'Tis A Puzzlement...

I love all-day sessions poring over century-old books and magazines as much as the next person – especially when I'm in the White Collection of the Cleveland Public Library, the world's largest publicly-accessible chess collection.

Getting informative emails from chessfriends around the world puts a big smile on my face; but sometimes no matter what I (we) do, mysteries remain.

Here are a few that have kept me puzzled.

Puzzlement #1:

In the November 1876 issue of the American Chess Journal, editor William Hallock, writing on the Jerome Gambit, noted:

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.

Does anyone know what the "Harvey-Evans" attack is? Certainly Hallock cannot be referring to Captain Evans' gambit. Who was Harvey, anyhow?

Puzzlement #2:

In his The Chess Mind (1951) Gerald Abrahams admonishes:

Chess opinion has convincingly condemned many extravagant unbalancing attacks, such as the once popular Jerome gambit, (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Bxf7+), which yield the unbalancer nothing but loss against good defense.

He repeats his guidance in The Pan Book of Chess (1965):

[1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5] ... and nobody in their right senses plays 3.Bxf7+, Jerome's Gambit.

Fair enough – but as far as I can tell Alonzo Wheeler Jerome always played his gambit as a variation of the Giuoco Piano: 2.Nf3 first, then 3.Bc4, and then 4.Bxf7+.

Where did Abrahams get the idea that the Jerome was a variant of the Bishop's Opening?

Puzzlement #3:

Lubomir Kavalek, in his Washington Post chess column of Monday, April 14, 2003, addresses Karl Traxler and his Traxler Counter-Attack: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5!?

Traxler introduced his idea in the game against J. Reinisch, played on March 20, 1890, in Hustoun.

The game was first published with his notes and analysis on Oct. 11, 1892, in the chess column of Golden Prague. I have included some of his notes. They show how he was ahead of his time. The first serious analysis by others appeared only some 40 years later.

Reinisch-Traxler 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5!? ("An original combination that is better than it looks. A small mistake by white can give black a decisive attack. It is not easy to find the best defense against it in a practical game and it is probably theoretically correct," wrote Traxler. "It somewhat resembles the Blackmar-Jerome gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+?! Kxf7 5.Nxe5+?!," he added.)

Say what?? "The Blackmar-Jerome gambit?"

Anyone who can shed any light on any of this is encouraged to make contact!