Analysis
The
analysis presented below is largely to give a historical context, as the
commentators throughout the life of the Jerome Gambit – whether with a wink and
a nod, or with a scowl and a grimace – have been accurate in their assessment
that the attack is unsound and objectively places the gambiteer at a disadvantage.
The Jerome Gambit may best be
employed in casual or blitz games, or as a way for the first player to offer
odds to a weaker opponent. The game Charlick – Holloway, Adelaide
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5
As early as his first article with
analysis (DCJ 4/1874), Alonzo Jerome considered the possibility that Black
might refuse to capture the second piece, and play for King safety instead with
5...Kf8. This was, in fact, the defense that
Hallock used in an 1876 correspondence game played “by special request” to test
the gambit (ACJ 2/1877), that Carrington tried in his match vs Vazquez (Algunas
Partidas 1879), and which Sorensen recommended as “more solid and easier to
manage” (NS 5/1877). After 6.Nxc6 dc (Jerome gave 6…bc 7.d4
“putting Black’s KB out of play”) analysis has generally followed Jerome –
Brownson, 1875, with 7.O-O Nf6 8.Qf3 (Sorensen said 8.e5 would be met by
8…Bg4 9.Qe1 Kf7! which was how Norton – Hallock had continued ) Qd4 9.d3 Bg4
10.Qg3
Sorensen (NS, 5/1877) gave
the alternative line 10…Bd6, attacking White’s Queen, and followed this up with
11.Bf4 g5 12.Bxd6+ cd 13.h3 Be6 14.Qxg5 Rg8 15.Qh6+ Ke7 16.Nc3 Rg6 17.Qh4 Rag8
with a better game for Black. However, Charles (PT 4/27/81 ) offered 11.c3 as an
improvement, suggested to him by Jerome, which they believed reversed the
valuation of the line. (As an historical aside, later sources, relying on
Sorensen’s analysis, miss 11.c3; those that follow Charles’ work, based on his Brentano
article or on the American Supplement, include it.)
As a
response to Jerome’s/Charles’ 11.c3, Paul Keiser (personal communication) has
recommended that Black vary earlier, swapping the placement of his Queen and
Bishop, assessing that after 8…Qd6 9.d3 Bg4 10.Qf4 Bd4 11.Qxd6+ cd 12.c3 Bb6
13.d4 Be6 Black is winning.
After
5…Kf8, White has the option of playing 6.Qh5 (Banks – Wess , Great Britain
Dr.
William Paulsen, on his chess openings website
(www.csm.astate.edu/~wpaulsen/chess/chess.htm?002137) gives 5…Ke7 as the
“Giuoco Piano - Jerome Gambit Variation
II,” noting “By moving the king instead of taking the knight, White cannot
attack the king with his queen. Black ends up with more material.” However,
White has the advantage after 6.Qh5.
None of
the analysts appear to have looked at 5…Ke8, which showed up in Blackstone -
Dommeyer, skittles game, USA 1960, continuing: 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Nxg6 Bxf2+ 8.Kxf2
Qf6+ 9.Nf4+ Kd8 10.d3 d6 11.Rf1 Qd4+ 12.Be3 Qf6 13.c3 1-0 An improvement for
White might be 6.Nxc6, leading to a roughly even game; while Black improves
over the text with 8…Nf6, holding the advantage.
With two pawns, Black’s displaced
King, and the doubled black c-pawns as compensation for the piece, White’s best
play of this line would seem to be to follow Jerome’s original advice for “the
judicious use of his pawns.”
6.Qh5+
The alternative 6.d4, has
been seen several times. A couple of Jerome’s
games continued 6…Bxd4 7.Qxd4 d6. Against Shinkman in 1876, Jerome
played 8.O-O and 9.f4, with a draw in 42, after Black attacked with pawns on
the Queenside, defended poorly on the Kingside, and allowed a central breakthrough.
An uncompleted correspondence game against Charles in
1881 continued, instead, 8.Nc3 (best, according to Charles, in Brentano,
10/1881) Nf6 9.Bg5 h6 10.Bxf6 Qxf6 11.O-O-O Be6 12.Kb1 Nc4 where the latter
suggested a win for Black after 13.Qd3 b5 14.f4 Nxb2 15.Kxb2 b4. A
second unfinished game against Charles varied with 9…Bh3 10.O-O-O Bxg2 11.f4 h6
12.Bxf6 gf 13.Rhg1 Bh3 14.fe with what Charles considered a better game for
White. (Charles missed that 11…Nf3 would have kept Black on top.)
Charles had suggested (Telegraph, 1/19/1881) after 6.d4 Bxd4 7.Qxd4 the defense 7…Qf6 8.Qd1 d6 (Jerome
–Norton, unfinished correspondence game 1876, continued 8…Ne7) 9.O-O (following Jerome – Jaeger, corr 1878, 1-0, 35) and
later expanded the line (Brentano, 10/1881) 9…g6 10.f4 Nc6 (10…Nc4 in Telegraph,
11/2/1881 ).
It looks adequate but second best to the straight forward 7…d6.
Sorensen – X, Denmark 1888, saw a
dashing counterattack: 6.d4 Qh4 that Black sadly misplayed, then lost:
7.0-0 Ng4 8.h3 Bd6 (better 8…Bb6) 9.e5 Bxe5 (sacrificing the Knight, or
retreating the Bishop are better) 10.dxe5 Nxe5 11.Qd5+ Kf6 12.f4 Ng6 (better
12…Nc6 moving out of the way of the advancing pawn) 13.Nc3 d6 14.Be3 (14.f5 is
crushing) Ke7 15.Rae1 Kd8 16.Nb5 Nf6 17.Qc4 Ne8 18.Bf2 Qf6 19.Bd4 Qh4 20.Rxe8+
Kxe8 21.Nxc7+ Kf8 22.f5 Ne5 23.f6 gxf6 24.Qd5 Kg7 25.Qxd6 Rg8 (last chance for
a swindle: 25…Bxh3 26.hg?? Qg3+ wins) 26.Rxf6 Qxf6 27.Bxe5 and White won.
The Sorensen game was given at
length here to encourage those who love a coffee house-style King hunt, and to
serve as a warning for defenders who believe that returning sacrificed material
automatically creates a safe game.
Finally: Jerome (DCJ, 7/1874) offered, “The following is a
possibility of the game” and gave the amusing 6.d4 Bb6 7.Qh5+ Ke6 8.Qf5+
Kd6 9.Qxe5+ Kc6 10.Qd5 mate.
6…Ke6
It was at this point that
Blackburne played 6…g6 in his game versus an unknown amateur - not A.W. Jerome,
as mistakenly reported by Schiller (UCO, 1998, 2002) - at Simpson’s
Divan, returning material after 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qxh8 for a strong counter-attack:
8…Qh4 9.0-0 Nf6 10.c3 Ng4 11.h3 Bxf2+ 12.Kh1 Bf5 13.Qxa8 Qxh3+ 14.gxh3 Bxe4
mate. Thereafter, most of the Jerome Gambit
“analyses” that appeared in books was represented by the moves of this
miniature, with scant or no further investigation.
It is
important for those who defend against the Jerome Gambit to remember all of
Blackburne’s idea. (Carrington’s earlier 7…Nf6 against Vazquez left Black down
material after 8.Qxc5.) Peter Banks, who plays the Gambit both on the Internet
and over-the-board; Louis Morin, who has extensive online Jerome experience;
and predator Brian Wall all have reported blitz games where their opponents
quickly played the first 6 moves, puzzled over the next one, and wound up forcing a Queenless middle game, a pawn down (7…Bxf2+ 8.Kxf2 Qf6+
9.Qxf6+ Nxf6). White won all.
It is not
clear exactly when the idea 9.d4 Qxe4+ 10.Be3, which may reverse the assessment
of the Blackburne game and give White chances, was discovered - Fletcher’s Gambit’s
Accepted (1954) is an early source – but 9.d4 by itself was a suggestion of
Munoz and Munoz, in 1885 (BCC 8/1885). . Hindemburg Melao, in a recent
internet article (not currently available), where he identified the
player of the white pieces against Blackburne as “Millner,” gave 9.d4 Nf6
10.Nd2 Bxd4 11.O-O as good for White. (It should be noted that Bruce
Pandolfini, in his 1989 Chess Openings: Traps & Zaps gives the line
9.d4 Nf6 10.dc, and after the further moves 10...Qxe4+ 11.Be3 Qxg2 12.Rf1
reflects: “Don't be misled by White's extra Rook. It's a meaningless ornament.
White is in serious trouble. His King is exposed and his cornered Queen is in
danger of being trapped. The cruncher is …12...Bh3 which wins White's Queen by
discovery from the a8-Rook. If White tries to save the Queen by capturing the
Rook, 13.Qxa8 then 13...Qxf1+ 14.Kd2 Ne4#” Of course 10…Qxe4+ deserves a “?”)
After the
Blackburne game’s 9.O-O Nf6, Melao mentioned that Idel Becker, in his Manual
de xadrez, attributed 10.d4 to Euwe (source not mentioned). Melao was
skeptical about the move, giving Black’s counter-attack 10…Bh3 11.gh Rxh8 12.dc
Qxh3 13.f3 g5 14.Rf2 g4 15. Bf4 gf 16.Bg3 h5 17.Nd2 h4 18.Nf3 Qg4 with
advantage for Black. He preferred 10.Qd8 for White and said after 10…Bb6 11.e5
de 12.Qd3 he could not see how Black could be successful. Patrick Buchmann likewise showed how 10…Be6, 10…Qxe4+ and 10…Bd7 fared no
better against 10.Qd8.
While the
suggested move 10.Qd8 appears as early as 1885 (BCC 8/1885), it is
important to note that recent analysis by Chandler and Dimitrov (2004) shows
that Black is not worse, and can in fact draw with 10…Bh3 11.Qxc7+ Kf8 12.gh
Qxh3 13.Qxb7 Qg4+ and 14…Qf3+
However, all is still
not said and done with this 125 year old masterpiece: recall that Jerome,
himself, faced severe treatment in 1876 at the hands of Norton and Whistler, who
played 7…Qe7 8.Qxh8 Qxe4+ and had strong attacks. This idea has recently
re-appeared in a 2002 internet article by Catalan Master Richard Guerrero
Sanmarti and one in 2004 by Brian Wall and Tyrin Price. All is new that has been
forgotten!
[to be continued]
No comments:
Post a Comment