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.)
Later on, in "Jerome Gambit: First Steps (Part 5)", I pointed out one similarity between the Traxler and the Jerome
Oddly enough, the Jerome Gambit Declined, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Ke7 can transpose, with the addition of 5.Ng5 Nf6 to the Traxler variation of the Two Knights Defense, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ Ke7.
Where does the name "Blackmar-Jerome" come from? Almost all of my online searches linked to the article by Traxler, which did not clarify things. (The rest linked to this blog.)
I had already speculated on the name "Blackmar-Jerome gambit" in "The Blackmar - Jerome Gambit?!"
My current hypothesis - complete speculation at this point - is that Traxler, writing in the October 11, 1892, chess column of Golden Prague, recalled the infamous Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1884 Jerome Gambit game and wanted to credit the successful master; but, in drawing up his note for Reinisch - Traxler, he erroniously attached "Blackmar" - instead of "Blackburne" - to "Jerome Gambit".
Was it possible to explore further?
No comments:
Post a Comment