In the previous post, I looked at commentary (from a 2007 post at GameKnot.com) on the Jerome Gambit, recovered from my notes.
I want to take a closer look at the illustrative game given.
Sometimes I consult the Stockfish program to see what it sees in a game. This time, it had no comments - I don't know that has ever happed before in dissecting a Jerome Gambit game.
I ran the game analysis twice, just to be sure. Nada.
Here is the game. With human comments.
To the very end.
shembo - wloh
GameKnot.com, 2006
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6
7.f4 d6
The "annoying" (because it is) or "silicon" (because computers like it) defense.
The earliest example I have is in D'Aumiller - A.P., Livorno, 1878 (1-0, 19)
8.fxe5 dxe5 9.b4
This move pops up from time-to-time in different Jerome Gambit lines, adding complications.
9...Nf6
If your opponent attacks a piece, attack a more important piece of your opponent.
10.Qf3 Bd4 11.c3 Bb6 12.a4 a5 13.bxa5 Rxa5
The end of White's pawn activity on the Queenside.
14.d3 Kf7 15.Rf1 Rf8 16.Bg5 Kg8
Black has castled-by-hand, and still has a piece for a pawn.
It is White's King who is living precariosuly.
17.Nd2 h6 18.Bh4 Rc5 19.Nc4 g5 20.Nxb6 cxb6 21.Bg3 Bg4
The lyrics to "Everybody Knows" by Concrete Blonde come to mind: Everybody knows that the war is over, Everybody knows that the Good Guys lost...
But wait - it gets worse.
22.Qe3 Rxc3 23.Bxe5 Rxd3 24.Qc1 Rd1+ 25.Qxd1 Bxd1 26.Rxd1
26...Qe7 27.Bxf6 Qxe4+ 28.Kd2 Qxg2+ White resigned
Tough game.
Final thoughts:
Jerome Gambit theory and practice has advanced over the almost 20 years since this game has been played.
Is 7.Qf5+ stronger than 7.f4?
Are there ways to confront the Annoyng defense, other than 8.fxe5?
Could b2-b4 be played sooner, or later?
What about 12.d4 instead of 12.a4?





























