Showing posts with label Ranken. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ranken. Show all posts

Friday, December 22, 2017

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.)

Friday, May 12, 2017

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 1234 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?

Friday, January 15, 2016

Hey! Wait! Oh, Never Mind...




I've probably spent way too much time fussing about a comment by Fat Lady at redhotpawn.com, referring to a chess game where Alexander Alekhine reportedly defended against a Jerome Gambit - see "Much Ado About... Nothing" - no doubt it is as much an "urban legend" as the CIA killing Marilyn Monroe or Elvis Presley being in a witness protection program.

The other day I ran into a simultaneous exhibition game by Alekhine, however, and I wondered: could Fat Lady have been thinking about a "reversed" Jerome?? Here we go again...

Alexander Alekhine - Alfred Berman

New York 1 of 26, 1924

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Bc5 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Nxe5 Bxf2+ 




This is reminiscent of an offshoot of the "Blanel Gambit" in the Vienna or Bishop Opening, only reversed. For reference:
Max Kuerschner - Siegbert Tarrasch
Nuremberg, 1889 
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nxe4 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Qf3+ (6.Qh5+ Kg8 7.Qe2 h6 8.Ng3 Nc6 9.d3 Nd4 10.Qd1 Bc5 11.Be3 Kh7 12.c3 Re8 13.h3 Qh4 14.N1e2 Nxe2 15.Qxe2 d4 16.Bd2 Bd7 17.Ne4 Bf8 18.0-0-0 Re6 19.Kb1 Ra6 20.Bc1 Be6 21.a3 b5 22.f3 Rb8 23.g4 Qd8 24.g5 Qd5 25.Kc2 dxc3 26.Nxc3 Qb3+ 27.Kd2 b4 28.axb4 Bxb4 29.Qxe5 Ra2 30.gxh6 Rxb2+ 31.Bxb2 Qxb2+ 32.Ke3 Bxc3 33.Qe4+ g6 34.Qxe6 Bd4+ 35.Kf4 Rf8+ 36.Kg5 Qg2+ 37.Qg4 Rf5+ White resigned, Max Kuerschner - Siegbert Tarrasch, Nurnberg, 18896...Kg8 7.Ne2 (7.Ng5 Qd7 8.Ne2 h6 9.Nh3 Bc5 10.Nc3 c6 11.Qe2 Qe7 12.d3 Kh7 13.Na4 Bd6 14.Bd2 Qh4 15.Nc3 Rf8 16.Ng1 Bg4 17.Qe3 Nd7 18.Qg3 Qxg3 19.hxg3 Rae8 20.f3 e4 21.dxe4 Bxg3+ 22.Kd1 dxe4 23.Nxe4 Rxe4 24.Nh3 Bxf3+ 25.gxf3 Rh4 26.Ke2 Be5 27.f4 Bc7 28.Rag1 Nf6 29.Be1 Rh5 30.Bc3 Re8+ 31.Kf1 Rf5 32.Rg2 Bxf4 33.Rf2 Nd5 34.Bd4 Ref8 35.c4 Be3 36.Bxe3 Nxe3+ 37.Ke2 Rxf2+ 38.Nxf2 Nxc4 39.Rc1 Ne5 40.Rc3 g5 41.Re3 Rxf2+ White resigned, Jacques Mieses - Richard Teichmann, match, London, 18957...Be6 8.N4g3 (8.Qb3 Nc6 9.N4g3 Rb8 10.c3 Qf6 11.0-0 h5 12.Re1 h4 13.Nf1 h3 14.Neg3 hxg2 15.Kxg2 Bc5 16.d4 Rf8 17.Qc2 Qf3+ 18.Kg1 Bh3 19.Ne3 exd4 20.cxd4 Nxd4 21.Qd2 Qxg3+ 22.fxg3 Nf3+ 23.Kh1 Nxd2 24.Bxd2 Rf2 25.Rad1 Rh5 26.Bc1 c6 27.Kg1 Rg2+ 28.Kh1 Rf2 29.Kg1 Rg2+ 30.Kh1 Rf2 31.Kg1 Rf3 32.Kh1 Rf2 33.Kg1 Rf4 34.Kh1 Rf2 35.Kg1 Rg2+ 36.Kh1 Rf2 37.Kg1 Rg2+ 38.Kh1 Rf2 39.Kg1 Rf3 40.Kh1 Rf2 41.Kg1 Rhf5 42.a3 Rg2+ 43.Kh1 Rff2 44.Nf1 Rg1+ 45.Kxg1 Rxf1 checkmate, James Mason - Georg Marco, Leipzig GER, 18948...Nc6 9.a3 Qd7 10.h3 Bc5 11.0-0 h5 12.Nh1 Rf8 13.Qg3 h4 14.Qh2 e4 15.d3 Bd6 16.Bf4 Rxf4 17.Nxf4 g5 White resigned.

5.Kxf2 Nxe5 6.d4 Ng6 


Or 6...Qf6+ 7.Kg1 Ng4 (7...Ng6 8.Bc4 c6 9.h3 d6 10.Kh2 Be6 11.Rf1 Qd8 12.Bxe6 fxe6 13.Qg4 Qe7 14.Bg5 Nf6 15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.d5 Kd7 17.Rad1 Rhg8 18.dxe6+ Qxe6 19.Rxf6 Qxg4 20.Rfxd6+ Kc7 21.hxg4 Ne5 22.Kh3 Rg7 23.Rf6 Nxg4 24.Rf4 Rag8 25.Rd2 Ne3 26.g4 Nxg4 27.Rg2 Ne3 28.Rxg7+ Rxg7 29.Rf2 Kd6 30.Re2 Nc4 31.b3 Ne5 32.Nd1 Kc5 33.Ne3 Nf3 34.Rg2 Rxg2 35.Kxg2 Ng5 36.e5 Kd4 37.Ng4 h5 38.Nf6 Kxe5 39.Nxh5 Kd4 40.c4 Kc3 41.Kg3 Kb2 42.Kf4 Ne6+ 43.Ke5 Nc5 44.Kd6 Na6 45.b4 Nxb4 46.Kc7 b6 47.Kb7 Nxa2 48.Kxa7 b5 49.cxb5 cxb5 50.Kb6 b4 51.Nf4 draw, Jose Raul Capablanca - S Rakowitz, Manhattan CC, New York, 1922) 8.Qd2 Ne7 9.h3 Nh6 10.Qf2 Qg6 11.Nb5 0-0 12.Nxc7 Rb8 13.Nb5 f5 14.e5 d5 15.exd6 Nd5 16.Bc4 Be6 17.Nc7 Nxc7 18.dxc7 Rbc8 19.Bxe6+ Qxe6 20.Bf4 Nf7 21.Kh2 Qb6 22.Rhe1 g5 23.Be5 Nxe5 24.Rxe5 Qxc7 25.c3 g4 26.hxg4 fxg4 27.Qh4 Kh8 28.Kg1 Qb6 29.Rae1 Qxb2 30.Re7 Qc2 31.R1e4 Qc1+ 32.Kh2 h6 33.Re3 Rc6 34.Qxg4 Rg8 35.Re8 Black resigned, Louis Paulsen - Adolf Anderssen, Baden-Baden 1870; or 

6...Qh4+ 7.g3 Qf6+ 8.Kg2 Ng6 9.Bc4 Qd8 10.Rf1 f6 11.e5 b5 12.Nxb5 Bb7+ 13.Kg1 d6 14.exd6 cxd6 15.Qh5 Qe7 16.Bf4 0-0-0 17.Rae1 Qf8 18.Be6+ Kb8 And White announced mate in three moves, Samuel Rosenthal - Robert, Paris, 1874; or

6...Nc6 7.Be3 d6 8.Be2 Nf6 9.Rf1 0-0 10.Kg1 h6 11.Qe1 Re8 12.Qg3 Kh8 13.Rf2 Qe7 14.Bd3 Ng4 15.Nd5 Qd7 16.Rf4 Nd8 17.Rxg4 Qxg4 18.Nxc7 Qd7 19.Nxa8 b6 20.d5 Bb7 21.Bd4 f6 22.Qg6 Bxa8 23.e5 Kg8 24.Qh7+ Kf8 25.exf6 Ne6 26.dxe6 1-0 Black resigned, Jose Raul Capablanca - Hermann Liebenstein, New York, 1913

7.Bc4

Or 7.Kg1 N8e7 8.h4 h6 9.h5 Nf8 10.Bc4 d6 11.Qf3 Be6 12.d5 Bd7 13.Be3 Nh7 14.Qg3 Rg8 15.Rf1 Nf6 16.Qf4 Rf8 17.Bd4 Neg8 18.e5 dxe5 19.Bxe5 Qe7 20.d6, Black resigned, Arthur Skipworth - Charles Edward Ranken, Malvern, ENG, 1871. 

7...d6 8.Rf1 Be6

Or 8...N8e7 9.Kg1 0-0 10.Qh5 c6 11.Bg5 b5 12.Bb3 a5 13.a3 Ra7 14.d5 Qb6+ 15.Kh1 c5 16.a4 c4 17.Ba2 f6 18.Bd2 bxa4 19.Bxc4 Ne5 20.Be2 Bd7 21.Nxa4 Qd4 22.Bc3 Qxe4 23.Bf3 Nxf3 24.Qxf3 Qxc2 25.Nb6 Bb5 26.Rf2 Qg6 27.Re1 Nc8 28.Nxc8 Rxc8 29.Qe3 Qf7 30.Qb6 Ba6 31.Qxd6 a4 32.Rf3 Bb5 33.Re6 Bd7 34.Rexf6 gxf6 35.Rg3+ Kh8 36.Qxf6+ Black resigned, Samuel Rosenthal - Dermenon, Paris, 1874; or

8...Qh4+ 9.Kg1 Nf6 10.g3 Qh3 11.Bg5 Bg4 12.Qd2 0-0-0 13.Rxf6 gxf6 14.Bxf6 Rdg8 15.Bf1 Qh5 16.Bg2 Re8 17.Bxh8 Rxh8 18.Rf1 Ne7 19.Qf4 f5 20.exf5 Bxf5 21.Nd5 Nxd5 22.Qxf5+ Qxf5 23.Rxf5 Nb4 24.c3 Nc6 25.Bxc6 bxc6 26.Rf7 a5 27.Kf2 Kb7 28.g4 a4 29.Kg3 a3 30.bxa3 Ra8 31.Rxh7 Rxa3 32.g5 Rxc3+ 33.Kf4 Rc4 34.g6 Rxd4+ 35.Kf5 Rd1 36.h4 Re1 37.g7 Black resigned, George Henry Mackenzie - James Glover Grundy, New York, 1880

9.Bd3

Or 9.d5 Bd7 10.Kg1 Ne5 11.Bb3 Ne7 12.Bf4 N7g6 13.Bg3 Qg5 14.Qd4 0-0 15.Ne2 h5 16.Bf4 Nxf4 17.Nxf4 Qh6 18.Rae1 a6 19.h3 Rae8 20.c4 g5 21.Nd3 g4 22.Re3 Nxd3 23.Rxd3 f5 24.exf5 Bxf5 25.Rc3 Re2 26.Rf2 Rxf2 27.Qxf2 gxh3 28.Qh4 Bg4 29.gxh3 Qf4 30.Qe1 Bf3 31.Rc2 Rf7 32.Qe6 Kh7 33.Rg2 Bxg2 34.Bc2+ Kg7 35.Qg6+ Kf8 White resigned, Louis Paulsen - Simon Winawer, Leipzig GER, 1877; or

9.Be2 N8e7 10.Kg1 d5 11.exd5 Nxd5 12.Ne4 Nb6 13.Bg5 Qc8 14.Nc5 0-0 15.Bd3 f6 16.Bd2 c6 17.Qe1 Bf7 18.b3 Qg4 19.Qf2 Rab8 20.Rae1 Rfe8 21.Bf5 Qh4 22.g3 Qh5 23.Rxe8+ Rxe8 24.g4 Qh3 25.Nxb7 Nh4 26.Qg3 Qxg3+ 27.hxg3 Nxf5 28.gxf5 Re4 29.c3 h5 30.Rf4 Re2 31.Rf2 Re4 32.Rh2 g5 33.Nd6 Rg4 34.Kf2 h4 35.gxh4 gxh4 36.Nxf7 Kxf7 37.Rg2 Re4 38.Kf3 Re8 39.Rh2 Rh8 40.c4 Nc8 41.Bb4 Rh5 42.Kg4 Rg5+ 43.Kxh4 Rxf5 44.Kg4 Rg5+ 45.Kf4 Rg7 46.Rh5 Nb6 47.Rc5 Rg2 48.Rxc6 Rf2+ 49.Ke3 Rxa2 50.d5 Nd7 51.Rc7 Ke8 52.Bd6 Rb2 53.b4 Nb6 54.Kd3 Rb3+ 55.Kd4 Rh3 56.Kc5 Rc3 57.Kb5 Kd8 58.Rc6 Kd7 59.Bb8 f5 60.Bxa7 Nc8 61.Bc5 Rh3 62.Rf6 Black resigned, Berthold Englisch - Simon Winawer, Paris, 1878; or 

9.Bxe6 fxe6 10.Kg1 Nf6 11.Bg5 0-0 12.Qd3 Qd7 13.Bxf6 Rxf6 14.Rxf6 gxf6 15.Rf1 Rf8 16.Qb5 c6 17.Qb3 d5 18.exd5 cxd5 19.Ne2 Kg7 20.c3 e5 21.Ng3 Ne7 22.Nh5+ Kg6 23.Qc2+ e4 24.Qe2 f5 25.g4 h6 26.gxf5+ Rxf5 27.Qg4+ Rg5 28.Rf6+ Kh7 29.Rf7+ Kh8 30.Rf8+ Ng8 31.Qxg5 hxg5 32.Rxg8+ Black resigned, Jose Raul Capablanca - Randolph, New York, 1912



9...Qf6+ 10.Kg1 Qxd4+ 11.Kh1 c6 12.Qe2 Nf6 13.Be3 Qe5



14.h3 h5 15.Bg1 Ke7 16.Bh2 Qg5 17.Rad1 Ne5 18.Bf4 Qg6 19.Qe1 Ne8 20.Ne2

Surprisingly, White misses a chance to play 20.Bxe5 dxe5 21.Nd5!? with an attack.

20...f6 21.Nd4 Rd8 



22.Qb4 Rd7 23.Bxe5 fxe5 24.Nf5+ Bxf5 25.exf5 Qf6 26.Bc4 b5 27.Be6 Rb7 28.c4 c5 29.Qa5 Nc7 



30.Rxd6 

That's more like it. Taking the Rook with 30...Kxd6 allows White's Queen to penetrate the enemy position after 31.Qd2+.

30...Na8

Now Black's position collapses as White's pieces pour in.

31.Rfd1 Nb6 32.Qxb5 Rc7 33.Rd7+ Nxd7 34.Rxd7+ Rxd7 35.Qxd7+ Kf8 36.Qc8+ Ke7 37.Qxc5+ Ke8 38.Qc6+ Kf8 39.Qc8+ Ke7 40.Qxh8 



40...Qg5 41.f6+

Cute. (41.Qa8 was stronger.)

41...Qxf6 42.Qxh5 

Playing to the crowd? More solid was 42.Bd5.

42...Qf1+ 43.Kh2 Qf4+ 44.Kg1 Qc1+ 45.Kf2 Qxb2+ 46.Kg3 Qc3+ 47.Kh2 Kxe6 

48.Qe8+ Kf6 49.Qf8+ Kg6 50.c5 e4 51.Qe8+ Kf5 52.Qf7+ Kg5 53.h4+ Kg4 54.Qg6+ Kf4 55.Qg5 checkmate



Interesting game.

Then, I realized that Fat Lady said "Alekhine played Ke6 and then held onto both pieces", which doesn't sound like a reversed Jerome Gambit, at all. Bummer.

I don't know, maybe he was mis-remembering the internet contest blackburne - AAlekhine, Chessworld, 2007!

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

A Bridge To... Somewhere?

Yesterday's game, Byrne [Bryne] - Farwell, San Francisco, 1859, serves as a curious bridge between two pieces of Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) history. On the one hand, as we have seen, the opening moves transpose to what later will become known as the Semi-Italian Jerome Gambit. On the other hand, it introduces to this blog a player, Willard B. Farwell, who has a couple of other games in the historical California chess database — one of which approaches the question of what games might have influenced Alonzo Wheeler Jerome in the creation of his gambit (see "A Distant Relative?").


Farwell,W - Jones,E
San Francisco, 1859


1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 




This is the Scotch Gambit, but, hold on.


4...Bc5 5.Ng5 Nh6


And now, a relatively familiar set of moves...*


6.Nxf7 Nxf7 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxc5 




The game is about even, although White went on to lose in a miniature (9...d5 10.e5 Re8 11.f4 Nxe5 12.fxe5 Rxe5+ 13.Kd2 Qg5+ 14.Kd3 Re3+ 0-1).


I checked the position after White's 7th move in the ChessLab online database, and discovered a line of games with a whole host of familiar names, on both sides of the board, including:


Labourdonnais - Haxo, Gilvoisin, 1837 (1/2-1/2, 33)
Shumov - Jaenisch, St. Petersburg, 1850 (1-0, 20)
NN - Harrwitz, Paris, 1852 (0-1, 13)
Meek - Morphy, Alabama, 1855 (0-1, 21)
Montgomery - Allison, New York, 1857 (0-1, 59)
Kennicott - Morphy, New York, 1857 (0-1, 24)
Steinkuhler - Blackburne, Manchester, 1861 (0-1, 24)
Ranken - Staunton, London, 1866 (0-1, 24)


Could this be the trail of another "godfather" of the Jerome Gambit? I will be digging deeper...




*-Opening analysis of the time warned against 5...Ne5, because of 6.Nxf7 Nxf7 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxc5, going back at least as far as Sarratt - NN, 1818.. Familiar?


Saturday, January 14, 2012

Some History of the Jerome Gambit (Part 3)

A bit more history, following yesterday and the day before...

After his March and July 1874 articles in the Dubuque Chess Journal, Alonzo Wheeler Jerome published a third bit of analysis on the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) in the January 1875 issue.

Note that the line introduced in "An Intriguing Letter (Part 1)", including the move 9.Na3, is seen here. In future posts we will follow its progress toward its appearance in Freeborough and Ranken's Chess Openings Ancient and Modern.

Dubuque Chess Journal
January 1875 p.38


"Queen's Gambit in Jerome's Double Opening"


Analysis by A.W. Jerome 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 [9...Qf6 10.Nb5+ Kc5 11.Nxd4 Kd6 (11...Qxf5 12.Nxf5 g6 13.Be3+ Kc6 14.Nd4+ Kd6 15.0-0-0 Ke7 16.Nb5 Kd8 17.Bf4) 12.Nb5+ Kc5 13.Qh3 Kxb5 14.Qb3+; 9...Ke7 10.Qh3 d6 11.Qh4+ Ke8 12.Bg5 Nf6 13.0-0-0 Bb6 14.f4 Ng6 15.Qg3 Nh5 16.Qf3 Qd7 17.f5 Nf6 18.fxg6] 10.Qh3 Qf8 11.0-0 Kc6 [11...a6 12.c3 Bb6 13.Qg3 Qf7 14.Bf4] 12.Nb5 Kxb5 13.Qb3+ Kc6 14.Bg5





Tuesday, January 10, 2012

An Intriguing Letter (Part 2)

This is the first of two games, mentioned yesterday in "An Intriguing Letter (Part 1)" from Филидор1792 . It features a typical Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) battle between White's two "extra" pawns and Black's "extra" piece.



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


4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6


7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.d4 Bxd4 9.Na3


This move is mentioned by Freeborough and Ranken in their Chess Openings Ancient and Modern. This game follows one of their notes through the 13th move.

9...c6 10.c3 Qf6 11.cxd4 Qxf5 12.exf5 Nf7 13.Bf4+ Ke7


White has only one pawn for his sacrificed piece, and so muct be worse. However, the game has a long way to go, and each player must make the best of what he has. Watch the first player work with his quantitative majority of pawns on the Kingside.

14.Nc4 d5 15.Ne3 Ngh6 16.g4 g6 17.fxg6 hxg6 18.f3 Bd7 19.Kf2 Raf8 20.Bg3 g5 21.Rae1 Kd8 22.h4 gxh4 23.Bxh4+ Kc8


These "Jerome pawns" give White hope.

24.Bf6 Rhg8 25.Kg3 Nd6 26.Be5 Nhf7 27.Bxd6 Nxd6 28.Rh6 Nf7 29.Rh7 Rh8 30.Reh1 Kd8 31.f4 Ke7 32.f5 Kf6 33.Kf4 Rxh7 34.Rxh7 Rh8

From a practical standpoint, White continues to make progress.

35.g5+ Ke7 36.g6

Perhaps looking to win the Knight, but actually losing the Rook pawn. It was probably time to exchange Rooks, with an even game.

36...Rxh7 37.gxh7 Kf6 38.Ng4+ Kg7 39.Ne5 Nxe5 40.dxe5 Kxh7


Oh, those Jerome pawns! Are they actually going to save the day??

41.e6 Be8 42.Ke5 Kg7 43.f6+ Kf8 44.b4 Bh5 45.a3 Bf3 46.Kd6


46...Ke8

Finally cracking under the pressure.

47.f7+ Kf8 48.e7+ Kxf7 49.Kd7 Bg4+ 50.Kd8 d4 51.e8Q+ Black resigned

Monday, January 9, 2012

An Intriguing Letter (Part 1)

I recently received an email from chessfriend Ð¤Ð¸Ð»Ð¸Ð´Ð¾Ñ€1792 ("Philidor 1792") that got me thinking about a whole lot of things in the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) universe – kind of like setting off a whole string of fireworks in my brain. This happened not too long ago (after another letter from Филидор1792) with the series of posts "Where Do Ideas Come From?" Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, so I knew that I was headed off on another adventure!

First, the letter

Hi,

There is some stuff, that may be interesting. When I was reading the article on Jerome Gambit in Wikipedia I noticed that the move 9.Na3 [1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.d4 Bxd4] that is mentioned there with reference to Chess Openings, Ancient and Modern (1896) by Freeborough and Ranken is not represented on your blog (probably I missed it). So I decided to check it with a friend of mine. White happened to win both games, though in second one it was lost.

Thanks for your time. I wish you Happy New Year


To start off: Wikipedia articles do not often link to blogs, but the Jerome Gambit article does – to this blog, of course.

Also, while Wikipedia does not have an article on Chess Openings, Ancient and Modern, itself, it does have an article on author Edward Freeborough (that is the link that I added to Филидор1792's letter). I was surprised to see that one of the references the Freeborough article gives is to a review of Chess Openings, Ancient and Modern – by yours truly. It's a small universe.


Saturday, March 13, 2010

The People's Chess Opening

For every player that I encounter who plays the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) because he or she has seen it in a chess book (e.g. Freeborough and Ranken's Chess Openings, Ancient and Modern) or on a blog like this one, there are dozens who use Jerome-ish attacks while just play a game...

I regularly hear (or read) comments like

I had no idea that I was using the Jerome Gambit
That doesn't get in the way of playing the Royal Game and using "the duckbill platypus" of chess openings
I am not familiar with the names of gambits; I play chess for fun and relaxation; I no longer have time to really study
There can be personal comments like
I always try to sacrifice two peices when I'm playing. Stumbling upon this fun opening you call the Jerome Gambit is simply a result of that practice. The sacrificing of two peices has deep significant and personal meaning to me, and it reminds me of the many important life lessons that can be found in a game of chess.
What I almost always find is the opinion that I share with so many other players
I absolutely agree that the Jerome Gambit is a whole lot of fun to play, win or loose. As for my favorite game, well, that's always the next one.

Sunday, January 31, 2010

Shillings: One Found, Two Lost (Part 1)


Sometime back I contacted Edward Winter, of "Chess Notes" and Chess History fame, with some questions about the origin and naming of the Blackburne Shilling Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4). He posted my query, and recently presented some relevant information. 

3786. Blackburne Shilling Gambit

From Rick Kennedy (Columbus, OH, USA):

‘The opening 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nd4 has been called the Blackburne Shilling Gambit, in recognition, apparently, of J.H. Blackburne’s use of it to win small stakes from players. However, I have yet to find a single game with it played by Blackburne. In fact, the earliest game uncovered was played in New Zealand in 1911. How did Blackburne’s name become attached to the variation? Indeed, when did it become attached?
Steinitz’s Modern Chess Instructor has a note on the line, but does not refer to Blackburne. Mr Blackburne’s Games at Chess makes no mention of it. Nor does Freeborough and Ranken’s Chess Openings Ancient and Modern attribute the line (given in a footnote) to anyone. E.E. Cunnington’s books (one on traps, one on openings for beginners), which were published in London shortly after the turn of the century, give the moves but do not name Blackburne.
One clue may be that the first edition of Hooper and Whyld’s Oxford Companion to Chess (1984) does not call the line by name, but the second edition (1992) calls it the Blackburne Shilling Gambit. Did the co-authors discover some historical information during that eight-year period?’

6470. Blackburne Shilling Gambit (C.N. 3786)

From page 429 of the December 1897 American Chess Magazine:

"All chess life seems to be with America," writes an esteemed and particularly well-posted English correspondent. "A great change has come over English chess. The 'old masters' are dying out. The new-born strength of amateurs has slaughtered them. They have no prestige. Names once of weight are now spoken of with contempt. No new professionals are coming in – no new Blackburnes or Birds. The 'nimble shilling,' for which the old professionals played at the Divan, is now too hardly earned. The country joskins know the openings and the principles, and instead of Bird's giving a Queen and winning twenty games in an hours, as I have seen ('hoc egomet oculis mei vidi'), he plays on even terms, and of five games wins only the odd one and a shilling. The ancient 'Shilling Gambit' is no longer a thing of dread. Young men from Birmingham walk into the Divan without awe and speak of giving odds. And the late H. Macaulay of this city (now Birmingham) actually conceded the Knight to a master who played and won a prize in the Manchester International, and Macaulay, giving the odds, won a majority of the games." - New Orleans Times-Democrat.






Sunday, May 17, 2009

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.

Monday, September 15, 2008

The Jerome Gambit Gemeinde (early)

Followers of Emil J. Diemer and the Blackmar Diemer Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6) composed a community they referred to as the Blackmar Diemer Gemeinde.

It only seems fitting to outline such a community for those associated with the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+).

Among the early members would of course be Alonzo Wheeler Jerome (1834-1902), credited with inventing the gambit, exploring it in over-the-board and correspondence play, and discussing it in the pages of the Dubuque Chess Journal and American Chess Journal.

Orestes A. Brownson, editor of the Dubuque Chess Journal, deserves membership in the Gemeinde, as he was enthusiastic about the Jerome Gambit, and from 1874 to 1876 published games played by Jerome and others.

William Hallock, editor of the American Chess Journal, was skeptical about the merits of the Jerome Gambit, referring to it at one point as "Jerome's Absurdity," but he carried on a discussion of the opening with Alonzo Jerome in the pages of the ACJ during the years 1876 and 1877. He can be considered part of the "loyal opposition" in the Jerome Gambit Gemeinde, (a role Gerhard Gunderam often took in the Blackmar Diemer Gemeinde).

Andres Clemente Vazquez, Mexican Chess Champion, played the Jerome Gambit three times in his 1876 match against William Carrington, scoring 3-0. The second (1885) and third (1889) editions of his Analisis del juego de ajedrez contain analysis of the gambit.

Henry Charlick, of Australia, who experimented with 1.d4 e5, played the Jerome Gambit in his 1881 match with J. Mann; and earlier experimented in his 1877 game against Holloway with what might be called the "Evans Jerome Gambit": 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Bc5 6.Bxf7 (1-0, 76).

Lt. S. A. Sorensen, whose "Skaktheori for Segyndere" ("Chess Theory for Beginners") in the May 1877 Nordisk Skaktidende analyzed the Jerome Gambit, saw his work translated and published all around the world. His 1888 game against an anonymous player (the first example of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.d4 Qh4 that I have found) shows that he played the Jerome as well.

S. A. Charles, a member of the Cincinnati (Ohio, USA) Chess Club, wrote opening analyses, first for the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, then later for the Pittsburgh Telegraph. It is in the latter paper that in 1881 he presented his examination of the Jerome Gambit. That year he also played an incomplete Jerome Gambit correspondence match with Alonzo Jerome.

J.W. Miller
, also of the Cincinnati Chess Club, published in 1884 Cook's Synopsis of Chess Openings A Tabular Analysis by William Cook, With American Inventions in the Openings and Fresh Analysis since 1882. It included a reprint of Cook's Synopsis, 3rd edition (1882) which had been very popular and was already out of print. The Synopsis contained analysis of the Jerome Gambit which was based largely on Sorensen's article. The American supplement portion of the book contained Jerome Gambit analysis based largely on the work of S.A. Charles.

E. Freeborough and and C. E. Ranken included analysis of the Jerome Gambit in their Chess Openings Ancient and Modern (1st edition 1889, 2nd edition 1893, 3rd edition 1896, 4th edition 1910), a book that has been reprinted at least once in the modern era (Hippocrene Books, 1974) and which has been the introduction to the Jerome for a good number of players.


There are others who played or wrote about the Jerome Gambit in its early days, and I hope to welcome them into the Gemeinde in future posts.

Monday, July 28, 2008

Godfather of the Jerome Gambit? (Part I)

It is not (yet) clear from what Alonzo Wheeler Jerome received his inspiration to create the Jerome Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ but the following legendary game must have gotten his creativity stirred up.

From the British Chess Magazine, November 1899
We take the score of the following extraordinary game from the Glasgow Herald, which was indebted for it to Capt. Mackenzie. It is said to have been played about 20 years ago in the Vienna Club, and was first published, we find, by Turf, Field, and Farm, and afterwards reprinted in the Chess-Player's Quarterly Chronicle of 1872.
Notes by C.E. Ranken [translated from descriptive to algebraic notation] 

Hamppe - Meitner
Vienna Club, 1872


1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Bc5 3.Na4 Bxf2+

We cannot believe this sacrifice to be sound. The simple retreat of the B to e7 is sufficient answer to White's bizarre third move, since it leaves his N out of play.

4.Kxf2 Qh4+ 5.Ke3
A feasible course seems to be as follows: 5.g3 Qxe4 6.Qe2! Qxh1 (If 6...Qxa4 White at once recovers his two pawns, with the better position) 7.Nf3 Nf6 (This or 7...Nh6 is obviously the only move to save the Queen) 8.h3 (Better than 8.Qxe5+ ) 8...e4 (If 8...Ng4+ 9.hxg4 d6 10.d4 Bxg4 11.Bg2 Bxf3 12.Qxf3 and wins) 9.Bg2 Ng4+ 10.hxg4 Qh6 11.Qxe4+ Qe6 12.Nc5 Qxe4 13.Nxe4 d5 14.Nc3 c6 15.g5 and Black has only Rook and Pawn against the two minor pieces

5...Qf4+ 6.Kd3 d5 7.Kc3 

7.Nc3 might perhaps be ventured, and if 7...dxe4+ 8.Kc4; Or White could play 7.Qe2 and if 7...dxe4+ 8.Kc3 

7...Qxe4 8.Kb3

A pretty variation would arise here from 8.d4 exd4+ 9.Qxd4 Qe1+ 10.Bd2 Qxa1 11.Nf3! Qxa2 (if 11...Kf8 12.Qxd5 Nc6 13.Bc4 Be6 14.Qc5+ and wins) 12.Qxg7 Qxa4 13.Qxh8 Qc6+ There appears nothing better. 14.Kb3 Qg6 15.Bd3 with a winning attack. 

8...Na6 9.a3 Qxa4+

An exhibition of fireworks worthy of Morphy or Blackburne. This brilliant sacrifice will, as far as we can see, stand the test of analysis, and but for White's able defence it might have won.

10.Kxa4 Nc5+ 11.Kb4 
Best; if 11.Kb5 the reply would be 11...b6 
11...a5+ 12.Kxc5



If 12.Kc3 then 12...d4+ 13.Kc4 b6 and still White would have no escape. 

12...Ne7 13.Bb5+

The only way to escape mate. 

13...Kd8 14.Bc6 b6+ 15.Kb5 Nxc6 16.Kxc6


If 16.Ka4 Nd4 and mates next move. If 16.c3 then 16...Bd7 with the same result 

16...Bb7+ 17.Kb5 

Should 17.Kxb7 then 17...Kd7 18.Qg4+ Kd6 and White has no resource 

17...Ba6+ and draws by perpetual check