Jerome Gambit

I don't think that you will see Bill argue with you about this, kingslayerthe1st.

On his behalf, though, let me point out that of those 70 games where he played the Jerome Gambit, he lost 2. 

Maybe this means that he can play anything against the right opponent and win, despite the opening.

Maybe this means that we need to start the Jerome Gambit version of the "Vera Menchik Club" and award membership to anyone who loses to this "really really bad and unsound gambit."

 Gambitking, I meant no disrespect in being slow to respond to your 8.d4 idea -- there is a lot to it, and I wanted to be sure that I included what I could.

Opening up lines, especially against Black's King-in-the-center, is important in the Jerome Gambit. Having an extra piece in the attack will usually count more than the missing pawn.

The Jerome Gambit first came to light in an article titled "New Chess Opening" in the April 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal, where analysis by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome was given of two variations of "Jerome's Double Opening." The July 1874 issue of the DCJ carried a third variation.

The opening was still struggling for an agreed-upon name when the January 1875 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal  came out with "Queen's Gambit in Jerome's Double Opening" [?!] where Jerome looked at 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.d4, although after 8...Bxd4 he only looked at 9.Na3, not your 9.Bg5.

By the way, it seems relevant to note that Jerome's early personal preference was for 6.d4 (over 6.Qh5+, etc.). I am not aware that any of his opponents found 6...Qh4!? as a counter to his strike in the center, though, something that I've first seen in Sorensen - X, Denmark, 1888. 

The most influential article on the Jerome Gambit was written by Lt. Sörensen in the May 1877 issue of Nordisk Skaktidende, a Danish chess magazine -- it was translated into English, Spanish, Italian, French and German (at least) and republished around the world. This is what he had to say about 8.d4:

"It is impossible to decide whather this attacking move is stronger than a multitude of others which offer themselves in this interesting position, and of which we especially prefer P to KB4 [f4] and Kt to QR3 [Na3], but it seems clear in every case into what abysses Black is plunging."

Alas, like Jerome, Sörensen only looked at 8.d4 Bxd4 9.Na3.

I'm tempted to award 9.Bg5 a "TN" and name it "the Gambitking attack" -- but one piece of chess history gets in the way. (to be continued) 

 Most modern players, if they know anything at all about the Jerome Gambit, know about Blackburne's demolition of it.

That wasn't always the case. There was a game played after the NN - Blackburne miniature, but before that earlier game was popularized in Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess (1899), and it made the rounds of European and American chess columns. As you will see, it contained both Gambitking's 8.d4 and 9.Bg5

 If you do, you might want to follow in Bill Wall's footsteps and take a look at the 23,550-game database that I've pulled together, including:

the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+)

the Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Bxf7+)

the Semi-Italian Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 4.0-0 Bc5 5.Bxf7+)

the Semi-Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.0-0 Bc5 6.Bxf7+)

and two related openings

the Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit (the name is a joke: nobody has found a game with Blackburne playing the BSG; neither has anyone found a game with Jerome playing the BSJG) 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Bxf7+

and the so-far unnamed 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ (yes, I know 4.Nxe5 is simpler, but I was on a roll...)

(That seems like a lot of games to me, but I was recently pulling together a databse on the Busch-Gass Gambit,  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5, and it quickly reached a half-million games...)

 Wow! That is seriously cheeky! Nice find, LordNazgul.

I did a quick check and saw that Nezhmetdinov (vs Furman, Gorki, 1954) and Spassky (vs Taimanov, Leningrad, 1954) played the sac with White, each drawing. Two guys who knew their tactics!

IM Andrew Martin has an article on "The Lopez Grip" 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 Na5,  (http://www.chessville.com/instruction/openings/Martin/Sep04c.htm) noting "It was artist and innovator Taimanov who worked on 5...Na5 40-50 years ago", although Martin only looked at 6.0-0 for White. 

I wonder if Nezhmetdinov's 6.Bxf7+ came as a surprise to Taimanov!?

By the way, I once got hornswaggled out of defending a Ruy Lopez and into something like facing a Jerome Gambit -- Pigjuice - Perrypawnpusher, blitz 3 0, FICS, 2011: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.Nxd5?! Qd4 6.Nxf7!? Kxf7 when the resemblance to a Jerome Gambit variation (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8 6.Nxc6 dxc6) is remarkable.In the Ruy Lopez, White's Bishop was exchanged on c6 and his Knight was sacrificed on f7; in the Jerome Gambit the Knight was exchanged on c6 and the Bishop was sacrificed on f7; and you can not see the difference 

.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 Na5 6.Bxf7+ is called the Nightingale Gambit.

Thanks, Bill. Knowing the name helped me find this article: http://www.chess.com/article/view/ruy-lopez-norwegian-defense

Good question!

Unfortunately, I don't know the answer...

I would love to gather up all of the Jerome Gambit games played at Chess.com and share them with everyone, but I think that I would need a Platinum membership to have that kind of access -- and I don't.

Curious that you can only search one member at a time in the Game Explorer.  Another dropdown for "All Chess.com Games" would be nice.

My first encounters with the Jerome Gambit were historical, along the lines of "Who was this guy Jerome, and why would anyone blame this miserable opening on him?"

After a while I had enough information to write a history of the opening, brief analysis, and short biography of Alonzo Jerome Wheeler; which I submitted to Stefan Bücker, the editor of Kaissiber magazine. For years he has said he would publish the article, or a vetted version of it, but nothing has appeared yet -- perhaps he has just been being kind...

In the meantime, I started my blog (jeromegambit.blogspot.com) which will reach its third birthday this summer (daily posts throughout).

And I started playing the Jerome Gambit in blitz...

Since that first game I have played a bit over 200 more Jerome Gambits, scoring 82%.

Patzer chess? Of course.

Was I giving "Jerome Gambit odds" to weaker players at times? Absolutely.

Like I've said, the watchwords of the Jerome Gambit (or any other odds-opening) are: Black wins by force, White wind by farce.

As a clinician of over 30 years, however, I find the Jerome (and its relatives) to be a fertile matrix in which to study "the psychology of error". When it stops being enlightening and entertaining -- or when I embarass myself beyond recovery -- I'll move on.

Very interesting game by Stockfish 10. Thanks for conducting and sharing.

I checked out  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ in "The Database", my 59,000 game collection of Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) and Jerome-related games that are mostly representative of online club-level play. I found 2,400 games, with White scoring 72% of the time. (7.0-0 was a novelty. ) One measure of what is "playable" for the average player.

Interesting thread, thanks

The simplest response to 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5?! is the mentioned 4.Nxe5, when 4...Nxc4 (the exchange was Black's idea, right?) 5.Nxc4 d5 (the most active response) 6.exd5 Qxd5 7.Ne3

has to be a bit better for the first player - Black has more open lines, but White has the extra pawn.

U have strange evaluations perrypawnpusher...

u give 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 2.Bc4 Nd4!? 3.Bxf7!?, while i would assess it as 3.Nd4? 4.Bxf7?.

Your last example, where u say "has to be a bit better for the first player ", should be "has to be clearly better for the first player (almost winning), pawn up for nothing".

But ok, it's only a pawn, not really relevant when u advocate Jerome gambit...

I think Gary Kasparov once wrote "Chess is not skittles". Well, perhaps not where he was playing...

It's fun to recall Geoff Chandler's humorous, practical chart, a "one-move blunder table" that shows how severe a mistake has to be in a game between equals  -All players should be able to spot their opponent leaving a mate in one.
A 1200 player should win if an opponent blunders a Queen or a Rook, but not necessarily after picking up "only" a Bishop or Knight.
1500 players often convert piece-up games into a win, but this is not the case if only a pawn or two up.
An 1800 player usually wins if two pawns up.
In a game between two 2000+ players a blundered pawn is usually enough to win.

I have lost count of the number of times that I have called the Jerome Gambit (and its relatives) a refuted opening - and I have posted every refutation that I have come across on my Jerome Gambit blog.

Casual play, blitz play, bullet chess, giving odds - that's where "objectively" bad openings can morph into something challenging, and often quite entertaining.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3AsRny3bpk&t=441s

Aman from Chessbrah making fun of your blog.

The Canadian GM is very funny in the video. The Jerome Gambit is not the kind of opening that masters give more than a glance to. Aman gives 17 minutes, in good fun.

If this was 3-check Chess, it would be winning because white has checked the black king 3 times.

I started doing this because I'm objectively terrible and was trying to psychologically shake opponents. I had no idea what it was called until finding this thread (searched bishop f7 f2 gambit sacrifice). I think I'm batting at .500 with it. But win or lose, it's pretty fun to play, and I think I'll keep doing it. LEEEEROOOOYY!!!!