Jerome Gambit: Largely Overlooked by History

I wanted to share another eronald (of lichess.org) game for a number of reasons. He faced one of the more challenging defenses to the Jerome Gambit, he selected a line of play that was recommended over 140 years ago - and which has been scarcely played at all. This game also allows me to tuck in a note from my research that comes from I-do-not-know-where. 

eronald - ayushsankar1006
5 0 blitz, lichess.org, 2020

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 

This can lead to either the Blackburne Defense, 7...d6, or Whistler's Defense, 7...Qe7. Both are complicated and each can be dangerous for the unwary. 

My preference to play, and not to face, is Whistler's. See "More (Update): Whistler's Defense" for a discussion.

7.Qxe5 Qe7 8.Qd5+ 

The highly dangerous (for White) 8.Qxh8 appeared in Jerome - Norton, D., correspondence, 1876 (1/2 - 1/2, 20) and Jerome - Whistler, correspondence, 1876 (0-1, 15). Jerome was fortunate to gain a half point from the two games. The December, 1876 issue of  American Chess Journal, commenting on the Whistler game, recommended 8.Qd5+ without analysis.

Then 8.Qd5+ practically disappeared from the face of the earth. Perhaps it should be referred to as Jerome Gambit Secrets #12 ?

I have in my notes something from a 2020 1 0 bullet game at
lichess.org - the players are not named

If played correctly 7.Qxe5 Qe7 8.Qd5 + Kg7 9.d4 Bb4 + 10.c3 Nf6 11.Qe5 Bd6 12.Qxe7 + Bxe7 13.f3 White plays one piece, and for the second they have more space and two pawns - you can still play very much (position on the interactive whiteboard), both on the one and the other side. Although, objectively speaking, Black has a win, but you need to make fairly accurate moves, let's recall the game of the unforgettable Mikhail Tal - how many could hold their position after the Tal victims, who turned out to be objectively won in the home analysis?

It is not every day that you see the Jerome Gambit and the Magician from Riga mentioned in the same paragraph! 

Of course, Tal has already been mentioned on the blog: see "The Evans-Jerome Gambit Returns (Part 1)" and "Correctness".

8...Kf8 

If, instead, 8...Kg7, the game continued 9.d4 Bb6 10. Bg5 Nf6 11.e5 Nxd5 White resigned, levigun - obviously, GameKnot.com, 2004. This is the only other 8.Qd5+ game in The Database.

9.O-O c6 10.Qc4 d5 11.exd5 cxd5 

12.Qf4+ 

White declines the pawn (12.Qxd5), as Black could then develop his Bishop or Knight, attacking the Queen with tempo. 

12...Nf6 13.d4 Bd6 14.Qd2 Qe4 

This looks a bit odd, although Black retains his advantage.

Given that this was a 5-minute blitz game, and taking into consideration Black's previous move, perhaps he was planning to set up the Bishop + Queen battery, but at the last second, noticed that 14...Qe5 would drop Her Majesty?

15.Re1 Qh4 16.Qh6+ Qxh6 17. Bxh6+ Kf7 18. Nc3 Ng4 

ayushsankar1006 continues to press his attack, even with Queens off of the board. Both players now ignore the pawn at h2 for a short while.

19.Bg5 Be6 20.Nb5  

Perhaps planning to allow the h-pawn capture, and then trap the Bishop with g2-g3, while limiting where the prelate could otherwise retreat to? Or, was the clock ticking? In any event, 20.h3 was probably the move to make. 

20...Bxh2+ 21.Kh1 a6 

The fly in the ointment. The Knight is invited to leave.

22.Nc7

Likely the clock.

22...Bxc7 23.f3 White resigned

Jerome Gambit: Horrible Innovation

One of my favorite chess writers is GM Andy Soltis. With over 100 books to his name, and almost 50 years as a chess columnist for the New York Post, he continues to write the longest-running column in the United States Chess Federation's magazine, Chess Life. "Chess to Enjoy" reflects Soltis' ongoing appreciation of both the weird and the wonderful in the Royal Game.

So, it is not surprising to run across "GM Follies", his August, 1997 Chess Life column. After acknowledging that Chess Informant had 57 symbols used in its annotations, he noted

Among them is "N" for "Novelty" - formerly known as "TN" for "Theoretical Novelty" - to designate some new and wonderful addition to opening theory.

However, GM Soltis has a caution, and a suggestion

Of course, not every good move is new - and not every new move is good. In fact, the last few years have seen a remarkable plague of HIs - Horrible Innovations...

After giving a couple of modern HIs, by a National Master and by a Grandmaster, he added

Those innovations are not likely to be repeated. But some really bad, yet not immediately refutable, novelties were tried more than once - and became famous enough to be recognized with their own name...

Why was I not surprised to read

THE JEROME GAMBIT 

1. P-K4 P-K4 2. N-KB3 N-QB3 3. B-B4 B-B4 4. BxPch?? KxB 5. NxPch NxN 6. P-Q4 which gets it[sic] name because someone named Alonzo Wheeler Jerome, of Paxton, Illinois, recommended it in the American Chess Journal in 1876. Its only discernable value is showing how to sack two pieces as quickly as possible.

The reference to the American Chess Journal of 1876 is worth noting. As we have seen in earlier posts, Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's first recommendation of his gambit came in the Dubuque Chess Journal, April 1874, Vol. VI, No. 50, p. 358-9.

In pointing out that earlier recommendation by AWJ, I mean no disrespect to GM Soltis; he appears to have relied on The Oxford Companion to Chess (1984, 1992) by Kenneth Whyld and David Hooper as his source - and there were several Jerome Gambit references in the 1876 American Chess Journal. (Add to that a curious series of naming and re-naming of chess magazines  reference...)

Jerome Gambit: Eminently Unsound

Recently, a little bit of online research took me to the pages of The Daily Colonist, of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, and, in particular, the issue of  December 31, 1906 (page 19).

Chess Column 
To Correspondents: 
F. G. C. (Nanoose) ...We do not recognize the opening outlined by you, although a similar early sacrifice occurs in the Jerome Gambit, as follows: 1. P-K4 P-K4 2. Kt-KB Kt-QB3 3. B-B4 B-B4 4. BxP ch KxB 5.K[sic]xP ch Kt x Kt 6.Q-R5 ch, etc. It is of course eminently unsound, a criticism which we should also be inclined to address to your suggestion.

Of course, if you know anything at all about the Jerome Gambit, you probably have heard all sorts of comments and evaluations. Contrast Raymond Keene’s assessment in The Complete Book of Gambits (1992) -“This is totally unsound and should never be tried!” - with that of the creator of the opening, Alonzo Wheeler Jerome, who considered it

...only a pleasant variation of the Giuoco Piano, which may win or lose according to the skill of the players, but which is capable of affording many new positions and opportunities for heavy blows unexpectedly.

A few years later, Jerome was quoted in the Pittsburgh Telegraph, which noted

Mr. A. W. Jerome calls attention to the fact that he does not claim the Jerome Gambit to be analytically sound, but only that over the board it is sound enough to afford a vast amount of amusement. 

Still, the opinions started early, and flowed easily. William Hallock, of the American Chess Journal, in 1877, referred to “Jerome’s Absurdity” - but, later, he referenced the Gambit as "the daring and brilliant debut".

Lieutenant Soren Anton Sorensen, whose article in the May 1877 issue of the Danish chess magazine Nordisk Skaktidende was the first serious, in-depth look at the Jerome Gambit - one which was translated into several different languages and informed chess players around the world - was still light-hearted in his assessment

...with a Bashi-Bazouk 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.Bxf7+. 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.

In 1879, the chess columnist for the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, in its chess column, struck the right tone in its review of G. H. D. Gossip’s Theory of the Chess Openings, noting gleefully

...the Jerome Gambit, which high-toned players sometimes affect to despise because it is radically unsound, finds a place, and to this it is certainly entitled. 

The February 2, 1881 Pittsburgh Telegraph column noted that the gambit

…although unsound, as shown by Mr. Charles' analysis in this column, yet [it] leads to some interesting and critical positions. 

Likewise the chess column  in the New Orleans Times-Democrat, for October 19, 1884, referred to the Jerome as "brilliant but unsound".

Skepticism rightly persisted. E. Freeborough and C. E. Rankin's Chess Openings Ancient and Modern (1889), proceeded

The Jerome Gambit is an American invention, and a very risky attack. It is described in the American Supplement to Cook's Synopsis as unsound but not to be trifled with. The first player sacrifices two pieces for two Pawns, and the chances arising from the adversary's King being displaced and drawn into the centre of the board. "The defense requires study, and is sometimes difficult." It may be added that it is equally difficult for the first player to maintain the attack. 

I could go on,  but I will leave the final word to a World Champion, who, in the March 1906 issue of  his Lasker’s Chess Magazine, responded to an inquiry

No; the Jerome gambit is not named after St. Jerome. His penances, if he did any, were in atonement of rather minor transgressions compared with the gambit.

Jerome Gambit: Deep Dive (Part 1)

It has been a while since I took a deep dive into a Jerome Gambit game, so I decided to inspect a 2019 game played by ZahariSokolov, online at FICS. He has 410 games in The Database, scoring 50%. Many of his games explore important lines, and can be quite complicated.

ZahariSokolov - GizmoClass
FICS, 2019

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6

What could be more understandable than wanting to hold on to your extra 2 pieces? It is too early in the game to assess whether GizmoClass is naive or knowledgeable in making this move choice. (The Database has 1,121 games with this position; White scores 54%.)

7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Nf3+ 

Aha! The player of the Black pieces knows a bit about the Jerome Gambit, or he has a solid creative streak about him.

This Norton Defense, which first appeared in Jerome - Norton, correspondence, 1876 (0-1, 42), was referred to as "a new departure" in the September, 1876 issue of the American Chess Journal. "[...Qf6] is the usual play. The text move prevents White from castling."

The "usual play" appeared in Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's analysis of the Jerome Gambit that appeared in the April 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal; as well as in the games Jerome - Shinkman, Iowa, 1874 (0-1, 21) and Jerome - Brownson, Iowa, 1875 (1-0, 43).

The text move, 8...Nf3+, can be found in 14 games in The Database, with White scoring a deceiving 71% (Komodo 10 assesses the position as even). It can be contrasted with 8...Qh4+ 9.g3 Nf3+ , the "Nibs" defense, which dates back at least as far as 1899. (The Database has 54 games; White scores 54%.)

Interestingly enough, despite Black's apparent knowledge of the Jerome Gambit, only one other game by GizmoClass appears in The Database - a 83-move draw (6...Kf8) played against ZahariSokolov, 6 months earlier. Did somebody "book up", afterwards?

9.gxf3 

Capturing the Knight is best, but even the Gambit's creator slipped and chose 9.Kf1 in a game, instead: 9...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 and Black won, Jerome,A - Norton,D, correspondence, 1876.

To be fair, I should mention that I have played 9.Kf1 a couple of times, too - perrypawnpusher - igormsp, blitz, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 13), and perrypawnpusher - rheapennata, blitz, FICS, 2012 (1-0,12) - and ZahariSokolov has gotten away with 9.Kd1, as well in  ZahariSokolov - LAVAL, FICS, 2015 (1-0, 32). I have already argued, elsewhere, that "Good luck is better than a license to steal."

9...Qh4+ 10.Kd1

An earlier mistake that he shied away from was 10.Ke2, as in ZahariSokolov - Quarte, FICS, 2015 (0-1, 17); but it is hard not to enjoy the follies of an early computer against Jack Young: 10.Ke2 Qf2+ 11.Kd3 Qxf3+ 12.Kc4 b5+ 13.Kxb5 Rb8+ 14.Ka5 Bb4+?! 15.Ka4 Qxh1?? 16.Qe5+ Kc6 17.Qd5+ Kb6 18.Qxb5 checkmate

How should Black proceed?

Of course, 10...Qe7 11.Qd5 checkmate, is not optimal, at least for the defender, ZahariSokolov - GhengusFungus, FICS, 2014. 

Instead, 10...Qf2 allows White to sue for peace by initiating repeated checks, e.g. 11.Qe5+ Kc6 12.Qd5+ Kb6 13.Qb3+ Ka6 14.Qa4+ Kb6 15.Qb3+ Kc6 16.Qd5+, etc. Actually, the American Chess Journal editor William Hallock, commenting on Jerome,A - Norton,D, correspondence, 1876 (see above) wrote that after 10...Qf2 "Black has the better position". I challenged this notion in perrypawnpusher - Sir Osis of the Liver, Jerome Gambit 3 thematic tournament, ChessWorld.net, 2008, and, when my opponent was unwilling to split the point, I went on to win (1-0, 19).

ZahariSokolov had already faced 10...Nf6, which led to an edge for White, but he lost after an unusual and unfortunate oversight: 11.e5+ Kc6 12.exf6 d6 13.Nc3? Bxf5 14.d3 gxf6 15.a3 Qf2 16.Bd2 Qxf3+ 17.Kc1 Be3 18.Bxe3 Qxe3+ 19.Kb1 Qxf4 20.Ka2 Be6+ 21.b3 Qd2 22.Kb2 Rhg8 23.Ne4 Qe3 24.Rae1 Qd4+ 25.Ka2 Bxb3+ 26.Kxb3 Rg2 27.Rd1 Qb6+ 28.Kc3 Rag8 29.Nxf6 Qa5+ 30.Kb3 Qb5+ 31.Kc3 Qe5+ 32.d4 Qxf6 resigned, ZahariSokolov - panpanOneTwo, FICS, 2018.

Best is probably 10...Ne7, but that is not what GizmoClass played.

 [to be continued]

Jerome Gambit: Win, How? (Part 2)

[continued from previous post]

perrypawnpusher - schnappa
Italian Game Classic, Chess.com, 2019

11.d3

Alonzo Wheeler Jerome played this move, with a transparent threat to pin and win Black's Queen, in games against Shinkman in 1874 (0-1, 21), Brownson in 1875 (1-0, 42), Amateur in 1876 (1-0, 20) and Pane in 1878 (1-0, 41). The Database has 9 games where Black overlooked the threat and lost his Queen - 7 of those wins were mine.

11...Ke7 

The Chess.com analysis rated 11...Ke7 to be an  "inaccuracy" (The Database: 11 games, White scores 64%), seeing 11...Kc6 as best (The Database: 11 games, White scores 27%).

The alternative, 11...Kc6, attributed to B.K. Neufville, “gives Black an opportunity for a counter attack and makes an exciting contest” according to Jerome, in the American Chess Journal, of April 1878.

12.Nc3

An "inaccuracy", according to the analysis, which considered 12.c3 as "best".

I should give the alternative title of "Jerome Gambit Secrets #10" to the current post, as The Database shows only 1 game with 12.c3, and it continued 12...d6 13.Bg5? Qxg5 White resigned, which was a result quite likely to keep the variation "secret".

12...d6 

This move was "inaccurate"; 12...Bd4 was "best".

(If you are getting tired of all of this "inaccurate" stuff, so am I. Considering the whole game, the computer assessed me as being 91.9% "accurate", while my opponent was  89.7% "accurate". I don't know what that means.)

The latter move, 12...Bd4, was played against me in perrypawnpusher - karleinkarl, blitz, FICS, 2012 (0-1, 16), a sad game where, in a bit of an echo, I allowed Black to pin my Queen to my King.

13.Bf4 

So far, we are following Jerome - Brownson, Iowa, 1875, which continued 13.Bf4 Qe6 14.O-O-O Qg4 15.Qf1 g5 16.Bg3 Be3+ 17.Kb1 Bf4 18.Bf2 c5 19.h3 Qh5 20.h4 Be6 21.hxg5 Qxg5 22.Bh4 Qg4 23.Nd5+ Bxd5 24.exd5 Rae8 25.d4 Bg5 26.Bxg5 Qxg5 27.dxc5 dxc5 28.Qb5 b6 29.d6+ Kf7 30.Rhf1 Kg7 31.Qc6 Rhf8 32.a3 Rd8 33.g4 Nxg4 34.Qc7+ Kg8 35.Rxf8+ Rxf8 36.Qxa7 Qd8 37.Qa4 Ne5 38.Qe4 Ng6 39.Qe6+ Rf7 40.d7 Nf8 41.Qe8 Qxd7 42.Rxd7 Rxd7 43.Qb8 Black resigned

13...Qh5

The Chess.com analysis announced "inaccuracy", preferring 13...Qd4 (which does not show up in The Database at all) as "best".

In perrypawnpusher - vz721 -Italian Game thematic, Chess.com, 2013, I now castled Queenside, allowing the exchange of Queens. Looking over that game while I was putting together this post, I was shocked to see that both I and my opponent seem to have overlooked the response 14...Bg4!?


In any event, against schnappa I now played the kind of move that you would more likely see in a 1 0 bullet game, just to mess with my opponent ("threatening" to remove his Knight at f6, which protects his Queen) and give me time to figure out if I wanted to swap Queens, after all.

14.Nd5+ 

And here, much to my surprise, Black resigned.

Of course, 14...Nxd5? would be a mistake, but any reasonable King retreat - 14...Kd8, 14...Kf7 or 14...Kf8 - would be fine. He should avoid 14...Ke6, which would allow the fork 15.Nxc7+, and both 14...Kd7? and 14...Ke8? (resurrecting the primary threat) would fall to 15.Nxf6+.

The Chess.com analysis rated the final position as -2.29, giving Black over a 2 pawn advantage, which makes sense to me.

It recommended the following continuation: 14...Kf7 15.Qxh5+ Nxh5 16.Rf1 Nxf4 17.Rxf4+
 Kg6 18.Nxc7 Rb8 19.Kd2 Bd4 20.Raf1 Be5 21.R4f2 b5 22.Nd5 Be6 23.Ne7+ Kg5 24.Nc6 Rbc8 25.h4+ Kh6 26.Nxe5 dxe5 27.a3 Kg6 28.g3


My best guess is that demands of the outside world temporarily distracted my opponent.