?????
Like I wrote, last post:
I just received the latest batch of Jerome Gambit games from Bill Wall, and I found myself scratching my head over the moves in some of them, asking myself "Can he do that?"
Here's another example.
Wall, Bill - Uli
PlayChess.com, 2018
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.a4
Golly...
This is clearly an un-gambit-style move, as White makes a pawn move - instead of sacrificing another piece. Logic is twisted in the Jerome Gambit.
Black should be able to survive - if he doesn't lose his way. Famous last words in the Jerome Gambit.
5...Bd6
Bill has also faced:
5...Nf6 6.O-O Rf8 7.Nxe5+ Nxe5 8.d4 Ng6 9.dxc5 d6 10.cxd6 Qxd6 11.Qxd6 cxd6 12.Nc3 Be6 13.f4 Bc4 14.Rd1 Nxf4 15.Bxf4 Kg8 16.Bxd6 Rf7 17.e5 Ng4 18.b3 Be6 19.Nb5 Rc8 20.Rd2 Ne3 21.c4 a6 22.Nd4 Black resigned, Wall,B - Guest3303570, PlayChess.com 2018; and
5...h6 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.d4 Bxd4 8.Qxd4 d6 9.Nc3 Nf6 10.f3 Re8 11.Bf4 Nc6 12.Qd2 d5 13.O-O-O dxe4 14.Qf2 Qe7 15.Rhe1 Qb4 16.Bxc7 Kg8 17.h3 Na5 18.Bd6 Qc4 19.fxe4 Be6 20.Kb1 Rad8 21.Qxa7 Ra8 22.Qb6 Ra6 23.Qb4 Qxb4 24.Bxb4 Nc6 25.Bd6 Rd8 26.b3 Na5 27.e5 Ne8 28.Bc5 Rxd1+ 29.Rxd1 Nc6 30.Bd6 Nxd6 31.exd6 Nb4 32.d7 Bxd7 33.Rxd7 Rb6 34.a5 Ra6 35.Rxb7 Black resigned, Wall,B - Guest2021465, PlayChess.com, 2018.
6.Nc3 Nf6 7.O-O Re8
8.Qe2 Kf8 9.Qc4 Nd4 10.Nxd4 exd4 11.Qxd4 Be5 12.Qb4+ Qe7 13.Qc4 Bxc3 14.bxc3
Black has the typical Jerome Gambit piece for two pawns. It can be argued that it is his game to lose; and, so, he does. It is interesting to see how White helps him along this path.
14...c6 15.Ba3 d6 16.f3 Be6 17.Qe2 Kg8 18.c4 Qd7 19.d3
Steinitz said that the player with the advantage was required to attack, lest the opportunity slip away. Black should try something like 19...d5 now, to open the position. Instead, he works to close it, and then maneuver with his Queen.
19...c5 20.Bb2 Qc6 21.f4 Qb6 22.Bc3 Qc6 23.f5
White fights for the initiative with a typical Jerome Gambit move.
23...Bf7 24.Qd2 a6
Mis-reading the intent of White's last move.
25.Bxf6 gxf6 26.Qh6
White has a winning attack.
Black has much less time than he thinks.
26...b5 27.Rf3 Bxc4 28.Rg3+ Kf7 29.Qg7 checkmate
?????
I just received the latest batch of Jerome Gambit games from Bill Wall, and I found myself scratching my head over the moves in some of them, asking myself "Can he do that?"
Some of the moves are odd or downright scary. Let's take a look.
Wall, Bill - Guest604541
PlayChess.com, 2018
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.h3
Sure. I mean, why not? To play like this, you have to be a bit of a gambler - but you have already decided to play the "Jerome Gamble", so what's a bit more risk?
The move can't be any worse than the usual sacrifice of a piece with 5.Nxe5+, right?
Oh, Stockfish 9 says that 5.h3 is clearly worse than 5.Nxe5+ ?
Well, what do you know about that...
(Actually, Bill knows something, as he has played the move before.)
5...d6
Bill has also faced:
5...Bxf2+ 6.Kxf2 Nf6 7.Nc3 d6 8.d3 h6 9.Rf1 g5 10.Kg1 Rf8 11.h4 g4 12.Bxh6 Rh8 13.Bg5 gxf3 14.Qxf3 Bg4 15.Qxg4 Black resigned, Wall,B - Guest468009, PlayChess.com, 2018; and
5...Nf6 6.Nc3 Rf8 7.Qe2 d6 8.Qc4+ Be6 9.Ng5+ Kg8 10.Nxe6 Bxf2+ 11.Kxf2 Nd5+ 12.Nxf8 Qxf8+ 13.Kg1 Black resigned, Wall,B - Stick,K, Chess.com, 2010.
6.O-O Nd4 7.d3 Nf6 8.Ng5+ Ke8 9.c3 Ne6 10.Nf3 h6
So far, so good. As long as Black doesn't get overconfident or careless. (The watchwords of many Jerome Gambits.)
11.d4 exd4 12.cxd4 Bb6 13.Nc3 Ng5 14.Nxg5 hxg5 15.Bxg5 Bxh3
Excellent! Steady as she goes, now...
16.gxh3 Rxh3
This looks good, but it isn't. As Bill points out, ...Qd7 on this move or next was better.
17.Nd5 c6
Black was clearly not expecting a counter-attack to his counter-attack.
18.Bxf6 gxf6 19.Qg4 Qd7
Not now.
20.Qg8 checkmate
Oh, my...
According to Alexa, the global rank of this blog is 9,425,472.
I suppose that means that at any given moment, 9,425,741 people have something better to do than check in on the Jerome Gambit.
Alas, a good many of them do not know what they are missing.
For the rest: excitement always lies ahead!
The title of today's post was laid out, previously
Like Pinocchio or the Velveteen Rabbit, the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) longs to become a "real" chess opening, or at least a "normal" one.
Of course, that is a bit of a stretch for something so often refuted.
Yet, occasionally, I experience a sense of "normality", as I noted a while back in my post "Still More Errors in Thinking 4.0"
I mean, I play a game, I publish it on this blog, someone takes that information and uses it in another one of my Jerome Gambits. I publish that game in this blog, someone elses uses that information in another of my Jerome Gambits...
Just like a real opening.
perrypawnpusher - warwar
"Italian Battleground", Chess.com, 2018
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6
This variation does not have a name, but it could well be titled the Brownson Defense, after O.A. Brownson, who played it in Jerome - Brownson, Iowa, 1875 (1-0, 28), shortly after the Jerome Gambit's debut.
The defense was subsequently played by William Carrington in the first game of his second match against the Mexican champion, Andres Clemente Vazquez, in 1876 (1-0, 34).
It should be noted that Vazquez played a match against Steinitz in 1888, and one against Blackburne in 1891. The latter match included two Giuoco Piano openings played by Vazquez, and it would have been fascinating - if downright risky for the first player - if one of the strongest players of the Jerome Gambit at that time had used it against the player whose crush of it against "Amateur" a few years earlier had covered the attack in ignomy. Alas, Vazquez opted for 4.0-0 both times.
7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qe3 Nf6
There are 186 games with this position in The Database, with White scoring a surprising 71%. This more likely reflects the comfort, knowledge and experience of the player with the White pieces, rather than an "objective" evaluation of the state of affairs.
10.O-O Kf7
Black will castle-by-hand, bringing his Rook to the e-file.
White will urge his "Jerome pawns forward."
11.f4 Re8 12.f5 Ne5 13.d4
13...Neg4
After enticing White's pawns forward, Black takes a swipe at his Queen.
14.Qb3+ Kf8 15.h3 Nh6
16.Bxh6 gxh6 17.Nd2
Here we have a strange looking position, quite possibly even, with White's extra (and healthy) pawns and development balancing Black's extra piece and unsafe King.
[to be continued]
Like Pinocchio or the Velveteen Rabbit, the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) longs to become a "real" chess opening, or at least a "normal" one.
Of course, that is a bit of a stretch for something so often refuted.
Yet, occasionally, I experience a sense of "normality", as I noted a while back in my post "Still More Errors in Thinking 4.0"
I mean, I play a game, I publish it on this blog, someone takes that information and uses it in another one of my Jerome Gambits. I publish that game in this blog, someone else uses that information in another of my Jerome Gambits...
Not long ago, in "Jerome Gambit: Too Fast, Too Furious", I published a recent Jerome Gambit game of mine which featured an interesting 18th move. I had played the move a couple of years earlier, based on analysis of a game Bill Wall played 8 years ago. I found it curious that a third game was chugging along the same old tracks... (all wins for White, mind you)
I am currently playing an online game that follows all 3 of the earlier games, 17 moves deep, so far. I suppose that it is possible that my opponent is simply reflecting what I posted on this blog - in which case, it will be interesting to see which one of us unveils his "improvement" on the play first. (Especially since it is my only Jerome Gambit of this round in the tournament, and I am not likely to progress to the next round, for more opportunities.)
Recently Bill Wall sent me 16 of his Jerome Gambit games that were Human + Computer vs Computer encounters. Such teamwork is sometimes referred to as advanced chess, or cyborg chess, or centaur chess.
Over the years, I have posted games from Human vs Computer matches (including the legendary 1993 Fisher-Kirshner - Knight Stalker battles, and the rolling 2006 RevvedUp - Fritz 8 - Crafty 19.19 - Hiarcs 8 - Shredder 8 - Yace Paderborn mayhem) as well as many Computer vs Computer games, but I think this is the first centaur chess I have presented.
The results are interesting - even if it is difficult to assign the relative impact that the human had on the play. Also, the time controls, which affect the strength of computer programs, are not known.
Over all, White scored 4 - 9 - 3 (34%), which would be unimpressive for a normal opening under normal circumstances, but which seems - as with all Jerome Gambit matches - a bit "high" for a many-times-refuted opening.
A little more insight is available by breaking the games down into 4-game matches.
Crafty vs Stockfish + Wall, for example, yielded 2 wins for Black when played by the team; and, likewise, 2 wins for White when played by the team. With all due respect to Dr. Robert Hyatt's computer engine, it appears it could have been simply outplayed by its stronger computer opponent. Who played what color did not seem to matter.
On the other hand, the Komodo 5 vs Rybka + Wall match, which ended with a score of 2 - 2 - 0, was composed of 4 wins by Black. Neither engine, it appears, was able to ovecome the "handicap" of playing the Jerome Gambit.
The Hiarcs 9 vs Critter + Wall match seemed a reflection of the comparative strengths of the computer programs, as Hiarcs 9 lost 2 games as White, and could only manage a draw as Black.
Interesting, also, was the Fritz 12 vs Houdini + Wall match. The team was 1 - 0 - 1 as White, and 1 - 0 - 1 as Black, suggesting that Houdini was the brighter computer program.
Looking at a couple of lines of play, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 scored 2 - 5 - 1, while 6.Qh5+ scored 2 - 4 - 2, not much of a difference.
I will be sharing some of the games, taking a look at what "theoretical" enlightenment they bring.
I recently upgraded The Database with games from the online playing site FICS through August, 2018, bumping the number of games it contains to just above 59,000.
With almost 20 years of games from FICS, I have a pretty good representative sample (not just wins, but losses and draws as well) of how online club players play the kind of openings this blog covers.
There are Jerome Gambit and Jerome-related games, including:
14,353 games with the Jerome Gambit, proper, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5, 4.Bxf7+ (White scores 46%);
2,614 games with the Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ (White scores 38%);
204 games with the Semi-Italian Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 4.0-0 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ (White scores 64%);
144 games with the Semi-Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 4.0-0 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bc5 6.Bxf7+ (White scores 65%); and
6,064 games with the Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Bxf7+ (White scores 56%).
In addition, there are some miscellaneous lines, including 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ (2,406 games, White scores 72%); 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 4.Bxf7+ (2,061 games, White scores 40%); and various reversed Jerome-style openings, e.g. 1.e4 e5. Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Bxf2+.
So, who plays the Jerome Gambit?
The player with the most games in The Database (White and Black) is DragonTail (1,452), although I note that his last game is from 2012. Likewise, kingmaple appears 619 times, but his last game is from 2010. yorgos has 600 games, but his last game is from 2014.
As for "active" players, Bill Wall now leads the pack with 842 games in the Database, followed by perrypawnpusher with 592 games - closely followed by drumme with 553 games and Petasluk with 521. I am sure that there are others not yet on my "radar" (e.g. ZahariSokolov with 331 games and rising quickly).
