Showing posts with label Gambits Accepted. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gambits Accepted. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Mr. Fletcher's Gambits


I recently stopped by the website of the Bedford Chess Club, where I noted an interesting entry concerning "Mr. Fletcher's gambits", referring to  L. Elliot Fletcher's delightful book, Gambits Accepted, A Survey of Opening Sacrifices (1954).

The Bedford CC site has examples of 84 gambits that Fletcher covered, as well as 11 gambits that he had missed.

Interestingly enough, the site does not give the Jerome Gambit game that Fletcher provided, but includes the significant Sorensen - X, Denmark, 1888 (1-0, 27).
Fletcher quotes a club game for the Jerome; and none of the surviving games by Jerome himself were won by White. But apparently the Danish player and problemist Soren Sorensen showed an interest in the gambit. 
It is relevant to point out to Readers Sorensen's early article on the Jerome Gambit that was translated into a number of languages and was very influential in popularizing the opening.

I quickly emailed the Club secretary 
Dear Mr. Gill, 
I was delighted to come across your post on "Mr. Fletcher's gambits". A pleasant book I recall fondly, and hope your Club members appreciate as well. 
My own interest in gambits focuses on the Jerome Gambit, which I have researched for 15 years and maintain a blog about (jeromegambit.blogspot.com). I was impressed that you substituted the Sorensen game for Mr. Fletcher's anonymous club game. 
As a small, niggling point, I wanted to mention that I have 7 Jerome Gambit wins by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome in my database (which also includes 9 losses, 2 draws and 6 incomplete games). They are out there, they just required some digging. 
By inference I conclude that you did not accept Eric Schiller's erronious contention in his "Unorthodox Chess Openings" (1998) that the famous Blackburne win (London, 1880) was against Jerome himself; just so. 
Best wishes, 
Rick Kennedy
I soon learned that I had contacted the wrong person. Still, it was great to hear back from Bedford 
Good evening. 
I have to own up to being the perpetrator of the games collection on the Bedford club site based on Elliott Fletcher's book. Given that since I discovered the book in my 'teens (half a century ago) I have had a predilection for dodgy gambits, I guess I should share your view of Fletcher's book as "delightful". Revisiting the book I did find his uncritical attitude to a lot of complete trash a bit annoying and at times his analysis is seriously ropey (the irritation only vents itself openly, I think, in the last note to game 21). 
I think I probably found the Sorensen game courtesy of your blog and apologise for the fact that I didn't look hard enough to find the White wins by Jerome. I am asking the webmaster to amend the noted to Sorensen-NN on the website accordingly. 
I didn't know that friend Schiller was claiming that Blackburne's victim was Jerome himself. Had it been, I think Blackburne might have mentioned the fact in his own collection of his best games; and the fact that Tim Harding finds no evidence for it is pretty strong negative evidence as far as I am concerned. I accept that Schiller is a far stronger player than I will ever be, but (like you, I think) I don't rate him as an author. 
Regards,
Neil Hickman

It was easy to finish up with
Dear Mr. Hickman, 
I had a pleasant, good-natured chuckle at your comment that you found Fletcher's "uncritical attitude to a lot of complete trash a bit annoying" and that "at times his analysis is seriously ropey". Well put - and I agree. Nobody is likely to mistake "Gambits Accepted" for, say, Tartakower and Du Mont's "500 Master Games of Chess". Gary Kasparov's comment that "chess is not skittles" holds true for his portion of the chess world... 
Still, I am delighted at an actual, published  look (before the internet!) at amateur games by an amateur player. "Gambits Accepted" reminds me a bit of Rainer Schlenker's "Randspringer" - with weaker analysis, of course. 
I want to apologize for my snarky comment relating to Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's wins with his gambit. Finding them is not so easy, unless you're a bit of a fanatic (with too much time on his hands) like myself. 
I agree, if AWJ had crossed the pond to have his head handed to him by Blackburne in London in that famous Jerome Gambit game, Dr. Harding would have uncovered some trace of it. Certainly, over here, I have found no trace that the gambiteer ever even left the US. 
Thank you for your time. 
Best wishes,Rick 

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Traps and Zaps


It's always fun to see where the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) turns up. Most recently, it was in IM Gary Lane's latest book (see "The extraordinary and forgotten Jerome Gambit"), but 20 years ago it was in Bruce Pandolfini's Chess Openings: Traps and Zaps.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 d6

A defense made famous by Joseph Henry Blackburne (see "Nobody expects the Jerome Gambit!" and "Flaws (Part II)") and most recently explored on this blog in "Jerome Gambit: Drilling Down" (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10).

8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.d4


An improvement suggested by Munoz and Munoz in the August 1885 Brooklyn Chess Chronicle, repeated by Fletcher in Gambits Accepted (1954) and Druke in the November 1987 Gambit Revue, to give some early citations. (Actually, the move is rarely mentioned, but see "A Closer Look (Part V)".)

9...Nf6

Druke gave this move as an alternative to Fletcher's 9...Qxe4+ 10.Be3, saying that it came from analysis by Fritz 5. Of course, the two lines can transpose; in either case, as Hindemburg Melao, Jr., wrote in an intenet article (2003) on Amateur - Blackburne, London 1885 (not currently available), White's proper response is Nd2.

10.dxc5


Pandolfini appears to be the first to explore this move, and he uses it in a bit of a morality tale (after a few more moves) about grabbing material in his Chess Openings Traps and Zaps.


10...Qxe4+ 11.Be3 Qxg2 12.Rf1




Scenario: Don't be misled by White's extra Rook. It's a meaningless ornament. White is in serious trouble. His King is exposed and his cornered Queen is in danger of being trapped. The cruncher is 12...Bh3 which wins White's Queen by discovery form the a8-Rook. If White tries to save the Queen by capturing the Rook, 13.Qxa8 then 13...Qxf1+ 14.Kd2 Ne4 is mate.

Interpretation:
White began with a very aggressive, sacrificial line of play which, because of Black's cavalier pawn move (6...g6), led to the gain of material. The price White had to pay was the removal of his Queen from the center of the board. Without his Queen being available for defense, White has to play carefully, and every move becomes critical. Instead of his h1-Rook, he should be more concerned with the potential trap of his Queen. The correct response to 11...Qxg2 is 12.Nc3 which later prevents Black's Knight from moving to e4 and giving mate. After 12...Qxh1+ 13.Kd2 Qxa1?(13...Qxh2 keeps Black's Queen in play), White turns the tables with 14.Bd4!. Black's extra Rook then means little in the face of White's strong counterattack.



Melao's analysis 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+? Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 (!!?) 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.d4 Nf6! ( 9...Qxe4+ 10.Be3 Nf6 11.Nd2 Qxg2 [11...Qxc2 12.0-0+-] 12.0-0-0+-) 10.Nd2!
a)10.dxc5 Qxe4+ 11.Be3 (11.Kd1 Bg4+ -+; 11.Kf1 Bh3 12.Qxa8 Bxg2+ 13.Kg1 Bh3 -+) 11...Qxg2 12.Rf1 Bh3 -+;
b)10.Be3 Bxd4! 11.Bxd4 Qxe4+ 12.Kd2 (12.Be3 Qxg2 -+) 12...Qxd4+ 13.Kc1 Qc5 14.b4 (14.Na3 b5 15.Re1 Bb7 -+) 14...Qc4 15.c3 (15.Na3 Qf4+ 16.Kb1 Qxb4+ -+) 15...b5 -+;
c)10.e5 dxe5! 11.0-0! Bd6! (11...Bxd4 12.Nd2 e4! 13.Qd8 Be5 14.g3 [14.f4 Bf5! 15.Qxa8 Bd4+ 16.Kh1 Ng4 17.h3 Qg3 18.hxg4 Qh4#] 14...Qh3 [14...Qg4 15.Nc4] 15.Nxe4! Qxf1+ [15...Nxe4 16.Qd5+] 16.Kxf1 Bh3+ 17.Ke1 Rxd8 18.Ng5+ Kg7 19.Nxh3 unclear) 12.f4 (12.Nd2 e4 13.g3 [13.f4 b6 -+] 13...Qh3 14.f3 e3 15.Ne4 Nxe4! 16.fxe4+ Qxf1+! 17.Kxf1 Bh3+ 18.Ke2 Rxh8 -+) 12...e4! 13.g3 Qh5 14.f5 gxf5 15.Bf4 Bxf4 16.Rxf4 [16.gxf4 e3 -+] 16...Qd1+ 17.Kg2 [17.Rf1 Qxd4+ 18.Kg2 f4 -+] 17...e3! 18.Qd8 Bd7! [18...e2! 19.Qxc7+ Kg6 20.Nc3! e1N+ 21.Kh1 Qxa1 22.Rf1! Be6 23.g4! fxg4 (23...Nxg4 24.d5) 24.h4! (24.Qe5 Nf3)] 19.Qxc7 (19.Qxa8 Bc6+ 20.Kh3 Qh5+ 21.Rh4 Bg2+! 22.Kxg2 Qe2+ 23.Kg1 [23.Kh3 Qf1#] 23...Qf2+ 24.Kh1 Qf1#) 19...Rc8 20.Qxb7 Rxc2+ 21.Kh3 Qh5+ 22.Rh4 Qe2 23.Qh1 f4+ 24.g4 Bxg4+ 25.Rxg4 Qxg4#;
10...Bxd4 11.0-0! (11.g3 Qh5 12.Qd8 Bxf2+! 13.Kxf2 Qc5+;11.Rf1 b5 [11...Bh3! 12.Qxa8 Bxg2 13.Qxb7! Bxf1 14.Qb3+! d5 15.Qg3] 12.Qd8 Bb6 13.e5 dxe5 14.Qd3 Qxh2 [14...e4 15.Qg3 +/=] 15.Qf3 Rb8 16.Ne4 Qh4 17.Nxf6 Qxf6 18.Qxf6+ Kxf6 unclear)