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.
No comments:
Post a Comment