My Jerome Gambit Database

I have over 950 Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) games in my database, allowing for transpositions.

I'm always looking for more.

Some are historical

D'Aumiller - A. P.
Livorno, 1878
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 d6 8.d4 Bxd4 9.c3 Bb6 10.fxe5 dxe5 11.Na3 Nf6 12.Qf5+ Kd6 13.Nc4+ Kc5 14.Qxe5+ Kxc4 15.b3+ Kd3 16.Bf4 Kc2 17.Rc1+ Kb2 18.c4+ Ka3 19.Rc2 Re8 1-0

Some are tragic modern over-the-board games

Banks - Rees
Wolverhampton Summer League
Division 3S
Halesowen v Lucas BS, 2003
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8 6.Qh5 Qf6 7.Nxd7+ Bxd7 8.Qxc5+ Qd6 9.Qxd6+ cxd6 10.c3 Nf6 11.f3 Kf7 12.0-0 Rhe8 13.d4 Kg8 14.Bf4 d5 15.e5 Nh5 16.Bg5 Nxe5 17.dxe5 Rxe5 18.Bc1 Bb5 19.Rd1 Rae8 20.Bd2 Re2 21.Na3 Bd3 22.Re1 Nf4 23.Rxe2 Nxe2+ 24.Kf2 Rf8 25.b4 Nf4 26.Bxf4 Rxf4 27.Ke3 Rh4 28.Kxd3 Rxh2 29.Rg1 Kf7 30.Nb5 Rh6 31.Re1 a6 32.Nd4 g6 33.a4 Rh2 34.g4 Ra2 35.a5 Ra3 36.Re5 Ra2 37.Rxd5 Rh2 38.Rd7+ Kf6 39.Rxb7 h5 40.gxh5 gxh5 41.Rb6+ Kg5 42.Rxa6 h4 43.Ne6+ Kf5 44.Ke3 Rc2 45.Nd4+ 1-0

Some are internet beasties

blackburne - karmmark
Jerome Gambit thematic tournament
www.chessworld.net, 2007
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 Nc6 8.Qxc5 Qe7 9.Qd5+ Kf6 10.Qf5 mate

Some are sleepy affairs

Brescak - Hefti
EU-ch U10 Girls, 1998
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ draw agreed.

In all about 7% are over-the-board games, 12% involve computers (person vs computer or computer vs computer), 2% are traditional (snail mail) correspondence games and 79% are games played on the internet (various time controls).

These statistics reflect the explosion of chess in general on the internet – as well as the continued challenge of unearthing historical games, as reflected in the two smallest per centages above. With good reason National Master Eric Schiller includes the Jerome Gambit, despite its untamed early life, among those he calls a "cyberspace gambit" in his Gambit Chess Openings (2002).

In fact, a ChessBase-generated graph of the games, distributed by year played, looks like a very skinny Bozo the Clown taking a nap on his back: his nose beeps up in the mid-1870s to mid-1880s and then there's very little in the sillouette until his large clown shoes explode in the 2000 to present era...

But – Is this stuff playable?? (Part II)

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "playable"...

Stop by Chessworld these days and you are likely to see three Jerome Gambit thematic tournaments in progress.

Somebody is still playing this stuff!

(Me, for example. I should take top honors in one tournament with a 16-2 score. That would be 7-2 with the Gambit and the White pieces –but 9-0 with the Black pieces, which should say something, but I'm not sure what.)


In the current issue of the Unorthodox Openings Newsletter (tirelessly and
ably edited by Gary K. Gifford)
I have an article on a recently concluded Jerome Gambit tournament.

.

I made reference to Nigel Davies' comments on club play (see "But – Is this stuff playable?? (Part I)") and then described the games:

This wisdom is relevant to the tournament under consideration, where players ranged from the 1200s to the 1800s according to chessworld's rating system, and where knowledge of the “book” lines of the Jerome Gambit ranged from a good bit to not much at all.

We are not going to be looking at masters searching out the ultimate truth of the opening, we are going to see how it is played at club level.

Please remember, too, that we are not looking at the Ruy Lopez, or even the Blackmar Diemer Gambit. We are looking at the duck-billed platypus of the chess opening world.

Some surprises were inevitable, including this one:

Contrary to my initial impressions, White won 63 games in the Jerome Gambit Tournament, lost 90, and drew 3, for a score of 41% – this is unimpressive in comparison with “legitimate” chess openings, but a bit surprising for an opening that GM Keene once wrote “should never be played.”

So: at the right time (and time control), with the right opponent, playing in the right mood – perhaps the Jerome Gambit is a bit playable...

But – Is this stuff playable?? (Part I)

Of course not.

The Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) has many refutations.

I'm glad that's settled.

Maybe a more useful question would be --
Under what conditions might the Jerome Gambit be playable?

In casual or blitz games among "average" players , perhaps -- when Grandmaster Nigel Davies' words from his Gambiteer I (2007) are relevant:

Having examined literally thousands of club players’ games over the years, I have noticed several things:
1) The player with the more active pieces tends to win.
2) A pawn or even several pawns is rarely a decisive advantage.
3) Nobody knows much theory.
4) When faced with aggressive play, the usual reaction is to cower.

I like the sound of that.

Also, what do you make of the following position?

White, down two pieces without compensation, is lost, right?

Actually, the game is Morphy - T. Knight, New Orleans 1856, which ended in the first player announcing checkmate in 17 moves.

And this position?

Morphy - Maurian, New Orleans, 1858, a win for White in 15 moves..

Ok, you're catching on. It's possible for a stronger player to give a weaker player odds of a piece or more and still have a fighting chance.

Just like someone could give "Jerome Gambit odds" in the right situation..

One more position: White is lost, right??

This is a trick position.

Vazquez - Giraudy
Mexico, 1876
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.d4 Bxd4 9.c3 Bb6 10.f4 Qf6 11.fxe5+ Qxe5 12.Bf4 Qxf4 13.Qxf4+ Ke7 14.Rf1 Nh6 15.Qe5+ Kd8 16.Qxg7 Re8 17.Qg5+ Re7 18.Rf8 mate

Andres Clemente Vazquez, the Mexican Champion and editor of La Estrategia Mexicane gave both Knight's and Jerome Gambit odds -- and still managed a checkmate in under 20 moves!

Bashi-Bazouk Attack

From The Chess Player's Chronicle, August 1, 1877, translated from the May 1877 Nordisk Skaktidende:

Chess Theory for Beginners
by Lieut. Sorensen

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5

With this answering move of the Bishop we have the fundamental position for that good old game which the Italians, hundreds of years ago, when they were masters of the Chess board, called "Giuoco Piano," even game, but the later age, for generality of explanation, the "Italian game." On this basis the usual continuation is 4.P to QB3, whereby the QP at the next move threatens to advance, and the White middle Pawns to occupy the centre.

In the next articles we will make mention of that regular fight for the maintenance or destruction of the centre, which is the essential point of the Italian game; in this, on the contrary, we will occupy ourselves with a Bashi-Bazouk


[Encyclopedia Britannica: Turkish BASIBOZUK ("corrupted head," or "leaderless"), mercenary soldier belonging to the skirmishing or irregular troops of the Ottoman Empire, notorious for their indiscipline, plundering, and brutality]


attack, over which the learned Italians would have crossed themselves had they known it came under the idea of piano, but which is in reality of very recent date - 1874, and takes it origin from an American, A.W. Jerome.

It consists in the sacrifice of a piece by 4.B takes P(ch).

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.

The Americans call the game "Jerome's double opening," an allusion, probably, to the fresh sacrifice of a piece which follows at the next move, but we shall prefer to use the short and sufficiently clear designation, Jerome Gambit.

Junk Openings

Thinking chess players everywhere (even those of us in the Jerome Gambit Gemeinde) should stop by (although perhaps many have, being thinking chess players, after all) National and FIDE Master Dennis Monokroussos' thoughtful website, The Chess Mind.

Dennis produces the instructive and entertaining ChessBase shows and ChessVideos shows, which I can highly recommend.

Dennis' thoughts on the Jerome Gambit are rather dismissive -- although he has been more than polite in his exchanges with me at his site.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+??... leaves White a piece down for no compensation whatsoever. Is there even a single trap for Black to fall into in the Jerome Gambit?

Interested readers might want to take a look at some of my earlier posts: this one on junk openings, and see here and here on the Jerome Gambit with the follow-up 5.Nxe5+, as in a well-known Blackburne game.

Of course, I certainly wasn't going to argue with a philosopher at the University of Notre Dame (where, by the way, "Kennedy Kid" Jon attends, although he and Dennis have neither crossed paths nor pawns).

Ah, yes, Dennis, you are of course completely correct: on a good day the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+??) aspires to be known as a "junk opening," but likely still over-reaches!

It's value, such as it is, can be found in the enjoyment (mixed with horror) that some players have experienced while employing the Jerome in blitz, or using it as a way of giving odds to a weaker player.

It is in the latter case that the "justification" of the opening is found: no traps, just the acute discomfort the second player feels (until he reaches a certain level of skill, of course; then he is brimming with confidence and a desire to pocket the gifted full point) with a King out of place and that Big, Bad Queen on the prowl...

The position after 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ is no more "objectively" lost than the starting position in a game where White gives Knight, Rook or Queen odds.

My interest in the JG over the last few years has been of a historical nature — where did such a thing come from and in what manner did it survive?

"...as long as they spell your name right"

P.T. Barnum liked to say that “there’s no such thing as bad press, as long as they spell your name right.”

Barnum was also a contemporary of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome.

With that short intro, I bring you a quote from National Master Eric Schiller, who has probably been the highest-rated player writing the most (something [anything!]) about the Jerome Gambit until International Master Gary Lane recently brought the opening up in his ChessCafe column.

From Schiller's Gambit Chess Openings (2002)

The High-Risk Gambits

The following gambits are considered terrible for the gambiteer, as far as computer evaluations are concerned...

One might think that they are entirely unsound but it is not always so. Some of these are generally considered playable in the books, others are acknowledged as refuted. In a few cases, the computer evaluation seems way off because experience has shown good results...
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
This is another cyberspace gambit.
Virtually no attention was paid to this reckless move until its supporters started talking about it on the Internet. It can't be found in recent tournament games, and there is a good reason: It stinks.

White whips up a brief attack, easily parried, and then spends a long time trying to justify the sacrifice. A popular gambit in cyberspace, but in the real world, it only succeeds in games where Black is a very weak player.

Uh, thanks Eric.
I think.

"A sparkling variation to the tiresome Piano game"

From the September 1876 issue of the American Chess Journal:

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.