Blackmar - Jerome Gambit Revealed

 

I have been puzzled by Karel Traxler's reference to the "Blackmar - Jerome Gambit" (see " 'Tis A Puzzlement..." and "The Blackmar - Jerome Gambit?!").

Yury V. Bukayev's suggestion is very interesting. Here it is. 

Here is my version about Mr. Traxler's name 'Blackmar-Jerome gambit'.

Mr. Traxler's publication with this strange name was published in the October 11, 1892. My version is based on that he has read Mr. Gossip's text of 'The Chess Player's Vade Mecum' (1891):

> " We have therefore eliminated obsolete openings and confined
> ourselves merely to a brief examination of a dozen of the leading
> debuts...; omitting those openings in which the defense is declared by
> the most competent theorists to be weak or inferior, as for example
> Philidor's and Petroff's Defenses to the Kings Knight's opening; the
> Sicilian; the Greco Counter Gambit; Center Counter Gambit;
> Fianchettoes, Blackwar and Jerome Gambit, etc. ".

Please, look attentively at the part of this text:
" Philidor's and Petroff's Defenses to the Kings Knight's opening; the
Sicilian; the Greco Counter Gambit; Center Counter Gambit;
Fianchettoes, Blackwar and Jerome Gambit, etc. ".

> I think, Mr. Traxler asked himself: "Is there Blackwar Gambit in chess?" And he answered himself: "I don't know it. I know Jerome Gambit, I don't know Blackwar Gambit. It maybe, Mr. Gossip has written about Blackmar Gambit here, but I'm not sure". Then he said to himself: "The variant of an interpretation of this text "Blackwar & Jerome Gambit" ( = "Blackwar-Jerome Gambit") is very possible too! It maybe, Mr. Gossip knows much more than I about who is the first creator/player of 4.Bxf7+ in Giuoco Piano, so it maybe he has said here that Alonzo Jerome wasn't the first one! Thus, here is my main question: are here in this text two gambits - Blackwar (or Blackmar?!) Gambit and Jerome Gambit - or this one (BJG) only? I should analyse the language structure of Mr. Gossip's sentence to find a right answer". And Mr. Traxler started to do it. He said to himself: "Mr. Gossip has written:
> "Blackwar and Jerome Gambit"
> (not "Blackwar and Jerome Gambits"), although he has written in the same sentence:
> "Philidor's and Petroff's Defenses" ,
> so it is extremely notable!" Then Mr. Traxler said to himself: "Moreover, Mr. Gossip has written:
> "the Greco Counter Gambit; Center Counter Gambit;"
> (not "the Greco and Center Counter Gambits"), so it is notable that he hasn't grouped names of two these (counter) gambits in this sentence as "... and ... Gambits": probably, each counter gambit and each gambit isn't grouped as "... and ... Gambits" in this sentence". Then Mr. Traxler said to himself: "In result, I think that Mr. Gossip has written about one gambit, not about two ones, probably". Finally, Mr. Traxler asked himself in 1892: "Will it be good to publish " Blackwar ", if it is " Blackmar ", in fact? It will not be good for the newspaper and for me!"

That is why he has published the name "Blackmar-Jerome", I think.