An Odd Line in an Odd Line

One of the modern members of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) Gemeinde, Louis Morin, played White in the following game. It's a simple equation: Jerome Gambit + blitz = anything can happen.

guest1200 - satmonger
ICC 2 12, 2001
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke7


Quite unusual: given the choice of four refutations (5...Kf8, 5...Ke6, 5...Ng6 and 5...g6) Black choses a move instead that gives White the advantage.

6.Qh5 Qf8


It is rare that counter-sacrificing the Bishop at f2 is a good move for the second player (see "Jerome Gambit Strikes in Denmark!"), but here it was his best choice: 6...Bxf2+ 7.Kxf2 Qf8+ 8.Nf3 Nf6 with advantage to White, according to Rybka.

7.0-0

With 7.Nxc6+ bxc6 8.Qxc5+ White would have been happily two pawns ahead.

7...d6 8.Ng6+ hxg6 9.Qxh8


9...Nd4 10.Na3 Ne2+ 11.Kh1 Be6 12.d4 Bxd4 13.f4


Aggressive, but risky, as Black's pieces are beginning to swarm and White's Queen risks entrapment.

13...Qf6 14.Nb5 Bb6

White's Knight sortie is a distraction, and helps bring the game back into balance.

15.Bd2 a6 16.Nc3 Nxc3 17.Bxc3 Bd4


After 17...Qf7 the game would have been roughly equal. But this gives White a chance.

18.e5 dxe5 19.fxe5 Qxe5 20.Bxd4 Qxd4 21.c3 Qe5 22.Rae1 Qd5


Now Black's game collapses. He had to try the tactical 22...Rf8, although that allows White to spring his Queen and win material: 23.Qh4+ g5 24.Qb4+ Qd6 25.Qxd6+ Kxd6 26.Rxf8,

23.Qxg7+ Kd6 24.Rd1 Qxd1 25.Rxd1+ Kc6 26.Qxg6 Black resigns

"Bishop in a Hurry"

A few days after posting on the Jerome-ish 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ (see "Offside!" and "The Other Side") I discovered that a similar line of play from the Vienna Opening rather than the Italian Game (a reminiscent reflection of "Godfather of the Jerome Gambit?" Part I, Part II, Part III and Endnote) – 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ – had been addressed in a "Reader's Challenge" at ChessPublishing (

http://www.chesspublishing.com/content/1/puz2.htm):

Reader’s Challenge P2.1.1 referring to M.Adams-P.Motwani, London 1989

The idea of ...Na5 has been mentioned, but would it have been OK for Black to play it even earlier, at move three?

Solution

3...Na5? loses to 4 Bxf7+

! Kxf7 5 Qh5+, intending 5...g6 6 Qe5 (forking the loose black pieces on a5 and h8) or 5...Ke6 6 Qf5+ Kd6 7 d4 and then, for example, 7...Qf6 8 dxe5+ Qxe5 9 Bf4 or 7...Qe8 8 dxe5+ Kc6 9 e6 b6 10 Qd5# or 7...Nc6 8 dxe5+ Nxe5 9 Bf4 Qf6 10 Bxe5+ Qxe5 11 0-0-0+, costing Black his queen.

It's pretty easy to back this analysis up with games, as I have only a handful in my database:

Schelkonogov - Morozenko, corr, 1989: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Qh5+ Ke6 6.Qf5+ Kd6 7.d4 Nc6 8.dxe5+ Kc5 9.Be3+ Kb4 10.a3+ Ka5 11.e6+ d5 12.exd5 Nce7 13.b4+ Black resigned;

Keizer - Kroes, corr NLD, 1991: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ Ke7 5.Bxg8 Rxg8 6.Nd5+ Kd6 7.d4 Black resigned;

Stalker - Palmer Douglas, Scotland Tch B, 1994: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Qxe5 Nc6 7.Qxh8 Nf6 8.Nf3 Bh6 9.Qxd8 Nxd8 10.d4 Bg7 11.0-0 d6 12.Re1 Nc6 13.e5 dxe5 14.dxe5 Ng4 15.e6+ Black resigned;

Gutt - Schiller, Bergisch Gladbach (4), 1996: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Qh5+ Ke6 6.Qf5+ Kd6 7.d4 exd4 8.Bf4+ Ke7 9.Nd5+ Ke8 10.Nxc7+ Ke7 11.Nd5+ Ke8 12.Nc7+ Ke7 13.Qxa5 d6 14.Qg5+ Nf6 15.Nxa8 h6 16.Qg6 Be6 17.Nf3 Qxa8 18.Bxd6+ Kxd6 19.e5+ Kd7 20.exf6 gxf6 21.0-0-0 Qc8 22.Nxd4 Kc7 23.Qxf6 Bg4 24.Nb5+ Black resigned;

McCall - Harvey, Kent vs Essex, Swanscombe, 2001: 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nc3 e5 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Qh5+ Ke6 6.Qf5+ Kd6 7.d4 Qe8 8.dxe5+ Kc6 9.e6 Qxe6 10.Qb5+ Kd6 11.Bg5 c6 12.Qxa5 b6 13.Qa3+ c5 14.Nf3 Kc6 15.0-0-0 h6 16.Bf4 Nf6 17.Qa4+ Kb7 18.e5 Ne8 19.Rhe1 g5 20.Bg3 a6 21.Nd5 Ka7 22.Nf6 b5 23.Qa5 Nxf6 24.Qc7+ Bb7 25.exf6 Rc8 26.Rxe6 Rxc7 27.Re8 Rc6 28.Rxd7 Rxf6 29.Bb8+ Kb6 30.Bc7+ Kc6 31.Ne5 checkmate;

Olmos - Esteves, 54th Villa Ballester (5), 2004: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Qh5+ Black resigned

graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"

Are we there, yet?

I often open with 1.e4, heading toward the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) but not all of my opponents cooperate. Sometimes they do – it just takes them a while.

perrypawnpusher - angelosgoulianos
FICS rated blitz game, 2007

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6


Are we there yet?

No, not yet.

Will there be any presents??

I don't know.

4.0-0 a6

Are we there yet?

Not yet.

Truth be told, I was hoping we would "get there," because I didn't think that the two extra pawn pushes helped Black's defense to the Jerome.

5.Nc3 Bc5 6.Bxf7+



We're there!

6...Kxf7

In this delayed Jerome Gambit, Black merely has the advantage, not a winning advantage.

7.Nxe5+ Nxe5 8.Qh5+ Ke6



Yippee. If White is going to have a chance, it's going to be against the enemy King in the middle of the board.

9.Qf5+

A thematic move, to be sure, compared to the more direct 9.d4 Bxd4 10.Ne2 Bc5 11.Nf4+ Kd6 12.Rd1+ Kc6 13.Qxe5 when it is clear that White's d-pawn sac was worth it.

The fly in the ointment is that here, as in the game, Black can answer Ne2 with ...c5 and keep his advantage.

9...Kd6 10.d4

Rybka now says White gets very little for the pawn.

10...Bxd4 11.Rd1 c5 12.Ne2


Still giving it the old Jerome Gambit try. Black can now strengthen his defense with 12...Ne7.

12...Kc7 13.Nxd4 d6


Cool!

14.Ne6+ Bxe6 15.Qxe6 Nf6



Black is winning, and the position is becoming less complicated by the minute, a bad sign for White.

16.Bf4 Re8 17.Qb3 Nxe4 18.Bxe5 Rxe5 19.Qf7+ Qd7 20.Qf3 Qf5 21.Qxf5 Rxf5



Can we go home now??

No, not yet.

22.f3 Ng5 23.Re1 Kd7 24.Rad1 Re8 25.Rxe8 Kxe8 26.Rxd6

Can we go home now??

No, not yet.

26...Re5 27.Kf2 Ke7 28.Rb6

Can we go home now??

Not yet.

28...Rf5 29.Rxb7+Kf6 30.Rb6+ Kf7 31.Rxa6



Now?

Maybe...

31...Ne4+ 32.Ke3 Nd6



A present!! We don't want to go home now!

33.Rxd6 Ke7 34.Rd3 Rh5 35.h3 Re5+ 36.Kf2 g5 37.Re3 Rxe3 38.Kxe3 Kd6 39.Ke4 c4 40.Kd4 Black resigns


Wow! Can we do that again??

Jerome Gambit and – Cell phones??

A while back I shared an entry from Wikipedia (see "Artificial Castling" from Wikipedia (Portugese)") that used the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) to illustrate "castling by hand" or "artificial castling."

That's not unusual for a blog dedicated to the Jerome Gambit.

I just discovered, however, that the folks at Web Celular (http://www.webcelular.com.br/) have done me one better. In order to add some panache to their lineup of phones, they have included chess content – including that Wikipedia article.

Nothing quite says reliable, dependable and top-of-the-line like the Jerome Gambit, does it?

Sorry, Pete

Commenting on my recent computer vs computer Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) matches (see "I can't seem to get the hang of these things...") Pete Banks ("blackburne"), a long-time member of the Jerome Gambit Gemeinde, posted a Comment

Hi Rick,

Have you tried matching two equally-strong computer programs? It might be interesting to see what percentage White got. I'd guess about 40%.

Pete

While I liked Pete's enthusiasm for the Jerome Gambit, my Comment reply was not as optimistic as his. After all, while I have supported the use of the Jerome when giving "odds" to a weaker player; I'm not at all confident in its prospects when the players are evenly matched.

Hi Pete,

I'll ask Rybka to play a similar match against itself. I suspect it will run something like 0-20.

But, then again, what do I know?? You see, I can't seem to get the hang of these things...

Rick

The first thing that I learned is that using the Aquarium interface I wasn't able to have Rybka 3.0 play a match against itself. However, I was able to have two similarly powerful Rybka engines face off: Rybka 3 Dynamic w32 vs Rybka 3 Human w32.

I set up a 20-game Jerome Gambit match, starting from the position after 4.Bxf7+. Each computer had 5 minutes per game. I gave Dynamic the White pieces first.

The match finished 0 - 20.

I then switched engines, giving Human the White pieces.

That match finished 0 - 20.

That's zero wins for the Jerome Gambit, against forty losses!

I've really got to stop running these experiments...

(I won't post the games, but they will be available in the 4th PGN file of games presented or referred to on this blog, when it becomes available.)

Kaissiber!

I've spoken quite positively of Stefan Bücker's awesome quarterly magazine Kaissiber, which focuses on games, analysis and history (see "To Infinity... And Beyond!", "Breaking News...", "My head is spinning" and "Jerome Gambit Blog: Tidying Up") -- especially unorthodox openings.

Kaissiber 33 is due out today (unless you are a subscriber; in which case you have already received your issue, lucky person) and is well worth tracking down. (Word is that it has some killer King's Gambit analysis...)

If you are interested in collecting back issues of Kaissiber, it is important to know that they are available in bound editions, with the fourth volume due out this coming January (or late December).

Finally, for those of you who have interest in such things, Stefan also has copies for sale of my (with Riley Sheffield; Introduction by Hugh Myers) Marshall Gambit in the French and Sicilian Defenses which focuses upon 1.e4 e6 2.d5 d5 3.Nc3 c5!? and 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 d5!? (and which is much, much sounder than the Jerome Gambit!)

One (or both) of us needs help (Part II)

Clearly the computer's revenge match had gotten off on the wrong foot – see "One (or both) of us needs help (Part I)."

For game two I set its skill level to 1400, and we played from the initial Jerome Gambit position (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) again.

Kennedy - WeakDelphi (1400)
blitz 2 12 (2), 2008

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke8 6.Qh5+ Ke7 7.Nxc6+

We both quickly repeat our errors from the first match game – although mine are "inaccuracies" while its are "blunders."

7...Kf6 8.Qf5 checkmate

Yikes.

For our third game, I stepped the computer's skill level up another 200 points.

Kennedy - WeakDelphi (1600)
blitz 2 12 (3), 2008

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke8 6.Qh5+ Kf8 7.Qf7 checkmate

Not much to say about that one.

Finally, I bumped the computer's skill level up to 1800.

Kennedy - WeakDelphi (1800)
blitz 2 12 (4), 2008

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke8 6.Qh5+ Ke7

The move that gives Black the advantage is, of course, 6...g6.

7.Qf7+ Kd6 8.Qd5+

Missing the mate-in-one: 8.Nc4.

8...Ke7 9.Nxc6+ Kf6

One last gift.

10.Qf5 checkmate

No more experiments for me – for a while, anyhow.

graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"

One (or both) of us needs help (Part I)

After my computer vs computer Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) match debacle (see "I can't seem to get the hang of these things") I was sure that I had done something wrong.

Eventually I discovered that the skill setting for WeakDelfi was set at 1200 – could that have been responsible for the engine's odd play?

Having injured the honor of the electronic beast, I figured that it would only be fair for me to allow it some form of revenge – across-the-board.

So I set up a blitz game (2 12) to start after move 4 of the Jerome Gambit. I set my opponent's skill level at 1200.

Kennedy - WeakDelfi (1200)
blitz 2 12 (1), 2008

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke8

Just. Plain. Bad.

6.Qh5+

I knew that this was not the best move, but I wanted to see how my opponent would handle it.

White would have a tiny advantage after 6.Nxc6 Qh4 7.d4 Qxe4+ 8.Qe2 Qxe2 9.Kxe2 Bb6 10.Nb4 Bxd4.

6...Ke7 7.Nxc6+

Missing: 7.Qf7+ Kd6 8.Nc4 checkmate.

7...Ke6

Clueless.

8.Qf5+ Kd6 9.Qd5 checkmate



Ouch!

graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"

Triangulation

Ward Farnsworth's web page http://www.chesstactics.org/ has a link to this Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) blog, so it only seems fair to point out in return that his two books Predator at the Chessboard A Field Guide to Tactics - Book I: Introduction, The Double Attack, The Discovered Attack and Book II: The Pin and the Skewer, Removing the Guard, Mating Patterns, were winners of the "Perry PawnPusher 99% Solution Award" at Chessville.

To quote from my review:

I found it to be "excellent for a ‘rusty’ player who wants to get back his tactical chops by re-thinking the process of piece interplay; or for class/ club/tournament players (like myself) who want to un-retire from the 64 squares and get back in the action, without looking like fools. It is an excellent resource for chess coaches or teachers working with middle school or even elementary school students.

The Jerome Gambit Gemeinde lives and dies by tactics, and Predator at the Chessboard is an unmatched resource, lest we, like the thunder lizards of old, disappear too soon from the face of the earth.

I can't seem to get the hang of these things...

After a few unfruitful days of trying to coax a Jerome Gambit game (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) out of a lucky opponent at the Free Internet Chess Server (FICS) I decided to put together another Computer vs Computer Jerome Gambit match.

Despite feeling a bit like Jar Jar Binks trying to command the Death Star, I turned to my new Deep Rybka 3.0 Aquarium, and discovered two interesting engines: Delfi (reportedly rated 2500) and WeakDelfi (supposedly rated 1900).

Perfect!
I arranged for a 20-game match (5 minutes per side per game), with the stronger Delfi playing the White pieces each time, starting from the Jerome Gambit position after four moves.

Delfi - WeakDelfi
5 minute game
1st of 20 game match

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4

6...Bxd4 7.Qxd4 Nf3+


Huh???

What is this??
8.gxf3 Qf6 9.Qc4+ Ke7 10.Qc5+ Ke8 11.Nd2 Qd6 12.Qxd6 cxd6

13.Rg1 g6 14.b3 Nh6 15.Nc4 Nf7 16.Bb2 Rf8 17.0-0-0
This is not the kind of position that usually comes to mind when someone says "Jerome Gambit".

17...b5 18.Na3 b4 19.Nb5 Ba6


More strangeness.
20.Nc7+ Ke7 21.Nxa6 Ne5 22.Nxb4 Nxf3 23.Rg2 Nh4 24.Rg4 Nf3 25.Bg7 Rfb8 26.Nd5 Kf7
27.Bd4 Nxh2 28.Rh4 Nf3 29.Rf4+ Kg8 30.Ne7 checkmate



Nervously, I looked at the second game in the match.


Delfi - WeakDelfi
5 minute game
#2 of 20 game match
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Black lost on time.

What???

Unreal!

For the record, the next 8 games looked like this:
Delfi - WeakDelfi
5 minute game
#3 of 20 game match

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

Delfi - WeakDelfi
5 minute game
#4 of 20 game match

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


Delfi - WeakDelfi
5 minute game
#5 of 20 game match
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Black lost on time.


Delfi - WeakDelfi
5 minute game
#6 of 20 game match
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Black lost on time.

Delfi - WeakDelfi
5 minute game
#7 of 20 game match
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Black lost on time.


Delfi - WeakDelfi
5 minute game
#8 of 20 game match

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


Delfi - WeakDelfi
5 minute game
#9 of 20 game match

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


Delfi - WeakDelfi
5 minute game
#10 of 20 game match

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


Nine straight losses, all on time!

I stopped the match. I didn't have to be a Jedi master to know how the remaining 10 games would turn out.

graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"

With a lotta help from my friend...

My "thank you" again goes out to N. Earl Roberts (see "Cha - ching!" and "Jerome Gambit: The Proper Perspective") who quickly noticed that the vast majority of entries in the third PGN file of games from this blog are computer vs computer affairs that start from a fixed position – and that such games are handled differently by ChessBase in its "Repertoire" function.

Using an editor, he therefore added the beginning Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) moves and the proper ECO code to each of those games.

Those who have received the earlier, unimproved version of the third file have been sent the updated PGN file.

The Other Side

Sidran - Vong, 1992 (see "Offside!") was only an eyeblink look at the Jerome Gambit-style response to the 3...Na5 defense in the Italian Game. Strong? Weak? The line deserves further attention.

Benyovszki - Meyer

IECC email, 2001
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke6 6.Qh5

In our previous game we saw 6.Qg4+ Kf6 7.d4 d6 8.Bg4 checkmate, Sidran - Vong, Compuserve email, 1992.

The text move is not as strong. Interesting is 6.d4 Nf6 with an unclear, but perhaps equal position.
6...Nf6 7.Qf7+

This is not going to lead to success – but Black has the advantage (a smaller one) after 7.Qf5+ Ke7.

7...Kxe5 8.d4+ Kxe4

The position is complicated, and Black misses his chance for 8...Kxd4! 9.Be3+ Ke5 ( 9...Kxe4? 10.Nc3+ Kf5 11.0-0-0 d5 12.Rxd5+ Qxd5 13.Nxd5 and White is winning) 10.Nd2 c5 11.0-0-0 Kd6 12.e5+ Kc6 13.exf6 Qxf6 with significant advantage.

Likewise 8...Kd6 9.e5+ Kc6 10.exf6 Qxf6 would have been better for Black.

9.Nc3+ Kf5

This move leads to a mate-in-nine, but 9...Kxd4 only puts off the inevitable: 10.Be3+ Ke5 11.0-0-0 d5 12.Bd4+ Kd6 13.Bxf6 Kc6 14.Bxd8 Bd6 15.Qxd5+ Kd7 16.Bxc7 Nb3+ 17.axb3 Ke7 18.Rhe1+ Kf6 19.Ne4+ Kg6 20.Qg5+ Kf7 21.Nxd6+ Kg8 22.Re8 checkmate

10.Nd5

Ooops!

White needed to find 10.g4+! Kxg4 11.Rg1+ Kh3 12.Rg3+ Kxh2 13.Bf4 d5 14.Ne2 Qd6 15.0-0-0 Nb3+ 16.axb3 Qxf4+ 17.Nxf4 Bf5 18.Rg2 checkmate.

Now he loses.

10...Qe8+ 11.Ne3+ Ke4 12.f3+ Kxd4 13.c3+ Ke5 14.Nc4+ Nxc4 15.Qxc4 Kf5+ 16.Kf2 Qd8 17.Re1 Kg6 18.Re5 d5 19.Qh4 Ng4+ White resigns.

graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"

Offside!

While putting together a post on a rare variation of the Italian Game (see "Don't make me go Jerome all over you...") I recalled a similar idea – and a similar response – with colors reversed in the old Hamppe -Meitner game (see "Godfather of the Jerome Gambit? (Part I), (Part II), (Part III) (Endnote) ).


That got me thinking: are there any examples of an earlier "offside" Knight?

It didn't take me long to round up a number of examples.

Sidran - Vong
email, 1992

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+

The Jerome-ish solution. Naturally there is also 4.Nxe5 Nxc4 ( 4...Qe7 5.Bxf7+ Kd8 6.d4 Nf6 7.Bg5 d6 8.Nc3 dxe5 9.dxe5+ Nd7 10.Bxe7+ Bxe7 11.e6 Bb4 12.exd7 Bxd7 13.Be6 Bxc3+ 14.bxc3 Black resigned, Chung - Bonney, corr 1995) 5.Nxf7 Kxf7 6.Qf3+ Nf6 7.Qc3 d5 8.exd5 Nb6 9.b4 Qe7+ 10.Kf1 Qd7 11.a4 Nxa4 12.Rxa4 Qb5+ 13.d3 Qxa4 14.Bg5 Bd6 15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.h4 Qxb4 17.Qxb4 Bxb4 18.f3 Bc5 19.Nd2 Bd4 20.Ne4 a6 21.c3 a5 22.cxd4 Kf8 23.Nxf6 c6 24.dxc6 bxc6 25.f4 c5 26.dxc5 Kf7 27.Ne4 Kf8 28.c6 h6 White resigned, Matogrosso - Jappe, Utrecht 1992

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+

Alternately 5.d4 d5 6.exd5 exd4 7.Ne5+ Kf6 8.Qxd4 Ke7 9.Bg5+ Nf6 10.0-0 b6 11.b4 Be6 12.bxa5 Qxd5 13.Bxf6+ gxf6 14.Qb4+ c5 15.Qa4 Qxe5 16.Nd2 Bh6 17.Nc4 Qd4 18.Rfe1 Kf7 19.Nxb6 axb6 20.Qc6 Qd5 21.Qc7+ Kg6 22.axb6 Rhc8 23.Qg3+ Kf7 24.Rad1 Qb7 25.Rxe6 Kxe6 26.Qh3+ Ke7 27.Qxh6 Qxb6 28.Qg7+ Ke6 29.Qd7+ Ke5 30.Rd5+ Black resigned, bigbreakout - iggydog, www.GameKnot.com 2005

5...Ke6 6.Qg4+ Kf6 7.d4 d6 8.Bg5 checkmate

Well, that was... awkward.

Surely Black had better defenses...

graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"

Cha - ching!

N. Earl Roberts, whose comments on playability and refutation of a disreputable opening were reflected in the post "The Proper Perspective" is the first visitor to this blog to receive the third PGN file of games presented at jeromegambit.blogspot.com.

This file (plus the first and second ones of course) is available for the asking, although if you wanted to send along a Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) of your own along with your request, that would be really nice, too.

Or you could procrastinate until the next file is assembled – say, when 1,000 games have been posted (or referred to) here; we're already 3/4 of the way there!

Another nail in the coffin...

Readers are aware that I have not shied away from presenting refutations of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) when I run into them (or am run over by them). It's time to give Master Eric Schiller credit (again) for both writing about the Jerome Gambit and providing a reasonable refutation for one of the main lines.

His Unorthodox Chess Openings (1998, 2002), Gambit Chess Openings (2002) and Survive & Beat Annoying Chess Openings (2003) have the following line:

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

This rather extravagant gambit is included by popular request, as the Internet newsgroup rec.games.chess.analysis had quite a bit of discussion on it in the summer of 1997 and several of the participants asked me to include it. White sacrifices a piece just to draw the enemy king into the game... (Unorthodox Chess Openings)

5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+

This too ambitious gambit has a following in some gambit circles, but it is totally unsound and Black has very little cause for concern. Just play aggressively and don't fall into passive cowardice. (Survive & Beat Annoying Chess Openings)

6...Ke6 7.f4

White will win back one of the sacrificed pieces. Black should react calmly be developing and protecting the king. It is useful to keep in mind that for an attack to succeed the attacker usually requires greater force than that which defends the king. Here the Black king is surrounded by pieces, and White has only the queen and a pair of pawns. The Black king can retreat to e7, but this would confine the Black queen. Therefore the correct move suggests itself. (Unorthodox Chess Openings 2)

7...Qf6! 8.Nc3 Ne7 9.Rf1 g6 10.Qh3+ Ng4 11.Qxg4+ Kf7

Black can easily defend with ...Rf8 and ...Kg8, and can also move the d-pawn, attacking the enemy queen. (Gambit Chess Openings)

Short Controversy

I was looking through Eduard Gufeld and Nikolai Kalienchenko's Chess Strategy (Batsford, 2003) when I ran across an interesting section on "Gambit Systems and How to Evaluate Them."

Openings in which material is sacrificed for the sake of dominating the centre and mobilizing the pieces quickly are called gambit systems. The material sacrificed is usually one or two pawns, or a minor piece for one or two pawns. Sometimes a rook is given up for a knight or bishop; occasionally even a whole rook is sacrificed. How do we judge whether the positional gains compensate for the sacrificed material? Sometimes we can tell from our first glance at the position. But more often the latent possibilities come to light only as a result of lengthy analysis and accumulated practical experience.

If a large quantity of material is sacrificed (two pawns, a piece for a pawn, etc.), then once the gambit becomes generally known, several different authors will give analyses attempting to prove conclusively whether the attack can be repelled while the material is retained. Sometimes the controversy over the sacrifice will last for many years...

When it comes to the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) the "controversy" did not last very long.

The Jerome first appeared in print in the April 1874 edition of the Dubuque Chess Journal. This was likely too late for analysis of the gambit to be included in the 1st edition of Cook's Synopsis of the Chess Openings, Andres Clemente Vazquez's 1st edition of Analisis del juego de ajedrez, the 2nd edition of Longman's Chess Openings, or the 4th edition of Bilguer's Handbuch des Schachspiels -- all which came out the same year.

The following year, the 2nd edition of Wormald's Chess Openings also had nothing on the Jerome Gambit; and in 1876 the 2nd edition of Cook's Synopsis of the Chess Openings was equally neglectful.

However, 1877 saw the publication of a seminal article on the Jerome Gambit by Lieut. Sorensen in his "Chess for Beginners" column in the May issue of Nordisk Skaktidende (see "Bashi-Bazouk Attack") which was translated and reprinted around the world.

Sorensen's conclusion

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.