Jerome Gambit: Rescued?

 

Last month, in "Jerome Gambit: To the Rescue?", I gave an update to my status in the Chess.com "Giuoco Piano Game" tournament. I had made it to the 4th round, but cautioned

I will need wins in my remaining two very interesting Jerome Gambits - and a bit of good fortune in terms of tie breaks - in order to advance to the next round, but I feel confident that my favorite opening will come through.

The first win came, as discussed in "Jerome Gambit: Blinded by the Light (Parts 1, 2, 3 & 4)".

Now the second win has arrived - and will be posted very soon.

Will that win be enough? It is still too soon to tell. My opponent in that latter Jerome Gambit has one more game to complete. If he wins, or if he draws, he advances - along with auswebby, in first place - to the next round. If he loses, it will be up to the tiebreak, and I will move on to Round 5.

By the way, the other group this round has finished. DouglasEngle and xyz7 will advance.    

Jerome Gambit: Susan Polgar Tweets (Part 2)

 [continued from the previous post]

In the previous post we looked at a tweet by Grandmaster Susan Polgar about the value of opening study for novice chess players, and the ensuing discussion.

Admittedly, things got a bit crass, fast.

I would like to share some thoughts.

I agree with Grandmaster Polgar, that for novice players (and a lot of us who are beyond novice) to focus a lot on openings is not the right use of one's valuable time; it is better to focus on sound opening principles, improving tactics, learning basic endgames, and developing understanding of strategies, etc.

That might seem a bit odd, coming from someone who maintains a blog focused on a chess opening (and which is approaching its' 4,000th post), but I have always believed that the early sacrifices in the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) are an expressway out of a quiet opening and into the tactical complications of the middle game. In fact, many defenders are barely settled in their seats before their brain sends the message What in the world is happening to me??

That said, I think that Grandmaster Polgar made a minor misstep by supporting her argument by pointing out that if a Grandmaster opened a game with various unorthodox moves, would that mean that the novice opponent could beat the GM? (Of course not!)

In fact, if the novice player rattled off the first dozen "best" moves in the Najdorf Sicililan (or any other top level line), the Grandmaster would still win - perhaps not as quickly, but just as inevitably.

Grandmaster vs novice equals crush.

More to Grandmaster Polgar's point, a novice player facing a novice player (or a club player facing a club player) would do best to polish those sound opening principles, middlegame tactics and basic endgames. That is the highway to success.

By the way, I will continue my exploration of the Jerome Gambit, but always with the following tactical debacle in mind: perrypawnpusher - alfil_7, "Piano Piano" tournament, Chess.com, 2021 (0-1, 35). Tactics. Ouch.

Jerome Gambit: Susan Polgar Tweets (Part 1)

It is not often that I visit the world of Twitter (see "Jerome Gambit: A Top Grandmaster Tweets", "Jerome Gambit: Sometimes Accuracy Is Not Enough", "Jerome Gambit: GM Tisdall's Words Before The World Chess Championship 2021" and "The Jerome Gambit Continues to Spread Globally" for examples) but today Yury V. Bukayev has sent me a link to a commented tweet by the 8th Women's World Champion GM Susan Polgar, the trainer and the writer.

Replies to the Grandmaster's tweet sparked, in my opinion, an interesting conversation and got me thinking about the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) - of course.

Here is how it went.

Susan Polgar. For novice players who like to focus a lot on openings, ask yourself this simple question: If a GM opens the game with 1.a3, 1.h3, 1.Na3 or 1.Nh3, etc., do you think you can beat the GM? Of course not! So what does that mean? For the opening phase, focus on sound opening principles, but devote your valuable time on improving tatics, basic endgames, and strategies, etc.

Rodrigo Gallego. Using the same logic. If a GM sacrifices a bishop for not reason whatsoever, I can also not beat the GM. What does this mean?

Susan Polgar. It means you should take up checkers.

mcronrn. Flip answer people that can't beat a GM w bishop odds should take up checkers?? Bashing beginners, are we? Hikaru got 2400 chezzdotcm rating by giving up his queen! Guess all those 2300s he beat should give@up chess too

Susan Polgar. No it means you should learn to take advice from people who have 50+ years of experience and success. You made a ridiculous apple to orange comparison. If you think you know better then do what is best for you.

mcronrn. You said Rodrigo should give up chess if he couldn't beat a GM up a bishop (+3pts). I pointed out that many 2300s lost to Hikaru after he traded his queen for a N/B/R (+4/6 points), so a bigger differential. Not sure how that's a ridiculous apple / orange comparison.

Susan Polgar. Then I cannot help you if you cannot understand basic elementary stuff. Read my original post again. I would stay far away from any coach who recommends novice students to focus on openings instead of what I discussed.

mcronrn. Your response "take up checkers" is what's under discussion here. I'm a big fan of yours (and your sisters), and I'm merely pointing a wierd tweet. Chess isn't just for those who can beat a GM with bishop odds. I wish you well.

Susan Polgar. Let's go back to my original tweet. 36,700+ saw it. Everyone understood. In fact, I talked about this for decades. Therefore, hundreds of thousands heard it. No issue whatsoever. Then one person made a completely illogical comparison. The point is simple. It is a waste of time for novice players to focus everything on openings while openings are unimportant as GMs can beat them using any opening, even terrible ones. His response/comparison made my point exactly. If a GM gives a free piece and the opponent still could not win, it means it has nothing to do with openings. Same with my checkers comment. When someone makes a completely illogical comparison, one person out of hundreds of thousands, I made this emoji and mentioned checkers. Everyone understood that there is no possible explanation that can satisfy someone trolling.

[to be continued] 

Jerome Gambit: Too Casual

Some chess games can be referred to as "casual" - played among friends or clubmates, as much for enjoyment as for gains in rating our tournament success.

We have seen many times before, however, that a "casual" approach to defending against the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) can give that Billy Batson of a chess opening an opportunity to transform into a Captain Marvel force of power.

The following game is a recent example.

Carlos_Ricardo - DevanshGupta1991

3 2 blitz, lichess.org, 2023

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Kf8 

7.Qxe5 Bd6 

Black has the routine alternatives 7...d6 and 7...Qe7 that protect the Bishop.

He also has the largely unplayed (5 examples in The Database) move 7...d5, which was the recommendation of Grandmaster Cemil Can Ali Marandi in his video "Everything You Should Know About the Jerome Gambit".

By the way, here is the Grandmaster's take on the opening 

...and in this video I would like to analyze the Jerome Gambit for you guys. You might have heard about the Jerome Gambit and I would like to make sure that everybody understands the ideas behind this gambit and how you should actually proceed. The Jerome Gambit is becoming very popular lately, but you have to kind of understand that this is obviously not the right way to play the game of chess. If you're looking for something which is entertaining, if you're looking for interesting sacrifice right off the bat in the opening this is a gambit for you but it's only for educational and fun purposes. It is really not good for a regular classical game or and over-the-board practice...

(Please notice that I give an extended quote that highlights both the entertainment and the really not good points being made, instead of making an exciting cut, advertisement style, and claiming that the Gradmaster wrote "this is a gambit for you"!)   

8.Qf5+ Nf6 

Development is good. Offering the exchane of Queens with 8...Qf6 is better.

9.O-O b6

Black envisions two Bishops raking White's Kingside.

However, he has overlooked White's next move.

10.e5 Bb7 

It is true that Black has an "extra" piece that he can afford to return, but he would do better by considering the safety of his King and trying 10...Be7 11.exf6 Bxf6 or 10...Bc5 11.exf6 Qxf6. 

In blitz players move quickly, and the depth of their analysis is not as great.

11.exd6 cxd6 

Here we have an interesting position. Black's doubled (isolated) d-pawns do not block his Bishop, which has been fianchettoed. They even protect important squares (c5, c6, e5, e6) in his camp.

Sure, White has an extra pawn but why does Stockfish 15.1 rate White as more than a piece better here?

12.d3 

White's idea.

12...Kf7 13.Bg5 Rf8 

Preparing to castle-by-hand, giving protection - if there is time enough - to the Knight at f6, after ...Kg8.

There is not enough time.

14.Bxf6 gxf6 

Does it matter which capture is made at f6?

Yes, but White would be better in either case.

Here, though, there is checkmate.

15.Qxh7+ Ke6 16.Re1+ Kd5 17.Qe4+ Kc5 18.Qc4 checkmate

Last year, I wrote a series of short stories for my young grandson that featured a "super hero" called Silly Squirrel, who disabled his opponents by telling terrible jokes that would crack them up and leave them vulnerable to capture.

Truly, the Jerome Gambit is the Silly Squirrel of chess openings.

Jerome Gambit: Proper Attitude

 

I think the proper attitude to approach the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7) is one of bemused optimism. 

(Optimism, mind you, based on experience: For example, I have scored 82% with the "refuted" opening; Bill Wall has scored 93%.)

Is this stuff playable? Of course not - according to Grandmasters, at least against each other in longer time controls. But it is a lot of fun, especially at the club level, so let's give it a go...

This thought process is clear in the enjoyable lichess.org study, somewhat rudely named "Idiotic Chess Openings - The Jerome Gambit". (I wonder what other openings fall into that class for the creator?)

The basics of the opening are systematically laid out in educational style.

The Summary is delightful.

Play this highly questionable opening and pray that your opponent counters it incorrectly. If they do, you are a tactical genius who makes Tal-style sacrifices to win the game. If they don't, well, I guess you should have played a different opening.

Highly recommended. 

Jerome Gambit: Long And Winding Road

 

I just finished watching a YouTube video, "[Disaster] Italia Game: Jerome Gambit" which features a computer vs computer game that was an unusual 153 move draw.

If computer programs had feelings, it is likely that Black in the game was quite frustrated that the extra piece that it had was of little use.

By the way, 153 moves is not the longest Jerome Gambit that I have in The Database - it is only 4th longest, behind latemate - fadaro, 5 0 blitz, FICS, 2015 (1-0, 157); stockfish_20060616x64_modern - fruit_2.1, 2020 (1-0, 158); and the all-time champion Petasluk - bozidaranas, 5 2 blitz, FICS, 2022 (1/2-1/2, 239).

Jerome Gambit: Reddit

Taking a look at reddit, at r/Anarchy Chess, I found this variation of a popular meme, comparing chess players who are used to slower times and chess players who are used to very rapid times, as they play at blitz speed.

Once again, the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) appears.

I already premoved the first 10 moves of the Jerome gambit, can you please play your second move?