Wednesday, December 2, 2020

Chess Opening Nomenclature (Part 1)

 


The Common Approaches To The Chess Opening Nomenclature  

Part 1: The Queen's Gambit, JG-Lines: The Nature, Names, The New View 

 

(by Yury V. Bukayev) 

 

 

It is known that the formation of the chess nomenclature (including names of chess openings) is a result of many historical causes. Thus, some names are strange (or even extremely strange), but the chess world will continue to use the majority of themalthough it is valuable to use new correct synonyms for them too. The ideal order in chess opening names has a value. Thus, someone can ask you following questions:  

 

1. Is the Queen’s Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.c4) true gambit?  

2. Is the ‘Jerome Double Gambit’ (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+) - we can see this name rarely - true double gambit 

3. If no (in both cases), then what name is the most suitable (for the chess world) for it (in both cases)? 

4. Does a true Queen’s Gambit exist?  

 

Let’s create right answers. The article ‘Queen’s gambit’ on en.wikipedia.org site has right words: “It is traditionally described as a gambit because White appears to sacrifice the c-pawn; however, this could be considered a misnomer as Black cannot retain the pawn But I disagree with the end of this sentence (“…without incurring a disadvantage.”), here is my variant of its right end: “…in result of White’s possible immediate attack to return a material. This end is based on the fact: 2.c4 dxc4 3.Qa4+ (for example) 3…Nc6 4.e3, and White grabs Black’s pawn on c4 so White returns a material. It plays no role who has a positional advantage here. So 2.c4 isn’t a true sacrifice, it’s a suggestion to exchange pawns on the square c4 really. So the ‘Queen’s Gambit’ (1.d4 d5 2.c4) isn’t a true gambit, it is a pseudogambit (‘Wikipedia’ is right). We call it a ‘gambit’ traditionally so this large tradition makes this incorrect name suitable, but the synonym - the ‘Queen’s Pseudogambit - is suitable for the chess world too.  

Analogously, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ (it’s a true sacrifice, i.e. a true gambit – the Jerome Gambit) 4…Kxf7 the move 5.Nxe5+ isn’t a true sacrifice, it’s pseudogambit, so the ‘Jerome Double Gambit’ (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+) isn’t a true double gambit. It is based on the fact: 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 (or 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4), and White can grab Black’s minor piece so White returns a material. There is no a large tradition to call it a ‘double gambit’ so it’s the most suitable for the chess world to call it a non-gambit (a pseudogambit) move of the Jerome Gambit 

Let’s look at the nomenclature of the King’s Gambit (as a famous true gambit) so we can see the exact word analogy for the Jerome Gambit that is the most suitable for the chess world: 

 

1.e4 e5 

King’s Gambit (2.f4) → King’s Gambit Accepted (KGA, 2.f4 exf4 

→ Bishop’s Gambit (2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4) 

→ K-Knight’s Gambit (2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3) 

→ other gambits of KGA 

 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5:                                                                                          

Jerome Gambit (4.Bxf7+) → Jerome Gambit Twice Accepted (JGTA, 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5)  

→ Queen’s Gambit [= JGTA True Queen’s Gambit] (4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+) 

 Q-Pawn’s Gambit (4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4) 

→ other gambits of JGTA 

 

This consideration shows that an accepted true gambit being tree” with two (or more) theoretically important “White’s thickest branches” should have a word ‘Gambit’ in the name of each White’s thickest branch. Thus, in KGA the word ‘Gambit’ is everywhere about the sacrifice 2.f4, in JGTA this word is everywhere about the sacrifice 4.Bxf7+. It is necessary to remember that 5.Nxe5+ is an alone theoretically important way after 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 so “White’s thickest branches” “grow” on White’s 6th move only. This consideration shows that a true Queen’s Gambit exists in JGTA. 

 

 

Here is my unusual addition to the article. It is about the latest using of the name ‘the Queen’s Gambit’ in the modern art. Thus, recently I have read a short exposition of the new film by ‘Netflix’ having this name. This film contains black fantasies so stop, please, young people if they want to risk to watch it without a presence of moral and highly educated specialists of medical sciencesscientific general psychology and pedagogics. The author says by this name that the girl Beth Harmon, a fiction person, is a queen of the chess world and that she makes a large sacrifice in her life. I would like to make a chess conclusion based on this my article: the name ‘The Queen’s Gambit’ of the film can be understood better if it compares this large sacrifice in her life with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ (the Queen’s Gambit), but not with 1.d4 d5 2.c4 (the Queen’s Pseudogambit): the sacrifice 4.Bxf7+ is true and very large, and 2.c4 is a pseudosacrifice. Moreover, in the Queen’s Pseudogambit White’s Queen isn’t very active, and in the Queen’s Gambit it is very active (for example, GM Hikaru Nakamura’s second win in his blitz games with the Jerome Gambit against GM Dmitrij Kollars28.08.2020, has shown that his Queen has made four opening moves to continue his pressing, and it isn’t a possible theoretical maximum here, of course). Finally, it can be added that the Russian ‘Netflix’s name of this film - “Ход ÐºÐ¾Ñ€Ð¾Ð»ÐµÐ²Ñ‹ (its exact translation is ‘The Queen’s Move’) - can be understood here as having a direct connection with the initial move of the Queen’s Gambit (6.Qh5+).  

 

 

Contacts:   istinayubukayev@yandex.ru   or   Facebook   .  

Tuesday, December 1, 2020

Jerome Gambit: Strange Enough

 


Sometimes the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ ) is new enough, strange enough, different enough, dangerous enough, scary enough, surprising enough, Jerome enough to make the game look like a simple thing, after all.


Jacobmir - robviz

3 2 blitz, Chess.com, 2020


1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 


4....Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 


7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qe3 Qe7  10.Nc3 c6 11.d4 Nh6


This move is okay, but there was nothing wrong with putting the Knight on f6: 11...Nf6 12.0-0 Kf7 13.f4 Re8, when the King will go to g8 to complete castling-by-hand.

12.O-O Rf8 13.f4 Ng4 

Attacking the enemy Queen - with a plan.

14.Qg3 Qh4 15. Qxh4 Nxh4 


16.f5 g6 

Attacking the advanced "Jerome pawn" is a good idea, in principle, but in this particular case, it helps strand one of the Knights.

17.Bg5 Nxg2 18.Kxg2 gxf5 19.exf5 Bxf5 


I suspect that Black was happy here, with a position that is materially equal, with even the promise of a Bishops-of-opposite-colors endgame and a draw. That is a mis-reading of the position, as 20.h3 now would win a piece.

White plays an even stronger move. Black cannot keep up.

20.Rae1+ Kd7 21.Re7+ Kc8 22.Rfe1 h6 23.Bf4 d5 24.Re8+ Kd7 25.R1e7 checkmate




Monday, November 30, 2020

Jerome Gambit: Act in Haste, Repent at Leisure



Bullet chess. One minute, no increment. Think fast. Move fast. But not too fast...

In the following game, Black takes everything White throws at him. Does it leave him scared - or confident?

Or over-confident?

[Insert laugh track here.]


Anonymous - Anonymous

1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2020

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 

The Two Knights Defense.

4.Bxf7+ 


Another "impatient" Jerome Gambit, sacrificing the Bishop before ...Bc5.

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Ng6 7.e5 Ng8 


White's e-pawn is aggressive, but, remember, Black is two pieces ahead.

8.Qf3+ Ke8 9.Nc3 d6 10.O-O Be6 11.d5 Bc8 12.e6 


What an annoying "Jerome pawn". But, still...

12...Be7 Black resigned

Ooops... The only way to avoid checkmate is to resign.



Sunday, November 29, 2020

Jerome Gambit: Tasty



The following Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) is a full and tasty game, remarkably so given that it was completed in under 2 minutes, as the time control demanded.


Anonymous - Anonymous

1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2020


1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 


4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Kf8 


7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qc3 Qf6 

A reasonable way to confront White's Queen. It is unclear why he does not subsequently exchange Queens.

9.O-O Bd7 10.d3 Ke7 11.Be3 Bxe3 12.fxe3 Qg6 


13.Nd2 

Connecting his Rooks, which will become active on the f-file. In a game with a slower time control, he would have allowed himself to become distracted by 13.Qxc7. Instead, he permits Black to use up a move protecting against that possibility. Bullet strategy.

13...c6 14.Rf2 Kd8 

Planning to castle-by-hand on the Queenside, but the move is a mistake.

15.Rf8+ 

The Rook pins pieces, right and left.

15...Be8 16.Raf1 Kc7 


17.Qa5+ b6 18.Qc3 h5 

Black wishes to attack, too, and has a role for his Rook.

19.e5 d5 20.Nf3 h4 21.Nd4 h3 22.g3 Ne7 


Radical surgery, but something had to be done.

23.Rxh8 Rd8 24.Nb5+ Kb7 25.Nd6+ Rxd6 26.exd6 Nf5 


Another disappointment for Black: there is too much material hanging to be able to grab the pawn at d6.

27.Rxf5 Qxf5 28.Qxg7+ Ka6 29.Rf8 

Avoiding the trap 29.Rxe8?, when Black would be able to force checkmate with 29...Qf3.

Black's next move is a mistake; his game collapses.

29...Qe5 30.Qxe5 White won on time