Showing posts with label Brentano's Chess Monthly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brentano's Chess Monthly. Show all posts

Thursday, December 13, 2018

The Jerome Gambit Article (Part 3)

Here continues the Jerome Gambit article that I wrote for Kaissiber, a decade ago.


The Cincinnati connection is an important one in the story of the development of the Jerome Gambit. In the 1870 and 1880s, the chess column of the Commercial Gazette, conducted by J. W. Miller, was considered to be one of the best in the United States. It occasionally ran opening analysis presented by S. A. Charles, a member of the local chess club. By January 1881, Charles had switched to sending his analyses to the Pittsburgh Telegraph (later, the Chronicle-Telegraph), when the January 19, 1881 column noted

The following careful and complete analysis of the Jerome Gambit,
one of the newest attacks in chess, and to be found in but few books, was compiled and condensed for THE TELEGRAPH by Mr. S. A. Charles,
President of the Cincinnati Chess Club, and victor in its recent tourney.

            Charles had met the American Chess Journal challenge, but his analysis did not include all of the lines explored in the Journal.
The February 2, 1881 Pittsburgh Telegraph column ran a game (a win) by Jerome, noting that the gambit

…although unsound, as shown by Mr. Charles' analysis in this
column, yet leads to some interesting and critical positions.

On April 27, 1881, the Telegraph chess column presented more information from Mr. Charles, including the fact that he had been in contact with the Gambit’s originator

To the Chess Editor of the Telegraph
A few weeks ago I sent you a compilation of such analysis as
 I could find of the “Jerome Gambit,” not claiming to present anything
new, but only to furnish in a compact form some information which was
not probably accessible to most of your readers.
Since its publication I have received some letters from Mr. Jerome,
the inventor of the gambit, claiming that his gambit was sound and that
the attack could be improved upon in some of the variations given.
Mr. Jerome's claims as to the corrections, at last, seem to be well founded,
and I give below, as an appendix to my former article, a short tabular
statement covering the principal changes and corrections suggested by him.
It is much to be hoped that Mr. Jerome may himself give to the
public at an early date his own analysis of this, the only opening of any
note of American Invention .

A few weeks later, on June 8, 1881, the Telegraph, having heard from Jerome, ran the following, responding to Charles’ comments. It shows Jerome again trying to keep the value and uniqueness of his Gambit in perspective, despite the excitement, in the American post-Morphy period, for something exciting, new, and homegrown

A letter received from Mr. A. W. Jerome calls attention to the fact
that he does not claim the Jerome Gambit to be analytically sound, but only
that over the board it is sound enough to afford a vast amount of amusement.
Mr. J. refers to the so-called "Meadow Hay" opening as being an American
invention. Well, if that is so, the less said about it the better for American
chess reputation.

In October 1881, the Jerome Gambit broke onto the international scene again, in Brentano's Chess Monthly, (edited by H.C. Allen & J.N. Babson), with a letter and analysis from S. A. Charles

Some time since I published in the Pittsburgh Telegraph a
compilation of such analyses of the Jerome Gambit as I could find, with
some additions from published games. Mr. Jerome justly criticized some
            of the moves as not being the best for either party, and we commenced
as series of correspondence games more as a test of the opening than of
individual skill.
Unfortunately Mr. Jerome's business engagements have prevented
him from playing out the full number of games originally started; yet the
situation even in the unfinished games seems to me at least to prove the
gambit unsound, and that while White may win against weak, he cannot
do against strong play.
I should add, perhaps, that Mr. Jerome does not consider the defenses
here given to 6.d4 to be the best but he does not suggest any others.

The November 2, 1881 chess column in the Pittsburgh Telegraph ran Charles’ corrected and slightly updated version of his analysis from Brentano's Chess Monthly.
The year 1882 brought yet more attention, from respectable sources, to the Jerome Gambit. William Cook, with the assistance of E. Freeborough and C. E. Ranken, brought out the third edition of his Modern Chess Openings-style Cook's Synopsis of the Chess Openings A Tabulated Analysis. Cook noted about his work

...Inasmuch as the book does not lay claim to originality, the acknowledgement of the sources from which the variations have been collected is perhaps unnecessary; but it should be mentioned that the last edition of the "Handbuch des Schachspiels," Mr. Gossip's "Theory
of the Openings" and Mr. Wayte's able reviews of these works, together with the excellent Chess column of the Field and other papers, the New Chess Monthly and the well-known Chess Player's Chronicle have been indispensable to the production of this book.

            The 3rd edition included analysis of the Jerome Gambit for the first time, and noted that the gambit, “although unsound, affords some highly instructive analysis.”
Two year later, Cook’s Synopsis - already out of print and still in great demand - was reprinted in its entirety by J. W. Miller, with an additional section, American Supplement to the "Synopsis," containing American Inventions In the Chess Openings Together With Fresh Analysis in the Openings Since 1882; also a list of Chess Clubs in the United States and Canada.
This 1884 American Supplement contained two doses of Jerome: Cook’s analysis in the Synopsis portion, and S. A. Charles’ analysis, in the Supplement portion. Miller added the blusterous caution

The "Jerome Gambit," 4.Bxf7+, involves an unsound
sacrifice; but it is not an attack to be trifled with. The defense
requires study, and is somewhat difficult.

By the way, we can get a measure of the still-light-hearted sense of the Gambit at that time, from a note in the Pittsburgh Chronicle-Telegraph chess column for the February 27, 1884

In Cincinnati we met a number of players in the Mercantile
Library… We also had the pleasure of contesting several games with
Mr. Jerome, of Paxton, Ill. He is well known as the author of the
so-called Jerome Gambit, in which white sacrifices the Bishop by
taking KBP on the fourth move of the Giuoco Piano game. Neither
the gambit nor its author proved strong in the contest.

The chess column (Maurian and Seguin) of the New Orleans Times-Democrat, for October 19, 1884, reviewed the American Supplement, and hinted that the Jerome Gambit, among others, might have found its way onto the pages at least in part because of its American heritage

With regard to the "American Inventions," whether certain of
these so-called be worthy of the honor of insertion or not, it is evident
that the editor has done good and useful work, if only in collecting and
recording such in enduring form as monuments along the pathway of
our national chess progress.

The review continued the following week, and had several interesting comments pertaining to the Jerome Gambit coverage

Of course, any extended and minute examination of the various
openings or defenses included among these "American Inventions," is
impossible in the limited space of a chess column, but there are some
salient points in this connection that have specially attracted our notice...
The "brilliant but unsound" (why, may we ask, is this antithesis
so common that one would almost infer it to be necessary?) Jerome
Gambit, invented by Mr. Jerome, of Paxton, Ill., about a decade ago,
constitutes the next of the Americana, and concerning the analysis given
by Mr. S. A. Charles we can only venture to say that it seems to combine
much careful original work with variations compiled from such
investigations as have been published upon this hazardous attack. The
principal basis for most of these has been, we believe, Sorenson's article
in the May, 1877, number of the Nordisk Skaktidende, and which as
translated in Gossip's Theory, pp.37-39, furnishes the only two variations
upon the opening given in the Synopsis proper (ccf. p.49, cols 11 and 12).
We note, however, that Mr. Charles differs from this authority in some
important particulars…
Of course, White should lose eventually, for the gambit is an
admittedly and rather conspicuously unsound one…


[to be continued]

Friday, December 22, 2017

Jerome Gambit: Balderdash

Not everything that I have discovered in my recent forays into historical research has been of enduring value.

For example, the "CHESS" column ("Conducted by A. G. Johnson") of The Oregon Daily Journal  of Portland, Oregon, for  October 25, 1914 (page 29) has the following
Of the many chess openings in vogue, two are particularly interesting because they are of American origin. The "Jerome Gambit" was first developed in Cincinnati about 40 years ago. S. A. Charles of that city made a thorough analysis of the opening and met with great success in playing the "Jerome" against prominent players. Even Steinitz, then in the zenith of his career as world's champion succumbed in his first attempt to defend the gambit. Although the opening is theoretically unsound, and involves the sacrifice of two pieces for two pawns, the adversary's king is displaced and drawn into the center of the board where all kinds of complications may arise. The following variation of the Jerome, which is rather favorable to white, reveals some of the possibilties of the gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.d4 Bxd4 9.Na3 Ne7 10.Qh3 Qf8 11.Nb5+ Kc5 12.Nxd4 Kxd4 13.Qe3+ Kc4 14.a4 with slight advantage to white.
Where to begin??

Of course, the Jerome Gambit was "first developed" 40 years before the ODJ column was written, by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome of Paxton, Illinois, having published his first analysis of the "New Chess Opening" in the April 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal.

S. A. Charles, of the Cincinnati, Ohio, Chess Club, wrote opening analyses, first for the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, then later for the Pittsburgh Telegraph. It is in the latter newspaper that in 1881 he presented his examination of the Jerome Gambit, which later found itself in different chess magazines (e.g. the October 1881 issue of Brentano's Chess Monthly) and opening books (e.g. Cook's Synopsis of Chess Openings, 3rd edition, 1882).
In 16 years of researching and analyzing the gambit, I have not uncovered any game examples (or references) of Charles meeting "with great success" while playing the Jerome Gambit "against prominent players"- or any games of his with the gambit at all. I have found a half-dozen correspondence games where Charles defended against the Jerome Gambit - played by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome. Of course, it is possible that there is much more to be discovered, and I have missed it all, but, still...
By the way, it can be fairly said that Charles regularly acknowledged his games and exchanges of ideas with Jerome; it was only the passage of time that seems to have stripped the inventor's name from certain analyses of his invention.

I was absolutely gobsmacked by columnist conductor A. G. Johnson's contention that Steinitz, "in the zenith of his career as world's champion" actually "succumbed in his first attempt to defend the gambit." With all due respect to Blackburne, whose Queen sacrifice leading to checkmate is probably the best known repudiation of the Jerome Gambit, and to Emanuel Lasker, who - I recently discovered - summarily dispatched the Jerome Gambit in a simultaneous display, a loss by a reigning world champion (not to mention a defensive genius) to the Jerome would be one of the most amazing (and horrible) master games played to date. (There was a note in the Oregon Daily Journal that Johnson, after two years of work, was going to be stepping down after 100 columns, so there is always the possibility that his Steinitz story was a parting little joke; although it did not read that way.)

The analysis that Johnson presents in his column goes back to Freeborough and Ranken's Chess Openings, Ancient and Modern, 1st edition, (1889), although he is more likely to have had the 3rd edition (1903, reprinted 1905) lying around. The move 11.Nb5+ is an improvement over Jerome's 11.0-0 in his analysis in the January 1875 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal. The concluding evaluation, "slight advantage to white" is too modest - White has a forced checkmate in 6 moves. (It was Black's faulty 10th move that reversed his fortunes.)

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Not As Scary As It Looks

Have you ever played what you thought was a smashing attack – only to discover, upon closer inspection, that it wasn't nearly as sound as you (and your opponent) imagined? If you play the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) – of course you have.

perrypawnpusher  - Philidork
blitz FICS, 2010

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Bc4 Bc5


5.Bxf7+

The Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit, one of those lines known to me personally as the Why-Am-I-Still-Playing-This Opening??

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.d4 Bxd4 8.Qxd4


This seems to be the most popular defense, although 7...Bd6 8.dxe5 Bxe5 was stronger.

8...d6 9.Bg5


Or the alternative: 9.0-0 Re8 10.f4 (10.Bg5 Kg8 11.f4 Nc6 12.Qd3 Nb4 13.Qc4+ Be6 14.Qxb4 b6 15.Rae1 c5 16.Qb5 d5 17.e5 d4 18.exf6 a6 19.Qc6 Bd7 20.Qd5+ Kh8 21.fxg7+ Kxg7 22.Bxd8 Black resigned, Wall - Foman, Chess.com, 2010) 10...Nc6 11.Qd3 Kg8 12.Bd2 a6 13.Rae1 Kh8 14.Nd5 Nxd5 15.exd5 Rxe1 16.Rxe1 Na7 17.Qe4 Bg4 18.h3 Bh5 19.g4 Bf7 20.Bc3 Qe8 21.Qf5 Qf8 22.Qd7 Nb5 23.Re7 Nxc3 24.Rxf7 Qe8 25.Qxe8+ Rxe8 26.bxc3 Kg8 27.Rxc7 b5 28.Kf2 Re4 29.f5 Ra4 30.Rd7 Rxa2 31.Rxd6 Rxc2+ 32.Ke3 Rxc3+ 33.Kd4 Rc4+ 34.Kd3 Rc5 35.Rxa6 Rxd5+ 36.Ke3 Rd1 37.Rb6 Rb1 38.Kd4 Kf7 39.g5 Kg8 40.g6 Rd1+ 41.Ke5 Re1+ 42.Kf4 Re8 43.Rxb5 hxg6 44.fxg6 Rf8+ 45.Rf5 Rxf5+ 46.Kxf5 Kf8 47.Ke6 Kg8 48.Ke7 Kh8 49.h4 Kg8 50.h5 Kh8 51.Ke6 Kg8 52.Kf5 Kh8 53.Kg5 Kg8 54.Kf5 Kh8 55.Ke5 Kg8 56.Ke6 Kh8 57.Kd7 Kg8 58.Ke7 Kh8 59.h6 Kg8 60.h7+ Kh8 61.Kf8 Game drawn by stalemate, perrypawnpusher - KaZC, blitz FICS, 2010.

This position is of historical interest, as it appeared in two games in a Jerome Gambit correspondence chess match between Alonzo Wheeler Jerome and S.A. Charles, presented in an article by Charles in Brentano's Chess Monthly, October 1881.

The move order in those games was 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Bxd4 7.Qxd4 d6 8.Nc3 Nf6 9.Bg5.

9...Nc6

Or 9...h6 10.Bxf6 Qxf6 11.0-0-0 Be6 12.Kb1 Nc4






analysis diagram





"so far from an unfinished game between Mr. Jerome and the writer, the following seems a possible continuation 13.Qd3 b5 14.f4 Nxb2 15.Kxb2 b4 and wins." Jerome - Charles, correspondence, 1881;






analysis diagram





Also possible was 9...Bh3 10.0-0-0 Bxg2 11.f4 h6 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.Rhg1 Bh3 14.fxe5 "better game [for White]. from a game between Mr. Jerome and the writer"

10.Qd3


10...Re8 11.0-0 Kg8


12.Nd5 Re6 13.Nxf6+


Part of a "plan of attack," but 13.f4 followed by 14.e5 was more sensible.

13...gxf6 14.Bh6


14...Ne5

After I played my 14th move, I suddenly wondered, what if Black plays 14...f5...? The answer is, of course, that White's "attack" crumbles.

The move played by Philidork shows that he sees my plan to check along the g-file, and he hastens to cover up.

15.Qg3+ Ng6


Now White can achieve an even game with the straight-forward 16.f4 Rxe4 17.f5.

16.h4 Kh8


White "attacks" with the h-pawn, which can be stopped by the simple 16...Re5.

17.h5

Unfortunately, my opponent was taken in by all of this and resigned here.

True, if the Knight moves, White can checkmate at g7. But Black is a piece ahead, so he can afford to defend with 17...Qg8 – when all I would have after 18.hxg6 Qxg6 was an even game.

Looking back, the situation was not as scary as it looked.





Monday, October 26, 2009

Not Such A Good Idea



In the October 1881 issue of Brentano's Chess Monthly, a letter to the editors ( H.C. Allen & J.N. Babson), was printed in the "Games" section. Here is an excerpt

...Some time since, I published in the Pittsburg Telegraph a compilation of such analyses of the Jerome Gambit as I could find, with some additions from published games. Mr. Jerome justly criticized some of the moves as not being the best for either party, and we commenced as series of correspondence games more as a test of the opening than of individual skill. Unfortunately Mr. Jerome's business engagements have prevented him from playing out the full number of games originally started; yet the situation even in the unfinished games seems to me at least to prove the gambit unsound, and that while White may win against weak, he cannot do against strong play. I should add, perhaps, that Mr. Jerome does consider the defenses here given to 6.d4 to be the best but he does not suggest any others...

Very respectfully
S.A. Charles

Charles presented the incomplete games, and in one of them made mention of a Jerome suggestion
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 White now has 3 lines of attack [7.Qf5+, 7.f4, 7.0-0 ]. Mr Jerome also suggests for analysis b2-b4.
It is not clear what White achieves if Black takes the pawn with 7...Bxb4 – something to be expected in play between amateurs in the 1880s – but there is even less to recommend White's game after the reasonable 7...Bd4. If the first player intended 8.c3 as a response, it is short-circuited by 8...Nd3+. Coping with this threat can lead to something like 7...Bd4 8.Qh3+ Kf7 9.c3 Bb6 10.d4 (presumably White's idea).

White has a wonderful center, but he is down two pieces for two pawns and his only developed piece – the Queen – will have to move again after 10...d6.

Possibly Alonzo Wheeler Jerome did not think very long before making his suggestion, because it is not such a good idea after all.