For the record, the top player currently playing the Rousseau Gambit these days is International Master Beerdsen (2497).

Of course, if you go far enough back, you can discover Paul Morphy playing - and playing against - the Rousseau Gambit, including a game against Eugène Rousseau, himself.

If you just did a quick database search on "Morphy", no doubt you just yelled Gotcha! Morphy did not play the Rousseau Gambit!

However, he did play 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 f5 4.d4 Nc6 as Black in two games (draws in 30 and 35 moves) - using the Philidor Counter-Attack variation to reach a Rousseau Gambit position.

The Philidor Counter-Gambit

Perhaps you now think that I am annoyed with Dan for giving defenders a wild and crazy option to avoid my beloved Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+).

Not so.

I have always posted refutations to the Jerome Gambit on this blog. It is a good place for attackers to learn; it is a good place for defenders, as well.

As an indication of good faith, let me give you links to three Rousseau Gambit articles by Tim McGrew (thank you, Wikipedia), to add to Grandmaster Smirnov's video instruction.

• Tim McGrew (2002-07-01). "Giuoco Fortissimo: The Rousseau Gambit Part 1" (PDF). Chesscafe.com (archived from the original)
• 
  
• Tim McGrew (2002-07-30). "Giuoco Fortissimo: The Rousseau Gambit Part 2" (PDF). Chesscafe.com (archived from the original)
• 
  
• Tim McGrew (2003-09-22). "Gambits In Many Dimensions" (PDF). Chesscafe.com (archived from the original)

Enjoy!

 

 

Jerome Gambit: Quick WrapUp

Astral1119 has 110 games in The Database. He seems comfortable playing the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) at blitz (5 minutes or 3 minutes) and bullet (1 minute) speed.

The following game shows how he quickly wraps up a win against an opponent who can not keep up with him

Astral1119 - mofax

1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2021

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

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 

7.f4 Ng6 

Black had alternatives in 7...d6, 7...Nd3+, 7...Qf6 and 7...Nc6. 

8.Qxc5 d6 9.f5+ Kf7 

The f-file has its dangers.

10.Qd5+ Kf8 11.fxg6 hxg6 12.O-O+ 

Nice.

12...Ke8 

Remember, this is a 1-minute game. Moves fly to the board.

13.Qf7 checkmate

Jerome Gambit: A Flood on the Kingside

In the following Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) game, Black floods the Kingside with pieces - especially two Knights who harass the enemy Queen.

White's "Jerome pawns" help with rescue operations, and the first player prevails

jepaksongs - tanttan

3 0 blitz, lichess.org, 2022

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

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 

7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 Qe7 9.Qe3 d6 11.O-O Be6 

Black's casual decision about where to develop his Bishop - where else? - prompts an immediate and predictable response by White. Black's advantage is small.

12.f4 Ng4 

Signaling the start of an invasion on the Kingside. The attack on the Queen is often just a nuisance, as White has defensive capabilities.

13.Qf3

Stronger was 13.Qg3, although White may have passed on that move, wanting to avoid 13...Qh4. It turns out that the exchange of Queens is not to be feared, however, as 14.Qxh4 Nxh4 15.f5 Bd7 16.Rf4 h5 17.h3 will win a piece.

13...Nh4  

Ganging up on the enemy Queen.

14.Qe2

It may not be intuitive - and, remember, this is a blitz game, so intuition plays a large part in move choice - but g3 was still where the Queen needed to move to.

14...d5 15.f5 Qc5+ 

The lichess.org computer recommends instead the remarkable 15...Bxf5 16.h3 Ne5 17.exf5 Nef3+ 18.Kf2 Qxe2+ 19.Kxe2 Nd4+ 20.Kd2 Rf8 21.Nc3 Nxg2 22.Nxd5 Kd7 with an even game. 

16.Kh1 

16...Bxf5 

Giving back some material, but the resulting discovered check will allow White to take even more.

17.exf5+ Kd7  18.Qxg4 Black resigned

Black's other Knight is hanging as well.

Jerome Gambit: Target?

Blitz games often require quick decision making, like - what do I attack? Do I attack the Queen? Do I attack the King? Something else?

The following Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3  Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) blitz game has a bit of that questioning going on for both sides. The answers that the players find help shape - and finish - the game.

Lc0-o_o - urranna

10 0 blitz, lichess.org, 2022

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3  Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

In the Jerome Gambit first and foremost is the attack on the enemy King. This is why the Jerome Gambit declined and the Counter-Jerome Gambit can have some psychological impact on the first player, 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 

7.Qxe5 Qe7 

Whistler's defense, a strong defense that threatens the exchange of Queens and dares White to capture the Rook on h8, promising an attack on his King in return. See "Jerome Gambit: Boogyman (Parts 1, 2 & 3)".

This is in contrast to Blackburne's defense, 7...d6, where the Rook is still on offer, and White's King may still come under fire, but there is also the ever-present risk that White's Queen may become trapped and/or won.

8.Qxh8 

This is risky, as the complications can favor Black. Indeed, Stockfish 15 rates the second player now as being the equivalent of a Rook and a piece ahead. It is important to note, however, the practical side of the position: The Database has 608 games with this position, with White scoring 63%. YMMV.

8...Qxe4+ 9.Kf1 Bd4 

Black pauses in his attack on the enemy King to attack the enemy Queen.

There are only 5 games in the Database with this position. A measure of the complication here is that while Stockfish 15 sees White as the equivalent of 4 pawns ahead, White has scored only once (our chessfriend angelcamina, in a bullet game!) in the representative games.

In the present game, White has the right idea, until...  

10.Qxh7+ 

Immediately freeing the Queen, by attacking the King.

10...Bg7 11.d3 Qg4 12.Qh3 

The Queen comes back to her side of the board, but it is His Majesty who is at risk now.

12...Qd1 checkmate

Ouch.

Of course, 12.Nc3 would have left White up the exchange and two pawns, with time to retrieve his Queen. 

By minding his Queen, he overlooked the danger to his King.