Jerome Gambit: A Real Battle (Part 4)

 

[continued from the previous post]

perrypawnpusher - graintrader69

3 days/move, "Giuoco Piano Game", Chess.com, 2022-2023

35.c3 Nxe7 

Black captured the most advanced passed pawn, but this left his Knight pinned to the Bishop. In the meantime, White's other passers were able to advance.

36.g4 Rd8 37.g5+ Kg6 38. Rxe7 Rxd6 39. Rxe8 Rxd3 

40.Kf2 Rd2+ 41.Re2 Rd3 

Time for the Rook and pawns to work together.

42.Re6+ Kf5 43.Rf6+ Kg4 44.g6 Rd8 45.g7 Black resigned

The wrap-up would be 45...Rg8 46.Rf7 followed by the advance of White's f-pawn.

And now I wait for the final game in the Group and Round to finish, to see if there is a place forme in Round 5.

Jerome Gambit: A Real Battle (Part 3)

 

[continued from the previous post]

perrypawnpusher - graintrader69

3 days/move, "Giuoco Piano Game", Chess.com, 2022-2023

19.Rfe1 Kh7 

Black's best move was the most direct - 19...Re8 to blockade the advanced e-pawn. It would still leave him with the problem of his locked-in Rook on h8, but the game would remain in balance while he sorted that out. 

White could even follow one of Stockfish 15.1's suggested grab-the-draw-and-run lines that it often seems to be finding, since according to the computer a draw is all that White "deserves" in the Jerome Gambit... Anyhow: 19...Re8 20.Ne4 Nd5 21.R3e2 Nf4 22.Re3 Nd5 23.R3e2, etc. draw

The text move allowed Black to cover the enemy pawn's Queening square three times. However, his minor pieces were troubled.

20.Rf3 g5 21.hxg5 

Stronger would have been 21.Ne4 directly.

21...hxg5 22.Ne4 Kg6 

23.Nd6 Be8 

Minor pieces are usually better blockaders than Rooks, but in this particular case the square f8 quickly became a problem for the defender - something not anticipated 4 moves earlier.

Stockfish 15.1's recommendation, instead, was 23...Bd5, although a transition to a simple endgame would ensue: 24.Rxf4 gxf4 25.e8=Q+ Rhxe8 26.Rxe8 Rxe8 27.Nxe8 Bxa2 28.Nd6 and White would be much better.  

24.g3 Nd5 25.Rf8 Kg7 

26.Rf5 

Chasing a pawn. Instead, White had three sharp moves in a row: 26.Nf5+ Kh7 27.c4 Nc7 28.Kg2 and the threat of Rh1 would be decisive, e.g. 28...Bh5 29.g4 Raxf8 30.exf8/Q Rxf8 31.gxh5 Rxf5 32.Re7+ Kh6 33.Rxc7 Kxh5 34.Rxb7. This long line should not have been hard for me to find.

26...Kg6 27.Re6+ Kh5 28.Ree5 

Consistent, although 28.Rf8 had more bite.

28...Rg8 29.Ne4 

Again, okay, but either 29.f4 or 29.Rf8 were better.

29...Kh6 

Black continued to hang on. Here 29...Bg6 was more annoying to White.

30.Rxg5

Dissipating most of the advantage. Best was 30.Rf8.

30...Rxg5 31.Nxg5 Kg6 

Things would have leveled out after 31...Nxe7 32.Rxe7 Kxg5 33.Rxb7.

32.f4 Kf6 33.Ne4+ Kf7 34.Nd6+ Kf6 

After some back-and-forth, White's advantage is clear - three connected passed pawns outweigh a piece.

[to be continued]

Jerome Gambit: A Real Battle (Part 2)

 

[continued from previous post]

perrypawnpusher - graintrader69

3 days/move, "Giuoco Piano Game", Chess.com, 2022-2023

Of course, 9.Qxc7, instead of 9.Nc3 as played in the game, would be suicidal because of 9...Qxe4+.

The alternative, 9.d3 can transpose. See perrypawnpusher - frencheng, 10 5 blitz, FICS, 2010 (1/2-1/2, 31).

 9...c6 

Instead, 9...d6 10.0-0 was seen in perrypawnpusher - ERICOLSON, 10 0 blitz, FICS, 2007 (1-0, 33) and perrypawnpusher - jonathankochems, 2 12 blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 39).

10.d3 d6 11.O-O 

Deviating from Jerome's 11.h3 against Jaeger in their two 1880 correspondence games.

11...h6 12.Be3

For lack of another idea.

12...Bb6

Exchanging Bishops on e3 was probably a better idea, if only because Black does so a few moves later, so the text looks like a lost tempo. Nonetheless, Black remains better.

13.Rae1 Be6 14.h4

Played to prevent ...g7-g5.

More dynamic would have been 14.Bxb6 axb6 15.Nd5!? (a move I never thought of during the game) although after 15...Qd8!? 16.Nxf6 gxf6 17.e5 dxe5 18.Rxe5 Bf7 the open e-file against Black's King would still not be enough to give White an advantage.

14...Bxe3 15.Rxe3 Kg8 16.e5

Black's King has stepped away from the pin on his Knight. He has a plan to counter-attack, but he would have done better to simply contest the e-file, i.e. 16...dxe5 17.Qxe5 Re8 18.Rfe1 Qd7.

16...Nh5 17.exd6 Nxf4 18.dxe7 Bf7

This is one of those odd Jerome Gambit positions that are objectively (i.e. according to Stockfish 15.1, after the game was concluded) equal (0.00 at 40 ply) and that challenge White's assessment of his play so far. 

The first player has gone from 2 pieces down to an equal game - should he be happy at regaining the balance?

On the other hand, the game now has little chance for a checkmate attack, so shouldn't that bring on a sense of disappointment? 

My sense was that I still had 3 pawns for Black's extra piece, and one of those pawns was passed, on the 7th rank. In addition, Black's minor pieces looked a bit awkwardly placed.

These might not account for much in a master vs master game, but in club play, they were still things that could be worked with.

[to be continued]

Jerome Gambit: A Real Battle (Part 1)

The following Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) win might - or might not - be enough for me to advance to the 5th round of the current "Giuoco Piano Game" tournament at Chess.com.

When the game was completed, I submitted it for a "Game Review" by the computer-based "Coach" at Chess.com. It's first assessment was supportive

Sharp - That was a real battle - but you earned the win!

At the end of the Review, the Coach was even more energetic

You really outplayed your opponent in that one. Both of you played an amazing opening. The middlegame battle was fairly even. You outmaneuvered your opponent in the endgame.

Thanks, Coach.

I suppose I did "outplay" my opponent, if that means I made a lot of mistakes, but he made a few more than me. (I do not know if graintrader69 has ever played or faced the Jerome before.)

Of course, the opening was "amazing" - it was a Jerome Gambit.

I am not sure how "even" the middlegame battle actually was. (Time for a closer examination)

The endgame was kind of cool, though.

Let's take a look.

perrypawnpusher - graintrader69

3 days/move, "Giuoco Piano Game", Chess.com, 2022 - 2023

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

The Coach's comment on this sacrifice was surprising.

Interesting move. Not the best but it has some good ideas.

Looking at an earlier game, the Coach had been more direct

You are losing material this way.

Well, yes. And there was more to come - or go.

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ 

Again, the Coach was surprisingly supportive.

Nice! Definitely the right move.

Okay. 

5...Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Kf8 

This move earned an "excellent" from the Coach, although 6...Ke6 was seen as "best".

Not surprisingly, after the game Stockfish 15.1 (a relative of the Coach) at 30 ply evaluated 6...Ke6 about 2/3 of a pawn better than 6...Kf8.

Interestingly enough, a peek at The Database does not support this judgement, however. In the 2,100 games where Black played 6...Kf8, he scored 51%; while in the 3,232 games where Black played 6...Ke6, he scored 45%.

(Personally, with White I have scored 76% in 41 games against 6...Kf8, and 85% in 95 games against 6...Ke6. YMMV.)

7.Qxe5 Qe7 8.Qf4+ 

Before I finish with the Coach's post-game comments, I want to point out that it preferred exchanging Queens on e7. That seems contrary to the attacking ideas of the Jerome Gambit. (For what it's worth, I have never played the exchange.) However, Stockfish 15.1 (at 53 ply) agreed that 8.Qxe7+ was best.

I was surprised to see that The Database agreed, somewhat: 8.Qxe7+ scored 57%, compared to 8.Qf4+ which scored 53%.

8...Nf6 9.Nc3 

Some players new to the Jerome Gambit have early successes, but are puzzled when they turn their games over to computer analysis, only to discover that the silicon beasts do not like the opening.

The idea is to make better use of the attacking opportunities that the Gambit offers than the defender makes use of his opportunities.

[to be continued]

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]