Jerome Gambit: Eminently Unsound

Recently, a little bit of online research took me to the pages of The Daily Colonist, of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, and, in particular, the issue of  December 31, 1906 (page 19).

Chess Column 
To Correspondents: 
F. G. C. (Nanoose) ...We do not recognize the opening outlined by you, although a similar early sacrifice occurs in the Jerome Gambit, as follows: 1. P-K4 P-K4 2. Kt-KB Kt-QB3 3. B-B4 B-B4 4. BxP ch KxB 5.K[sic]xP ch Kt x Kt 6.Q-R5 ch, etc. It is of course eminently unsound, a criticism which we should also be inclined to address to your suggestion.

Of course, if you know anything at all about the Jerome Gambit, you probably have heard all sorts of comments and evaluations. Contrast Raymond Keene’s assessment in The Complete Book of Gambits (1992) -“This is totally unsound and should never be tried!” - with that of the creator of the opening, Alonzo Wheeler Jerome, who considered it

...only a pleasant variation of the Giuoco Piano, which may win or lose according to the skill of the players, but which is capable of affording many new positions and opportunities for heavy blows unexpectedly.

A few years later, Jerome was quoted in the Pittsburgh Telegraph, which noted

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. 

Still, the opinions started early, and flowed easily. William Hallock, of the American Chess Journal, in 1877, referred to “Jerome’s Absurdity” - but, later, he referenced the Gambit as "the daring and brilliant debut".

Lieutenant Soren Anton Sorensen, whose article in the May 1877 issue of the Danish chess magazine Nordisk Skaktidende was the first serious, in-depth look at the Jerome Gambit - one which was translated into several different languages and informed chess players around the world - was still light-hearted in his assessment

...with a Bashi-Bazouk 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.Bxf7+. 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.

In 1879, the chess columnist for the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, in its chess column, struck the right tone in its review of G. H. D. Gossip’s Theory of the Chess Openings, noting gleefully

...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. 

The February 2, 1881 Pittsburgh Telegraph column noted that the gambit

…although unsound, as shown by Mr. Charles' analysis in this column, yet [it] leads to some interesting and critical positions. 

Likewise the chess column  in the New Orleans Times-Democrat, for October 19, 1884, referred to the Jerome as "brilliant but unsound".

Skepticism rightly persisted. E. Freeborough and C. E. Rankin's Chess Openings Ancient and Modern (1889), proceeded

The Jerome Gambit is an American invention, and a very risky attack. It is described in the American Supplement to Cook's Synopsis as unsound but not to be trifled with. The first player sacrifices two pieces for two Pawns, and the chances arising from the adversary's King being displaced and drawn into the centre of the board. "The defense requires study, and is sometimes difficult." It may be added that it is equally difficult for the first player to maintain the attack. 

I could go on,  but I will leave the final word to a World Champion, who, in the March 1906 issue of  his Lasker’s Chess Magazine, responded to an inquiry

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.

Jerome Gambit: Down the Rabbit Hole, Again (Part 1)

I admit that after assembling the latest blog post concerning some chess history (see "Jerome Gambit: History Reset") I tumbled down the rabbit hole, again, concerning A. G. Johnson's claim, in The Oregon Daily Journal of Portland, Oregon, for  October 25, 1914, that Wilhelm Steinitz, while world chess champion, had lost to the Jerome Gambit the first time he had faced it.

Such a claim is outrageous on its face - a master playing the Jerome Gambit successfully, or, even worse, an Amateur doing so against the great Steinitz - and it could hardly have been hidden from the chess world, nor would the victor of such a game have been able to keep from sharing it with every player he knew!

Contrast this, as one example, with the report on Emanuel Lasker's simultanous exhibition, as reported in the October 18, 1906 Pittsburgh Press, where he defeated E. H. Miller's Jerome Gambit. Apparently neither player was interested in sharing the game score; or, if either did, the chess columnist could not be bothered to publish it. Ho-hum...

Still, how hard could it be to do one more check?

I fired up my copy of ChessBase, peered into the Big Database, and Filtered Games, looking for "Steinitz" playing Black, an outcome of "1-0", ECO of C50, and a game Position featuring Black's King on e8 and White's Bishop on f7.

Nothing.

So, I removed the ECO requirement.

Four games appeared, two of which could immediately be discarded: Blackburne - Steinitz, match game, London, 1863, and Chigorin - Steinitz, World Championship match game, 1889  - known games, and, certainly, not Jerome Gambits (they were Evans Gambits). What remained was Deacon - Steinitz, match game, London, 1863, and Robey - Steinitz, London, 1865. 

This immediately provided me with another distraction.

Frederick Deacon is alleged to have published spurious game accounts of wins against Paul Morphy (who claimed never to have played him) and Steinitz. The 1863 Deacon - Steinitz match game from my database seems to be legitimate, and has certain "Jerome-like" qualities, so it might be worth a peek, with the caveat: we think of Jerome Gambits as primarily arising from the move order 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ and often continuing 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+; the Bishop sacrifice and the Queen excursion are markers, although sometimes the label of "Jerome Gambit" has been mis-applied.

First, though, let us have a look at the thoughts of Wilhelm Steinitz, as he considers Mr. Deacon.

[to be continued]

A GM Faces the Jerome Gambit (Part 1)

How many players of grandmaster strength have faced the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+)?

I can think of Joseph Henry Blackburne, author of the notorious 1884 dismantling of the opening.

(Please, let's not revisit the "urban legend" that Alekhine lost to the Jerome. Thank you.)

Of course, if we step outside the main lines and include the Open Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit (otherwise known as the Noa Gambit, or the Monck Gambit) - 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ - then we can add , Charousek, Euwe, Lasker, Marco, Marshall, Tarrasch, Teichmann, and Zukertort, for starters.

For today, let's not go there, either.

Still, I have just learned of a Jerome Gambit, played at bullet speed, online, against a grandmaster.

Let me share some recent exchanges of email with the legendary Australian "Cliff Hardy", player of the white pieces. There will be some move references, but do not let them distract you - I will be presenting the game, with annotations, in due time.

Hi Rick! 

Sorry to inundate you with another game but, after playing the Jerome Gambit for years, I finally got my first chance to play a Jerome Gambit against a GM! It was GM Yasser Quesada Perez, from Cuba.  

Unfortunately, I didn't win 😭... 

Because GM Quesada Perez is quite new to Lichess - our game was only his 15th bullet game on the site - his bullet rating on Lichess is comparatively low for his standard of chess (his standard FIDE rating is much higher at 2572) and so I expect it will soon probably go a lot higher than it was at the time of this game.

Of course, I replied quickly

Hi, Cliff, 

Very glad to receive your game against Quesada Perez! 

Certainly provides one answer to the question "How would a GM respond to the Jerome Gambit??" 

Of course, it still leaves unanswered things like "How can you play such a coherent game with 1 second a move thinking time?" 

I have been going over the game, and will try to treat it with both a sense of respect and wonder when I post it on my blog - with you, your opponent, and my good pal, Stockfish 10, playing way over my head, it's a bit of a challenge to make sense of, and then share with readers. But, that's the whole point, I guess. 

[Black's 9th move] gave me a chuckle. It's a novelty, according to The Database, although your game later could transpose into a couple of online games from 2017. I can imagine the GM thinking: The only thing wrong with my position is that White may think he has an attack; so, let's exchange queens, and the rest will work itself out. No need for concrete analysis, especially in a bullet game.

Chances are, similar thinking produced [Black's 6th move]. It would be scary think a GM actually had a refutation to the Jerome Gambit in his repertoire. Most likely he thought (or just reacted) he'd settle for something reasonable, and figure the rest out later. I have seen that kind of thinking in numerous defenses to the Jerome - but the players were not super strong, and the "figuring" was much less effective.Stockfish 10 raises it's eyebrows only at [Black's 17th move], and its recommended followup for White is complicated and not at all clear to me, at least at this point - reaching =/+ in some lines, which has got to be the same as "=" in a bullet game (unless I'm playing, when it would be "-++" )

Nice game. Good to see you taking it to "the man". I mean - why not? I would do the same - although the comment was never truer than, for me, "After 1.e4, White's game is in its final throes". 

Thanks for sharing. 

I hope to learn more, and it'll show up in the blog. 

Rick

And Cliff came back with

Hi Rick! 

I was initially afraid you might not want to see the game, as it was a loss where I never really even got a great position, but I was quite excited to finally get a chance to play a GM with the Jerome. I was also quite glad I didn't botch it by just hanging a queen on move 8 or so 😉. 

Yes, I think he made it all up because he seemed to spend a bit more time on the first few moves. Now that Lichess shows move times, I can see that he took a "whopping" 2.0 seconds to play [his 6th move] 😉 , so it was one of his slowest moves in the game 😉. He spent even longer on [his 9th move]  (2.9 seconds on that move) so I guess he was trying to work out some sort of defence that would work best for him, like you said. Unfortunately, I tried to move too quickly and played [my 10th move] there - although who knows, technically [an alternate 10th move] is not that much better a move anyway... 

Yes, I noticed with the analysis that the computer didn't like [Black's 17th move] - but that was way over my head too! 😉 It was good fun to try against the GM and I will try to remember to throw in [the alternate 10th move] next time [his 9th move] is played. 

Also, it shows how there are so many GM's in the world - there's always some you've never heard of - or, at least, I'd never heard of this guy before this game! 

Bye

Me

[To be continued...] 

Jerome Gambit: Time Bomb (Part 1)

Some thoughts, previously posted

I have long subscribed to the "time bomb" notion in club chess: that players are apt to play reasonable chess until, suddenly, a cognitive "time bomb" goes off, and they make a blunder. The frequency of these "explosions"/blunders depends upon the level of skill of the player: strong players may slip only once a game (or even less often) while more "average" club players can have their "time bombs" go off much more often, even every other move.
The following game shows Black defending reasonably well (and White, solidly) until - Boom! The unbalanced and unbalancing Jerome Gambit is the kind of opening that increases the likelihood of such a slip. 

Recently, in the first round of the "Italian Game Battlegrounds" tournament at Chess.com, I tried my hand at playing the Noa Gambit, otherwise known as the Monck Gambit, otherwise known as the Open Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

I don't think that my play was anything special, but the historical sidelines are interesting.

Unfortunately, for my opponent, a few poorly-timed "time bomb" moves spoiled his game.

perrypawnpusher - RemoveKubab1
Italian Game Battlegrounds, Chess.com, 2019

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 

The Two Knights Defense.

4.Nc3

Hoping for 4...Bc5, when 5.Bxf7+ would be the Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

4...Nxe4 

The Database says that I have reached this position two times previously, each time responding, with 5.Nxe4 - perrypawnpusher - aborigen, blitz, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 20) and perrypawnpusher - aquitanus, blitz, FICS, 2016 (1-0, 42).

5.Bxf7+ 

It seemed like a good idea at the time.

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe4 d5 7.Ng3 

There is a lot of history in the alternative moves, as the following notes will show. I had originally intended to play 7.Neg5+, just because Bobby Fischer once played it. (When he was young.)

7.Neg5+ Kg8 8.d3 (8.d4 h6 9.Nh3 Bxh3 (9...Bg4 10.dxe5 Nxe5 11.Nf4 (11.Nhg1 Bc5 12.Bf4 Ng6 13.Bg3 Kh7 14.Qd3 Re8+ 15.Kf1 Re4 16.Re1 Qe7 17.Qxd5 Rxe1+ 18.Nxe1 Rd8 19.Qc4 Black mates in two moves, Blanchard - Pollock,W, Chicago, 1890) 11...c6 (11...Bxf3 12.gxf3 c6 13.Be3 Bd6 14.Rg1 Kh7 15.Rxg7+ Kxg7 16.Ne6+ Black resigned, Archer,R - Parkins,J, corr, 1908) 12.h3 Nxf3+ 13.gxf3 Bf5 14.Be3 Bb4+ 15.c3 Ba5 16.Rg1 Qe8 17.Nxd5 Qf7 18.Nf4 Re8 19.Qb3 Bc7 20.Qxf7+ Kxf7 21.Nh5 g6 22.Ng3 Bxh3 23.O-O-O Rd8 24.Rxd8 Bxd8 25.Rh1 Bg2 26.Rxh6 Rxh6 27.Bxh6 Bxf3 28.Be3 draw, Fischer,R - Ames,D, Lincoln ch-US jr, 1955) 10.gxh3 exd4 11.O-O Qf6 12.c3 Bc5 13.Qd3 Rd8 14.Re1 dxc3 15.bxc3 Kf7 16.Bb2 Qg6+ 17.Qxg6+ Kxg6 18.Rad1 Rhf8 19.Kg2 Rxf3 20.Kxf3 Rf8+ 21.Kg4 h5+ 22.Kg3 Bxf2+ 23.Kg2 Bxe1 24.Rxe1 Rf5 25.Bc1 Re5 26.Rg1 Rf5 27.Re1 Ne5 28.Be3 b6 29.Bd4 Kf7 30.h4 c5 31.Be3 Nf3 White resigned, Kelemen - Charousek,R, corr, 1893) 8...h6 9.Nh3 g5 (9...Bg4 10.c3 Qf6 (10...Bc5 11.Be3 d4 12.Bc1 Qd7 13.Nhg1 Kh7 14.h3 Be6 15.Ne2 Rhf8 16.b4 Bd6 17.b5 Ne7 18.c4 a6 19.bxa6 Rxa6 20.Ng3 Ng6 21.Ne4 Be7 22.h4 Bf5 23.h5 Bxe4 24.dxe4 Nf4 25.Nxe5 Bb4+ 26.Kf1 Qe8 27.Bxf4 Rxf4 28.Ng6 Rxe4 29.g3 Re1+ 30.Qxe1 Bxe1 31.Rxe1 Qc6 32.Rh4 Qxc4+ 33.Kg1 Qxa2 34.Re8 Rxg6 35.hxg6+ Kxg6 36.Rf4 c5 Black queened in a few moves and White resigned Bird,H - Mills, simul, British CC, London, 1886) 11.Nhg1 Re8 12.Qb3 e4 13.dxe4 Qf7 14.Be3 dxe4 15.Nd4 Ne5 16.Nge2 Nd3+ 17.Kd2 c5 18.Qxf7+ Kxf7 19.Nb3 Rd8 20.f3 Ne5+ 21.Ke1 exf3 22.gxf3 Bxf3 23.Rf1 Be7 24.Ng3 Kg6 25.Bf4 Nd3+ 26.Kd2 Nxf4+ 27.Ke3 Rd3+ 28.Kxf4 Bd6 checkmate, Neidich,G - Marshall,F, Atlantic City, 1920) 10.Nd2 Rh7 11.f3 Bxh3 12.gxh3 Rf7 13.Nb3 Qf6 14.Rf1 Re8 15.Qe2 Re6 16.Bd2 Nd4 17.Qd1 Nxf3+ White resigned, Lenzer -Lasker,E, 1913; and

7.Nfg5+ Kg6 8.Qf3 dxe4 9.Qf7+ Kxg5 White now mates in ten moves 10.d4+ Kh4 11.h3 Bb4+ 12.Kf1 g6 13.g3+ Kh5 14.g4+ Kh4 15.Qb3 Bc3 16.Qxc3 e3 17.Qxe3 Bxg4 18.hxg4+ Kxg4 19.Qh3 checkmate, Pollock,W - Amateur, Dublin, date unknown

7...e4 8.Ng1 g6 

Or 8...h5 9.d4 h4 10.Nf1 Qf6 11.c3 Ne7 12.Ne3 Kg8 13.Ne2 c6 14.h3 g5 15.Rf1 Bh6 16.f3 exf3 17.Rxf3 Qg6 18.b3 Rh7 19.Ba3 g4 20.hxg4 Bxg4 21.Nxg4 Qxg4 22.Ng3 Rf7 23.Bxe7 Rxe7+ 24.Ne2 Qxg2 25.Rf2 Qg1+ 26.Rf1 Qg3+ 27.Rf2 Rf8 White resigned, Noa,J -  Makovetz,G, Dresden, 1892; 

Or 8...Bc5 9.N1e2 Qf6 10.O-O h5 11.Nc3 h4 12.Nxd5 Qe5 13.Nxe4 Qxe4 14.Nxc7 Nd4 15.d3 Qc6 16.Be3 h3 17.f3 hxg2 18.Rf2 Qxc7 19.Rxg2 Nxc2 White resigned, NN-Lasker,E, London, 1900. 

If you are looking for a wild attacking position for White - it hasn't arrived, yet. Black's pawns own the center, and his one developed piece seems better placed than White's one developed piece.

As often happens in a Jerome Gambit, White has to rely on his comfort in unusual positions to make some headway.

[to be continued]

Jerome Gambit: Worst vs Best (Part 4)

So far: no confirmation of a Steinitz loss to the Jerome Gambit; very likely a win by Lasker against the Jerome, but the game is unfindable - and, what about Alekhine facing the Jerome Gambit?

I turned to my trusty Big Database, did a position search with a White pawn on e4, a Black King on e8, and a White Bishop on f7. This turned up a number of games, only one of which comes near to what we are looking for.

Alekhine, Alexander
NN2 - Alekhine, Alezander, Kislovodsk, 1907

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Ng5 Ne5 6.Bxf7+ Nxf7 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxc5 d6 10.Qxd4 Nf6 11.Nc3 h6 12.Nb5 Nxe4 13.Bxh6 Rxh6 14.Qxe4 Qg5 15.Qc4+ Be6 16.Qxc7+ Kg8 17.Qxd6 Bc4 18.Nc7 Rd8 19.Ne6 Qa5+ 20.b4 Rxd6 21.bxa5 Rxe6+ White resigned

Alas, this is an example of  the Sarratt Attack or the Vitzthum Attack, which has a lot of action going on at f7, and whichI have looked into in this blog as a possible precursor or inspriation to the Jerome Gambit.

Of course, The Database does have a couple dozen Jerome Gambit games by "AAlekhine", but those are from 2007 and 2008, by an online player playing in Jerome Gambit thematic tournaments at ChessWorld.net. 

Jerome Gambit: Worst vs Best (Part 3)

As mentioned in the previous post, the line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ (5.0-0 would be the Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit) had been called the Noa Gambit or the Monck Gambit - before picking up the moniker the Open Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

It is easy to find two games defended by Emanuel Lasker, in this line, from a mondern games database but neither appear to be the game referred to by the Pittsburgh Press on October 18, 1906. 

NN - Lasker, Emanuel
consultation game, London, 1900
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe4 d5 7.Ng3 e4 8.Ng1 Bc5 9.N1e2 Qf6 10.O-O h5 11.Nc3 h4 12.Nxd5 Qe5 13.Nxe4 Qxe4 14.Nxc7 Nd4 15.d3 Qc6 16.Be3 h3 17.f3 hxg2 18.Rf2 Qxc7 19.Rxg2 Nxc2 0-1

Lenzer - Lasker, Emanuel
simultaneous exhibition, Germany, 1913
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe4 d5 7.Neg5+ Kg8 8.d3 h6 9.Nh3 g5 10.Nd2 Rh7 11.f3 Bxh3 12.gxh3 Rf7 13.Nb3 Qf6 14.Rf1 Re8 15.Qe2 Re6 16.Bd2 Nd4 17.Qd1 Nxf3+ 0-1

Recent correspondence with chess historian John Hilbert confirms the outlines of the Pittsburgh Press story - the simultaneous exhibition, the location, the city, the date, Lasker's opponent - but, alas, not the game, itself. To that, Richard Forster, who co-edited Emanuel Lasker Volume 1: Struggle and Victories: World Chess Champion for 27 Years (which, by the way, included Hilbert's chapter, "Lasker: The American Views"), unfortunately can add nothing.

It is the old story: defeat the master, and submit your game for publication; fall to the master, and keep your gamescore to yourself.

Your Opponent is Overrated

For my birthday my wife gave me James Schuyler's Your Opponent is Overrated (Everyman Chess, 2016). I appreciate the subtitle: A Practical Guide to Inducing Errors.

I have not gotten into the book, but the text on the back cover is enticing

Which opening does better in practice: the wild, "unsound" and "refuted" Latvian Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5) or the solid Philidor Defence (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6)? As James Schuyler points out, referring to the definative Megabase, the Latvian Gambit scores higher. 

How can such a discredited opening (and the same story is repeated with other "unsound" openings) do so well? the point is that playing like this throws the opponent off balance, makes them anxious and induces mistakes.Even the very best players recognise the value of discomforting the opponent. Historically, Emanuel Lasker was the master of this approach and his modern day equivalent is world champion Magnus Carlsen. Carlsen frequently employs offbeat openings and his opponents invariably fail to counter them correctly. 

This is the key theme of this book. Schuyler covers all phases of the game and discusses other vital subjects such as harassment, meterial imbalance, time management, surprise moves, unusual ideas, provocative play, manoeuvers and recovering from bad positions.

I am pretty sure that the author "overlooks" an opening as "discredited" as the Jerome Gambit, but I think that it is likely that many of his ideas in the book will relate to playing the Jerome! 

On the Road Again

"Kennedy Kid" Jon is on the road again, home from Haiti briefly, now off to Guatemala for a month to improve his Spanish language skills.

As I did with his stay in Uganda, as well as Haiti, I have begun to learn about chess in Guatemala.

For example, I learned that Silvia Carolina Mazariegos was Guatemalan Women's Chess Champion for the years 1981 - 1994. She returned as champion 2001, 2002 and 2004. During the same span of time the Men's title was dominated by Carlos Armando Juárez Flores, who was champion in 1980, 1983-88, 1991, 1993-1995, and 1998-2007. 

The Guatemalan Defense, 1.e4 b6 2.d4 Ba6, was covered in The Myers Openings Bulletin (New MOB No. 1, 3, and 4) in 1992 and 1993. Myers presented three games from the 1930s played by Hans Cohn, from his 1947 book Ajedrez en Guatemala, which had a chapter on "Defensa Guatemalteca". The MOB also gave the first part of a 1939 game by Georges Koltanowski (vs Cohn) and the first part of 1943 game by Reuben Fine, from a blindfold simultaneous exhibition.

Wrote Myers

It [the chapter on Defensa Guatemalteca] starts with a long quote from a 1913 magazine article by emanuel Lasker, expressing Cohn's opening philosophy. Summing up, it says that the ideas lefense will stop any attack, lead to counterattack, and enable Black to play for a win "si el blanco desconoce sus posibilidades o las sobreestima" [if White doesn't know about its possibilities or overestimates them]; I haven't seen Lasker's original German, but I found two of those Spanish words to be interesting: "desconoce" means doesn't know about, but it can have a sense of deliberately ignoring. As for "sobreestima", one might expect White to have problems when he underestimates an unfamiliar defense, but the Spanish word, which also means having too much respect for something, makes sense. Fear of the unknown affects judgement. When faced by a surprising opening a player may imagine dangers which are not really there. There or not, he'll spend time looking for them and trying to defend against them.

Hmmm, sounds like an opening I know...

If Jon gets around to playing any more Jerome Gambits (see "Artificial Ignorance" parts 1 and 2), I'll let you know.

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

Goddess Chess

Readers who have not yet visited the Goddess Chess site (or the blogger's Chessville site, as well; see: "Les Femmes des Echecs... & the Jerome Gambit") should stop on by and have their eyes opened wider.


In a recent post titled "The Giuoco Piano a/k/a C50 in ECO terms" Jan mentioned my search for women who -- for whatever reasons -- had played the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+). As for the opening itself, she wrote...

I had a vague idea that it must have something to do with chess but for some unknown reason "go fish" pops into my mind whenever I read the words "Jerome's Gambit."

[Ah, Jan you are too cruel. Spot on about the Jerome Gambit -- but cruel. - R.K.]

The other thing "Jerome's Gambit" conjures up is a memory from my murky past long long ago, on a planet far far away...of a street hustler named Boney Jerome who used to hold court on the steps outside the apartment building where I lived at the time.

Boney Jerome tried to lure me into an "unspecified relationship" by attempting to bribe me with large gold and cubic zirconia rings (the gold was probably as fake as the stones), which I always rejected with a sweet smile.

He eventually gave up on me, declaiming to all in the neighborhood that I was way too smart and sassy-mouthed for my own good, always throwing quotes from Shakespeare at him. For my part, I was impressed that Boney Jerome knew the name Shakespeare.

My response was to quote from Emanuel Lasker in the December 1907 issue of Lasker’s Chess Magazine

... The artistic conscience sometimes makes him who has it a coward – or, let us say, a Hamlet of the chess board.

I wonder if Hamlet was a chessplayer. From his character it seems indeed likely. If he was, he probably played a weak but imaginative game, with a craving to improve upon the best move and therefore often missing it.

Hamlets of the chess board are frequent types. Once in the meshes of combination they lose themselves in its intricacies, and evolve ideas that are so infinitely subtle that they have no vitality. Then is the moment when fate, usually with a somewhat brutal, matter-of-fact blow, wakes them out of their dreams.

Although what this has to do with "go fish", I am not sure.