Chessfriend and major contributor to this blog, Yury V. Bukayev, reports that Grandmaster Olga A. Girya recently had a 15-board simultaneous exhibition in Moscow.
Her score was 14 1/2 - 1/2 , that is, she won fourteen games and drew one.
That draw was Yury's game.
Excellent!
[continued from previous post]
perrypawnpusher - Shienny_Loves_Cats
Italian opening rapid players, Chess.com, 2025
15.Qe1
I didn't think that exchanging Queens with either 15.Qg5 or 15.Qh4 would help me attack, but Stockfish 16.1 (33 ply) sees little difference between the text and the two alternatives - or even 15.Qf2.
15...Qe7 16.c3
I wasn't sure what to do here.
It turns out, in the post-mortem, the computer didn't have much of an idea, suggesting little moves here and there, i.e. 16.Qc3 Kh8 17.Rae1 h6 18.Nd4 c5 19.Ne2 Kh7 20.Nf4 Nf6 21.Re2 b5 22.Ref2 b4 23.Qe1 Bf7 24.Rf3 d5 25.exd5 Nxd5 26.Qf2 Rfe8 27.e4 Nxf4 28.Rxf4 and Black is still better, of course.
16...Bg4 17.h3 Bxf3 18.gxf3 Qg5+
19.Kh2 Kh8 20.Rg1 Qb5 21.Qd2
21...Rxf3 22.d4 Raf8 23.Rg2 Qd7 White resigned
Ouch.
The following loss with the Jerome Gambit is painful - even more so since, in post-game analysis, Stockfish 16.1 first suggested an alternative move (improvement) to one that I played only on my 18th move. I was on familiar territory. Allegedly.
Alas, five moves later, I resigned.
More specious numbers:
From the early moves, onward, Stockfish continued to rate my position after each moves as about 2 1/2 pawns worse than my opponent. I was not able to whittle that difference down. For a similar lament, see "Jerome Gambit: Success is Not Around the Corner in A Circular Room".
Finally, I had to ponder the fact that pieces are, roughly, worth about 3 pawns, so that my Jerome Gambit sacrifices of two pieces (6 pawns) for two pawns (2 pawns) gave a net of being down about 4 pawns. If Stockfish rated me as being only 2 1/2 pawns down, does that mean that I had about 1 1/2 pawns worth of compensation?
Also relevant to this discussion is Geoff Chandler's "blunder table".
perrypawnpusher - Shienny_Loves_Cats
Italian opening rapid players, Chess.com, 2025
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Kf8
Instead, 8...Be6 was seen in perrypawnpusher - GuestGCSC, blitz, FICS, 2023 (0-1, 49).
9.d3
Stockfish doesn't see much difference between the text and 9.Nc3, which was seen in
perrypawnpusher - klixar, blitz, FICS, 2007 (1-0, 33);
perrypawnpusher - truuf, blitz, FICS, 2011 (0-1, 32);
perrypawnpusher - mallack, Italian Game Battlegrounds, Chess.com 2019 (1-0, 23);
perrypawnpusher - Abhishek29, Italian Game Battlegrounds, Chess.com, 2019 (1-0, 35);
perrypawnpusher - klask, blitz, FICS, 2023 (0-1, 47); and
perrypawnpusher - cool64chess, lichess.org, 2024 (0-1, 24).
9...Kf7
10.Be3 Bxe3 11.fxe3 Rf8 12.O-O Kg8
Many years ago - 15, I think - with the post "Artificial Stupidity," I wondered
How do you make a computer chess program play not-so-strongly? You can limit the amount of time that it analyzes any position, or you can limit the depth to which it will analyze. Or, you can cause it to blunder every once-in-a-while...
I have recently learned that some great thinking has gone into that question, with fascinating results
Artificial Stupidity: One Google Engineer’s Algorithms for Bad
Chess Playing
Read it and weep. Or chuckle.
Ah, yes, the Google Alert on "Jerome Gambit" just turned up another short video, "Jerome Jerome Jerome", presented by ChessMakta.
Interestingly enough, although the 2-dimensional board to illustrate the moves is different, the voice-over (actually, a sing-over) is identical to that of Malcolm's "Jerome gambit" YouTube video, mentioned in an earlier post, "Jerome Gambit: Fun".
I can certainly identify with the introduction
You know those weird days, right, when chess just ain't clicking and your mind's a haze and you just wanna play in any old way...
The warning about the Jerome Gambit is worth repeating
The first to panic loses the game.
The video and song-over can also be found on Tik Tok (Eugene), "the first to panic loses the game".
I don't know which video came first, or even if I have found the earliest one, yet. 😖
White shows that even the Four Knights game can become surprisingly dangerous when given the Jerome Gambit treatment.
Played at bullet speed, the impact can come quickly.
angelcamina - JakobHo
1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2025
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3
He has also played 4.d3 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.d4 Bxd4 8.Qxd4 d6 9.O-O Re8 10.f4 Ng6 11.Nc3 Kg8 12.b3 a6 13.Bb2 Qe7 14.Nd5 Nxd5 15.exd5 c5 16.dxc6 bxc6 17.Rae1 c5 18.Rxe7 cxd4 19.Rxe8+ Kf7 20.Re4 Bb7 21.Rxd4 Rd8 22.c4 a5 23.c5 Ke7 24.cxd6+ Rxd6 25.Re1+ Kd7 26.Rxd6+ Kxd6 27.Be5+ Ke6 28.g4 Kf7 29.h4 Nxe5 30.Rxe5 g6 31.Rxa5 Bf3 32.g5 Be4 33.Re5 Bb1 34.a4 Ba2 35.Rb5 Ke6 36.Kf2 Kd6 37.Ke3 Kc6 38.Kd4 h6 39.Kc3 hxg5 40.Kb2 Bb1 41.Kxb1 gxf4 42.Kc2 f3 43.Kd2 f2 44.Ke2 f1=Q+ 45.Kxf1 g5 46.Kf2 gxh4 47.Kg2 h3+ 48.Kxh3 Black resigned, angelcamina - Oliver_shanti, 1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2022.
4...Bc5 5.Bxf7+
According to The Database, angelcamina has played this line 282 times, scoring 60%.
5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.d4 Bxd4 8.Qxd4 d6
9.O-O Re8 10.f4 Ng6 11.Qc4+
Encouraging the enemy Bishop to a square where it can be forked by an advancing pawn.
11...Be6 12.Qd3
A different idea: 12.Qb4 Kg8 13.f5 c5 14.Qxb7 Rb8 15.Qa6 Rb6 16.Qd3 Ne5 17.Qe2 Bf7 18.h3 d5 19.exd5 Nxd5 20.Nxd5 Qxd5 21.Qh5 Qd4+ 22.Kh1 Qc4 23.Qg5 Qxf1+ 24.Kh2 h6 25.Qg3 Qxf5 26.Bf4 Ng6 27.Rf1 Qd5 28.Bd2 Re4 29.Bc3 Rbe6 30.Rxf7 Kxf7 31.Qc7+ Kg8 32.Qxg7 checkmate, angelcamina - ibezenkov, 1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2025,
12...Kg8 13.f5
Look at the position. Readers can find a way out for Black - but, in a 1-minute game? Not so easy.
13...Bxf5
Returning a piece and reaching an equal game.
There was, instead, 13...Ne5 14.Qg3 Bc4, and Black's two pieces have escaped the enemy pawn.
14.exf5 Ne5 15.Qg3 c6 16.Bh6
16...Neg4
Blacking the g-file - temporarily.
17.Bg5 Qd7
Ducking out of the pin on the Knight at f5. Instead, 17...h6 or 17...d5 would have served.
18.h3 Ne5
19.Bxf6 Kf7 20.Bxe5 dxe5 21.Rad1 Black resigned
When we think about cooperation of pieces, we usually think of middlegame tactics.
In the following game, however, White's pieces work well together, while Black's pieces seem to ignore each other.
Wall, Bill - Dasasary
sparkchess, 2025
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6
7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qh5 Nf6
Or 9...Qe7 as in Wall,B - Zulfikar, sparkchess, 2024 (1-0, 29)
10.Qb5+
Or 10.Qe2 as in Wall,B - Guest1475978, playchess.com, 2013 (1-0, 28)
10...c6 11.Qe2 Qb6 12.d3 Kf7 13.O-O Re8 14.Nd2 Bg4 15.Qe1 Kg8
16.h3 Be6 17.Nf3 h6 18.b3 Rf8 19.a4 Nd7 20.a5 Qc5 21.b4
Black's response is to sacrifice against White's pawn cover.
21...Qh5 22.Nd4 Bxh3 23.gxh3
Things fizzle out. To be played was 23...c5 24.bxc5 dxc5 25.Nf5 Rae8 and Black's development is overwhelming.
24.Qe3 Qg4+ 25.Qg3 Qxg3+ 26.fxg3 Rxf1+ 27.Kxf1 Nde5
28.Be3
A couple move later, White played the disruptive a5-a6, which also could be tried here.
28...Rf8+
In turn, Black had the preventative 29...a6.
29.Ke2 Ng4
As above.
30.a6
30...Nxe3 31.Kxe3 b6 32.Nxc6 Rc8 33.Nxa7 Rxc2 34.Nb5 Rc8 35.a7 Ra8 36.Nc7 Black resigned
