A Few Words With... Micah Fisher-Kirshner

Seeing my interest in the Jerome Gambit, people often send me games from the Micah Fisher-Kirshner vs KnightStalker match.

Mission San Jose, Fremont, California, USA, June, 1993: the computer wins the match, but the human scores (at least) 3 victories.

For a time I thought that we had discovered the first "human beats computer with the Jerome Gambit" game, but it turns out, according to Randspringer #6, 1990-91, that the irrepressible Jack Young – "Bozo," of "Bozo's Chess Emporium" – defeated Fidelity's Chess Challenger 10 (rated about 1300) in 1979.

So who was this Jerome Gambiteer, this silicon giant-killer? The USCF had KnightStalker rated in the mid 2200s!

In 1989 Michah won the California primary school K-3 individual championship, and in 1992 and 1994 he won California's elementary K-6 individual championship. In 2000 he was the state's high school individual champ.

I recently caught up with Micah Fisher-Kirshner, via the internet.

I was around 11 or 12 at the time... but yeah, it definitely brings back some hilarious memories of playing against Knight Stalker (or what later became Fritz I believe).

I can actually recall the situation of the games… I would play them on my dad’s 386

(I think that was the name of the HP computer) as part of my chess homework for the day or two.
Essentially during the summer my dad set up a schedule for myself and my brother and part of it was having to play against the computer for maybe an hour or so. You can imagine how tiresome that could theoretically get for a young kid.

I’m pretty sure I learned about the opening from one of my former chess teachers, Richard Shorman, whereupon I used it to really help develop some of my tactical skills in the game at the young age – what better way to learn how to fight in chess than by being down by so much?
I’m pretty sure at some point I put these games on one of my earlier versions of my website (probably v1 or v2 which I unfortunately never saved) and may have been copied from there to the rest of the Internet during those early days.

[According to ChessDryad.com's "California Chess History Hall of Fame" page Richard Shorman "has added more games to the CalGames Chess Database than anybody else" so he also may be a possibility - RK]

I should search around my place to see what I still have in terms of recorded games and put them all back up online – I doubt I have any more of those Jerome Gambit games than what you already have, but you never know.

As for myself, I graduated from UCSD in 2006 (my current website is way out of date – but my blog www.micahfk.com/blog is current) with a Master’s in Pacific International Affairs from the IR/PS graduate school (undergraduate Bachelor’s degree from The George Washington University in International Affairs).

I am currently on the board for Success Chess, but mainly I’m working as a Search Strategist in San Francisco at Red Bricks Media doing a lot of SEO and Analytics aspects for the company and clients.

So, there you go!

Following the student theme, if chess can be thought of as "a gymnasium of the mind" (Pratt) and the Blackmar Diemer Gambit referred to as a "high school for tactics" (Diemer), I suppose that the Jerome Gambit can be seen as a brawl behind the gym after school lets out...

If so, here's Round One:

Fisher-Kirshner,M - Knight Stalker
Mission San Jose, Fremont, CA: June, 1993

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Bd4 9.fxe5+ Kc6 10.b4 Nh6 11.Qh5 Bxa1 12.b5+ Kxb5 13.e6+ Ka4 14.Nc3+ Bxc3 15.dxc3 Qf6 16.Qc5 Qh4+ 17.g3 Qxe4+ 18.Be3 Qxh1+ 19.Kd2 Qg2+ 20.Bf2 Qxf2+ 21.Qxf2 dxe6 22.Qc5 Rd8+ 23.Kc1 Rd4 24.cxd4 b5 25.c4 a6 26.cxb5 c6 27.a3 a5 28.Qc4+ Kxa3 29.Kc2 a4 30.Qc3+ Ka2 31.Qb2# 1-0


(Artwork compliments of Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws")

Let's give this thingie a try...

Well, if it actually works you'll be able to play over my first Jerome Gambit, a 2 12 blitz game played at the Internet Chess Club a few years back.
Nifty little thing from Chess Publisher.


[Readers - it worked, for a while, giving readers the ability to play over games on this blog - but when the Chess Publisher site expired, it was necessary to remove the link.]

perrypawnpusher - WHITE-KING
blitz 2 12, Internet Chess Club, 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# 1-0


(Artwork compliments of Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws")

My Jerome Gambit Database

I have over 950 Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) games in my database, allowing for transpositions.

I'm always looking for more.

Some are historical

D'Aumiller - 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 10.fxe5 dxe5 11.Na3 Nf6 12.Qf5+ Kd6 13.Nc4+ Kc5 14.Qxe5+ Kxc4 15.b3+ Kd3 16.Bf4 Kc2 17.Rc1+ Kb2 18.c4+ Ka3 19.Rc2 Re8 1-0

Some are tragic modern over-the-board games

Banks - Rees
Wolverhampton Summer League
Division 3S
Halesowen v Lucas BS, 2003
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8 6.Qh5 Qf6 7.Nxd7+ Bxd7 8.Qxc5+ Qd6 9.Qxd6+ cxd6 10.c3 Nf6 11.f3 Kf7 12.0-0 Rhe8 13.d4 Kg8 14.Bf4 d5 15.e5 Nh5 16.Bg5 Nxe5 17.dxe5 Rxe5 18.Bc1 Bb5 19.Rd1 Rae8 20.Bd2 Re2 21.Na3 Bd3 22.Re1 Nf4 23.Rxe2 Nxe2+ 24.Kf2 Rf8 25.b4 Nf4 26.Bxf4 Rxf4 27.Ke3 Rh4 28.Kxd3 Rxh2 29.Rg1 Kf7 30.Nb5 Rh6 31.Re1 a6 32.Nd4 g6 33.a4 Rh2 34.g4 Ra2 35.a5 Ra3 36.Re5 Ra2 37.Rxd5 Rh2 38.Rd7+ Kf6 39.Rxb7 h5 40.gxh5 gxh5 41.Rb6+ Kg5 42.Rxa6 h4 43.Ne6+ Kf5 44.Ke3 Rc2 45.Nd4+ 1-0

Some are internet beasties

blackburne - karmmark
Jerome Gambit thematic tournament
www.chessworld.net, 2007
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 Nc6 8.Qxc5 Qe7 9.Qd5+ Kf6 10.Qf5 mate

Some are sleepy affairs

Brescak - Hefti
EU-ch U10 Girls, 1998
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ draw agreed.

In all about 7% are over-the-board games, 12% involve computers (person vs computer or computer vs computer), 2% are traditional (snail mail) correspondence games and 79% are games played on the internet (various time controls).

These statistics reflect the explosion of chess in general on the internet – as well as the continued challenge of unearthing historical games, as reflected in the two smallest per centages above. With good reason National Master Eric Schiller includes the Jerome Gambit, despite its untamed early life, among those he calls a "cyberspace gambit" in his Gambit Chess Openings (2002).

In fact, a ChessBase-generated graph of the games, distributed by year played, looks like a very skinny Bozo the Clown taking a nap on his back: his nose beeps up in the mid-1870s to mid-1880s and then there's very little in the sillouette until his large clown shoes explode in the 2000 to present era...

But – Is this stuff playable?? (Part II)

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "playable"...

Stop by Chessworld these days and you are likely to see three Jerome Gambit thematic tournaments in progress.

Somebody is still playing this stuff!

(Me, for example. I should take top honors in one tournament with a 16-2 score. That would be 7-2 with the Gambit and the White pieces –but 9-0 with the Black pieces, which should say something, but I'm not sure what.)


In the current issue of the Unorthodox Openings Newsletter (tirelessly and
ably edited by Gary K. Gifford)
I have an article on a recently concluded Jerome Gambit tournament.

.

I made reference to Nigel Davies' comments on club play (see "But – Is this stuff playable?? (Part I)") and then described the games:

This wisdom is relevant to the tournament under consideration, where players ranged from the 1200s to the 1800s according to chessworld's rating system, and where knowledge of the “book” lines of the Jerome Gambit ranged from a good bit to not 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.

Some surprises were inevitable, including this one:

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.”

So: at the right time (and time control), with the right opponent, playing in the right mood – perhaps the Jerome Gambit is a bit playable...

But – Is this stuff playable?? (Part I)

Of course not.

The Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) has many refutations.

I'm glad that's settled.

Maybe a more useful question would be --
Under what conditions might the Jerome Gambit be playable?

In casual or blitz games among "average" players , perhaps -- when Grandmaster Nigel Davies' words from his Gambiteer I (2007) are relevant:

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.

I like the sound of that.

Also, what do you make of the following position?

White, down two pieces without compensation, is lost, right?

Actually, the game is Morphy - T. Knight, New Orleans 1856, which ended in the first player announcing checkmate in 17 moves.

And this position?

Morphy - Maurian, New Orleans, 1858, a win for White in 15 moves..

Ok, you're catching on. It's possible for a stronger player to give a weaker player odds of a piece or more and still have a fighting chance.

Just like someone could give "Jerome Gambit odds" in the right situation..

One more position: White is lost, right??

This is a trick position.

Vazquez - Giraudy
Mexico, 1876
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.d4 Bxd4 9.c3 Bb6 10.f4 Qf6 11.fxe5+ Qxe5 12.Bf4 Qxf4 13.Qxf4+ Ke7 14.Rf1 Nh6 15.Qe5+ Kd8 16.Qxg7 Re8 17.Qg5+ Re7 18.Rf8 mate

Andres Clemente Vazquez, the Mexican Champion and editor of La Estrategia Mexicane gave both Knight's and Jerome Gambit odds -- and still managed a checkmate in under 20 moves!

Bashi-Bazouk Attack

From The Chess Player's Chronicle, August 1, 1877, translated from the May 1877 Nordisk Skaktidende:

Chess Theory for Beginners
by Lieut. Sorensen

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5

With this answering move of the Bishop we have the fundamental position for that good old game which the Italians, hundreds of years ago, when they were masters of the Chess board, called "Giuoco Piano," even game, but the later age, for generality of explanation, the "Italian game." On this basis the usual continuation is 4.P to QB3, whereby the QP at the next move threatens to advance, and the White middle Pawns to occupy the centre.

In the next articles we will make mention of that regular fight for the maintenance or destruction of the centre, which is the essential point of the Italian game; in this, on the contrary, we will occupy ourselves with a Bashi-Bazouk


[Encyclopedia Britannica: Turkish BASIBOZUK ("corrupted head," or "leaderless"), mercenary soldier belonging to the skirmishing or irregular troops of the Ottoman Empire, notorious for their indiscipline, plundering, and brutality]


attack, over which the learned Italians would have crossed themselves had they known it came under the idea of piano, but which is in reality of very recent date - 1874, and takes it origin from an American, A.W. Jerome.

It consists in the sacrifice of a piece by 4.B takes P(ch).

Naturally we immediately remark that it is unsound, and that Black must obtain the advantage; but the attack is pretty sharp, and Black must take exact care, if he does not wish to go quickly to the dogs.

A little analysis of it will, therefore, be highly instructive, not to say necessary, for less practised players, and will be in its right place in our Theory, especially since it is not found in any handbook.

The Americans call the game "Jerome's double opening," an allusion, probably, to the fresh sacrifice of a piece which follows at the next move, but we shall prefer to use the short and sufficiently clear designation, Jerome Gambit.

Junk Openings

Thinking chess players everywhere (even those of us in the Jerome Gambit Gemeinde) should stop by (although perhaps many have, being thinking chess players, after all) National and FIDE Master Dennis Monokroussos' thoughtful website, The Chess Mind.

Dennis produces the instructive and entertaining ChessBase shows and ChessVideos shows, which I can highly recommend.

Dennis' thoughts on the Jerome Gambit are rather dismissive -- although he has been more than polite in his exchanges with me at his site.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+??... leaves White a piece down for no compensation whatsoever. Is there even a single trap for Black to fall into in the Jerome Gambit?

Interested readers might want to take a look at some of my earlier posts: this one on junk openings, and see here and here on the Jerome Gambit with the follow-up 5.Nxe5+, as in a well-known Blackburne game.

Of course, I certainly wasn't going to argue with a philosopher at the University of Notre Dame (where, by the way, "Kennedy Kid" Jon attends, although he and Dennis have neither crossed paths nor pawns).

Ah, yes, Dennis, you are of course completely correct: on a good day the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+??) aspires to be known as a "junk opening," but likely still over-reaches!

It's value, such as it is, can be found in the enjoyment (mixed with horror) that some players have experienced while employing the Jerome in blitz, or using it as a way of giving odds to a weaker player.

It is in the latter case that the "justification" of the opening is found: no traps, just the acute discomfort the second player feels (until he reaches a certain level of skill, of course; then he is brimming with confidence and a desire to pocket the gifted full point) with a King out of place and that Big, Bad Queen on the prowl...

The position after 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ is no more "objectively" lost than the starting position in a game where White gives Knight, Rook or Queen odds.

My interest in the JG over the last few years has been of a historical nature — where did such a thing come from and in what manner did it survive?