Jerome Gambit History Tidbits

A few of my recent Jerome Gambit discoveries...

Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1884
Stumbling over the infamous Jerome Gambit game Amateur - Blackburne, London in the Australian Town and Country Journal (Saturday, March 21, 1885, page 31) I found another comment that supported 1884 as the year of the game (as if there needed to be more than Dr. Tim Harding's words from the English Chess Forum, which I presented in "Jerome Gambit: Dr. Harding Checks In")

We reprint from the Adelaide Observer...The following affair occurred to the great blindfold player a few months ago in London... 

But the best part was the columnist's comment on the stunning move 4.Bxf7+: "So early in the morning!"


Emanuel Lasker, columnist
The Evening Post: New York  from Wednesday, November 30, 1910, (page 11) had Emanuel Lasker's "CHESS AND CHESS PLAYERS" column, including the following news

...At the rooms of the Rice Chess Club in the Cafe Boulevard, the team representing the Temple Chess Club of the Baptist Temple of Brooklyn encountered the team Stuyvesant High School, and, although handicapped by the absence of two players, causing forfeiture on two boards, the Brooklyn players carried off the victory by the score of 3 points to 2... The Temple Chess Club players had the white pieces on the odd-numbered boards. The Jerome gambit, king's bishop opening, and French defence were adopted at the last three boards...

Although the copy of the paper is at times difficult to make out, it appears that Board 3 was a match between E. E. Brodhead of the Temple C.C. and Gadiowitz of Stuyvesant H.S., with Brodhead's Jerome Gambit carrying the day. I have not yet discovered the game.

It should be recalled that Lasker, responding to a letter to “Our Question Box” in the March 1906 issue of Lasker’s Chess Magazine had already said his peace about the opening 

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.

Emanuel Lasker, Simultaneous Exhibition 
The Observer (Adelaide) of Saturday, December 29, 1906 (page 49) has in its CHESS column, under CHESS NOTES, the following

Simultaneous Chess. - Lasker, playing at Pittsburg, Pa., lately, out of 28 games won 24, drew 2, and lost 2, a fine score of 25-3. The openings adopted were varied - Sicilian Defence 3, Centre Gambit 5, Petroff 1, Evans 4, Four Knights 2, Vienna 1, Jerome 1, King's Knight 1, King's Gambit 5, French 2, Allgaier 2 and only 1 Ruy Lopez.

It would seem that the source of Observer column was the October 18, 1906 (page 9) Pittsburgh Press article titled "DR. LASKER PLAYED 26 GAMES OF CHESS AT ONCE.  He Succeeded in Winning 22 of Them and Drawing 2." It is unclear why the two news reports differ in the number of games reported being played and won; and the Pittsburgh Press names 27 club members who were seated against Lasker, so apparently at least one board was covered by two players.

The Jerome Gambit (neither a win nor a draw for White) was played by E. H. Miller. (This is likely Emlen Hare Miller, who, a decade later, had a win [opening unknown] against Frank J. Marshall in a simultaneous exhibition.)

Of note

Before the contest began Lasker made an address on "The Game of Chess and the Game of Life," which was highly appreciated by his listeners.

How I would love to discover how Lasker defended against the Jerome Gambit!
  
Beware, chess students, the dreaded Jerome Gambit
The Telegraph (Brisbane) of Saturday, December 14, 1929, (page 13) had a "CHESS" column that gave the Jerome Gambit a greater sense of scariness than I had realized it had ever projected   

Chess students are early taught to watch out for the dreaded Jerome Gambit, an attack however that owes its success mainly to the inexperience of the attacked. Unsound it undoubtedly is, but white obtains a ferocious offensive requiring on the part of black the very greatest care. An ounce of practice, we are told, is worth a ton of theory, so the following game in the case isoffered. It is a win by the famous Blackburne with the black; of course it is not given to us all to be Blackburne...

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.

Scotch Game (Intermezzo Variation), Hungarian Defence & Jerome-ish Blows

 Scotch Game (Intermezzo Variation), Hungarian Defence & Jerome-ish Blows   

  

(by Yury V. Bukayev) 

 

 

This month the website “Bruno’s Chess Problem of the Day” (“Bruno’s Chess Articles”) has published my new analytical opening article ‘Scotch game (Intermezzo variation), Hungarian: bomb!’, where I have considered the new and the very strong defences (as a result of theoretical novelties) against the Lasker attack in the Intermezzo variation of the Scotch game, the Classical variation, (C45) and against 5.dxe5 in the Hungarian defence (C50).  

 

Readers of Rick Kennedy’s blog know that the great maestro World Champion Emanuel Lasker has played the Jerome gambit game in his simultaneous exhibition in the beginning of the 20th century. It is clear, it was a serious game, although, probably, it was a game, where 4.Bxf7+ was a handicap. Dr. Lasker’s simultaneous exhibition games of those years, probably, can show us much more interesting and valuable, than we could expect earlier. One of such examples is a game Lasker – Smythe of the simultaneous exhibition in USA, 1901, where the new attack of the Intermezzo variation (the Classical variation 4…Bc5 of the Scotch game) was played: 

 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 (it can be noted that the sequence of moves in that game was other: 2.d4 exd4 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Nxd4) 4…Bc5 5.Nxc6 Qf6 6.Qf3 (it’s Dr. Lasker’s novelty) 6…Qxc6 7.Nc3!.  

Dr. Lasker’s opponent wasn’t a weak player, he could make a draw in this game, and his response – 7…Ne7 – has got the best theoretical reputation. The World Champion has played 8.Bg5, and the best continuation of the attack – 8.Bb5! – was found later. IM Vladimir L. Barsky in his book “The Scotch Game for White” (Saint Petersburg, 2010) writes (p.81) that the position on c6 of Black’s Queen, after 7.Nc3!, isn’t very good, and he indicates the whole main theoretical line (p.82-83): 8…Qe6 9.0-0 0-0 10.Qd3 a6 11.Bc4 etc., with White’s advantage.  

In contrast with it, I prove first in this my article on “Bruno’s Chess Articles” that after 7…a6! Black’s position (including the position on c6 of Black’s Queen) is very good. Thus, the plan Bf1-b5-c4 is impossible here. What can happen, if White tries to make Bf1-c4 directly? My article shows that Black can respond by the Jerome-ish blow …Bxf2+!. And then …Qxc4 with his large advantage. 

Finally, here is my new present for lovers of Jerome gambit’s risky (handicap) relatives. Thus, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Be7 4.d4 d6 5.dxe5 dxe5 6.Bd5 Qd7! AN 7.Ng5 Nd8! = (please, look at the Paragraph 2 of my article on “Bruno’s Chess Articles”) White can play also the new risky line 8.Nxf7? Nxf7 9.Bxf7+ Kxf7 10.Qh5+ with the most “romantic” possibility of 10…Kf6? 11.f4.