Jerome Gambit

The Jerome Gambit is typically played 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5 Nxe5 6.Qh5+.

Anyone got any ideas on how to succeed with this?

There's very little chances of succeeding with that gambit, 6. .... Ke6 and White doesn't have much for the two pieces. I suggest you find something better.

1.  "6. ...Ke6 7. Qf5+ keeps the attack going": not really, 7. .... Kd6 8 Nc3 Qf6 and White has nothing.

2. "6. ...g6 7. Qxe5 Qe7! is much better, because after 8. Qxh8 Qxe4+ Black has an attack and can almost trap the queen...": Of course, Black  does better here because you've played a bad move for White:

6. ...g6 7. Qxe5 Qe7 8. Qf4+ is better than taking the Rook.

 Look, it doesn't matter how you care to slice it, the gambit is completely unsound. My researches find that the gambit doesn't appear in any master databases. Probably dangerous at the beginner level but not a variation to take anyone's game forward. I stand by my original comment "Find something better".

I still feel that white can salvage the game by playing the Bietschlaap gambit.

If you insist on gambiting away a minor in the first few moves, perhaps the Halloween Gambit is a better place to start.

Agreed, especially as the subject gambit simply throws away two minor pieces.

If your pieces are getting in your way, just leave some of them off the board. Few opponents will complain.

I'm thrilled to see some posts on my favorite chess opening and research topic!

I'll try to answer the questions, bit by bit...

The Jerome Gambit can be fun at blitz, in informal games, or when giving odds to a weaker player.

A friend says he plays chess at a local bar and likes the Jerome Gambit because, either way, win or lose, the game is over quickly...

There is no sense in trying to "prove" that the opening is "good": it has many time-tested refutations.

For those playing the Jerome, it becomes as issue of finding the most challenging lines of play, until either the opponent collapses -- or wins.

I am reminded of a 19th century chess book that gave detailed opening analysis of pawn-and-move odds and pawn-and-two-moves odds -- both theoretically "worse" or "lost" for Black -- in order to assist the odds-givers.

I think you're on to something here.

I know a number of people who play the Jerome Gambit against players of equal strength, or of greater strength -- something I do rarely.

How many rating points difference is playing the Jerome Gambit worth? From my researches on online Jerome Gambit tournaments (turn-based, club players): Jerome Gambit + 200 points = even chances.

Relevant is Geoff Chandler's off-the-cuff Blunder Table that players under 1500, playing each other, might still get away with the Jerome...

I've been blogging about the Jerome Gambit (and its relatives) for over 1,000 consecutive days. There are plenty of tips at: jeromegambit.blogspot.com

Rest assured: all the refutations are there, as well.

Indeed, 6...Ke6 is one of the strongest replies Black can make.

It takes confidence, though, or some knowledge of the line by the defender. In my games 6...Ke6 was chosen less than 1/4 of the time by Black.

 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5+ 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 and now 7...d6 was made famous by Blackburne in a brilliant attacking miniature of the Jerome Gambit: 8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.0-0 Nf6 10.c3 Ng4 11.h3 Bxf2+ 12.Kh1 Bf5 13.Qxa8 Qxh3+ 14.gxh3 Bxe4#

The evaluation of 7...d6 as "Black wins" has been popular, but mistaken. Some writers have pointed out that 10.Qd8! is actually winning for White -- but that is a mistake, too. Current assessment is that Black can force a draw. 

However, 7...Qe7, Whistler's Defense (played by Lt. G.N. Whistler against Alonzo Wheeler Jerome in a series of correspondence games in 1876; in later writings Jerome somehow "forgot" to mention this defense), leads to an equally-Blackburnian conflagration after 8.Qxh8? as I showed in one of my Jerome Gambit Tournament games (I had the Black pieces): 8...Qxe4+ 9.Kd1 Qxg2 10.Qxh7+ Kf8 11.Re1 d5 12.d4 Bg4+ 13.Kd2 Qxf2+ 14.Re2 Qxe2+ 15.Kc3 Qc4+ 16.Kd2 Qxd4+ 17.Ke1 Qd1#

Abrahams in The Chess Mind (1951) refers to “the once popular Jerome Gambit” – 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Bxf7+. Fletcher’s Gambits Accepted A Survey of Opening Sacrifices (1954) notes “Some authors have called the opening with the moves 1.P-K4, P-K4; 2.B-B4, B-B4; 3.BxPch, by the name Jerome.”

I haven't found any other references (I'd be glad to see them), or any games by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome with the 2.Bc4/3.Bxf7+ line, either.

a) yes, you are right, it is manifestly unsound

b) certainly in bullet, but also some faster speeds like 3 0 or even 2 12 (I've played 5 12, I think)

c) Pete Banks has played the Jerome Gambit successfully over-the-board in regular club play in the U.K. -- he is much braver than I am.

d) I appreciate all the "good luck" that I can get. As the saying goes, when it comes to the Jerome Gambit, "Black wins by force, White wins by farce."

 ...Qf6 is often a show stopper in the Jerome Gambit -- exchanging Queens can take the life out of any attack White is trying to whip up.

As for 6...Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.Nc3 Qf6 --

Some players prefer 7.f4 instead of the Queen check, but then Black has the profoundly annoying 7...d6 (a favorite of computers the world over), simply giving back one of the pieces and draining most of the dynamism out of White's game after 8.fxe5 dxe5;

I don't have much experience with 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.Nc3, so I'll have to look at that some more. Quite likely, though, as PrawnEatsPrawn says, 8...Qf6 is strong.

I play 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4, but then after 8...Qh4+ 9.g3 Nf3+ Black is preparing a Queen sac that will crush the first player, as a buddy of mine, Mad Dog Hailey, learned in a turn-based game in which his opponent, I think, was using computer assistance...

What can I say? It shouldn't be hard at all to "find something better" -- the Jerome Gambit makes the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit look good.

I will continue to research Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's (American Civil War veteran, officer in U.S.C.T., hemp farmer and inventer) opening. Any games you have uncovered or played -- I'd love to see them.

I've played the Jerome Gambit about 70 times so far here at chess.com and other sites with great success.  I first played the gambit in 2001 and still play it in 2011.  It's great for blitz chess as long as you know all the traps and the other guy doesn't have time to think and find the exact way out of this sacrifice.  Perrypawnpusher (Rick Kennedy) offers a database of thousands of Jerome Gambits (and adding Blackburne Shilling Gambits and reversed BSGs) which I have studied.  Only a few players have found the right continuation to bust this line and for Black to win, so it is good odds that you can draw or most likely win if you know the trappy lines.  And I am a guy who studies and plays for trappy lines and short games.  This has been one of my favorite gambits for the past year.  GM Larry Christiansen almost plays this gambit (he sacs the Bishop on c4 at f7) in many of his blitz games and doesn't have a problem winning.  But, then again, he is a grandmaster.

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/jerome-gambit-samples

 Good game by Shinkman, against Alonzo Wheeler Jerome himself -- handing White his head, only 3 months after the Jerome Gambit made its published debut! Note the value of a well-timed ...Qf6, as I mentioned in my response to PrawnEatsPrawn, above.

I guess the moral is: Don't play the Jerome Gambit -- or, if you do, don't play it in correspondence chess...

Noted.

No illusions here. Not too long ago Chess Life for Kids ran my two-part article on "The Worst Chess Opening Ever" about the Jerome Gambit.

Although perhaps you might like the Jerome-style treatment of the Blackburne Shilling Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4!? 4.Bxf7+!?. GM Lev Alburt's "Back to Basics" column in the March 2011 issue of Chess Life featured a game of mine, with White, in this line.