Jerome Gambit: Horrible Innovation

One of my favorite chess writers is GM Andy Soltis. With over 100 books to his name, and almost 50 years as a chess columnist for the New York Post, he continues to write the longest-running column in the United States Chess Federation's magazine, Chess Life. "Chess to Enjoy" reflects Soltis' ongoing appreciation of both the weird and the wonderful in the Royal Game.

So, it is not surprising to run across "GM Follies", his August, 1997 Chess Life column. After acknowledging that Chess Informant had 57 symbols used in its annotations, he noted

Among them is "N" for "Novelty" - formerly known as "TN" for "Theoretical Novelty" - to designate some new and wonderful addition to opening theory.

However, GM Soltis has a caution, and a suggestion

Of course, not every good move is new - and not every new move is good. In fact, the last few years have seen a remarkable plague of HIs - Horrible Innovations...

After giving a couple of modern HIs, by a National Master and by a Grandmaster, he added

Those innovations are not likely to be repeated. But some really bad, yet not immediately refutable, novelties were tried more than once - and became famous enough to be recognized with their own name...

Why was I not surprised to read

THE JEROME GAMBIT 

1. P-K4 P-K4 2. N-KB3 N-QB3 3. B-B4 B-B4 4. BxPch?? KxB 5. NxPch NxN 6. P-Q4 which gets it[sic] name because someone named Alonzo Wheeler Jerome, of Paxton, Illinois, recommended it in the American Chess Journal in 1876. Its only discernable value is showing how to sack two pieces as quickly as possible.

The reference to the American Chess Journal of 1876 is worth noting. As we have seen in earlier posts, Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's first recommendation of his gambit came in the Dubuque Chess Journal, April 1874, Vol. VI, No. 50, p. 358-9.

In pointing out that earlier recommendation by AWJ, I mean no disrespect to GM Soltis; he appears to have relied on The Oxford Companion to Chess (1984, 1992) by Kenneth Whyld and David Hooper as his source - and there were several Jerome Gambit references in the 1876 American Chess Journal. (Add to that a curious series of naming and re-naming of chess magazines  reference...)

How to Trick the Trickster

I ran across a copy of GM Lev Alburt's "Back to Basics" column in Chess Life, titled "How to Trick the Trickster", featuring my Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Bxf7+) blitz game against PunisherABD, on FICS.

I want to quote from GM Alburt, as it could be applied to the Jerome Gambit, as well.

When is it OK to use traps that may be somewhat unsound? First, the potential punishment your well-prepared opponent can mete out to you should be relatively mild, while your reward (should he fall into your trap) should be much bigger. Two, at least three out of ten (30%) of your current opponents should go wrong! (When you are faced with the unenviable task of repeatedly defending a worse position rather than enjoying the fruits of your cleverness, it's time to quit. You've outgrown this particular trap.) 

From my students' experience, the trap below (3...Nd4) works well up to the 1400 level. (Even higher in blitz: your opponent might be able to recall/find the right way, but it may cost him too much time for his comfort.)

Something to think about.

Ad Ridiculum

Earlier this year I mentioned that the March 2011 issue of Chess Life contained Grandmaster Lev Alburt's "Back to Basics" column titled "How to Trick the Trickster", featuring my Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit game against PunisherABD.

Readers who are members of the United States Chess Federation, or those who have access to Chess Life, may have noticed that the May 2011 "Back to Basics" column, focusing on "Transposing Into Your Pet Line", also referenced my work on the Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit.

The desire to get "your own" pet position is quite understandable; if such an attept is good, bad, or in-between, depends on circumstances.

Here is an example ad ridiculum:

After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 there is a well-known trap, 3...Nd4 hoping for 4.Nxe5? Qg5, with advantage for Black. In the March 2011 issue, Rick Kennedy submitted his game, where he played 4.Bxf7+, which should lead to approximate equality after 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ (Several "normal" moves: 4.Nxd4!; 4.c3; and 4.0-0 give White an edge).

Writes Rick:

"I have actually faced 4...Ke7? with the idea that after White's bishop retreats Black can play 5...Ke8, hoping again for 6.Nxe5?, when 6...Qg5! would again stir things up in Black's favor.

However, White answers 5...Ke8 with 6.Nxd4 exd4 7.Qh5+ and a strong attack."

Chess Life

Readers who have access to the March 2011 issue of Chess Life are urged to turn to page 44 and take a look at Grandmaster Lev Alburt's "Back to Basics" column, titled this time around "How to Trick the Trickster". It features my Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit game against PunisherABD.

The Ashcan Opening

Following up on the information in yesterday's post (see "A New Opening?") Bill Wall adds further information on the chessplayer Jon Ishkan, mentioned in the Precita Valley Chess Herald as playing the opening we now know as the Jerome Gambit...

 The crosstable of the 1958 US Open lists player #119 as John E. Ishkan. His score was

loss #40 Boris Garfinkel
loss #59 Dale Ruth
win #126 H.E. Rock
win #61 E. Aronson
loss #133 Ted Bullockus
loss #76 Walter Grombacjer
loss #97 A.W. Burger
win #130 Ralph G. Houghton
loss #108 R. Hochalter
win #128 Paul Wagner
loss #69 W.H. Donnelly
loss #102 Donald R. Seifert

Since Ishkan beat Rock, Aronsen, Houghton and Wagner, at least one of those games featured the Jerome Gambit.

Additionally:

John E. Ishkan played in the 1955 US Open in Long Beach.

John E. Ishkan played in the 1957 US Open in Cleveland. He was #140, scoring 4.5 points.

According to the May 20, 1956 USCF rating list in Chess Life magazine, Ishkan lived in Fairfield, Connecticut and was rated 1731.

Busted!

I've been playing too much chess lately, breaking my rule to follow Dan Heisman's (of the "Novice Nook" articles at Chess Cafe) suggestion mentioned in a Chess Life article earlier this year

...set up a "feedback loop" whein one studies something (adds positives), applies it with careful practice, gets expert help to correct mistakes (subtracts negatives), and then repeats ad infinitum. this loop, which is essentially practiced in every school, is a key for getting better at any complex endeavor, whether it be chess, math, skiing or pharmacy.

I've been dropping points and half-points here and there, and even my wins have been ragged and have had more to do with good fortune than good play.


Tonight I hit my nadir


perrypawnpusher -TrentonTheSecond
blitz, FICS, 2010


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

The Italian Four Knights Game.

5. Bxf7+

The Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

5...Kxf7 6. Nxe5+ Nxe5 7. d4

7...Re8

I faced this move for the first time a few days ago and won in a baker's dozen worth of moves, ending with 13.Qd5+.

8. dxc5 Nc4

9. Qd5+??

Unbelievable.

9...Nxd5 White resigned

I've decided: no more playing chess games until next month. Study, analyze, learn: no pawn-pushing.

Readers probably won't even notice, however, as I have a backlog of about a dozen games to post here...

Welcome to the World of Wall

Of late, Bill Wall (see Chessville's "Bill Wall's Wonderful World of Chess") has been investigating the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) and other Jerome-ish openings.

I've had fun playing over a number of his games and have decided to present several, starting in his pre-Jerome Gambit era. Even early on, his brand of wild, brash and outrageous play had some Jerome-ish tinges to it.

Watt,B - Wall

Taylorsville, NC, 1975

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Bc5

Having his own ideas, but this was too much for his opponent to sit still and take.

3.Na4

Cue the scary violin music: we have seen this before in "Godfather of the Jerome Gambit? Part I, Part II, Part III", "Godfather of Oz??" and "Hamppe - Meitner Revealed".

3...Bxf2+ 4.Kxf2 Qh4+

5.Ke3 Qf4+ 6.Kd3

6...Nf6

Hampe - Meitner, Vienna, 1870 continued 6...d5 7.Kc3 Qxe4 8.Kb3 Na6 9.a3 Qxa4+ 10.Kxa4 Nc5+ 11.Kb4 a5+ 12.Kxc5 Ne7 13.Bb5+ Kd8 14.Bc6 b6+ 15.Kb5 Nxc6 16.Kxc6 Bb7+ 17.Kb5 Ba6+ draw

7.Nc3

In the September 2002 issue of Chess Life, Grandmaster Andy Soltis suggested 7.Qf3 as an improvement in this line. (I have no idea if he was familiar with Bill's game here.)

7...d5

8.Qe1

Understandably faltering under pressure. Rybka suggests that White could find his way to a balanced game with: 8.Qf3 dxe4+ 9.Nxe4 Bf5 10.Qxf4 exf4 11.Ke2 Nxe4 12.d3 Nf6 13.Bxf4 Nc6 14.Nf3 0-0-0 15.Re1 Nd5 16.Bg3 Ndb4

analysis diagram





8...dxe4+ 9.Kc4 e3+

It's "open season" on Kings...

10.Kb3 Nc6 11.a3 Be6+ White resigned

 

Montgomery Major Attack

Even when it comes to the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+), and especially when it comes to related openings, there always seems something new to discover.

Imagine my surprise when, thumbing through John Lutes' Tennsion Gambit I encountered the following line of play

1.e4 d5 2.Nf3

This is the Tennison Gambit, which also can be reached via the Zukertort Opening, i.e. 1.Nf3 d5 2.e4.

2...dxe4 3.Ng5 e5

There is a superficial similarity to the Budapest Gambit (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5) here, with colors reversed, although the fact that Black has not played ...c7-c5 in the Tennison actually strengthens his position, as the traditional ...Bb4+ in the Budapest – Bb5+ in the Tennison – is more easily met.

4.Nxf7 Kxf7 5.Qh5+

Things are already beginning to look a little Jerome-ish, moreso after 5...g6 6.Qxe5, when White looks forward to two pawns for his sacrificed piece and play against Black's vulnerable King.

The Montgomery Major Attack is named after an early editor of Chess Life, who published his analysis of the line in Chess Correspondent in the early 1960s.

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"