The Macbeth Attack

I recently discovered a page on the Italian language website Sacchi64 devoted to what it calls "the Macbeth Attack" (after Shakespeare's "Macbeth") 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ which the site also refers to as "the Crazy Attack". It includes a file of 56 computer-vs-computer games in a 2013 thematic tournament.

This line was seen (by transposition) as early as Wright - Hunn, Arkansas, 1874, referred to in the November 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal as "An unsound variation of Jerome's double opening."

Sacchi64 also has a page on the Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ as well as a file of 56 computer-vs-computer games in another thematic tournament (from 2009). I am playing through them, and am pleased to see that a few of the computers appear to  have included the Jerome Gambit in their "books". As I noted in an earlier post

Given that the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) is not likely to be deemed "best" play for White by the analysis of any competent computer, any time the opening is played by a program, it is likely that the Jerome has been included in the opening "book".

I will share relevant games in future posts.

Old News

The American Chess Journal for December 1876 (page 119) under its "Chess News And Notes" mentioned

In a letter recently received from Max Judd, the well-known St. Louis champion, in referring to the article in November JOURNAL concerning "Jerome's Double Opening," he remarks: " What you say about the Jerome Gambit is just so. In an off-hand game you can try many other sacrifices which might succeed, but I know of no gambit wherin a piece can be safely sacrificed, and it is a question whether even a pawn can be safely given up."

For the record

I include this game "for the record" because it is technically a Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) game, by transposition, and because I'm one of the two players tossing the pieces around.

However, it is one of those devilish 3 0 games which rapidly became a comedy of errors as my opponent (rated 125 higher than me), behind in material, kept throwing things at me, while I – for once, ahead on the clock – picked my moves quickly, knowing the game wouldn't end with a checkmate, but with a flag.

I have identified a few relevant points in the game, but it is best just played over with the Chess Publisher feature – chuckling (or covering your eyes) the whole way.

ncis  - perrypawnpusher
blitz 3 0, FICS, 2009

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4

The Italian Gambit.

4...exd4 5.Bxf7+

From the Dubuque Chess Journal, November 1874

An unsound variation of Jerome's double opening. Note that it is the P at Q5 that gives the second player such a wonderfully harassing position later in the game.

5...Kxf7 6.e5

My database has 26 games with this position, 18 of them played by DragonTail (White) with limited success: 5-13-0.

An alternative was seen in Wright - Hunn, Arkansas, USA, 1874 – the game referred to, above, in the Dubuque Chess Journal – 6.Ng5+ Kf8 7.Qf3+ Qf6 8.0-0 Ne5 9.Qh5 Qg6 10.Qe2 Nf6 11.Kh1 h6 12.f4 Neg4 13.f5 hxg5 14.Qxg4 Rxh2+ 15.Kxh2 Nxg4+ 16.Kg3 Qh5 17.Nd2 Qh4+ 18.Kf3 Nh2+ and won.

6...d6 7.Ng5+ Ke8 8.Qf3 Nh6

Better was 8...Nxe5, but the text, while new, is adequate. 

9.e6 Rf8

Or 9...Qf6.

10.Nf7 Nxf7 11.exf7+ Rxf7 12.Qh5 Qe7+ 13.Kd2 Bb4+ 14.c3 dxc3+ 15.Nxc3 Bxc3+ 16.bxc3 g6 17.Qb5 Kf8

Black is safely a piece and a pawn up, and actually overlooked a mate here: 17...Rxf2+ 18.Kd1 Bg4+ 19.Qe2 Qxe2. I'll stop annotating; there is little educational about my win.

18.Re1 Rxf2+ 19.Kd1 Qf6 20.Bh6+ Kf7 21.Qd5+ Be6 22.Rxe6 Qxe6 23.Qb3 Qxb3+ 24.axb3 Re8 25.Ra4 Ree2 26.Rh4 Rxg2 27.Rf4+ Ke7 28.Bf8+ Kd7 29.Rf7+ Ke6 30.Rxh7 Ref2 31.Ke1 Re2+ 32.Kf1 Ref2+ White forfeited on time

"Brilliant but not sound"

"The past isn't dead," they like to say in my field.
"It isn't even past."

Wright - Hunn
Pine Bluff, Arkansas, 1874
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4

According to the November 1874 Dubuque Chess Journal: "Brilliant but not sound."

One hundred and thirty years later, a book by Jude Acers and George S. Laven, The Italian Gambit and A Guiding Repertoire for White - 1.e4, showed that the move, properly followed up, was quite playable.

I couldn't resist asking one of the authors about the Jerome. Replied Laven,

The Jerome Gambit was looked into only briefly during The Italian Gambit study. This was done by me and the editor Robert Snow who is a strong expert (elo 2172 - at that time) and was rejected. We felt Black was better in every reasonable line. Jude, totally rejected it and it is nowhere to be found in the book.

Oh, well.

4...exd4

DCJ: "The German Handbuch gives as best variation 4...Bxd4 5.c3 Bb6 6.Ng5 Nh6 7.Qh5 0–0 8.f4 exf4 9.Bxf4 d6 10.Rf1 Qe7 and Black should win."

The Italian Gambit focuses instead on the Miami Variation 4...Bxd4 5.Nxd4 Nxd4 6.Be3 and the Koltanowski gambit 6.0-0 Nf6.

FIDE Master and ICCF International Master Allan Savage remarked in his review that 4...exd4 "opens Pandora's box via transpositions to the Max Lange, Rossolimo System, Moller Attack, Steinitz-Sveshnikov (!) or Scotch-Goring Gambit!"

5.Bxf7+
DCJ: "An unsound variation of Jerome's double opening. Note that it is the P at Q5 that gives the second player such a wonderfully harassing position later in the game."

5...Kxf7

I have about 40 games with this line in my database, out of the opening move order 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.d4 exd4. I have not played the line, but I have beaten it the two times I have faced it.

This notion of a "Delayed Jerome Gambit" will be explored in later posts.

6.Ng5+

DCJ: "SK5 à la Jerome is better than SS5." [The Dubuque Chess Journal here uses descriptive notation with "S" for "Springer" instead of "N" or "Kt" for "Knight."]

6...Kf8 7.Qf3+ Qf6 8.0–0 Ne5

DCJ: "Why not Q takes Q, making his relative strength still greater?"

9.Qh5

DCJ: "Well meant, since SxRP would win a Pawn and the Exchange, if not attended to."

9...Qg6 10.Qe2 Nf6
DCJ: "The beginning of a splendid combination, that might, however, have been frustrated by SKB3."

Of course, Black would still have a winning game.

11.Kh1 h6 12.f4 Neg4

DCJ: "The coolness exhibited by Mr. H and his indifference to his opponent's attacks, are accounted for when his farsightedness is appreciated, the evident reply PB5 does not disturb him in the least."

13.f5 hxg5

14.Qxg4

DCJ: "Evidently the Queen cannot be taken with safety. PKR3 is better than taking the Springer."

Objectively, taking the Queen is White's "best" of many losing options: 14.fxg6 Rxh2+ 15.Kg1 d3+ etc.

"Safest" might be "Resigns".

14...Rxh2+ 15.Kxh2 Nxg4+ 16.Kg3 Qh5 17.Nd2 Qh4+ 18.Kf3 Nh2+ 0–1

Jerome Gambit Tournament: Chapter I

Thanks to the efforts of my good chessfriend, Pete Banks ("blackburne"), and the kind understanding of ChessWorld's Powers That Be, I was invited to participate in their latest thematic Jerome Gambit tournament.

Something about mentioning the opportunity to include "the World's greatest authority" on the subject, or some such silliness.

It is a 10-player, double round robin tournament, with up to 5 days available per move. (Players often move faster, and sometimes find themselves on the site at the same time, in which case a slice of the game is played move-upon-move.)

My games are completed, others have a handful left to finish up.

I must admit that the challenge of the tournament was irresistible. I've researched the Jerome for years and played it mostly successfully in a dozen or so offhand Internet blitz games, but this opportunity was serious.

The field is a mixture of those familiar with the Jerome Gambit (the third thematic for both blackburne and drewbear, for example) and those new to the opening.

Balanced against my foolishly inflated rating (based on three games at the site – some of my opponents have played thousands) that puts me at the top of the heap, is the tiny little dilemma of standing up for an opening that has a handful of refutations. Gulp!

The whole world's watching!

As if.

Win the tournament, though? I was actually hoping mostly not to embarrass myself. Even that would take everything that I had learned from Alonzo Wheeler Jerome – plus a whole lot of luck.

My first goal for the tournament was therefore, out of necessity, a dark one: I would need to polish up those refutations and go 9-0 with the Black pieces, against Jerome's Double Opening!

(Thanks to Ryan North of Toronto, Canada for his use of his Dinosaur Comic. Cerebral stuff. Funny.)

Bashi-Bazouk Attack

From The Chess Player's Chronicle, August 1, 1877, translated from the May 1877 Nordisk Skaktidende:

Chess Theory for Beginners
by Lieut. Sorensen

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5

With this answering move of the Bishop we have the fundamental position for that good old game which the Italians, hundreds of years ago, when they were masters of the Chess board, called "Giuoco Piano," even game, but the later age, for generality of explanation, the "Italian game." On this basis the usual continuation is 4.P to QB3, whereby the QP at the next move threatens to advance, and the White middle Pawns to occupy the centre.

In the next articles we will make mention of that regular fight for the maintenance or destruction of the centre, which is the essential point of the Italian game; in this, on the contrary, we will occupy ourselves with a Bashi-Bazouk


[Encyclopedia Britannica: Turkish BASIBOZUK ("corrupted head," or "leaderless"), mercenary soldier belonging to the skirmishing or irregular troops of the Ottoman Empire, notorious for their indiscipline, plundering, and brutality]


attack, over which the learned Italians would have crossed themselves had they known it came under the idea of piano, but which is in reality of very recent date - 1874, and takes it origin from an American, A.W. Jerome.

It consists in the sacrifice of a piece by 4.B takes P(ch).

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.

The Americans call the game "Jerome's double opening," an allusion, probably, to the fresh sacrifice of a piece which follows at the next move, but we shall prefer to use the short and sufficiently clear designation, Jerome Gambit.

"A sparkling variation to the tiresome Piano game"

From the September 1876 issue of the American Chess Journal:

A.W. Jerome of Paxton, Ills, and D.P. Norton, of Des Moines, Iowa, are contesting a series of games by correspondence for the purpose of testing the strength of the "Double Opening" invented by Mr. Jerome. One of the games is given in this number. So far the Des Moines player has proved too much for the "Double Opening."

Jerome - Norton, D. P.
correspondence, 1876
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Nf3+ 9.Kf1 c6 10.gxf3 Qe7 11.b4 Bb6 12.Bb2 Kc7 13.Qe5+ Qxe5 14.Bxe5+ d6 15.Bxg7 Bh3+ 16.Ke2 Bg2 17.Rd1 Ne7 18.Bxh8 Ng6 19.d4 Rxh8 20.Kf2 Nxf4 21.c3 Rg8 22.Nd2 Kd7 23.Ke3 Rf8 24.Rg1 Bd8 25.Kf2 Rg8 26.Ke3 Nh3 27.f4 Nxg1 28.Rxg1 Rg4 29.Nf1 Bh3 30.Ng3 Rh4 31.Nf5 Bxf5 32.exf5 Bf6 33.Rg3 Rxh2 34.a4 Rh1 35.a5 Re1+ 36.Kf3 Re7 37.Rh3 c5 38.bxc5 dxc5 39.Rh6 cxd4 40.cxd4 Bxd4 41.f6 Rf7 42.Ke4 Bxf6 0–1


From the November 1876 issue of the American Chess Journal:

Jerome's Double Opening

From Mr. A.W. Jerome of Paxton, Ills, inventor of "Jerome's Double Opening" we have received following studies in regard to a comment on a game which appeared in the September Journal and willingly publish them as throwing some light upon a line of attack but little known, and therefore of interest to those who admire variety and novelty in the Royal Game.

Paxton, Illinois
10/21/86

Dear American Chess Journal,
Dear Sir -

In your notes (September Journal) you say, referring to my games with Norton: "So far the Des Moines player has proven too much for the Double Opening." There is an inaccuracy of considerable magnitude in the above statement. It should read "too much for the Paxton player."

The man who beats Mr. Norton in any opening is a much stronger player than I.

To illustrate the strength of the Opening I enclosed a card, containing the score of an off-hand game over the board, played against a man who is at least as strong a player as I, and who used to pooh-pooh the opening. He has more respect for it now.

Jerome - Amateur offhand game, USA, 1876 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Qf6 9.fxe5+ Qxe5 10.Qf3 Nf6 11.d3 Ke7 12.Nc3 c6 13.Bf4 Qh5 14.e5 Ng4 15.0-0-0 g6 16.Ne4 Nf2 17.Bg5+ Ke6 18.Qf6+ Kd5 19.c4+ Kd4 20.e6 mate

I also gave the moves in a game I am now playing with Mr. Norton which I think, proves that the "Double Opening" has something in it. If you see any winning move for Black please point it out.

When he transmitted his 15th move, he wrote: "It seems to me your attack is about 'busted'."

Later with his 17th move he says "Your attack is strong as well as pretty."

And again: "The position is critical and very interesting the neatest I have seen for some time."

I think the position is the natural result of the "weak" Double Opening and not from weak play on Mr. Norton's part.

I may yet lose the game, but claim that the Opening has a "reasonable chance of winning," which is sufficient to constitute a "sound opening." It is not required that an Opening shall be sure to win. There is no such Opening contained in chess; at least none that I know of.

Mr. Norton would have played the Double Opening on Mr. H. Had he (H) given him the opportunity.

I think Norton is about half converted, notwithstanding he has won or drawn all the finished games.

Game 40 September Journal I ought to have won, or drawn at least, but he outplayed me.

Yours truly,
A. W. Jerome

Jerome - Norton, D. P. correspondence (unfinished), 1876 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Bxd4 7.Qxd4 Qf6 8.Qd1 Ne7 9.0-0 Rf8 10.f4 N5c6 11.c3 Kg8 12.Be3 d6 13.Nd2 b6 14.f5 d5 15.Qc2 dxe4 16.Nxe4 Qf7 17.f6

And here the author of the Double Opening asks "Now what is Black's best move?" From a cursory glance at the situation it seems to us that 17...Ba6 would be a satisfactory reply for Black.

We are not at all disposed to turn up the nose at Mr. Jerome's pet, as he seems to infer; on the contrary we regard it with favor, and therefore have frequently given games at this opening an airing in the Journal, thus introducing it to the chess public, and subjecting it to that criticism and analysis which will speedily determine its claim to a place in chess literature.

We consider it stronger than the Harvey-Evans and not much inferior to the Cochrane attack, but like most openings where a piece is sacrificed to obtain a violent attack, the first player will generally find himself the loser when met by a careful and steady defence.

For this reason it will never find favor among match players or the professional representatives of the game. But among the lighter lances - those who cultivate chess an an amusement and not as a means of obtaining bread and butter - it will, no doubt, become quite popular, as it affords a sparkling variation to the tiresome Piano game.