DisIllusioned

I was going to quietly slip the following embarrassing game into The Database and make no passing mention of it, treating it simply as a symptom of sleep deprivation; but in the follow-up game my opponent took the White pieces, played a gambit, and won my Queen again – and I thought that it was only fair to acknowledge karleinkarl's fighting play.

perrypawnpusher  - karleinkarl

blitz, FICS, 2012

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6

7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Qf6 9.fxe5+ Qxe5 10.Qf3 Nf6 11.d3 

In the past I have referred to this (and similar) lines as an "optical illusion variation", as at least 7 times my opponents have allowed me to subsequently pin their Queen to their King. Strange, but true.

11...Ke7

My opponent does not fall for the "trap"; but, don't go away – there's one more laugh ahead.

12.Nc3 Bd4 13.Bf4 

Simply 13.Bd2, followed by 14.0-0-0, as in mrjoker - CEF, blitz, ICC, 2008 (1-0, 24) was the smart way to continue.

13...Bxc3+ 14.Ke2 Qh5 15.bxc3 d6 

16.Rab1

Obviously the victim of an "optical illusion" – or something.

16...Bg4 White resigned

My opponent, a good sport, did not tease me. He has had his own "mysterious" games.

Post Script

Spend any time at a book store looking at its selection of chess titles and you will probably run into at least one book offering Play X and Win! – with "X" being the particular opening that the author is enthusiastic about. Thumb through the volume and you will be convinced that you have to play X!

Wander down the book shelf, however, and  you may well encounter Play X and Be Destroyed!, the effort of another author (or, perhaps, the same one) to convince you that playing X is the road to ruin!

If your book store has a very comprehensive chess section, even further down the book shelf will be Smashing the Destroyers of X!, and perhaps even the hot-off-the-presses response, Crushing the Smashers of the Destroyers of X!

As Ken Smith wrote in a series of pamphlets on the Blackmar Diemer Gambit

For every White initiative a better defense always seems to present itself for Black, and for every refutation the Black side recommends improvements are found for White.

How much easier it is with the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+)! As early as the July 1874 Dubuque Chess Journal its editor put the opening in proper perspective

and White has a pawn ahead

Note: It should be understood that Mr. Jerome claims in this New Opening "only a pleasant variation of the Giuoco Piano, which may win or lose according to the skill of the players, but which is capable of affording many new positions and opportunities for heavy blows unexpectedly."

Still...

[continuing the imaginary discussion of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) started three day's ago with "It's hard to explain..." and continued with "More to the Point.." and "And yet..."]

Beating the Jerome Gambit is a straightforward multiple choice test:

A) accept the two offered pieces and use the extra material to win;

B) accept the two offered pieces, return one, and use the extra material to win;

C) accept one offered piece and use the extra material to win;

D) accept one offered piece, return it, and win;

E) take White out of his game by refusing any and all offered pieces

F) all of the above

How hard can it be? After all, Bobby Fisher said "I don't believe in psychology. I believe in good moves."

one-eye bishop - blackburne

ChessWorld, 2004

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 0-1

And blackburne is the strongest player using the Jerome Gambit in over-the-board, risk-your-rating, dare-to-embarass-your-club-mates, matches. He should know.

And yet...

[continuing the imaginary discussion of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) started two day's ago with "It's hard to explain..." and continued yesterday with "More to the point..."]

Doesn't a defender's basic chess knowledge help in fighting against the Jerome Gambit?

Well, it does, and it doesn't. For example, the basic notion that "it is easier to attack than defend" is believed by many club chess players, and that automatically adds discomfort when they are the target.

But, don't defenders ever think "that's junk, it'll never work"?

Sure they do. Sometimes. And if they dig down and work hard (and avoid time trouble) they can develop a solution. That is, if they don't become over-confident and careless and decide everything that White does is an error. Of if they only "half-remember" the refutation.

[Silence]

Sometimes, though, nervous club players think that they have run into a "hole" in their own opening preparation, as nobody would dare sacrifice a piece (or two) for "nothing". They figure there has to be something to the opening, or their opponent wouldn't be playing it. At times this line of thought leads to the notion of not going along with the ideas of the attacker at all: "if he wants me to take the piece(s), then I won't take the piece(s)"

A "Jerome Gambit declined"? That's rather generous.

Generous, but not unseen. Worse is the situation where Black has kept his wits about him, played competently, and then leans back and thinks "I have weathered the opening properly and have a small advantage" – and then follows this up inaccurately... 

Or with a "boom"?

Or with a "boom".

Isn't there any way to defeat the Jerome Gambit??

Oh, don't be silly – it's been refuted many times.

More to the Point...

[continuing the imaginary discussion of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) started yesterday with "It's hard to explain..."]

Explanations for any success of the Jerome Gambit (and there are players like Bill Wall who score 95%+ with it) must be found in the  blitz and casual practice of club chess players, not the international tournaments of masters or grandmasters.

That now seems obvious. "The masters, they are different", right?

More important is the way in which club players are different. A good example is Geoff Chandler's fanciful "Blunder Table" which, when the laughter is done, contains a lot of chess truth. Chandler suggests that in a game between players rated over 2000, the loss of a pawn should be enough to decide the outcome. For players rated around 1800, a couple of pawns would be the winning advantage. For a game between two 1500 players, however, an extra Bishop or Knight would be necessary to "guarantee" one side a win.

[Blush] [Silence] [Drumming of fingers]

In many Jerome Gambit games, White has given up a piece for two pawns – the equivalent of spending about a pawn to get to the kind of positions that he is comfortable with, and his opponent, far more likely than not, is not. That amounts to "suicide" among masters, but "unclear" among many club players.

True, but can't Black take the time to settle himself down and work out a defense?

Of course, and the stronger the defender, the more likely that is to happen. In blitz games, however, that will cost time. And in casual games, it will require attention.

Delaying, but not eliminating the "blunder bomb"?

Exactly. Also, some "advantages" are easier for club players to take advantage of, while some are more challenging. For example, which would you rather have, an extra piece, or an extra two or three pawns?

Well, it depends, doesn't it?

It almost always "depends", yes, but, remember, it is the Jerome Gambiteer choosing when such a thing happens. I have seen hundreds of games where White advances his two "Jerome pawns" against Black's position, and the "logical" outcome – instead of allowing his position to become fatally cramped or dangerously opened up via pawn exchanges – should be that the defender "simply" returning the extra piece for the foot soldiers, with at least an even game. But it rarely happens.

Sometimes returning the extra piece is anything but simple.

Ah, so I see that you have tumbled to the Jerome Gambit as well, eh?

Perhaps we can continue this discussion another time...

[to be continued]

It's hard to explain...

Often I find myself explaining the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) to people in conversations that go something like this...

So, this Jerome Gambit thing, it must be some kind of great opening that wins all the time?

Well, actually, it's known as the "worst chess opening ever".

Oh... It must make you feel sad, losing all the time with it.

In truth, I win more than 3/4 the time. Maybe, 80 - 85%.

Aha! Beating up on all those weakies, I imagine!

Sometimes I give "Jerome Gambit odds" to players weaker than me, to even things up. Sometimes I play above my head, too. Looking at the strength of my opponents, I should score maybe 60%.

But you score 80% or more? What's THAT all about?

Members of the Jerome Gambit Gemeinde become experienced in the field of "the psychology of error".


Please explain.

The simplest idea is "the ticking time bomb". Willy Hendriks explains something like it in his Move First, Think Later: Sense and Nonsense in Improving Your Chess, only, of course much better than I do. Basically, stronger players err less often than weaker players.

Duh.

Think of each player having a ticking time bomb that goes off whenever he or she makes an error. Grandmaster "booms" are relatively infrequent. Beginning player "booms" are much more frequent, like a series on a snare drum.

Or ticks of a clock?

In some cases, yes. Anyhow, even after the Jerome Gambiteer has presented an opponent with the gift of a "won" position, if White can use an understanding of the tactics and strategy of the opening to delay further "booms" on that side of the board, the opponent will have a chance to chime in.

"Boom" and the game is even?

Yes, and sometimes "boom" again, and White has the advantage. Or, sometimes it's simply "boom" and White wins.

That doesn't seem like "real" chess.

Well, Grandmasters would never play the Jerome Gambit, right, but there is much truth in Andy Soltis's book Catalog of Chess Mistakes when he points out the large number of games (especially at the club level) that are "lost" rather than "won".

Ouch. What else is involved in "the psychology of error"?

There is a whole lot more. For example...

[to be continued]

Not This Time

rego - zille, blitz, FICS, 2012

How often have we seen White, in the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+), escape into the safety of a Bishops-of-opposite-colors endgame, even down material?

Or see White use his endgame experience in those bits of murkiness to out-play his opponent in an "objectively" equal game?

Alas, this time White found no slight-of-hand available, and agreed to split the point. Pity. Perhaps the clock was ticking down, after all...