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 3^rd 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]

The Verdun Gambit (Part 2)

From the chess column of the Western Mail  of Perth, Australia,  Friday, November 9, 1917 (page 26) titled "THE JEROME GAMBIT" we continue the tale of "The Verdun Gambit" started last post.

As before, I have added diagrams and changed the notation from descriptive to algebraic - Rick.

Our readers will recollect that some months ago we published an account of how the Veteran played the "Verdun" Gambit against the Exile and got badly beaten.

The opening moves of this gambit are as follow

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+

This is really the Jerome Gambit, and it was only the Veteran's facetiousness that dubbed it the "Verdun."

Memories of this great conflit have been recalled by the receipt of the following remarks from a valued correspondent, who modestly hides his identity under the nom-de-plume of "Subscriber." He says:  "In connection with one of the games you published which was played at Boans, I wish to ask you if, in your opinion, that opening is not good enough? White has a piece and two pawns in
exchange for two pieces, and the two pawns he has are most important ones, and Black's position is, I think, unpleasantly broken up. Your opinion will much oblige." 

Although the Jerome Gambit is well worth playing occasionally in
offhand games, there is no recorded instance of its having been tried in any important tourney.The reason for this is obvious; White gives up a piece for two pawns but he does not gain, a compensating attack and must lose with anything like accurate play on the part of Black.

The chief book line of play is as follows:

6...Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.d4 Bxd4 9.Na3 c6 10.c3 Qf6 11.cxd4 Qxf5
12.exf5 Nf7 13.Bf4+ Ke7

And Black, with a piece for a pawn, has the best of the deal.

In our opinion Black's simplest and best defense is 

6...Ng6

when the play might proceed 

7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qc3 Nf6 10.d3

"Cook's Synopsis" says that White has now some attack for his lost
pieces. He has a fine unbroken array of pawns, but he can hardly hope to win.


[I am not sure how "important" a tournament would have to be to satisfy the columnist, but if the Australian Open is important enough, then about 100 years after the above column was printed in Western Mail, "Cliff Hardy" played the Jerome Gambit and won there with it. - Rick]

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.)

Jerome Gambit: Merely Commentators, or Players?

One of the reasons I started a discussion at the English Chess Forum searching out early English game examples of the Jerome Gambit was because of the quote by Joseph Henry Blackburne in Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess (1899)

I used to call this the Kentucky Opening. For a while after its introduction it was greatly favored by certain players, but they soon grew tired of it.

The issue of the "Kentucky Opening" has been dealt with previously on this blog - see "The Kentucky Opening" parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and "The Kentucky / Danvers Opening".

That the Jerome Gambit had been "greatly favored by certain players" seems to suggest that games should be available - but none new to me have surfaced so far.

Blackburne may have been referring to coverage of the Jerome Gambit in some print sources.

For example, The Chess Player's Chronicle, August 1, 1877, translated and reprinted the early and in depth article on the Jerome Gambit, from "Chess Theory for Beginners" by Lieut. Sorensen, from the May 1877 issue of Nordisk Skaktidende. I believe that the translation was by Rev. C.E. Ranken.

Later, the third edition of Cook's Synopsis of Chess Openings A Tabuled Analysis by William Cook (1882) had Jerome Gambit analysis, including thanks to

Mr. Freeborough of Hull, and Rev. C.E. Ranken, of Malven, for material assistance in the compilation of the tables, original variations in the openings, and help in the examination of proof.

Versions of Chess Openings Ancient and Modern, starting with the first edition in 1889, include Jerome Gambit analysis and suggested moves by Freeborough and Rankin.

It should be noted, too, that George Hatfield Dingley Gossip covered the Jerome Gambit in his Theory of the Chess Openings (1879) and The Chess Player's Vade Mecum (1891). James Mortimer also had Jerome Gambit analysis in the many editions of his The Chess Player's Pocket-Book, starting in 1888.

Freeborough and Ranken, Gossip and Mortimer - merely commentators or players?

The Sarratt Attack

Of the Sarrat / Vitzthum Attack (see the recent "Another Distant Relative" as well as "A Bridge To... Somewhere" and "Abridged"), The City of London Chess Magazine wrote in 1875

This attack, invented by Count Vitzthum, was very much practised about twenty years ago. [Here, Readers may recall Meek - Morphy, Mobile, Alabama, 1855; Meek - Morphy, New Orleans, 1855; and Kennicott - Morphy, New York, 1857 as examples; although Lowenthal, in Morphy's Games (1860), had already opined "This {5.Ng5}is far from an effective mode of proceeding with the attack, and is decidedly inferior to castling" and "This mode of proceeding with the attack is comparatively obsolete, as with the correct play the defense is perfectly satisfactory." ] It is now abandoned in contests of strong players, as the analysis proved that Black can maintain his Pawn with a good position.

Cook's Synopsis of the Chess Openings (1874) had been equally dismissive

This attack is now seldom played; with correct play it results in an even game.

Wait a minute!

What if White is happy with "an even game" and is interested in tricky play? 

I am surprised that the opening is not played more often!

As it turns out, a recent game of mine, with the Black pieces, at Chess.com (3 days / move) started with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 (I was thinking about a reversed Jerome Gambit) 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.d4 exd4 5.Ng5 Nh6 6.Nxf7 Nxf7 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxc5.

In fact, after 9...d5 10.Nd2 Re8 11.0-0 12.Re1 Bf5 13.c3 Kg7 14.cxd4 Nxd4 (instead of ...Qxd4!) Blacks game fell apart quickly.

"New" Old Analysis - But Not Quite

I recently stumbled over Part 10 of the "Index To The Chess Openings" on page 100 of the June 27, 1891 issue of the Chess Player's Chronicle. 

"New" old analysis of the Jerome Gambit, I thought!

It turns out that the CPC was simply reprinting the analysis of the 1884 American Supplement to Cook's Synopsis of Chess Openings, the Supplement "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",
edited by J.W. Miller. The author of the analysis was S. A. Charles of Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5! [5...Kf8? 6.Nxc6 dxc6 (6...bxc6 7.d4) 7.0-0 Nf6 8.Qf3 (8.d4 Bg4 9.Qe1 Kf7) 8...Qd4 9.d3 Bg4 10.Qg3 Bd6 11.c3 +] 6.Qh5+ [6.d4 Bxd4 7.Qxd4 d6! (7...Qf6 8.Qd1 d6 9.0-0 g6 10.f4 Nc6) 8.Nc3 (8.0-0 Nf6 9.f4 Nc6) 8...Nf6 9.Bg5 h6! 10.Bxf6 Qxf6 11.0-0-0 Be6 12.Kb1 Nc4 13.Qd3 b5 14.f4 Nxb2 15.Kxb2 b4!] 6...Ke6! [6...Ng6? 7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qc3 Nf6 10.d3] 7.Qf5+ [7.f4 d6 8.Qh3+ (8.f5+ Kd7 9.d3 Nf6 10.Qd1 Nxe4 +) 8...Ke7 9.f5 Bxf5 10.exf5 Qd7 11.d4 Bxd4 12.Qh4+ Nf6 13.Qxd4 Qxf5 +; 7.0-0 d6! (7...g6 8.Qh3+ K moves 9.Qc3) 8.Nc3 Nf6 9.Qd1 Nd3 (9...Kf7 10.d4 Bg4 11.f3 {11.Qd2 Bb6 12.dxe5 dxe5!} 11...Nxf3+ 12.gxf3 Bh3 +) 10.cxd3 Kf7 11.Ne2 Bb6 12.Kh1 Ng4 13.d4 Nxh2 14.Kxh2 Qh4+ 15.Kg1 Qxe4 16.d3 Qg4 17.Be3 d5 18.f3 Qe6 19.Bf2 c6 +] 7...Kd6 8.f4 [8.d4 Bxd4 9.Na3 Nc6] 8...Qf6 9.fxe5+ Qxe5 10.Qf3 Nf6 11.d3 Kc6 12.Nc3 d6 [12...d5 also looks good] 13.h3 Qh5 14.Qg3 Be6 15.Ne2 Raf8 16.Nf4 Nxe4 17.dxe4 Qe5 18.Qd3 Bf5 +

Jerome Gambit: Early Opening Tomes (Part 1)

Recently, Dr. Tim Harding wrote in his "The Kibitzer" column at ChessCafe.com,

In the half century between 1862 and 1912, chess made huge advances in terms of the technical standard of play. The rise of professionalism and annual master tournaments and the growth of chess literature raised the bar in terms of opening knowledge, and positional ideas unknown to the experts of fifty years previously were available to a new generation of players through the example of Steinitz and Lasker and the teachings of Tarrasch.


The "growth of chess literature... in terms of opening knowledge" was apparent during the life of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome (1834 - 1904), and it is no surprise that it overlapped the development of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+).

[The following review is limited mostly to English-language opening books. - Rick] 

In 1874, the year that Jerome's analysis of his gambit was first published in the Dubuque Chess Journal, Synopsis of the Chess Openings by William Cook, Handbuch des Schachspiels (5th edition) by Von der Lasa, and Chess Openings (2nd edition) by Frederick William Longman, all appeared. None contained analysis of the Jerome Gambit.


In 1875, The Chess Openings, by Robert B. Wormald, was equally negligent, as was 1876's Synopsis of the Chess Openings (2nd edition).

Henry Bird's The Chess Openings Considered, Critically and Practically in 1878 also overlooked the American invention.

In 1879, the gambit started to get notice in books, as it was covered in Theory of the Chess Openings by George Hatfeild Dingley Gossip.

The third edition of Cook's Synopsis of the Chess Openings was published in 1882, and it contained analysis as well.

Curiously, at least for those with a modern sense of "intellectual property" and copyright law, in 1884 an American publisher, J.W. Miller, reprinted Cook's Synopsis (originally printed in London) and added an "American Supplement" to create Cook's Synopsis of Chess Openings A Tabular Analysis by William Cook, With American Inventions in the Openings and Fresh Analysis since 1882, by J. W. Miller. Both parts of the book contained Jerome Gambit analysis.

Quoted the New Orleans Times-Democrat in a review

...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.

Miller was the publisher of the Cincinnati Journal Gazette, which had previously employed S.A. Charles to write their chess column, and who had been presenting opening analysis – something he continued to do for the Pittsburgh Telegraph, where his Jerome Gambit analysis appeared. (Skipping ahead, this explains Freeborough and Rankin's comment in their Chess Openings, Ancient and Modern, "Mr. S. A. Charles of Cincinnati, Ohio is named in the American Supplement as the chief analyst of this opening.") 


In 1888, the 4th edition of Cook's Synopsis of the Chess Openings contained Jerome Gambit analysis, with a note of thanks to "Mr. Freeborough of Hull, and Rev. C.E. Ranken, of Malven, for material assistance in the compilation of the tables, original variations in the openings, and help in the examination of proof"; so it is not surprising that Freeborough and Rankin's 1889 Chess Openings Ancient and Modern also covered the gambit.


Although the Jerome Gambit would appear in further editions of Chess Openings Ancient and Modern – 2nd, 1893; 3rd, 1896; 4th, 1910 – the closing of the 1880s seems to mark its high water mark in inclusion in general opening books.

The Jerome-Kennedy Gambits!?

Wow.

The other day I received an email from Yury V. Bukayev, in Russia, suggesting the description "Jerome-Kennedy Gambit in different opening systems."

It was similar to the encouragement that Bill Wall made a while back, that we begin to talk about the "Jerome-Kennedy Gambit"  when we look at 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+, in the manner of the "Smith-Morra Gambit".

Thanks, guys.

For now, I'd like to stick with using Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's name for the gambit, as I further research his efforts: the earliest being analysis published in the 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal, and the latest (that I have found) a correspondence game against readers in the Literary Digest in 1900.

As I noted in my afterward to the posts on the Literary Digest game [1, 2, 3, 4], Mr. Jerome has had a hard time holding on to "his" opening: sources such as Cook's Synopsis of the Chess Openings (1882), The American Supplement (1884), and Freeborough and Rankin's Chess Openings Ancient and Modern, (1889) were happy to keep the name "Jerome Gambit", but identified the chief analyst of the opening as "Mr. S. A. Charles of Cincinnati, Ohio." Sic transit gloria mundi.

Plus,

However...

If my Jerome Gambit article ever appears [insert laugh track] in Kaissiber, or if I do succeed in completing a book on the Jerome Gambit and it's relatives; then, I'd consider adding my name...

graphic by Geoff Chandler

Like a Needle in a Haystack (Part 1)

Researching the history of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) can be a bit like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Some resources are obvious places to look. Checking the past equivalents of today's Encyclopedia of Chess Opening and Modern Chess Openings is a good start (note: MCO, from its first edition in 1911, has not had coverage).

The Handbuch des Schachspiels, for example, has a Jerome Gambit game reference in its 8th edition (1916) but nothing in its 7th (1891) or 6th (1880) editions.

 Cook's Synopsis of the Chess Openings, 1st and 2nd editions (1874, 1876) have no coverage of the Jerome, while its 3rd edition (1882) does.

The first edition of Chess Openings Ancient and Modern (1889) has analysis. Steinitz' Modern Chess Instructor, Part II (1895), of course, has nothing.

There are many other 19th century chess books touching on the opening – and many, many more, not – and each must be checked for Jerome Gambit material.

Some past authors are apparently ambivalent about the line. G.H.D. Gossip's 1891 Theory of the Chess Openings has nothing on the Jerome Gambit, while his The Chess Player's Vade Mecum and Pocket Guide to the Openings, also published in 1891 does have analysis. Gossip out-does himself in his (with F.J. Lee) 1903 The Complete Chess Guide by writing one place that he has "eliminated obsolete openings" such as the Jerome Gambit, which he mentions by name, and then, later on in the book, he gives analysis of that same opening.

A Question of Theory and Practice

"Theory" and "practice" in the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) can be light-heartedly summed up as: the leading theory is not to practice the opening.

Yet, we persist.

Today's game highlights an area of theoretical controversy – that is to say there would probably be a controversy, if enough people played the Jerome Gambit to be aware of it.

In typical Jerome fashion, White loses the theoretical battle, wins the game handsomely, nonetheless – while the rest of the world refines the 18th (or 28th) move of Sicilian Najdorf theory...

mrjoker - annicks
2 12 blitz, ICC 2000
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6

Munoz and Munoz wrote in the August 1885 Brooklyn Chess Chronicle

In the American edition of Cook's Synopsis K-K3 [...Ke6] is given as the best defence, but Mr. Blackburne's ingenious counter sacrifice in the present skirmish would seem to show that the text is at least as good.

7.Qxe5 d6

This move is usually given a "!" because the offer of Black's Rook led to a smashing finish in Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1885; but, in truth, it deserves a "?!". The best move, instead, is 7...Qe7!, Whistler's Defense, when the Rook is then truly poisoned.

After White captures the Rook in the current game, his biggest "risk" is in allowing Black chances to draw.

8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.0-0 Again, the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle

He should have attempted to free his piece by P to Q4 [d4] before castling.

My database has three examples of the recommendation, although none were available at the time this game was played: 9.d4 Nf6 ( 9...Bb4+ 10.c3 Qxe4+ 11.Kf1 Qd3+ 12.Ke1 Bg4 13.Qxh7+ Kf8 14.f3 Re8+ 15.Kf2 Qe2+ 16.Kg3 Bf5 17.Bh6+ Nxh6 18.Qxh6+ Ke7 19.cxb4 Qxb2 20.Qg5+ Kd7 21.Nd2 Qxd4 22.Rhe1 Rh8 23.Qe7+ Kc6 24.Rec1+ Kb5 25.a4+ Kxb4 26.Ne4 Rh3+ 27.gxh3 Qh8 28.Nf2 g5 29.Qe1+ Kb3 30.Qe3+ Kb4 31.Qd2+ Kb3 32.Qd5+ Kb4 33.Qb5 checkmate, perrypawnpusher - bakker, FICS, 2007; 9...Qxe4+ 10.Be3 Bxd4 11.Qxh7+ Kf8 12.0-0 b6 13.Bh6+ Ke8 14.Qxg8+ Kd7 15.Qf7+ Kc6 16.Qf3 Qxf3 17.gxf3 Bh3 18.Rd1 Re8 19.c3 Bc5 20.b4 Bxf2+ 21.Kxf2 Re7 22.Nd2 a5 23.a3 Rf7 24.Ne4 Bg4 25.Ng5 Rf6 26.Rd4 Kd7 27.Rxg4 d5 28.Rd1 c5 29.Rxd5+ Kc6 30.Rd8 axb4 31.axb4 cxb4 32.Rc4+ Kb5 33.Rxb4+ Kc5 34.Ne4+ Kc6 35.Nxf6 Kc7 36.Rd7+ Kc6 37.Be3 b5 38.Rd5 g5 39.Rbxb5 Black resigned, mediax - yorkypuddn ChessWorld.com, 2008) 10.Nd2 Bxd4 11.Rf1 Bh3 12.Qxa8 Bxg2 13.Qxb7 Bxf1 14.Qb3+ Ke7 15.Qg3 Qxg3 16.hxg3 Bg2 17.f3 Bh3 Black resigned, dj222 - invincible1,GameKnot.com, 2003

9...Nf6 10.d4

I have not seen a lot of analysis of this move. The earliest entry in my database is from J. du Mont, in his 1942 200 Miniature Games of Chess, where he only notes that 10.d4 Bxd4 11.c3 would lead back to the Blackburne game. Certainly there must be earlier references.

Hindemburg Melao, Jr., in a 2003 internet article about the Amateur - Blackburne game, at superajedrez.com, mentioned that Idel Becker, in his Manual de xadrez (1974), attributed the move 10.d4 to Euwe, although he did not give the source. In any event, the author was dismissive

but in this case Black could simply follow with 10...Bh3 11.gxh3 (11.Qxa8 Qg4 –+ ) 11...Rxh8 12.dxc5 Qxh3 13.f3 g5 14.Rf2 g4 15.Bf4 (15.fxg4 Qxg4+ –+ )15...gxf3 16.Bg3 h5 17.Nd2 h4 18.Nxf3 Qg4 –+ ...

...The best option seems to be 10.Qd8 after 10...Bb6 11.e5 dxe5 12.Qd3 is not clearly how the Black people can be successful. For example 12...Bf5 13.Qb3+ (13.Qg3 Qxg3 14.hxg3 Bxc2µ) 13...Kg7 14.d4 Rd8 15.Nd2 (15.dxe5? Qxf2+! 16.Rxf2 Rd1#) 15...Qxd4 16.c3 (16.Nf3? Qxf2+!) 16...Qc5 with compensation for the material

10...Bxd4 11.Qd8

The game Glameyer - Piske, www.freechess.de, 2006, continued unsuccessfully 11.Be3 Ng4 12.Qxh7+ Qxh7 13.h3 Bxb2 White resigned.

In our game Black has walked by his chance for advantage, allowing White's Queen to both attack c7 and pin the Black Knight. Best for the second player at this point is 11...Bb6, although White's Queen can still be released with 12.e5 dxe5 13.Be3 (or 13.Qd3).

11...Bf5

Quickly losing the thread of the game.

12.Qxc7+ Bd7 13.Qxd6

White has his choice of ways to win now.

13...Bb6 14.e5 Ng4

This only looks dangerous.

15.Qxd7+ Kg8 16.h3 Bxf2+

An attempt to swindle: 17.Rxf2? Qxf2+ 18.Kh1 Qf1 checkmate!

17.Kh1 h5 18.Bf4 Black resigned

A Jerome Discovery (Afterword)

The chess columns from The Literary Digest (see Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5) are an exciting discovery for Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) fans on several counts.

First, it gives analysis of an important defense for Black that is not very well known, but is very effective. See "Jerome Gambit Tournament: Chapter X" for both its first appearance (Sorensen - X, Denmark, 1888) and my use of it in Sir Osis of the Liver - perrypawnpusher, chessworld.net, 2008.

It also is the first "live" account of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome that I have run across, since the 1884 mention of him by the chess columnist of the Pittsburgh Chronicle-Telegraph (see "100 Posts - What more to say?").

That year must have been a difficult one for A.W. Jerome, as 1884 saw the publication of Cook's Synopsis of Chess Openings A Tabular Analysis by William Cook, With American Inventions in the Openings and Fresh Analysis since 1882, by J. W. Miller.

Cook's Synopsis of Chess Openings, 3rd Edition, (surely the English language MCO/ECO of its time) had been published in 1882 and sold out quickly. The newer edition from Miller contained analysis of the Jerome Gambit in both Cook's reprinted work and in the American "supplement" – without mention of Jerome, the man, and including the notation

We give the fullest analysis of this American invention that has yet been in print. The author is Mr. S. A. Charles, Cincinnati, O.

S. A. Charles, a member of the Cincinnati Chess Club (as was J. W. Miller), had written a series of analytical articles years earlier for the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, Miller's newspaper, before going on to submit his work to the Pittsburgh Telegraph (later Chronicle-Telegraph).

In 1881, the Telegraph published Charles' "compilation" of what he could find of Jerome Gambit analysis, suplemented later by mostly incomplete correspondence games he had played with A. W. Jerome. This look at the Jerome Gambit was later that year picked up by Brentano's Chess Monthly, and the following year by Cook's Synopsis.

Although Charles mentioned Jerome when he wrote, by the time Cook got ahold of the analysis in 1882, Jerome's name, except for the Gambit's title, had been dropped. Then along came Miller in 1884, with the same "oversight".

This was all sealed with the 1889 publication of the first edition of Freeborough and Rankin's Chess Openings Ancient and Modern, which explained

Mr. S. A. Charles of Cincinnati, Ohio is named in the American Supplement as the chief analyst of this opening.

The Literary Digest's chess columns suggest that there might be other magazines out there with Jerome Gambit games and analysis by the gambit's inventor, from the mid-1880s to 1900.

Short Controversy

I was looking through Eduard Gufeld and Nikolai Kalienchenko's Chess Strategy (Batsford, 2003) when I ran across an interesting section on "Gambit Systems and How to Evaluate Them."

Openings in which material is sacrificed for the sake of dominating the centre and mobilizing the pieces quickly are called gambit systems. The material sacrificed is usually one or two pawns, or a minor piece for one or two pawns. Sometimes a rook is given up for a knight or bishop; occasionally even a whole rook is sacrificed. How do we judge whether the positional gains compensate for the sacrificed material? Sometimes we can tell from our first glance at the position. But more often the latent possibilities come to light only as a result of lengthy analysis and accumulated practical experience.

If a large quantity of material is sacrificed (two pawns, a piece for a pawn, etc.), then once the gambit becomes generally known, several different authors will give analyses attempting to prove conclusively whether the attack can be repelled while the material is retained. Sometimes the controversy over the sacrifice will last for many years...

When it comes to the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) the "controversy" did not last very long.

The Jerome first appeared in print in the April 1874 edition of the Dubuque Chess Journal. This was likely too late for analysis of the gambit to be included in the 1st edition of Cook's Synopsis of the Chess Openings, Andres Clemente Vazquez's 1st edition of Analisis del juego de ajedrez, the 2nd edition of Longman's Chess Openings, or the 4th edition of Bilguer's Handbuch des Schachspiels -- all which came out the same year.

The following year, the 2nd edition of Wormald's Chess Openings also had nothing on the Jerome Gambit; and in 1876 the 2nd edition of Cook's Synopsis of the Chess Openings was equally neglectful.

However, 1877 saw the publication of a seminal article on the Jerome Gambit by Lieut. Sorensen in his "Chess for Beginners" column in the May issue of Nordisk Skaktidende (see "Bashi-Bazouk Attack") which was translated and reprinted around the world.

Sorensen's conclusion

Naturally we immediately remark that it is unsound, and that Black must obtain the advantage; but the attack is pretty sharp, and Black must take exact care, if he does not wish to go quickly to the dogs. A little analysis of it will, therefore, be highly instructive, not to say necessary, for less practised players, and will be in its right place in our Theory, especially since it is not found in any handbook.

Flaws (Part II)

Amateur - Blackburne
London, 1885
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6

"Not to be outdone in generosity," Blackburne added in his 1899 collection Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess.

In the American edition of Cook's Synopsis [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, 1884, edited by J.W. Miller] ...Ke6 is given as the best defence, but Mr. Blackburne's ingenious counter sacrifice in the present skirmish would seem to show that the text is at least as good -- Brooklyn Chess Cronicle, August 15, 1885 [Here and below, the annotation has been changed from descriptive to algebraic notation.]

Not considered in Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's earliest analysis, 6...g6 was seen at least as early as in the 5th game of the second match between Mexican Champion Andres Clemente Vazquez and American William Harrington, Mexico 1876 (Vazquez won the match 12-3-1): 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 Nf6 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qe3 Re8 10.d3 Ng4 11.Qf3+ Kg7 12.0-0 Rf8 13.Qg3 Qf6 14.h3 Ne5 15.Nc3 c6 16.Bg5 Qe6 17.Qh4 Nf7 18.f4 h6 19.f5 hxg5 20.fxe6 gxh4 21.Rxf7+ Rxf7 22.exf7 Kxf7 23.Rf1+ Kg7 24.e5 d5 25.Ne2 b5 26.Nd4 Bd7 27.Rf6 Rc8 28.Rd6 Be8 29.Kf2 Kf7 30.Kf3 c5 31.Ne2 d4 32.Kg4 Rc6 33.Kxh4 Rxd6 34.exd6 Kf6 35.Ng3 Bc6 36.Ne4+ Bxe4 37.dxe4 a5 38.e5+ Ke6 39.Kg3 1-0

7.Qxe5 d6

Despite the accolades awarded to this game, Black has a stronger counter-attack here, starting with 7...Qe7! as Jerome discovered to his dismay in the games of his correspondence match with Lt. G. N. Whistler, secretary of the Lexington, Kentucky Chess Club, in 1876.

8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.0-0

"He should have attempted to free his piece by d4 before castling," was the opinion of the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle, with White then having an edge.

9....Nf6 10.c3

"The only hope he had was 10.Qd8, thus preventing the deadly move of ...Ng4" -- Brooklyn Chess Chronicle.

Masterly analysis by Geoff Chandler and Todor Dimitrov showed that in the resulting play, the game would be drawn.

10.... Ng4 11.h3 Bxf2+ 12.Kh1 Bf5 13.Qxa8 Qxh3+ 14.gxh3 Bxe4 mate