Nobody expects the Jerome Gambit! (Part 2)

 [This is the continuation of an article from the "Unorthodox Openings Newsletter" (UON-21, May - August 2008), mentioned in an earlier blog post.]

I was shocked to find that in 17 games [a 13-player, double-round robin thematic tournament at www.chessworld.net – starring the Jerome Gambit] Black did not capture the Bishop [after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+], preferring instead 4…Kf8?! or 4…Ke7?. (I have not seen this idea in classical Jerome Gambit games or analysis, only fairly recently.) The only explanation that I can think of is that the second player reasoned that “If he wants me to take the Bishop, then I won’t!” Sometimes this is a good strategy, but not now.

In the case of 4…Kf8, the simplest idea is for White to withdraw the Bishop to a safe place (e.g. 5.Bb3), remaining a pawn up with Black‟s King unable to castle. Instead, 5 times White left the Bishop to be captured later – and this decision accounted for three losses, despite the fact that Black, in taking two moves to capture the piece instead of one, was playing the Jerome Gambit a tempo down. In all, the 4…Kf8 line scored 9-3 for White.

The move 4…Ke7 falls to 5.Bxg8 Rxg8 6.d4 TN, using the threatened x-ray attack (7.Bg5+) on the Black King and Queen to win the Bishop at c5, as shown in drewbear – AAlekhine. White's stratagem was found only in that game, however; over all, after 4…Ke7, White scored 4-1. 

drewbear – AAlekhine 

(not to be confused with the former world champion - editor) 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Ke7 5.Bxg8 Rxg8 6.d4 h6 7.dxc5 d6 8.cxd6+ cxd6 9.h3 Kd7 10.a3 Kc7 11.b4 Rf8 12.b5 Na5 13.Qd2 Kb8 14.Bb2 Nc4 15.Qc3 Nxb2 16.Qxb2 Qa5+ 17.Nc3 Bd7 18.0–0 a6 19.bxa6 Rxa6 20.Rab1 b6 21.Nd5 Bb5 22.Rfc1 Ka7 23.Nc7 g5 24.Nxb5+ Kb8 25.Nxd6 Qc5 26.Qxe5 Qxe5 27.Nxe5 Rh8 28.Ndc4 b5 29.Rxb5+ Kc7 30.Rd1 h5 31.Rd7+ Kc8 32.Nb6+ Kb8 33.Nc6# 

5.Nxe5+ “[with Ne5] I believe White is taking a big gamble.... and that "The Jerome Gamble" may be a more appropriate name. If there is any soundness to be found in the Jerome, then I believe it involves replacing 5. Nxe5+ with a different move.” - Gary Gifford (UON 17)

In almost 2/3 of the games in the Jerome Gambit Tournament, the players agreed with Gifford‟s opinion, avoiding the capture 5.Nxe5+ 102 times, scoring 31wins, 68 losses and 3 draws. Instead of sacrificing further, White focused upon development and a hope to eventually out-playing his opponent.

The downside of this modern idea for White – the oldest games in my database without 5.Nxe5+ are only 10 years old – is that Black's King was safer than in the classical lines, and it had the opportunity to “castle by hand” with …Kg8 after …Re8 or ...Rf8.

The most popular alternative was 5.d3 (56 games, scoring 34%), followed by 5.0-0 (21 games, scoring 37%), 5.c3 (14 games, scoring 21%), 5.Nc3 (6 games, scoring 17%), 5.d4 (3 games, scoring 33%), 5.Ng5+ ? (1 game, scoring 0%) and 5.h4 (1 game, scoring 100%). It is clear that many of the lines can transpose into each other. It is not clear that they are markedly better than the classical move 5.Nxe5+.

[to be continued]

Nobody expects the Jerome Gambit! (Part 1)

 [This is another article from the "Unorthodox Openings Newsletter" (UON-21, May - August 2008), mentioned in an earlier blog post.]

Nobody expects the Jerome Gambit! 

by Rick Kennedy

With apologies to Monty Python (and the Spanish Inquisition) I have to wonder how many "Unorthodox Openings Newsletters" readers expected another article – after the ones in Issue #17 and Issue #18 – on the Jerome Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ ? Yet, here we go…. 

I was spurred to write about this unorthodox and seriously disreputable opening again when my chess friend, Pete Banks of England (handle: blackburne), organized a 13-player, double-round robin thematic tournament at www.chessworld.net – starring the Jerome Gambit.

On top of that, Pete bravely tossed Grandmaster Gary Lane a question about the opening, which the Chess Café (www.chesscafe.com) author addressed in his most recent “Opening Lanes” column.

Before diving into some of the lessons to be learned from the 156 games of the Jerome Gambit Tournament, I wanted to share something from GM Nigel Davies' fantastic book, Gambiteer I.

“Having examined literally thousands of club players’ games over the years, I have noticed several things: 1) The player with the more active pieces tends to win. 2) A pawn or even several pawns is rarely a decisive advantage. 3) Nobody knows much theory. 4) When faced with aggressive play, the usual reaction is to cower.” - GM Nigel Davies 

This wisdom is relevant to the tournament under consideration, where players ranged from the1200s to the1800s according to chessworld‟s rating system, and where knowledge of the “book” lines of the Jerome Gambit ranged from a good bit to not very much at all. We are not going to be looking at masters searching out the ultimate truth of the opening, we are going to see how it is played at club level.

Please remember, too, that we are not looking at the Ruy Lopez, or even the Blackmar Diemer Gambit. We are looking at the duck-billed platypus of the chess opening world.

In fact, I have to say that my first prediction for the result of the competition was a 13-way tie for first place, with the players losing all of their games with the white pieces and winning all of their games with the black pieces. After all, the Jerome Gambit has a number of clear refutations – how could it be otherwise?

After some thought, however, I realized that there was more to consider than just White vs Black. As I wrote in UON #17, the Jerome Gambit “is 'playable' in the way that 'giving odds' is playable.” So I looked at all of the match-ups in the tournament, and when White was rated several hundred points above Black, I predicted a win for the first player. Carrying this reevaluation through all of the games, I estimated that the tournament winner would score 18 points out of 24.

As it turns out, blackburne (Pete) scored 18 ½ points, winning 10 out of 12 times with white! This was only good enough for fourth place, however, as SIRMO, who won a still-impressive 8 times with white and drew twice, won every game he played with the black pieces, for a total of 21 points! This allowed him to place ahead of savage13 and drewbear, each who won 9 times as White, scoring 20 and 19 points each.

Contrary to my initial impressions, White won 63 games in the Jerome Gambit Tournament, lost 90, and drew 3, for a score of 41% – this is unimpressive in comparison with “legitimate” chess openings, but a bit surprising for an opening that GM Keene once wrote “should never be played.” 

Jerome Gambit Tournament 2007-2008

1 SIRMO 1857 +13 ** 01 01 ½1 1½ 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11             21.0/24 

2 savage13 1712 +109 10 ** 10 01 11 11 10 11 11 11 11 11 11           20.0/24 

3 drewbear 1562 +222 10 01 ** 01 11 10 11 11 11 10 11 11 11          19.0/24 

4 blackburne 1795 -51 ½0 10 10 ** 10 01 11 11 11 11 11 11 11          18.5/24 

5 Nestor250168 1684 -106 0½ 00 00 01 ** 01 10 10 11 10 11 11 11   13.5/24 6 

Ratscales 1383 +158 00 00 01 10 10 ** 01 11 1½ 10 00 10 11            11.5/24 7 

AAlekhine 1607 -130 00 01 00 00 01 10 ** 01 00 10 01 11 11            10.0/24 87.00 8 

Bullit52 1541 -58 00 00 00 00 01 00 10 ** 01 10 11 11 11                   10.0/24 72.00 9 

BrainFreeze 1594 -164 00 00 00 00 00 0½ 11 10 ** 01 01 01 11          8.5/24 10 

karmmark 1373 +59 00 00 01 00 01 01 01 01 10 ** 01 10 00               8.0/24 86.50 11 

plummy 1463 -38 00 00 00 00 00 11 10 00 10 10 ** 01 11                    8.0/24 59.50 12 

NMTIGER 1292 +72 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 10 01 10 ** 11              6.0/24 

13 manago 1202 -65 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 11 00 00 **                2.0/24 

Analysis of the results shows that the difference in ratings between White and Black (ratings rose and fell during the tournament after wins and losses) was a significant factor in the outcome of the games, with the correlation being about .7 (that is to say about ½ of the variance in the results was due the difference in strength of the players).

Charting each win and loss against a range of strength differences between the players – White is 0-100 points higher (or lower) than Black, White is 101-200 points higher (or lower) than Black, White is 201-300 points higher (or lower) than Black, etc. shows that in this Jerome Gambit Tournament, White needed to be rated only 200 points higher than his opponent to overcome the handicap of “giving Jerome Gambit odds” and have strong winning chances. Let's take a step-by-step look at how the Jerome Gambit was played out in the games – and some relevant examples. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7

[to be continued]

The Jerome Gambit Revisited (Part 2)

 [This is a continuation of one of the articles from the "Unorthodox Openings Newsletter" (UON-18, May - August 2007), mentioned in an earlier blog post.]

The rematch between the two computer programs was no better for the Gambit, or the gambiteer. 

Spike1.2 vs. Colossus

Jerome-forced Computer Chess Match USA, 2006

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Qf6 9.fxe5+ Qxe5 

Here, A.W. Jerome recommended 10.Qf3 (April 1874, Dubuque Chess Journal). My database has seven games with the alternative move 10.Qxe5+ -- with White planning to play the strategic concept of using pawns against the piece. Interestingly, five of those games are human versus human contests, and White won 4 and drew one. The other two were computer versus computer games; and Black won both of those.

What happens in the current game is that Spike cannot come up with a long-term plan, and the tactics it chases after are easily rebuffed. "The Black King is a strong piece!" Steinitz would say, and that puts White two pieces down.

10.Qxe5+ Kxe5 11.d3 Ke6 12.Nc3 Nf6 13.Nb5

There is nothing in this. A human would play 13.Bg5 and 14.0-0-0 and hope for the best. Spike has no hope here.

13...Ne8 14.Rf1 c6 15.Nc3 Rf8 16.Rxf8 Bxf8

A consistent plan, which leads to a temporary lead in development for White; but really, we are just one step closer to the end.

17.Bf4 Nf6 18.Ne2 c5 19.e5

For White, there is nothing but pain and disappointment to follow. 

19...Nd5 20.d4 Be7 21.c4 Nxf4 22.Nxf4+ Kf5 23.Nh5 g6 24.Ng3+ Ke6 25.Kd2 b5 26.Ne4 bxc4 27.Kc3 Rb8 28.Rd1 Ba6 29.h4 Rf8 30.Ng5+ Bxg5 31.hxg5 Rf5 32.Rh1 Rxg5 33.Rxh7 Rg3+ 34.Kc2 Rxg2+ 35.Kc3 Bb5 36.Rh8 0-1 

This gets me to wonder how Fritz10 would do playing the Jerome Gambit against KnightStalker.

If you aren't totally disgusted with the Jerome Gambit by now, check out the following game. After just a dozen moves Black's King is in serious trouble! White stumbles along, though, and it is only Black's blunder at move 18 that allows for a mate in 2 moves – though white announced a mate in 4 (il blanco annunzia lo sc i 4). 

Editor’s Note: The following game was presented without annotation – and in playing over it, it looked like Black got mopped up fairly well. In fact, the game made me feel like playing the Jerome. But I know from having watched the 2006 Jerome Gambit computer match, that dire positions in the gambit are often little more than grand cases of deceptio visus [Latin for optical illusion]. And so, with the assistance of Fritz, I was able to see the game as not so good for White, even though he won.- gkg 

D'Aumiller, A versus A.P. Livorno 1878 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7-+ 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 d6 8.d4 Bxd4 9.c3 Bb6 

Fritz correctly points out that 9...Nd3+ nails it down 10.Kf1 Nf2 11.Qd5+ Kd7 12.Qxd4 Nxh1 13.Qxg7+ Ne7-+ 

10.fxe5 dxe5 11.Na3 Nf6 12.Qf5+ Kd6

But 12...Kf7 secures victory for Black 13.Qf1 ¦f8-+ 

13.Nc4+ Kc5??

Black should have played 13...Ke7 when we would likely see 14.Qxe5+ Kf7 15.Nxb6 axb6 16.Bg5-+ 

14.Qxe5+?? 

14.Be3+ was necessary. Then, after 14...Kc6 15.Nxe5+ Kd6 16.Rd1+ Ke7 17.Bc5+ Bxc5 18.Nc6+ bxc6 19.Qxc5+ Qd6 20.¦xd6 cxd6 21.Qxc6 and equality is realized. 

14...Kxc4-+ 15.b3+ Kd3 16.Bf4?? 

This mistake should hasten the end of White, better was 16.Qb5+ Kxe4 17.Rf1³ 

16...Kc2 

Fritz prefers the following Bg4 line which has quite a bit of checking, and appears to win for Black by force. 16...Bg4 17.Bg5 Re8 18.Qg3+ Kxe4 19.Qf4+ Kd5+ 20.Kd2 Ne4+ 21.Qxe4+ Rxe4 22.c4+ Ke5+ 23.Bxd8 Re2+ 24.Kd3 Rxd8+ 25.Kc3 Bd4+ 26.Kb4 c5+ 27.Ka5 Bc3+ 28.b4 Bxb4+ 29.Ka4 Rd3 30.Rhe1 Bd7# 

17.Rc1+ Kb2 18.c4+ Ka3 ?? 

Instead, 18...Bd4! and Black will win! 19.Rd1 Bxe5 20.Bxe5+ Kxa2 21.Rxd8 Rxd8-+ 

19.Rc2+− Re8 1−0 

Editor’s Note: I cannot help but to wonder if White ever realized the constant danger he faced in the above game; or if Black never realized he stood better. Many spectators would likely have concluded that Black was crushed, thus giving a boost to the lively gambit. -gkg 

  

The Jerome Gambit Revisited (Part 1)

[This is another one of the articles from the "Unorthodox Openings Newsletter" (UON-18, May - August 2007), mentioned in an earlier blog post.]

The Jerome Gambit Revisited 

by Rick Kennedy 

I was going over the Jerome Gambit article in UON #17 and wanted to comment on some little ironies. Actually, a good while back I had started an article-sized response and, unfortunately, lost it! 

In the following computer versus computer game, play develops along "normal" Jerome Gambit lines: 

Colossus vs. Spike1.2 

Jerome-forced Computer Chess Match, USA, 2006 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6

6. … Ke6 is one of many defenses to the Jerome. It was originally suggested by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome himself, in the April 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal, in an article titled "New Chess Opening". 

7.f4

The early Jerome Gambit certainly had "coffee house" appeal. The first game I have with 7.f4, instead of Jerome's direct 7.Qf5+, was published in the May 1878 issue of the Italian publication, Nuova Rivista degli Scacchi. I include the moves of that game at the end of this article.

7...d6 

A reasonable move, prudently giving back some material.

8.fxe5 dxe5 9.Qh3+ 

This move was seen in the legendary human-computer match, M. Fisher-Kirshner vs Knight Stalker (otherwise known as Fritz1) Mission San Jose, Fremont, California 1993.

It must be "legendary" because, other than the Amateur versus Blackburne, London 1880 game, the 11 games of this match are the ones most people send to me. The human had the white pieces and played the Jerome Gambit in each game. The computer won 8-3. That's good or bad for the JG, depending on your perspective.

9...Kf7 10.Qh5+ Kf8 11.Qxe5

Interestingly enough, up to this point I have two 2003 computer vs computer games won by White -- Fritz5.32 - Shredder6.02 (1-0,59) and Junior7 - Shredder6.02 (1-0,37) -- but the opening was not the reason for the wins.

11...Bd6 12.0-0+ Nf6 13.Qg5

At this point, in the 1963 match, Knight Stalker three times played 13...Be6, which allows 14.e5 and the win of a piece, with an even game or a bit of an edge for White. (Fisher-Kirshner managed a win and a loss the two times he played 14.e5.) 

13...h6! 

Instead, in our modern game (featuring a much stronger program), we have a "TN" by Spike 1.2, improving on play by its predecessor! Now White will not have time to win the Knight on f6 and is simply lost. 

14.Qh4 g5 15.Qe1 Be5

Protecting the Knight at f6 and preventing d2-d4 (with the idea of e4-e5).

16.c3 c5 17.b4?!

Positional disaster. White's game falls apart from here.

17...c4 18.Qe2 Be6 19.Na3 Qd3!? 20.Qxd3 cxd3 21.Bb2 Kg7 22.Rae1 a5 23.bxa5 Rxa5 24.Kh1 Rha8 25.Rf3 Rxa3 26.Bxa3 Rxa3 27.Rxd3 Rxa2 28.g3 Kf8 29.Rd1 Bb3 30.Re1 b5 31.h3 Bc4 32.Rf3 Rxd2 33.Kg1 Ke7 34.g4 h5 35.Ra1 hxg4 36.hxg4 Nxg4 37.Ra7+ Kd6 38.Ra6+ Kc5 39.Ra1 b4 40.Rc1 bxc3 41.Rf5 Kb4 42.Rb1+ Ka3 43.Rf2 Rxf2 0-1 

[to be continued]

Jerome Gambit or Jerome Gamble? (Part 2)

 

[continued from the previous post, ]

[This is a continuation of one of the articles from the "Unorthodox Openings Newsletter" (UON-17, January - April 2007), mentioned in an earlier blog post. BTW, the article that I hoped for the magazine Kaissiber never appeared.]

Here are a couple of blitz games I [Rick] played on the internet. The first is a pure Jerome Gambit game; the second is out of the Blackburne Shilling Gambit. I had been smashed a few times by a player weaker than me, and he finally dissed me by suggesting I'd fall for the BSG -- so I Jerome-ized it, and he made the blunder.

perrypawnpusher (1446) - WHITE-KING (1365) [C50] 

ICC 2 12 Internet Chess Club, 14.06.2004 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 7.Qxc5 N8e7 8.0-0 Rf8 9.f4 Nc6 10.Qd5+ Ke8 11.d3 Nge7 12.Qg5 Rf7 13.Nc3 h6 14.Qh5 Kf8 15.f5 Ne5 16.d4 N5c6 17.d5 Ne5 18.f6 Rxf6 19.Rxf6+ gxf6 20.Qxh6+ Kf7 21.Qh7+ Kf8 22.Bh6+ Ke8 23.Qh8+ Kf7 24.Qg7+ Ke8 25.Qf8# Black checkmated 1-0 

perrypawnpusher (1390) - patitolo (960) [C50] 

FICS rated blitz game 6 12 FICS, San Jose, California US, 10.06.2005 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke8? 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Nxg6 Nf6 8.Qe5+ Qe7?? 9.Nxe7 Bxe7 10.Qxd4 d6 11.Nc3 Be6 12.Nd5 c5 13.Nxf6+ Bxf6 14.Qxf6 Rf8 15.Qxe6+ Kd8 16.Qxd6+ Ke8 17.d3 Rd8 18.Qe6# Black checkmated 1-0 

Stefan Bucker has a historical article that I've written about the Jerome, and he's said he wants to publish it in Kaissiber -- but another issue is out this month, and I think it's been put off again. Lev Gutman has been writing a wonderful series on the Max Lange Attack and other gambits in the Italian Game, and I guess I have to wait until he scrapes the bottom of the barrel before he gets to the Jerome. :-) Rick 

Selected Games from a Jerome-Forced Computer Chess Match - Sept 28 2006 

[White "Colossus"] [Black "Spike1.2 [003]"] [Result "0-1"] 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7 Kxf7 5.Nxe5 Nxe5 6.Qh5 Ke6 7.f4 d6 8.fxe5 dxe5 9.Qh3 Kf7 10.Qh5 Kf8 11.Qxe5 Bd6 12.O-O Nf6 13.Qg5 h6 14.Qh4 g5 15.Qe1 Be5 16.c3 c5 17.b4 c4 18.Qe2 Be6 19. Na3 Qd3 20. Qxd3 cxd3 21.Bb2 Kg7 22.Rae1 a5 23.bxa5 Rxa5 24.Kh1 Rha8 25.Rf3 Rxa3 26.Bxa3 Rxa3 27.Rxd3 Rxa2 28.g3 Kf8 29.Rd1 Bb3 30.Re1 b5 31.h3 Bc4 32.Rf3 Rxd2 33.Kg1 Ke7 34.g4 h5 35.Ra1 hxg4 36.hxg4 Nxg4 37.Ra7 Kd6 38.Ra6 Kc5 39.Ra1 b4 40.Rc1 bxc3 41.Rf5 Kb4 42.Rb1 Ka3 43.Rf2 Rxf2 0-1 

[White "Rybka v1.0 Beta.w32"] [Black "Colossus"] [Result "0-1"] 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7 Kxf7 5.Nxe5 Nxe5 6.Qh5 Kf8 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qg3 Nf6 9.d4 Bxd4 10.Qd3 Bb6 11.O-O Kf7 12.Nc3 Be6 13.a4 Rf8 14.a5 Bc5 15.Bg5 c6 16.Ne2 h6 17.Be3 Bxe3 18.Qxe3 Qd7 19.Rfd1 Kg8 20.f3 c5 21.Nf4 Bf7 22.Qc3 Qe7 23.a6 b5 24.Qd2 Rad8 25.Ra5 d5 26.e5 Qxe5 27.Rxb5 Rb8 28.Rxc5 Qxb2 29.Kh1 Qb6 30.Rc3 Qxa6 31.Qe3 Qb6 32.Qd3 Qb4 33.Ne2 a5 34.Nd4 Bg6 35.Qd2 Rfc8 36.Rxc8 Rxc8 37.c3 Rxc3 38.Ne2 Rd3 39.Qc2 Rxd1 40.Qxd1 a4 41.Nc1 a3 42.Qg1Qb1 43.g4 d4 44.g5 d3 45.Nxd3 Qxd3 46.Kg2 Qe2 47.Qf2 White resigns 0-1 

[White "Colossus"] [Black "Rybka v1.0 Beta.w32"] [Result "0-1"] 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7 Kxf7 5.Nxe5 Nxe5 6.Qh5 Ke6 7.f4 d6 8.fxe5 dxe5 9.Qh3 Ke7 10.Qg3 Kf7 11.Qxe5 Qh4 12.g3 Qe7 13.Rf1 Kg6 14.Qxe7 Nxe7 15.c3 Bh3 16.Rf4 Bd6 17.Rh4 Bd7 18.d4 Rae8 19.e5 Nd5 20.a3 Be7 21.Re4 Bf5 22.Re2 Bd3 23.Rg2 Rhf8 24.Bf4 c5 25.Nd2 Kh5 26.Rc1 Nxf4 27.gxf4 Rxf4 28.Kd1 Rg4 29.Rxg4 Kxg4 30.b4 Rf8 31.bxc5 Rf2 32.h3 Kxh3 33.Rb1 Bxb1 34.Nxb1 Rf1 35.Kc2 Rxb1 36.Kxb1 h5 37.d5 Bxc5 38.d6 Kg4 39.Kc2 h4 40.Kd3 h3 41.Kc4 b6 42.d7 Be7 White resigns 0-1

 [White "Rybka"] [Black "Spike1.2 [003]"] [Result "0-1"] 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7 Kxf7 5.Nxe5 Nxe5 6.Qh5 Ke6 7.f4 d6 8.fxe5 dxe5 9.Qh3 Kf7 10.Qh5 Kf8 11.Rf1 Nf6 12.Qxe5 Bd4 13.Qb5 a6 14.Qe2 Ke8 15.h3 Ng4 16.c3 Qh4 17.Kd1 Nf2 18.Kc2 Ba7 19.d3 Rf8 20.Be3 Bxe3 21.Qxe3 Qf4 22.Qxf4 Rxf4 23.Nd2 g5 24.Rae1 Be6 25.Re3 g4 26.Re2 g3 27.Re3 Rd8 28.Rxg3 Rd7 29.Re1 Rdf7 30.Nf3 Nxh3 31.Ne5 Rf2 32.Kb1 Nf4 33.Nxf7 Bxf7 34.Ree3 h5 35.Rgf3 Nxg2 36.Rxf2 Nxe3 37.d4 Ke7 38.Rf3 Ng2 39.Rf2 Nh4 40.d5 Ng6 41.Kc2 Ne5 42.Rf5 Nc4 43.Rf2 Nd6 44.Kd3 Bg6 45.Rf4 Nxe4 46.Rxe4 Kd6 47.Kd4 Bxe4 48.Kxe4 b5 49.Kd4 h4 50.Ke4 h3 51.Kf3 Kxd5 52.Kg3 Ke4 53.Kxh3 Kd3 54.Kg2 Kc2 55.b4 Kxc3 56.Kf3 Kxb4 White resigns 0-1

[White "Spike1.2 [003]"] [Black "Colossus"] [Result "0-1"] 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7 Kxf7 5.Nxe5 Nxe5 6.Qh5 Ke6 7.Qf5 Kd6 8.f4 Qf6 9.fxe5 Qxe5 10.Qxe5 Kxe5 11.d3 Ke6 12.Nc3 Nf6 13.Nb5 Ne8 14.Rf1 c6 15.Nc3 Rf8 16.Rxf8 Bxf8 17.Bf4 Nf6 18.Ne2 c5 19.e5 Nd5 20.d4 Be7 21.c4 Nxf4 22.Nxf4 Kf5 23.Nh5 g6 24.Ng3 Ke6 25.Kd2 b5 26.Ne4 bxc4 27.Kc3 Rb8 28.Rd1 Ba6 29.h4 Rf8 30.Ng5 Bxg5 31.hxg5 Rf5 32.Rh1 Rxg5 33.Rxh7 Rg3 34.Kb4 Rxg2 35.Kc3 Bb5 36.Rh8 0-1 

[White "Spike1.2 [003]"] [Black "Fritz 6.0"] [Result "0-1"] 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7 Kxf7 5.Nxe5 Nxe5 6.Qh5 Ke6 7.Qf5 Kd6 8.f4 Qf6 9.fxe5 Qxe5 10.Qxe5 Kxe5 11.b4 Bd4 12.c3 Bb6 13.d4 Kxe4 14.Nd2 Kf5 15.O-O Ke6 16.a4 a5 17.b5 Nf6 18.Ba3 Re8 19.Rae1 Kf7 20.Rxe8 Kxe8 21.Re1 Kf7 22.Nc4 Nd5 23.Rf1 Ke6 24.Re1 Kf6 25.Rf1 Kg5 26.Bc1 Kh4 27.Rf5 Nxc3 28.Be3 Bxd4 29.Bxd4 Ne2 30.Kf2 Nxd4 31.Rf4 Kg5 32.Rxd4 b6 33.Ne3 Ra7 34.Rc4 Kf6 35.Nd5 Ke5 36.Nxb6 cxb6 37.Rxc8 d5 38.Rh8 h6 39.Rb8 Rf7 40.Ke3 Rf6 41.h3 h5 42.Rh8 Rh6 43.Re8 Re6 44.Rc8 Kd6 45.Kd3 h4 46.Rc2 Re4 47.Rc6 Ke5 48.Rxb6 Rxa4 49.Ra6 Ra2 50.b6 Rxg2 51.Rxa5 Rb2 52.Ra6 g5 53.Kc3 Rb5 54.Kc2 g4 55.hxg4 Kf4 56.Ra4 Kg5 57.Rd4 h3 58.Rd2 Rxb6 59.Rxd5 Kh4 60.Rd2 Rf6 61.g5 Kxg5 62.Rd5 Kg4 63.Rd1 h2 64.Kb3 Rf4 65.Ka2 Rf3 66.Rc1 Kh3 67.Rc8 Kg2 68.Rg8 Rg3 69.Rh8 h1=Q 70.Rxh1 Kxh1 71.Kb2 Kg2 72.Kc2 Kf1 73.Kd2 Rh3 74.Kc1 Ke2 75.Kc2 Rd3 0-1 White resigns 

Computer Match, Concluding Comment 

There are other games, and Black won every game except one. “Ah Ha!” Someone cries. “So white did win a game! Why not tell us about it?” The one win as white was in a game Ten Pro versus Fritz 6.0. However, the Fritz loss was due to the fact that I was forcing the program to move from infinite analysis mode approximately once every 5 seconds by hitting the key. It turns out that it was the “move now” force that resulted in a bad move. I put that position into Fritz again [after the game] and cannot get it to repeat that error. So it was pretty much a glitch… i.e., happening to force a move that was being analyzed, but a move that would not be intentionally played. With the new move substituted, Fritz wins as black, as expected. 

Jerome Gambit, or Jerome Gamble? (Part 1)

Here is one of the articles from the "Unorthodox Openings Newsletter" (UON-17, January - April 2007), mentioned in the previous blog post.

Jerome Gambit, or Jerome Gamble? 

        By Rick Kennedy & Gary K. Gifford, edited by Gifford 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ . . . 

“This is completely unsound and should never be tried.” – Raymond Keene 

Gifford writes: In my opinion, the Jerome Gambit allows the player of black to win by force; of course, it is no picnic for black… he must be very careful. But I became convinced that black can win. I drew this conclusion after watching computer programs (with ELO 2300+) play both sides of the gambit. The black side won game after game. However, humans cannot calculate with the brute force, precision, and speed of computers. So, when humans play against humans, especially in quick time controls, it does not surprise me that white can often win with the Jerome. But, as Raymond Keene wrote in The Complete Book of Gambits (pub. Henry Holt & Co, 1993), in regard to move 5, Nxe5 (after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ . . . (see diagram) “This is completely unsound and should never be tried.” 

This article is based on e-mail conversations between Rick Kennedy and me [Gary Gifford]. Rick plays the gambit and is very familiar with its history and degree of worldwide popularity. I do not play the Jerome, but was optimistic about its apparent potential; that is, until I studied the opening as played by computer programs, inwhich I forced the chess engines to play the intended opening.

In mid September, 2006, Rick sent the following games to me. Under the username of PerryPawnpusher, Rick had some blitz wins with the Jerome Gambit. Rick wrote, “Gary, two more of my Jeromes, won't ever be mistaken for Topalov - Kramnik.” 

perrypawnpusher (1392) - Alternative (1177) [C50] 

FICS rated blitz game 6 16 FICS, San Jose, California US, 24.06.2005 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 Nf6? 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qe3 Re8 10.d3 Kg7 11.0-0 d5 12.Qh6+ Kg8 13.exd5 Nxd5 14.Nc3 Nxc3 15.bxc3 Qf6 16.Bd2 Qg7 17.Rae1 Rxe1 18.Rxe1 Qxh6 19.Bxh6 Bf5 20.Re7 Rc8 21.Bf4 Kf8 22.Rxc7 Rxc7 23.Bxc7 Ke7 24.Kf1 Kd7 25.Be5 Kc6 26.Bd4 a6 27.c4 b5 28.cxb5+ axb5 29.a3 Be6 30.Ke2 Bd5 31.g3 Ba2 32.c3 Kd5 33.Ke3 Bb1 34.Bg7 Ba2 35.f4 Bb1 36.h3 Bc2 37.g4 Ke6 38.Ke4 Kf7 39.Bd4 h6 40.f5 g5 41.Kf3 Bxd3 42.Kg3 Be2 43.h4 Bd1 44.hxg5 hxg5 45.Be3 Kf6 46.Bb6 Ke5 47.Bd8 Ke4 48.Bxg5 Kd3 49.Bf6 Kc4 50.g5 Kb3 51.g6 Bh5 52.Kf4 Kxa3 53.Kg5 Bd1 54.Kh6 Bb3 55.Kg7 b4 56.cxb4 Kxb4 57.Kf8 Kc5 58.Be7+ Kd5 59.f6 Ke5 60.g7 Kf5 61.g8Q Bxg8 62.Kxg8 Kg6 63.f7 Black resigns 1-0

perrypawnpusher (1394) - PREMK (1238) [C50] 

FICS rated blitz game 6 12 FICS, San Jose, California US, 18.06.2005 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Qf6 9.fxe5+ Qxe5 10.Qf3 Nf6 11.d3 Ke7 12.Nc3 Bb4 13.0-0 Rf8 14.Nd5+ Black resigns 1-0 

On Thursday, 28 Sep 2006, I [Gary Gifford] replied: “Hi Rick: Again, thanks for the games. Additional Jerome PC results have: 

Rybka / Colossus 0-1     Colossus / Rybka 0-1 

Spike / Colossus 0-1     Colossus / Spike 0-1 

I am pretty much convinced that White has a forced loss after: 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 

I believe White is taking a big gamble.... and that "The Jerome Gamble" may be a more appropriate name. If there is any soundness to be found in the Jerome, then I believe it involves replacing 5. Nxe5+ with a different move.

Still, for club players and blitz games, black will be under tremendous pressure. To find a safe path over-the-board, while the clock is ticking, is not easy. These programs can look at millions of positions quickly... we cannot.

I still remain curious as to if white will eventually pull off a win.

One thing this experiment shows is good defensive technique by black; and white trying very hard to get the dancing black-monarch. 

Take care, Gary 

Rick responds: “Gary, I appreciate the work you're doing on this. I have no illusions, by the way, about the soundness of the Jerome Gambit -- it's not sound, and there are plenty of refutations. It is "playable" in the way that "giving odds" is playable, or at a blitz time limit where surprise and attitude may be enough to win. What's interesting about it for me is the history of the line -- how it wound up in the equivalent of MCO and ECO, despite its dodginess; how it was followed all over the world.

[to be continued]

A Blast From the Past

 

Although I have been exploring the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) for over two decades, it is not the only unorthodox opening that I have researched.

There are, of course, the twin lines 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 c5 / 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 d5, which Riley Sheffield and I covered in our book The Marshall Gambit in the French and Sicilian Defenses in 1988.

I also examined 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3/Nd2 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Qd5 in a trio of articles in the "Unorthodox Openings Newsletter" (#4, #5, and #12) in 2001 and 2005. It is fun to be able to quote from "Recent Play in the Frere Variation of the French (Part 1)"

The variation 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2/c3 de 4.Nxe4 Qd5 has been given several names. It has been referred to as the Becker Variation, although nobody I’ve contacted, including Eric Schiller, has been able to explain why. I have called it the Frere Variation, after the American Walter Frere, who analyzed, played, and referred to it as his in the 1920s. Certainly a case can be made for calling it the Katalymov Variation, after Boris Katalymov, who played the defense against Keres in Moscow in 1965 – perhaps the best-known example of the line – and against Shinkevich in 2001and Filchenkov in 2002. Andy Soltis, in his Grandmaster Secrets: Openings refers to the line more neutrally as the “Neo-Rubinstein,” acknowledging that the first three moves of the opening are often attributed to Akiba Rubinstein. 

I have since seen the opening referred to as the Maric Variation, in light of Yugoslavia's Honorary Grandmaster Rudolf Maric's games (I have found 4 of them). 

It is pleasant to see Brazil's FIDE Master Justo Reinaldo Chemin playing the defense - as recently as 3 games this year.

By the way, all 39 issues of the "Unorthodox Openings Newsletter" are available from Editor-in-Chief Lev Zilbermintz at the UON website. They make for fascinating reading.

Oh, and of course the UON also includes articles that I wrote on the Jerome Gambit, which replaced my interest in the Neo-Rubinstein variation.