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?

Advice to Defenders of the Jerome Gambit: Don't Slow Down

When I ran in school, my teacher said not to stop at the finish line, but to aim for a spot well beyond there. He said that would keep me moving as fast as possible while I was racing. Otherwise, I would slow down at the end, and this would be to the benefit of my opponents.

The same advice can be given to those who defend against the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+): When you realize that you have received a piece or two in a "refuted" opening, keep "running" - keep competing - and do not slow down or relax your attention too soon.

Chessfriend Vlastamil Fejfar, of the Czech Republic (see "A Fierce Jerome Gambit Battle", shares a recent online game where his opponent ignored this advice. The result was as expected.

vlastous - rubicon
ChessManiac.com, 2016

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 Qf6 

Vlasta and Readers have seen this move before, as I noted in an earlier post

A line seen as early as in a note in G.H.D. Gossip's 1891 The Chess Player's Vade Mecum and Pocket Guide to the Openings with all the latest theoretical discoveries and traps in the openings revealed, and more recently supported by FM Eric Schiller in his books on unorthodox openings. (It is fun to read MrJoker's comments about some of Schiller's analysis - see "Joker's Wild" 1, 2and Conclusion.) 

I would like to point out that Schiller in his Unorthodox Chess Openings (1998) wrongly identified Henry Joseph Blackburne's opponent in his classic destruction of the Jerome Gambit as Alonzo Wheeler Jerome, himself. Fifteen years of research into the Jerome Gambit has not turned up any evidence that AWJ ever travelled to London, let alone was able to play HJB at Simpson's Divan. (Certainly Dr. Tim Harding would have included this tidbit, were it not merely a figment of Schiller's imagination, in his exhaustive Joseph Henry Blackburne A Chess Biography.)

In any event, Black has every reason to feel comfortable with his position, as he has played a "refutation" that both time and reference books have presented as sufficient.

8.Rf1 g6 9.Qh3+ Kf7 

But - Black relaxes too soon, as Vlasta immediately demonstrates. Best was the alternative 9...Ke7.

10.fxe5 Qxf1+ 11.Kxf1 d5 12.Qc3 b6 13.d4 Black resigned

White's material advantage is decisive. 

Correspondence Play (Part 3)

Recently, I received an email from Vlastimil Fejfar, of the Czech Republic, who shared three of his Jerome Gambit correspondence games.

Fejfar, Vlastimil - Vins
corr Czech Republic, 2015

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 Qf6

 

A line seen as early as in a note in G.H.D. Gossip's 1891 The Chess Player's Vade Mecum and Pocket Guide to the Openings with all the latest theoretical discoveries and traps in the openings revealed, and more recently supported by FM Eric Schiller in his books on unorthodox openings. (It is fun to read MrJoker's comments about some of Schiller's analysis - see "Joker's Wild" 1, 2 and Conclusion.) 

8.Rf1 Nc6

This move is cold-blooded, but playable. Black simply returns a piece.

9.Qxc5 d6 10.Qh5 Bd7 11.Nc3 Be8 12.Qh3+ Kf7 13.d3 Nge7 14.Be3 h6 15.O-O-O Rf8 16.g4 Kg8

Black castles-by-hand just in time.

White's attack (and two extra pawns) is good compensation for his sacrificed piece.

17.g5 hxg5

Stronger for the defense was 17...Qf7.

18.fxg5 Qg6 19.Rxf8+ Kxf8 20.Qh8+ Ng8 21.Rf1+ Bf7 22.Nd5 Nce7 

Black covers up as much as possible, but he overlooks something. His best chance was 22...Qe6.

23.Nf4 Black resigned

It is Black's Queen, not his King, who is checkmated!

The Best Jerome Gambit Game of the Year (Part 2)

We continue from the previous post, considering a game that has lept to the top of the heap for Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) games this year.

As indicated, Readers are encouraged to dispute my assessment by sending in other great Jerome Gambit games...

Wall, Bill - Guest871838
PlayChess.com, 2014

8.Qxh8 

Of the offer of the Rook with 7...d6, Blackburne wrote in Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess (1899), "Not to be outdone in generosity." The cost to White of taking the Rook is to have his Queen locked out of the action, at a time when Black's pieces begin to swarm the Kingside.

Blackburne's book also contained the following: "NOTE. I used to call this the Kentucky opening. For a while after its introduction it was greatly favoured by certain players, but they soon grew tired of it."

A resonable explanation of the reference to the "Kentucky opening" has appeared previously in this blog (see "A New Abrahams Jerome Gambit" for a summary). 

As for the "certain players" who "greatly favoured" the Jerome Gambit, it is difficult to identify them by games played, as I have discovered the games of only a dozen or so players (other than Jerome, himself) who played the opening between when it was introduced in 1874 and the publication of Blackburne's book in 1899. Andres Clemente Vazquez, of Mexico, has four games in The Database, while E.B. Lowe, of Great Britain, has three.

Blackburne might well have been referring to authors who included analysis of the Jerome Gambit in their opening books, in which case George H.D. Gossip, of Theory of the Chess Openings (1879) and The Chess Player's Vade Mecum (1891) ; William Cook, of Synopsis of Chess Openings (1882, 1888); E. Freeborough and C. E. Rankin of  Chess Openings Ancient and Modern (1889, 1893, 1896);and Mortimer of The Chess Player's Pocket book And Manual of the Openings (1888 - 1906); are all likely suspects. Certainly, more research is still needed.

8...Qh4

This is Blackburne's counter attack, threatening 9...Qxf2+ 10.Kd1 Bg4 mate.

9.O-O

Munoz and Munoz, in their notes to Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1885, in the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle, suggested "He should have attempted to free his pieces by P to Q4 [d4] before castling." 

The move 9.d4 received a good look in "Updating the Jerome Gambit (Part 1)", including references to L. Elliot Fletcher’s energetic Gambit’s Accepted (1954), an internet article on Amateur - Blackburne (not currently available) by Brazil's Hindemburg Melao, and some musings and analysis from Bruce Pandolfini, in his 1989 Chess Openings: Traps & Zaps !

9...Nf6

The door closes on White's Queen.

10.Qd8

Melao mentioned that Idel Becker, in his Manual de xadrez (1974), attributed the move 10.d4 to Euwe (source not mentioned). Melao was skeptical about the move, giving Black’s counter-attack 10…Bh3 11.gxh3 Rxh8 12.dxc4 Qxh3 13.f3 g5 14.Rf2 g4 15. Bf4 gxf3 16.Bg3 h5 17.Nd2 h4 18.Nf3 Qg4 with advantage for Black. He preferred 10.Qd8 - another suggestion (without further analysis) by Munoz and Munoz in the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle, August 1885, who opined "The only hope he had was 10.Q to Q8 [10.Qd8], thus preventing the deadly  move of Kt to Kt5 [...Ng4]."

Bill Wall mentioned that 10.d3 loses to 10...Bh3 11.Qxa8 Qg4 12.g3 Qf3 as was brutally demonstrated in RevvedUp - Hiarcs 8, 2 12 blitz, 2006 (0-1, 12).

10...Bd7

Most consistent for Black is 10...Bb6, covering the c7 pawn and enforcing the embargo on the Queen. White should return a pawn to free Her Majesty with 11.e5 dxe5 12.Qd3 as in Wall,Bill - Foo,Nathan, Palm Bay, FL, 2010 (1-0, 33). 

[to be continued]

A Propos the Blackburne Shilling Gambit

The opening 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4!? has been named the Blackburne Shilling Gambit, even though examples of Joseph Henry Blackburne playing the line have yet to turn up. Supposedly he would play off-hand games with amateurs for a shilling's stake, and such a trappy line might well speed up the master's collections.

Related to the latter, I enjoy sharing the following, from "The Chess Player" column of Yenowine's News for October 13, 1889. 

Our Milwaukee Chessist Abroad

J. L Garner, who is back from a five months' tour over Continental Europe, has been devoting his spare hours since his return to dealing out bits of precious chess gossip pertaining to his adventures among the chess lions of the Old World. All in all, he managed to win considerably more than half the games. In Paris he played two with Taubenhaus, drawing one. All the big guns were in London during his stay there, and the Milwaukeean met Blackburne, Bird, Mackenzie, Muller, Gossip and a lot of other stars at Simpson's Divan daily. He made even scores with Gossip, winning one, losing one and drawing one. He regards Gossip as below either Elliott or Treichler as a chess player. With Lee, a very strong player ,who beat both Burn and Blackburne, at the Bradford tournament, Garner had a peculiar experience. In one game he mated Lee on the move, and thinking he would not object, offered to let him take the move back. He was fooled in the man, however; he was willing enough to let the game count, and coolly pocketed the shilling which the professionals charge for a "lesson." As a rule, the chess professionals in London and Paris are a dilapidated lot of tramps, with coat sleeves out at elbows, toes projecting from their boots, hats badly caved in and a ghoulish eagerness to fasten upon some wandering amateur, and bleed him at the rate of a shilling a game...

Jerome Gambit: Early Opening Tomes (Part 2)

In 1891, reflecting the chess world's ambivalence about the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+), G.H.D. Gossip's Chess Player's Vade Mecum and Pocket Guide to the Openings Gossip had analysis of the Jerome, while his Theory of Chess Openings did not. The Handbuch was silent as well.

By 1900 a reader could still find references, but they might be delegated to instruction for novices. Chess Openings for Beginners, by Edward Ernest Cunnington, for example, exhausts itself with "Here we may mention, with a caution, as being quite unsound, the Jerome Gambit." The following year, Cunnington's The Modern Chess Primer mentions the first 6 moves of the named gambit.

In 1902, William Cook's (of Synopsis) The Chess Player's Compendium had no mention of the Jerome Gambit. For that matter, neither did his 1906 The Evolution of the Chess Openings.

Perhaps the 1904 The Complete Chess Guide, by G.H.D Gossip F.J. Lee, showed the Jerome Gambit's hanger-on status best. At the start of the book the authors proclaim

We have therefore eliminated obsolete openings and confined ourselves merely to a brief examination of a dozen of the leading debuts...; omitting those openings in which the defense is declared by the most competent theorists to be weak or inferior, as for example Philidor's and Petroff's Defenses to the Kings Knight's opening; the Sicilian; the Greco Counter Gambit; Center Counter Gambit; Fianchettoes, Blackwar [sic] and Jerome Gambit, etc.

HOWEVER, Part III of the book, "Guide to the Openings," contained Jerome Gambit analysis!

It was left up to the March 1906 edition of Lasker's Chess Magazine to pronounce
"Our Question Box"

Ichabodf: - No; the Jerome gambit is not named after St. Jerome. His penances, if he did any, were in atonement of rather minor transgressions compared with the gambit.

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.

Travelling a Dangerous Path

The Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) can be a dangerous route for the enterprising and plucky gambiteer to follow. Theoretically, each of its paths leads to a dead end.

As a practical matter, however, some travel it regularly. The games of modern Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member Pete Banks ("blackburne") will be used to explore further a byway in the line given in "An International Master Refutes the Jerome Gambit".

White doesn't win every time, but play over the games, and enjoy his unflagging, fighting spirit!

blackburne - macsek
ChessWorld, 2004

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6

7.f4 Qf6

This is an interesting alternative to 7...d6 – the move recommended by many, including IM Gary Lane in his The Greatest Ever Chess Tricks and Traps, to put the kabosh on the Jerome Gambit, by returning a piece directly.

The text move was seen as early as in a note in G.H.D. Gossip's 1891 The Chess Player's Vade Mecum and Pocket Guide to the Openings with all the latest theoretical discoveries and traps in the openings revealed. Lee and Gossip's The Complete Chess Guide (1903, 1905, 1907, 1910) carried the same analysis.

It has been more recently revived by FM Eric Schiller, who recommended it in his Unorthodox Chess Openings (1998, 2002), Gambit Chess Openings (2002) and (with John Watson) Survive and Beat Annoying Chess Openings (2003).

8.Qxe5+

This was blackburne's first response to the move, but there are other choices.
Somewhat surprisingly, Gossip gave 8.fxe5 as White's move in his analysis, followed by 8...Qxe5. In this manner, blackburne - Piratepaul, Chessworld, 2008 continued: 9.Qf5+ Qxf5 10.exf5+ Kxf5 11.Rf1+ Kg6 12.Rf8 Bxf8 13.d4 d5 14.Nc3 Bb4 15.Bd2 Bxc3 16.Bxc3 Nf6 17.0-0-0 a5 18.Re1 Ne4 19.Rf1 h6 20.g4 Bxg4 21.Rg1 Kh5 22.Be1 g5 23.c3 Be2 24.Kc2 a4 25.Rg2 Bc4 White resigned – hardly a fair test of the line, as the first player was clearly having a bad game; but, still, ominous.

More to be expected after 8.fxe5 is 8...Qf2+ after which blackburne had a couple of Lord of the Rings-style adventures: 9.Kd1 Qxg2 10.Qf5+ Ke7 11.Rf1 Nh6 12.Qf3 (after 12.Qf4 b6 13.Nc3 d6 14.exd6+ Bxd6 15.Nd5+ Ke8 16.Nf6+ Kd8 17.e5 Bg4+ 18.Nxg4 Black lost on time, blackburne - manago, Chessworld, 2008) 12...Qxf3+ 13.Rxf3 d5 14.Rf4 Bg4+ 15.Ke1 Raf8 16.Rxf8 Rxf8 17.d3 Bf2+ 18.Kd2 d4 19.c3 Be3+ 20.Kc2 Rf2+ 21.Nd2 Bxd2 22.Bxd2 dxc3 23.bxc3 Nf7 24.Rg1 Nxe5 25.h3 Nf3 26.Rxg4 Rxd2+ 27.Kb3 Rxd3 28.Rxg7+ Kf6 29.Rxc7 Nd4+ 30.Kc4 Rd1 31.Rxb7 Ne2 32.Rxa7 Ra1 33.Kb3 Rc1 34.Rc7 h5 35.c4 Nd4+ 36.Ka4 Ke5 37.Rc5+ Kxe4 38.Rxh5 Rxc4+ 39.Ka5 Nc6+ 40.Kb5 Rc2 41.a4 Nd4+ 42.Kb4 Ra2 43.Rg5 Nc6+ 44.Kc5 Ne5 45.Kb5 Nf3 46.Rg4+ Kf5 47.a5 Ne5 48.Rg8 Rb2+ 49.Ka6 Nc4 50.Rg4 Ne3 51.Ra4 Nd1 52.Ka7 Nc3 53.Ra1 Rh2 54.a6 Rxh3 55.Kb7 Nb5 56.Ra5 Rb3 57.a7 Ke6 58.a8Q Nd6+ 59.Kc6 Rc3+ 60.Rc5 Rxc5+ 61.Kxc5 Ke5 62.Qd5+ Black resigned, blackburne - AAlekhine Chessworld, 2007.

Another adventure followed 8.Qh3+, as blackburne - Kemik, Chessworld, 2005 continued 8...Ke7 9.fxe5 Qxe5 10.d3 d5 11.Qh4+ Nf6 12.Nc3 c6 13.Bf4 Qh5 14.Bg5 Qxh4+ 15.Bxh4 Bb4 16.0-0-0 dxe4 17.Nxe4 Bg4 19.Rf4 Ba5 20.Rxg4 Rg8 21.Rf1 h6 22.Nxf6 gxf6 23.Bxf6+ Ke6 24.Re4+ Kd6 25.Be7+ Kc7 26.g3 Rae8 27.Rf7 Kb6 28.b4 Bxb4 29.Rxb4+ Ka6 30.Bd6 b6 31.Ra4+ Kb5 32.Rfxa7 c5 33.Bf4 h5 34.c4+ Kc6 35.Rc7 checkmate

Currently 8.Rf1 is seen as the strongest move for White; but it was not considered by Gossip, Lee or Schiller; nor played by Blackburne.

8...Qxe5 9.fxe5 Kxe5

According to Schiller, Black's King is "perfectly safe in the center" in this interesting endgame position, but most players will have a "better" game against the Jerome Gambit – right up to the point where they resign.

10.Nc3 Nf6 11.d3 d5
11...Bd4 is not a "bad" alternative, but iltimately failed against White's active play in blackburne - drewbear, chessworld, 2008: 12.Rf1 Ke6 13.Nb5 Bb6 14.Bf4 d6 15.0-0-0 a6 16.Nc3 Bd7 17.Rf3 Rhf8 18.Rdf1 Ng4 19.h3 g5 20.Bxg5 Rxf3 21.Rxf3 Ne5 22.Rf6+ Ke7 23.Nd5+ Ke8 24.Rh6 Kf7 25.Nf6 Be8 26.Nxh7 Kg7 27.Nf6 Bg6 28.Nd5 Rf8 29.Ne7 Nf7 30.Rxg6+ Kh7 31.Bf6 Ne5 32.Rg7+ Kh6 33.Nf5+ Kh5 34.g4+ Black resigned

12.Rf1 Ke6 13.Bg5 Bb4 14.exd5+ [14.Bxf6 first was stronger] Nxd5 15.0-0-0 Nxc3 16.bxc3 Bxc3 17.Bd2 Bf6 18.Rde1+ Kd7 19.Re4 b6 20.g3 Bb7 21.Re2 Rae8 22.Rfe1 Rxe2 23.Rxe2 Re8 24.Rxe8 Kxe8 25.Bf4 Kd7 26.Kd2 Bd5 27.c4 Be6 28.Kc2 g5 29.Be3 c5 30.Bd2 Bd4 31.Be1 Bh3 32.Bd2 h6 33.Be1 Bg1 34.a4 Bxh2 35.Bf2 Ke6 36.d4 cxd4 37.Kd3 h5 38.Kxd4 Bf5 39.c5 Bc2 40.cxb6 axb6 41.Kc4 Bxa4 42.Kb4 b5 43.Be1 Kf5 44.Kc3 Kg4 White resigned

Don't get me started...

About five years ago, someone in the rec.games.chess.misc newsgroup asked about the chess player Isidor Gunsberg, noting

chessmetrics.com, sometimes interesting to check for historical purposes, rates Gunsberg as #3 in the world for 1890 and 1891 based on his performances.

He had some pretty nice tournament results, such as

- 1st place DSB Kongress in 1885, ahead of players like Blackburne, Tarrasch, Mackenzie, and Bird

- 2nd place USA Congress in 1889, behind the tied Miksa Weiss and Tchigorin, and ahead of Burn, Blackburne, Max Judd (probably the best player in the USA at that time), Bird, Showalter

- Tied 2nd place London 1900, and lone 2nd place at London 1904

His match results were also notable, such as:

- Victory over Blackburne in 1887 (7/12 to 5/12)

- Drawing with the peak-form Tchigorin in 1890! (11.5/23) This just after Tchigorin`s World Championship match

- Losing the 3rd FIDE-recognised World Championship match to Steinitz in 1890, by 2 games (8.5/19)

Of course,I had to ask if anyone knew if Gunsberg, an openings explorer in his own right, had ever played the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+).

After receiving the obligatory put-down that the opening was "considered unsound by all reputable theoreticians" I started my typical yammering on my favorite opening in response.

George,

Thank you for your comments and the information on the Jerome Gambit! It's a topic I can really get lost in..

> The Jerome Gambit, considered unsound by all reputable theoreticians,

G.H.D. Gossip, in his "Theory of the Chess Openings," 2nd ed, 1879, wrote "the Gambit, which although unsound, affords some highly instructive analysis for less practised players."

William Cook, in his "Synopsis of the Chess Openings," 3rd ed, 1882, wrote that "the Jerome Gambit, which, although unsound, affords some highly instructive analysis."

The "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" edited by J.W. Miller, noted "The 'Jerome Gambit,' 4.BxPch, involves an unsound sacrifice; but it is not an attack to be trifled with. The defense requires study, and is somewhat difficult."

(One book reviewer suggested that the offense required study, too; and that the game was even more difficult for White than for Black!)

Of course, Raymond Keene had the (almost) last word in his "The Complete Book of Gambits" 1992 - "This is totally unsound and should never be tried!"

> first appeared in the American Chess Journal in 1876, according to The Oxford Companion to Chess.

To the best of my knowledge, the first appearance of the Jerome Gambit was in the Dubuque Chess Journal for April 1874, in a small article titled "New Chess Opening." (Yes, I've shared this information with Mr. Whyld, and he has been quite pleasant and supportive in my Jerome Gambit researches.)

>It was recommended by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome of Paxton,Illinois. Jerome was born on 8 March 1834 in Four Mile Point, New York, and died on 22 March 1902 in Springfield, Illinois. His obituary appeared in the 23 March 1902 edition of the Illinois State Journal - page 6, column 3.

I have a copy of the obituary - it is short, about a half-dozen sentences. In light of such a paltry send-off, I can understand why some people would want to write their own death notices.

> The Jerome Gambit (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. Bxf7+?) cannot be recommended for serious chess since Black gains the advantage after 4...Kxf7 5. > Nxe5+ Nxe5 6. Qh5+ Kf8 7. Qxe5 d6.

There are several refutations of the Jerome Gambit.

The 6...Kf8 line was first given by Jerome, himself, in the July 1874 Dubuque Chess Journal. It has shown up in such fine places as Harding's "Counter Gambits" 1974, ECO "C" 1st ed, 1974, "Batsford Chess Openings," 1st ed, 1982 and "Enciclopedia Dei Gambietti," 1998. Sorensen, in his May 1877 article in Nordisk Skaktidende, "Chess Theory for Beginners," (subsequently translated in Chess Players' Chronicle of August of the same year) recommended 5...Kf8. Of course, 6...Ke3 is also playable.

Jerome, himself, kept things in perspective. The Pittsburg Telegraph, June 8, 1881, wrote "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."

Others joined in the jocularity. The Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, in its May 7, 1879 review of Gossip's "Theory" noted "...The Jerome Gambit, which high-toned players sometimes affect to despise because it is radically unsound finds a place, and to this it is certainly entitled. As this opening is not in any Manual, to our knowledge, we transfer it to our columns, with the exception of a few minor variations, and we believe our readers will thank us for so doing."

In a March 13, 1880 review of the 6th ed of the Handbuch, the same author" complained" again: "We are somewhat disappointed that the 'Thorold Variation' of the 'Allgaier Gambit' should be dismissed with only a casual note in the appendix, and that the "Jerome Gambit" should be utterly (even if deservedly) ignored."

Enough. I'll close with a comment from Lasker, in his Chess Magazine, in reply to a correspondent "Ichabodf: - No; the Jerome gambit is not named after St. Jerome. His penances, if he did any, were in atonement of rather minor transgressions compared with the gambit."

Rick Kennedy

The Obsolete Jerome Gambit

The year 1903 saw the publication of The Complete Chess Guide by F.J. Lee and G.H.D. Gossip. It was a large book, with "four parts in one volume": Part I - Chess Player's Mentor, Part II - Modern Chess Brilliancies, Part III - Guide to the Openings, and Part IV - Games at odds.

In the Chess Player's Mentor portion the book the authors write

We have therefore eliminated obsolete openings and confined ourselves merely to a brief examination of a dozen of the leading debuts...; omitting those openings in which the defense is declared by the most competent theorists to be weak or inferior, as for example Philidor's and Petroff's Defenses to the Kings Knight's opening; the Sicilian; the Greco Counter Gambit; Center Counter Gambit; Fianchettoes, Blackwar [sic] and Jerome Gambit, etc."

One can argue, despite Lee and Gossip's claim, that all of those openings mentioned – except the Jerome Gambit of course – are hardly obsolete today.

The exacting reader of the time might have noticed that the analysis given in the Guide to the Openings section of The Complete Chess Guide is an exact reprint of Gossip's analysis from his 1891 The Chess Player'sVade Mecum – including coverage of the Jerome Gambit! (The analysis is also the same in the 1903, 1905, 1907 and 1910 versions of The Complete Chess Guide.)

The obsolete Jerome Gambit: even when it's not supposed to be there, it's there!