The Salvio Gambit?? [more]

Searching for the link between the 17th century Italian chess player Salvio and the Jerome Gambit – 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ – I had come upon J.H. Sarratt's translation of Salvio's works... see "The Salvio Gambit??"

Salvio presented a number of "games" in the Giuoco Piano section of his book, in five of which the first player sacrificed his Bishop for the pawn on his opponent's King Bishop Two square [f7/e7]. For the most part I have translated the descriptive notation to algebraic notation.

In this first game, Black moves first:

1.e5 e4 2.Bc5 Bc4 3.Nf6 Nc3 4.0-0 [Note: this is the early Italian form of castling, where the player has choices of where his King and Rook will go – in this case, the King goes to g8 and the Rook to e8.] Nf3 5.c6 Ng5 6.d5 exd5 7.Bxf2+


7...Kxf2 8.Ng4+ Kg1 9.Qxg5 d3 10.Qh4 Qe2

Wrote Sarratt "There is no advantage on either side, says SALVIO. It appears to me to be slightly in favor of the Black."

In the second game, and all subsequent games presented here, White moves first; and the pattern of play is familiar:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.0-0 [King to g1, Rook to e1] Nf6 5.c3 Ng4 6.d4 exd4 7.cxd4

Salvio's note:

White at the seventh move, instead of taking K.P. with Q. B. P. [7.cxd4], may take K. B. P. with his K.B., giving check [7.Bxf7+];

and if Black take that Bishop [7...Kxf7], White ought to check with his K. Kt. on the adversary's K. Kt. fourth square [8.Ng5+], and afterwards take K. Kt. with his Queen [9.Qxg4]. If Black should decline taking K.B., and, instead of it, should move his K. to his B. square [7...Kf8], White must move his Q. B. to adversary's K. Kt. fourth square [8.Bg5].

In the third game the Bishop sacrifice comes earlier:

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Qe2 Nf6 4.Bxf7+


4...Kxf7 5.Qc4+ d5 6.Qxc5 Nxe4 7.Qe3 Nf6

"The Black has a very good game" notes Salvio.


The fourth game is similar:

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Qe2 Nc6 4.Bxf7+



4...Kxf7 5.Qc4+ Ke8 Qxc5 "and wins a Pawn."

The last game:

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.c3 c6

"This is a highly exceptionable move;" wrote Sarratt, "instead of it the Queen ought to be moved to her K. second square. [3...Qe7]"

4.Qe2

Then another note by Sarratt "Salvio has not directed the White to avail himself of his adversary's error: White may play much better, ex. gr. 4.d4 exd4 5.Bxf7+



5...Kxf7 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxc5

and white has a much better game."

It is clear that Salvio – and Sarratt – liked to sacrifice a Bishop at f7/f2. Perhaps that is what the Chess.com posters or Golombek had in mind when they linked Salvio with the Jerome Gambit.

However, nowhere in Salvio's Trattato does a Bishop sacrifice at f7/f2 occur after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5.

I guess I'd better search for more Golombek books!