Rocket Surgery 2.0

The last time that I played MrMef (see "Rocket Surgery") we developed a game that was truly a mess... This time I seriously wanted to get it right.

perrypawnpusher - MrMef
blitz, FICS, 2012

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 h6 5.0-0 Bc5 6.Bxf7+ 

The Semi-Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

6...Kxf7 7.Nxe5+ Nxe5 8.d4 Bxd4 9.Qxd4 Nc6

Attack the Queen is Black's notion. My response was based on the naive notion (although it has proven successful in past games) that Black might want to continue to harass Her Majesty with the erronious 10...Nb4.

10.Qd3 

Probably better was 10.Qc4+. 

10...Ne5

Chasing the Queen to a better spot.

11.Qg3 d6 12.f4 Nc6 13.Bd2 Qe8 

Black is taking steps against the threatened e4-e5 by White, but I think that his Rook needed to be doing this. That would also be preparation for castling-by-hand.

14.Rae1 Bg4 

 Black has made a series of small mistakes, and before this puzzling move the cost has been, at most, allowing White to claim (because of his development) a nearly equal game. Now the first player gets his attack on.

15.e5 dxe5 16.fxe5 Nxe5 

I am not sure if this is an oversight or a miscalculation. Did my opponent not see that my Queen strikes at e5, or was he, perhaps, expecting to see 17.Qxe5 Qxe5 18.Rxe5 Rhe8 with an even game?

17.Rxe5

Of course.

17...Qd8 18.Rd5 

I avoided the better 18.Qxg4 because of 18...Qxd2, but after the game Houdini pointed out that 19.Qe6+ Kg6 20.Rd5 would trap the Black Queen, i.e. 20...Rad8 (20...Qxc2 21.Rxf6+ gxf6 22.Qg4+ Kf7 23.Rd7+ Kf8 24.Qg7+ Ke8 25.Qf7#) 21.Rxd2 Rxd2. 

18...Qe7 19.Re5 

19...Qd6

It may look at first that Black would have done better by withdrawing his Bishop to shield the Queen, but after the game Houdini found that that led to a mate in 25: 19...Be6 20.Nd5 Qc5+ 21.Be3 Qd6 22.Nxf6 gxf6 23.Bc5 Qd7 24.Qf3 f5 25.Rd1 Qc8 26.Rde1 h5 27.c4 Rh6 28.Rxe6 Qxe6 29.Rxe6 Rxe6 30.Qxh5+ Kg7 31.Qg5+ Kf7 32.Qxf5+ Rf6 33.Qh7+ Ke6 34.Qe7+ Kf5 35.g4+ Kg6 36.Bd4 Raf8 37.h4 a6 38.h5+ Kg5 39.Bxf6+ Rxf6 40.h6 Kf4 41.Qxf6+ Ke3 42.h7 Kd2 43.Qf5 Kd1 44.h8Q c5 45.Qf1+ Kd2 46.Qc3#

Totally ridiculous, but it does show that White's attack is powerful. 

20.Ne4 Qd4+ 21.Be3 

21...Qxb2 

Instead, 21...Qd7 would have provided a modicum of defense, although White's attack would cost Black significant material.

22.Nxf6 gxf6 23.Qf4

I was pretty sure that the Rook sac at f6 worked, but I couldn't figure it all out in my head until after the game: 23.Rxf6+ Kxf6 24.Qf4+ Kg6 25.Qxg4+ Kf6 26.Qf5+ Kg7 27.Re7+ Kg8 28.Qf7# 

Pity. Bill Wall would not have missed that.

23...f5 

24.Rxf5+ Bxf5 25.Qxf5+ Ke8 26.Qe6+ Kd8 27.Rd1+ Black resigned

Comeuppance

I have faced a number of defenders who fought back against the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 4.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) by putting their light-squared Bishop on b7 and putting one or two Rooks on the g-file. My success made me lazy in the following game, and the result was not hard to predict.

perrypawnpusher - xxfred
blitz, FICS, 2012

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ 

The Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.d4 Neg4 

The nice thing about being two pieces ahead is that you have many choices on how to give one back.

8.dxc5 d6 

Black has played a number of alternatives, the first shown here being a bit too exotic:

8...Nxf2 9.Kxf2 Rf8 10.Rf1 Kg8 11.Kg1 d6 12.Bg5 dxc5 13.e5 h6 14.Qxd8 Rxd8 15.exf6 hxg5 16.fxg7 Kxg7 17.Ne4 Bf5 18.Nxc5 Bxc2 19.Ne6+ Kg6 20.Nxd8 Rxd8 21.Rac1 Rd2 22.Rf2 Rxf2 23.Kxf2 Be4 24.Rxc7 a5 25.Rc4 Bd5 26.Ra4 b6 27.b4 axb4 28.Rxb4 Bxa2 29.Rxb6+ Kh5 30.h3 Bd5 31.Rb5 Bc4 32.Rc5 Be6 33.Re5 Bc4 34.Re4 Bd5 35.Rd4 Bc6 36.g3 Be8 37.h4 gxh4 38.Rxh4+ Kg5 39.Kf3 Bc6+ 40.Kf2 Bd5 41.Rd4 Bc6 42.Rc4 Bd7 43.Kf3 Bc6+ 44.Ke3 Bb5 45.Rf4 Bc6 46.Kd4 Bg2 47.Kc5 Ba8 48.Kd6 Bb7 49.Ke5 Bc6 50.Rb4 Bf3 51.Rf4 Bd1 52.Rf5+ Kg4 53.Rf1 Bf3 54.Rg1 Bd1 55.Kd4 Bf3 56.Ke3 Bc6 57.Kf2 Bd5 58.Rd1 Bc6 59.Rd4+ Kg5 60.Ke3 Bb7 61.Rb4 Bc6 62.Rb6 Bd7 63.Rd6 Bb5 64.Rd5+ Kg4 65.Rxb5 Kxg3 66.Rb4 Kg2 67.Kd2 Kf3 68.Ke1 Ke3 69.Rb5 Kd4 70.Rb4+ Black forfeited on time, yorgos - mikheilmikeladze, FICS, 2009;

8...Qe8 9.Bf4 Nxe4 10.Qd5+ Kf8 11.Qxe4 Qxe4+ 12.Nxe4 d5 13.cxd6 cxd6 14.Nxd6 Be6 15.f3 Nf6 16.0-0-0 Ke7 17.Nxb7 Bxa2 18.Rhe1+ Kf7 19.b3 Rac8 20.Nd6+ Black resigned, Wall,B - Kaiser, Chess.com, 2010; and

8...Qe7 9.0-0 Qe5 10.b4 Qxh2 checkmate, stretto - HunterCuinn, FICS, 2008. 

9.cxd6 cxd6 10.0-0 Re8 11.Bg5 Kg8 12.h3 Ne5 13.Qd4 Rf8 

Missing a chance for the tactical pawn grab: 13...Bxh3 (if 14.gxh3 Nf3+).

14.Rad1 Nf7 15.Bxf6 Qxf6 16.Qxf6 gxf6 17.Nb5 Rb8 18.Nxd6 Nxd6 19.Rxd6 Kh8 

White has three pawns for his sacrificed piece, and the game looks about even.

20.Rfd1 Rg8 21.Kh2 f5 22.e5 b6 23.Rf6 Rb7 24.f4 

A complete misunderstanding of the needs of the position. White's g-pawn is going to take a lot of heat. Black, too, can attack in the Jerome Gambit!

24...Rbg7 25.Rd2

Better 25.Rg1

25...Bb7 26.Rxf5

Suicide.

26...Rxg2+ 27.Rxg2 Rxg2+ 28.Kh1 Rg5+ White resigned

In my post "On the Other Hand..." the other day, I mentioned Abby Marshall's "The Openings Explained" column at ChessCafe, where she recently took on "The Two Knights Defense, Center Fork Trick" (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Nxe4 d5)

I also alluded to Yury V. Bukayev's analysis as well, which I sent to Abby.

Ms. Marshall had selected and added my email to the bottom of her column as "pertinent response."

Rick Kennedy from the USA – Abby, I never miss your column at ChessCafe, and love the hard work you put into each one. Here's an interesting Fork Trick resource. Please keep up the great work.

Not Worth One's Full Attention

Most players, if they are aware of the Jerome Gambit at all, remember something about J.H. Blackburne destroying it in a wonderful miniature ending with a Queen sac and mate.

We've discussed the topic before: what if you only remember parts of Blackburne's counter-attack?

After all, the Jerome isn't really worth the defender's full attention, especially in a blitz game, is it?

perrypawnpusher -NN
blitz, FICS, 2012

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 Bd6 

Okay, okay, Blackburne actually played 7...d6 here, but perhaps my opponent was thinking of an "improved Blackburne Defense"? 

(Actually, in The Database Black scored 9% in 32 games, so it's not really much of an improvement.)

8.Qxh8 Nf6 

I'm pretty sure that Blackburne trapped White's Queen with this move...

9.Qxd8 Black resigned

Sure, an example of taking advantage of my opponent's distractedness. Still, this is the fifth example of such a Queen "sacrifice" in The Database, so I have to encourage readers: the next time your opponent looks at your opening disdainfully and says "I have half a mind to..." – say Thank you!

On the Other Hand...

When I wander over to the ChessCafe website, I like to read the monthly column by Abby Marshall (USCF Candidate Master, currently rated 2192) "The Openings Explained". She's a hard worker, she's not afraid of playing gambits (the King's Gambit is her specialty) – and she used to be from my home town.

This week's topic is "The Two Knights Defense, Center Fork Trick" [1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Nxe4 d5], something that has been discussed on this blog a number of times before (like when you play 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 looking for a Jerome, and your opponent plays 3...Nf6; can your 4.Nc3 get him to cough up 4...Bc5, so you can play 5.Bxf7+ ?). For just a sample of posts, try "Jerome Gambit vs Two Knights Defense (Part 3)" and "Further Explorations (Part 1 and Part 2)"

Don't forget to review Yury V. Bukayev's analysis as well, which I will be sending to Abby.

Pawn Stars

Just saw a reference to the television show "Pawn Stars".

I checked it out right away!

Man, was I disappointed...

It's not AT ALL about chess.

Anomaly

Intrigued by yesterday's Jerome Gambit Declined (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kf8/Ke7) game (see "Tumbling Dice"), I thought I'd take a look at the line in The Database and see what up-to-date data I could drum up.

I was surprised to see that White, ahead a pawn and having prevented Black from castling, only scores 58% in 238 games. Admittedly, that's better for White than the straight Jerome Gambit line – 44% in 8,737 games – but it still seems light.

(Perhaps one must take into account the level of play, and Geoff Chandler's "blunder table".)

Breaking it down was not much help.

In 205 games, when Black declined the Bishop sacrifice with 5...Kf8, White scored 57%. Immediately removing the White Bishop from danger or exchanging it off – what would appear to be the simplest and best plan for the first player – did not matter a whole lot. In 51 games White played 6.Bxg8, scoring 63%. This was better than the 25 games in which White played 6.Bb3, scoring 56%; and the 18 games where White played 6.Bc4, scoring 53%. However, only one of those percentages is an improvement on the core 57%.

(We seem to have hit another one of those Jerome Gambit anomalies: by playing a "worse" line, White, apparently, scores "better" – or at least not any worse.) 

In the 33 games where Black played 5...Ke7, however, White scored 71%. That should be an indication for Black – although accepting the Bishop with 4...Kxf7 remains the best idea.

Tumbling Dice

I was looking for a recent example of the Jerome Gambit Declined, a rather rare beast, when I ran across a game by an upstanding member of the Jerome Gambit Gemeinde, HauntedKnight. 

The following game, however, takes on the look of some tumbling dice, as the fortunes of both players change widely. However, as we have seen recently ("Wonderland"), White's "secret weapon" (i.e. it can take time for Black to figure what is going on in the Jerome, and how to play against it) finally snatches victory from the jaws of defeat. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Congrats, HK, a win is a win.

HauntedKnight  - Merfis
blitz, FICS, 2012

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kf8 5.Bb3 Nf6 6.d3 h6 7.0-0 Na5 8.Nxe5 Nxb3 9.Ng6+ Kf7 10.Nxh8+ Kg8 11.Ng6 Nxa1 12.Be3 Qe8 13.Nf4 Bxe3 14.fxe3 Qe5 15.Nc3 Nxc2 16.Qxc2 c6 17.Ng6 Qe8 18.Nh4 d5 19.Qb3 Kh7 20.Re1 dxe4 21.dxe4 Nxe4 22.Nxe4 Qxe4 23.Nf3 b6 24.Qf7 c5 25.h4 Be6 26.Qc7 Bxa2 27.h5 Qg4 28.Ne5 Qxh5 29.Rf1 Bd5 30.Nd7 Qe2 31.Nf6+ Kh8 32.Nxd5 Qxb2 33.Qb7 Rd8 34.Nf4 Qa3 35.Ne6 Qxe3+ 36.Kh1 Qxe6 37.Qxa7 c4 38.Qc7 Rc8 39.Qg3 c3 40.Re1 Qf6 41.Qg4 Rd8 42.Qh5 c2 43.Re8+ Rxe8 44.Qxe8+ Kh7 45.Qe4+ Qg6 46.Qe3 b5 47.Qc1 Black forfeited on time

Reflectogen

Readers know that I have encouraged those interested in new cutting-edge chess opening theory, and chess improvement in general, to visit Bruno's Chess Problem of the Day (see "Bruno's Chess Opening Articles" on my list of links). 

For some educational examples, see: "A New Link", "Improve Your Chess", "Something New in Something Old", "Even in the Most Respectable of Settings" and "Update".

The latest entry concerns 1.e4 e5 2.d3 Bc5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3! known as the Nf3-Bukayev gambit-reflectogen.

Check it out!

Wonderland

Sometimes a defender, having wandered into the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+), feels out of place, as things are not quite what was expected, as if it's a trip to Wonderland...

perrypawnpusher - anelante
blitz, FICS, 2012

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Ke7 

The earliest example I have of this move (which might as well be called the "buyer's regret" variation) in The Database (with the addition of my game, White has scored 89% in 23 games) is SirOops - mentalGIANT, standard, FICS, 2001 (1-0, 25); although it certainly must have been played over-the-board earlier.

8.Qxe5+ Kf7 9.Qxc5

Surprisingly, I missed playing my usual "nudge" 9.Qd5+, driving the King to the back line to interfere with the Rook. 

9...Nf6 10.Nc3 d6 

White is up two pawns, and it is hard to see Black's compensation.

11.Qe3 

Probably not best, given that it leaves White's Queen and King on the same file that Black's Rook can quickly go to. Nothing bad happens, as a result, but this reinforces the point that White should have "nudged" when he had the chance.

11...Rf8

Black prudently castles-by-hand. After the game Rybka suggested the wild 11...d5 12.Qf4 g5!? 13.Qg3 (13.Qxg5 Rg8 14.Qf4 Rg4 15.Qe5 dxe4 16.0-0) 13...dxe4  to reduce White's advantage.

12.0-0 Kg8 13.d4 b6 14.f4 Bb7 15.e5 Re8 

16.Qd3 Ng4 17.Qg3 

Or 17.h3 as Rybka later suggested.

17...Bc8 18.f5 dxe5 19.Qxg4 exd4 

20.Bh6 

Missing the better 20.Ne4

20...Qf6 21.Bg5 Qc6 22.Nd1 Black forfeited on time

A Need for New?

If there are already adequate ways to deal with Black's audacious 3...Nd4, the Blackburne Shilling Gambit, why should White bother to introduce a Jerome Gambit theme? As the following game illustrates, a few small errors on Black's part can quickly add up to a hopeless game.

sahistonline - BDJ
standard, FICS, 2012

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 

The Blackburne Shilling Gambit.

4.Bxf7+ 

The Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit.

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke8 6.c3 

An interesting alternative to the direct 6.Qh5+. Black's response, instead of just retreating his Knight (6...Ne6), causes trouble for the defense. 

6...Bd6 7.cxd4 Bxe5 8.Qh5+ 

The move still has bite. Black's best response is to shift his King to f8.

8...g6 9.Qxe5+ Qe7 10.Qxh8 Qxe4+ 11.Kf1 Kf7 12.Nc3 d6 Black resigned

Piece vs Pawns

In the following game I had the typical Jerome Gambit extra pawns vs extra piece imbalance. As my time ran short, I think my opponent tried to push things a bit, and it was then, as he focused upon his own ideas, that my opportunity appeared. 

perrypawnpusher - trmii
blitz, FICS, 2012

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 

The Semi-Italian opening.

4.O-O Bc5 5.Bxf7+ 

The Semi-Italian Jerome Gambit.

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.Qh5+ Ng6 8.Qd5+ Ke8 9.Qxc5 d6 10.Qe3 

10...Ne5 11.f4 

Slightly better might be 11.d4, as in perrypawnpusher - Kotimatka, blitz, FICS, 2009 (1-0, 21) and perrypawnpusher - Eferio, blitz, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 24). 

11...Nc4 12.Qd4 b5 13.Qxg7 Qf6 14.Qxc7 Ne7

White has 4 "extra" pawns for the sacrificed piece, but I was uncomfortable with my Queen's cramped quarters, so I decided to give one back immediately. I could have tried 15.d3, instead.

15.e5 Qe6 16.exd6 Qxd6 17.Qxd6 Nxd6 18.Nc3 Bb7 19.d3 Rg8

The Queens are off the board, but Black has a nice attacking idea on the Kingside.

20.Rf2 Nef5 21.Bd2 Nh4 22.Re1+ Kd7 23.Ne4 Nxe4 24.dxe4 Rae8 25. g3 Ng6 

26.Rfe2 Ba6 27.Bb4 Bb7 28.Rd2+ Kc7 29.e5 Ne7 30.Bxe7 Rxe7 31.Red1 Bc6 

I am sure that my central "Jerome pawns" could advance and act spear-like, but I was a bit short of calculating time and decided to use the pawns as a shield instead. My opponent seemed to be moving quickly now, as if he wanted to take advantage of my time pressure.

32.Kf2 a5 33.Rd6 Rh8 34.R1d3 h5

Attacking the "shield" but overlooking the idea behind my last move.

35.Rc3 Rd8 36.Rcxc6+ Kb7 37.Rxd8 Kxc6 38.Rd6+ Kc5 39.Rh6

39...Kd4 40.Rxh5 b4 41.Ke2 a4 42.Rh6 b3 43.c3+ Kc5 44.a3 Black resigned

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.