Godfather of the Jerome Gambit? (Endnote)

Chess research is sometimes incomplete or contradictory and often a mystery wanting a solution.

I gave analysis from Wolfgang Heidenfeld's book Draw! (1982) in "Godfather of the Jerome Gambit? (Part III)" because it gave the strongest play for both sides in line with the progress of the game Wind - Winckelman, correspondence 1993.

Draw! was not the most far-reaching or most recent resource available to me.

Consider the following quote from Edmar Mednis in his King Power in Chess (1982)

Strong winning chances are offered by the more active 11.Kb5!. Black still must play 11...a5, after which 12.Qe2 (Heidenfeld) is parried by 12...Ne6!! (Seidman). The threatened 13...Bd7 mate forces 13.Ka4 Nc5+ 14.Kb5 Ne6 etc., with repetition of moves for a draw.Therefore, in order to win, White must try other defensive methods. Two promising ones are 12.b4!? (Kastner) and 12. c4! (Presley).

The move 12.Qe2, which Mednis attributed to Heidenfeld, was not mentioned in Draw! – it was from Heidenfeld's earlier book, Grosse Remispartien (1968). It is not surprising that Mednis relied on the latter, as the former and King Power in Chess were published the same year.

The other references – Seidman, Kastner, and Presley – are unclear.

Note also that in "Godfather of the Jerome Gambit? (Part III)" Heidenfeld is quoted that he had mentioned the move 11.Kb5 in Deutsche Schachzeitung in 1972 – four years after Grosse Remispartien. He also attributed, after 11...a5, the move 12.b4 to Ettner, not Kastner; and overlooked the possibility of 12.c4 – although, after 11...Ne7 he attributed it to Schmedes.

Andrew Soltis, in his Chess Life column "Chess to Enjoy" for September 2002 wrote

Wolfgang Heidenfeld, the German-Irish-South African author of a book about spectacular draws, criticized this one [move] and said that instead of Hamppe's 11.Kb4, there's a win in 12.Kb5 a5 and now 12.Qe2!

Note that Soltis referred to the 1968 book by Heidenfeld, not the 1982 one (which should have been available to him). Soltis continued

But when this was discussed in the pages of Chess Life & Review nearly 25 years ago, senior master Herbert Seidman pointed out that Black had a simple improvement in 11...Ne6!, threatening 12...Bd7 mate. White's only response to 11...Ne6 is – 12. Ka4! allowing 12...Nc5+ 13.Kb5 Ne6! with another repetition...

So it appears that Mednis' "Seidman" referred to a Chess Life & Review article from around 1978.

More Soltis

Is that the end for Hamppe-Meitner? No, because defenders of the game argued that Black's error was 11...a5. The right way is 11...Ne7! with the idea of ...a7-a5.

Soltis then looked at 12.d4 and 12.b4 and 12.Qh5 – but not 12.c4 which was the best line according to Heidenfeld in 1982!
Readers are encouraged to dive in with their own ideas, as well as with clarifications of Ettner, Kastner, Presley, Schmedes and Seidman.

(Chess researchers are reminded of the fantastic 4 DVD set Chess Review & Chess Life Complete Collection 1933-1975, reviewed here, and available here.)


graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"