Short Controversy

I was looking through Eduard Gufeld and Nikolai Kalienchenko's Chess Strategy (Batsford, 2003) when I ran across an interesting section on "Gambit Systems and How to Evaluate Them."

Openings in which material is sacrificed for the sake of dominating the centre and mobilizing the pieces quickly are called gambit systems. The material sacrificed is usually one or two pawns, or a minor piece for one or two pawns. Sometimes a rook is given up for a knight or bishop; occasionally even a whole rook is sacrificed. How do we judge whether the positional gains compensate for the sacrificed material? Sometimes we can tell from our first glance at the position. But more often the latent possibilities come to light only as a result of lengthy analysis and accumulated practical experience.

If a large quantity of material is sacrificed (two pawns, a piece for a pawn, etc.), then once the gambit becomes generally known, several different authors will give analyses attempting to prove conclusively whether the attack can be repelled while the material is retained. Sometimes the controversy over the sacrifice will last for many years...

When it comes to the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) the "controversy" did not last very long.

The Jerome first appeared in print in the April 1874 edition of the Dubuque Chess Journal. This was likely too late for analysis of the gambit to be included in the 1st edition of Cook's Synopsis of the Chess Openings, Andres Clemente Vazquez's 1st edition of Analisis del juego de ajedrez, the 2nd edition of Longman's Chess Openings, or the 4th edition of Bilguer's Handbuch des Schachspiels -- all which came out the same year.

The following year, the 2nd edition of Wormald's Chess Openings also had nothing on the Jerome Gambit; and in 1876 the 2nd edition of Cook's Synopsis of the Chess Openings was equally neglectful.

However, 1877 saw the publication of a seminal article on the Jerome Gambit by Lieut. Sorensen in his "Chess for Beginners" column in the May issue of Nordisk Skaktidende (see "Bashi-Bazouk Attack") which was translated and reprinted around the world.

Sorensen's conclusion

Naturally we immediately remark that it is unsound, and that Black must obtain the advantage; but the attack is pretty sharp, and Black must take exact care, if he does not wish to go quickly to the dogs. A little analysis of it will, therefore, be highly instructive, not to say necessary, for less practised players, and will be in its right place in our Theory, especially since it is not found in any handbook.