[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]
.png)