Tidying Up - Or Messing Up?

Recently I was looking through long-time friend of this blog IM Gary Lane's 2012 "Trash or Treasure?" column, part of his at "Opening Lanes" efforts at Chess Cafe.

(Actually, I was looking at an old pdf file, stored on my phone - a phrase that would probably have been nearly meaningless when I first started this blog.)

I spotted some apparent confusion related to a Jerome Gambit game, and as I may have had a hand in causing it, I thought I'd try to do some unraveling.

From "Trash or Treasure?" 

...Finally, Mr. Kennedy pointed out a fairly recent game played by Scottish player Geoff Chandler. I have never met him, but I do know that Mr. Chandler has an excellent sense of humour and his old chess blog at Chandler Cornered was zany, thought provoking, and usually very funny. Therefore, the following game looks like a fabrication, but I am happy to be corrected in the future. Here is another Jerome Gambit game that is spectacular as always!

Chandler, Geoff - Dimitrov Todor

Blitz, Edinburgh, 2004

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+

This opening is ideally suited to blitz where you don't care whether you win or lose, but want to play something memorable.  

6...g6 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.O-O Nf6 10.Qd8!

Geoff is a decent club player and could have found this himself if the game was really played.* I still think it was more likely he was following the advice given in the previous Blackburne game, which has been copied up to this point. However, I did look up his old blog and found this comment "I recall about a year ago Todor and me had a dozen or so games playing 4.Bxf7+ at 5 minute chess in Bells." If you think he played a game inside an actual bell, then think again. He is referring to his chess club hosted at a local bar.  

10...Bh3 11.Qxc7+ Kg8

Here IM Lane gives 12.gxh3 and says

Instead 12.Qxb7 is winning, because12...Qg4 can be met by 13.Qb3+! (13.Qxa8+ Kf7 14.Qb7+ Kf8 15.e5? White should keep on checking, but this winning attempt backfires spectacularly upon 15...d5 and it turns out that Black wins.) 13...Kg7 Qxh3 and it is time for Black to put the pieces back into the box.  

Then 12...Qxh3 13.Qxb7 Qg4+ A draw by repetition beckons, but Mr. Kennedy assures me that Geoff went on to win.

 Actually, the game continued 12.Qxb7 Qg4 13.Qb3+ Kg7 14.Qxh3 and according to Chandler, White won.

How did the mixup in the moves of the game occur? I could have jumbled them when I emailed the game to IM Lane - if I actually sent it, as I can't find any record of that amongst our correspondence. (Gary might have made the slip, but is that likely? He's the professional, I'm the amateur.)

Anyhow, the Chandler - Dimitrov game and analysis can get pretty messy, so perhaps that was part of it.    

In support of that possibility, and a possible clue, it is worth looking at "Updating the Blackburne Defense (Part 2)" where I reference, among a number of things, Dennis Monokroussos's thoughts from about 7 years earlier about Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1884, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.O-O 

Dennis M's Chess Site
February 2, 2005

...But now, here's the puzzle. After 9...Nf6, Black has a substantial lead in development and several well-placed pieces ready to commence a feeding frenzy on the White kingside, yet had White found 10.Qd8, pinning the Black Nf6 to the queen on h4, it would have been Black needing to fight for his life! The following might be best play for both sides: 10.Qd8! Bh3 11.Qxc7+ (11.Qxa8? Qg4 12.g3 Qf3 forces mate) Kf8! (11...Kg8? 12.Qxb7 Qg4 13.Qb3+ and 14.Qxh3) 12.Qxb7 Qg4 13.Qxa8+ Kf7 14.Qb7+ Kf8 14.Qa8+ with a draw by perpetual check.  

When I first saw this game and was told about 10.Qd8, it seemed to me that Black just had to have something, but neither I nor my silicon friends have succeeded in proving a win or even an advantage for Black. Can any of my readers find something better for Black?

I can sympathize with Dennis - how can Black not win against the Jerome Gambit?? In a responding comment on his blog I shared

The line gets some analysis by Geoff Chandler and Todor Dimitrov on the former's hilarious website, Chandler Cornered http://www.chessedinburgh.co.uk/index.htm
It goes like this. (Notes by Chandler.)

10.Qd8 Bh3 Threatening simply Qg4 and Qg2 mate. 11.Qxc7+ Kf8 This is best. [In my Game v Todd he played the natural 11...Kg8 which allows a check on b3 12.Qxb7 Qg4 13.Qb3+ Kg7 14.Qxh3] 12.gxh3 forced [If 12.Qxb7 Qg4 13.Qxa8+ Kf7 (13...Kg7 14.e5 d5 15.exf6+ Kxf6 16.Qxd5) 14.e5 d5 15.e6+ (15.Qb7+ Be7 16.e6+ Kg7 17.Qxe7+ Kh6 18.d4+ Kh5) 15...Kg7 16.Qb7+ Kh6 17.d4+ Kh5 and Black mates on g2] 12...Qxh3 This appears to be the best. It keeps the attack rolling and keeps the draw in hand. Remember we are seeing if 10.Qd8 beats the Blackburne line. 13.Qxb7 Ng4 [Or 13...Qg4+ and ...Qf3+ drawing.] 14.Qxa8+ Kg7 15.Qb7+ Kg8 16.Qc8+ Kg7 17.Qd7+ Kg8 18.Qe8+ Kg7 19.Qe7+ Kg8 Black has to allow the draw else 18.Qe8+ Kg7 19.Qf7+ kh6 10.d4+ wins. So it appears 10.Qd8 draws.

Note in the above that the conclusion is that the game is drawn -- the same conclusion as you came to, although the particular line you give (12.Qxb7 instead of Chandler and Dimitrov's 12.gxh3) seems to tilt toward White.

In a later post Monokroussos added

(2) In my main line, Kennedy, citing analysis by Geoff Chandler and Todor Dimitrov, varies from my 12.Qxb7 with 12.gxh3, showing that it likewise draws after 12...Qxh3 13.Qxb7 Qg4+ 14.Kh1 Qf3+ etc. or 13...Ng4 14.Qxa8+ etc. (Note that Black can't escape the checks with 14...Ke7 15.Qb7+! Kf6?? [15...Kd8/e8/f8=] because of 16.e5+ followed by 17.Qg2.) 

(3) Chandler & Dimitrov also mention 12.Qxb7 and suggest it loses, but the culprit is not 12.Qxb7 but their 14.e5?, after which Black has a forced mate. 

Very interesting and I'm grateful to Kennedy for his comment...but my dream remains unfulfilled - can't Black win after 10.Qd8, somehow?

Readers, is this confusing enough for you? Above, I quote Monokroussos quoting me quoting Chandler...

I have put the moves to Chandler - Dimitrov, cited by Chandler, above, in italics. The move 12.gxh3, which IM Lane gives as part of the game, is actually part of Chandler's analysis after 11...Kf8, not 11...Kg8, as played in the game - although Chandler says in his note that the move 12.gxh3 is "forced" which may have made it look like it was played.

I muddied things even more by referring, in my comment to Monokroussos, to "Chandler and Dimitrov's 12.gxh3" - the move was from their analysis, as presented by Chandler, above, not their game; andy by referring to 12.Qxb7, the actual move in the game, as "the particular line you give". Monokroussos seems to catch this, as indicated in his (2) note in the later post.

By the way, Monokroussos is right in note (3) in correcting Chandler's analysis (which I had provided) that after 10.Qd8 Bh3 11.Qxc7+ Kf8 12.Qxb7 White does not lose - after 12...Qg4 13.Qxa8+ Kf7 the move 14.e5 is "the culprit... after which Black has a forced mate". Instead, 14.Qb7+ Kf8 15.Qa8+ draws by repetition - as Monokroussos mentioned in his first post, after "...Now here's the puzzle." 

Still, Monokroussos doesn't escape completely. The later post, note (2), above, gives the sideline 12.gxh3 Qxh3 13.Qxb7 Ng4 [instead of 13...Qg4+, drawing] for Black, suggesting that after 14.Qxa8+ etc. the game is drawn as well - but White has, instead of grabbing the Rook, the forced Queen exchange after 14.Qb3+ (how un-Jerome-ish) 14...Qxb3 15.axb3 which leaves him a Rook and 3 pawns better.

Ah, yes, now everything now is as clear as... trash. 

(*- Chandler commented in Chandler Cornered about 10.Qd8 "This is my over the board improvement that I have since learnt was first suggested in 1951." I had told Chandler that P. Wenman mentioned the move in his Master Chess Play (1951). I later learned that the move had been played in Harris, S - Quayle, E., correspondence, 1944, although, of course, the move had been first suggested in the August 1885 issue of the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle.)

Jerome Gambit: Dr. Harding Checks In

Top

As a followup to the previous post, I returned to the online English Chess Forum and asked members if they were aware of any early (pre-WWI) Jerome Gambit games.

Early English Jerome Gambit Games?

Postby Rick Kennedy » Mon May 08, 2017 3:57 pm

Many people are familiar with Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1880 (or 1885) that
started 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ - the notorious Jerome Gambit - and 
concluded 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.O-O Nf6 
10.c3 Ng4 11.h3 Bxf2+ 12.Kh1 Bf5 13.Qxa8 Qxh3+ 14.gxh3 Bxe4# 

I am researching the Jerome, and am interested in discovering what other early (before
WWI) games there might have been played with the opening in England.

I have run across Keeble - Cubitt, Norwich, 1886 (1-0, 17), but that is about it.

Many thanks for whatever enlightenment might prevail.

Not surprisingly, Dr. Tim Harding, author of  Joseph Henry Blackburne A Chess Biography, (and other fine books), published by McFarland,  responded quickly.

Re: Early English Jerome Gambit Games?

Postby Tim Harding » Mon May 08, 2017 5:38 pm

That was "Mr M" v Blackburne, first published in the Illustrated London News on 10 May
1884 (probably played at the Divan when Blackburne was convalescing). There is also 
floating around a very similar game Milner-Blackburne supposedly played in Manchester 
(ending 10 h3 Bxh3 11 Qxa8 Qg4 12 g3 Qxg3+ 13 Kh1 Qg2#) but I have no primary source 
for that.

I also found three postal games played by E. B. Lowe ca. 1879-1881 and you possibly
already know Charlick-Mann played by post in Australia in 1881 (1-0, 72).

Tim Harding

Historian and Kibitzer

Author of 'Joseph Henry Blackburne: A Chess Biography' and 'Eminent Victorian

Chess Players'

http://www.chessmail.com

Dr. Harding's response adds to information about the Blackburne game,
from the Illustrated London News, giving "Mr. M" as the amateur player
of the White pieces. Other (not primary) sources have named this person
"Milner".

More importantly, the Illustrated London News account of May 10,1884
helps focus the possible date of the game, usually given as 1880 - which I 
had challenged, based upon an article in August 15, 1885 issue of the 
Brooklyn Chess Chronicle. So, 1884 is the corrected date.

Finally, Dr. Harding is being modest in merely mentioning the three postal
games played by E. B. Lowe correspondence games, as a good while back 
he provided them for me. 

History Clouded

In Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess (1899), the notorious Jerome Gambit game Amateur - Blackburne was given as "played at Simpson's Divan about 1880."

I have questioned the date that Blackburne gave - See "Flaws (Part I)" - as the August 15, 1885 issue of the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle (J.B. and E.M. Munoz, editors) presented the game as having been "played some months ago" which would suggest that it was played during 1885, but not likely in July or August of that year.

It now looks like I will have to back off from my correction, and add even more uncertainty to the date of the game.

Tim Harding's Joseph Henry Blackburne A Chess Biography (2015) - which, as I have noted, does not give Amateur - Blackburne - shows that the British master left for Australia in December 1884, and spent the first half of 1885 "Down Under". A return home was short-lived, as there was an important tournament to participate in

Blackburne and son apparently disembarked at Plymouth on 4 July. As the ship was only docked at Gravesend on the fifth, they must have come up to London by express train. Every day counted, the first round in Hamsburg being on 12 July. After less than a week in England, Blackburne was off on his travels again. 

The Hamburg tournament ended July 27, wherupon Blackburne went to Hereford for the Counties Chess Association Masters tournament, which started August 3.

The events of 1885, therefore, do not appear consistent with the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle admittedly casual dating.

It is possible to extend Munoz and Munoz's "some months" further back in time and look for Amateur - Blackburne in 1884, although there are difficulties in this, too. Harding notes

Blackburne's mid-career health breakdown began before Christmas 1883 when he was forced to cancel all his engagements.

In an age "long before antibiotics or even aspirin and other effective medicines", Blackburne was quite ill.

In late April or early May [1884] he resumed playing at the [Simpson's] Divan; some casual games are preserved from that period...

However, his participation in Simpson's handicap tournament in the spring was affected by his "unfortunate illness" and it is worth noting

[T]he Morning Post, 30 June 1884, said that Blackburne's illness had "left him in a weak state of health, and has prevented him for several months from pursuing his avocation."

Although he travelled to Glasgow the last week in July 1884, it does not appear that his full health returned before his trip to Australia.

Unless I guess "late April or early May" 1884 (above), then "about 1880" (from Blackburne's book) will be as "precise" as I will be able to date Amateur - Blackburne, until another chess column, magazine, or book reference surfaces; especially if we recall the uncertainties mentioned by Brazilian chess master Hindemburg Melão, Jr. in his article for the online chess site, SuperAjedrez,

...Some sources indicate year of the game as 1868, others indicate 1888, and others indicate 1880. Some sources affirm that it was played in Manchester, others in London. Normally the name of the adversary is not given, having only "NN" or "Amateur", but in at least one source "Millner" is indicated as the name. Also it is not known if it was an individual game or part of a simultaneous display... [T]he game deserves to be cited as one of most beautiful pearls of blindfold Chess...

The Best Jerome Gambit Game of the Year (Part 2)

We continue from the previous post, considering a game that has lept to the top of the heap for Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) games this year.

As indicated, Readers are encouraged to dispute my assessment by sending in other great Jerome Gambit games...

Wall, Bill - Guest871838
PlayChess.com, 2014

8.Qxh8 

Of the offer of the Rook with 7...d6, Blackburne wrote in Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess (1899), "Not to be outdone in generosity." The cost to White of taking the Rook is to have his Queen locked out of the action, at a time when Black's pieces begin to swarm the Kingside.

Blackburne's book also contained the following: "NOTE. I used to call this the Kentucky opening. For a while after its introduction it was greatly favoured by certain players, but they soon grew tired of it."

A resonable explanation of the reference to the "Kentucky opening" has appeared previously in this blog (see "A New Abrahams Jerome Gambit" for a summary). 

As for the "certain players" who "greatly favoured" the Jerome Gambit, it is difficult to identify them by games played, as I have discovered the games of only a dozen or so players (other than Jerome, himself) who played the opening between when it was introduced in 1874 and the publication of Blackburne's book in 1899. Andres Clemente Vazquez, of Mexico, has four games in The Database, while E.B. Lowe, of Great Britain, has three.

Blackburne might well have been referring to authors who included analysis of the Jerome Gambit in their opening books, in which case George H.D. Gossip, of Theory of the Chess Openings (1879) and The Chess Player's Vade Mecum (1891) ; William Cook, of Synopsis of Chess Openings (1882, 1888); E. Freeborough and C. E. Rankin of  Chess Openings Ancient and Modern (1889, 1893, 1896);and Mortimer of The Chess Player's Pocket book And Manual of the Openings (1888 - 1906); are all likely suspects. Certainly, more research is still needed.

8...Qh4

This is Blackburne's counter attack, threatening 9...Qxf2+ 10.Kd1 Bg4 mate.

9.O-O

Munoz and Munoz, in their notes to Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1885, in the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle, suggested "He should have attempted to free his pieces by P to Q4 [d4] before castling." 

The move 9.d4 received a good look in "Updating the Jerome Gambit (Part 1)", including references to L. Elliot Fletcher’s energetic Gambit’s Accepted (1954), an internet article on Amateur - Blackburne (not currently available) by Brazil's Hindemburg Melao, and some musings and analysis from Bruce Pandolfini, in his 1989 Chess Openings: Traps & Zaps !

9...Nf6

The door closes on White's Queen.

10.Qd8

Melao mentioned that Idel Becker, in his Manual de xadrez (1974), attributed the move 10.d4 to Euwe (source not mentioned). Melao was skeptical about the move, giving Black’s counter-attack 10…Bh3 11.gxh3 Rxh8 12.dxc4 Qxh3 13.f3 g5 14.Rf2 g4 15. Bf4 gxf3 16.Bg3 h5 17.Nd2 h4 18.Nf3 Qg4 with advantage for Black. He preferred 10.Qd8 - another suggestion (without further analysis) by Munoz and Munoz in the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle, August 1885, who opined "The only hope he had was 10.Q to Q8 [10.Qd8], thus preventing the deadly  move of Kt to Kt5 [...Ng4]."

Bill Wall mentioned that 10.d3 loses to 10...Bh3 11.Qxa8 Qg4 12.g3 Qf3 as was brutally demonstrated in RevvedUp - Hiarcs 8, 2 12 blitz, 2006 (0-1, 12).

10...Bd7

Most consistent for Black is 10...Bb6, covering the c7 pawn and enforcing the embargo on the Queen. White should return a pawn to free Her Majesty with 11.e5 dxe5 12.Qd3 as in Wall,Bill - Foo,Nathan, Palm Bay, FL, 2010 (1-0, 33). 

[to be continued]

The Best Jerome Gambit Game of the Year (Part 1)

Although the year is only about half-over, the following game has lept to the top of the heap for Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) games. It has history, analysis, tactics, strategy, surprises and come-backs - not bad, for a 10-minute game!

Readers are encouraged to dispute my assessment by sending in other great Jerome Gambit games, but at this point I can think of only one game (hint: see "The Jerome Gambit is Going to Drive Me..." Part 1 and Part 2) likely to challenge (and that was only mentioned, not played, in 2014).

Wall, Bill - Guest871838
PlayChess.com, 2014

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

The Jerome Gambit.

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 d6

This defense is attributed to Joseph Henry Blackburne, whose miniature game brought the Jerome Gambit to the attention of chess players all around the world.

That game appeared in the August 15, 1885 issue of the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle, which noted that it was "played some months ago in London between Mr. Blackburne and an Amateur." It is likely that the game appeared elsewhere, most likely in a British chess magazine or newspaper chess column, but to date I have not found such an appearance. (Any help, Readers?)

The game received greatest exposure when included in Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess (1899), although it was given there as played "at Simpson's Divan about 1880." Dr. Tim Harding, currently completing a biography of J.H. Blackburne, notes "It has been estimated that Blackburne may have played as many as 100,000 chess games"; so a small error in recall on behalf of the chess master is not unexpected. Six years ago on this blog, in "Flaws" Part I and Part II, I speculated about this possible "mis-remembering".

In my early years exploring the Jerome Gambit, I collected games from everywhere, including electronic game databases, some of which might best be referred to as "junk bases" because their inclusiveness (i.e. as many games as possible) often accentuated their inexclusiveness (i.e. including errors and bogus games). Two games complicate the story of Blackburne's Defense.

The first game is "Halpern, Jacob C. - Von Scheve, Theodor, England, 1880" which is given as having the exact same moves as Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1885. However, "Halpern - Von Scheve" has not shown up in any of the print resources (i.e. 19th and early 20th century newspaper chess columns, chess magazines, chess opening tomes) that I have encountered to date (over a decade of research) - and as such has to be considered spurious.

Equally curious is "Amateur - Neuman, Guestav, London, 1880" which follows the Blackburne game exactly, except that it substitutes 10.b3 for 10.c3, robbing the sacrificial ending of some of its logic (i.e. White's Queen can escape and defend). A note to myself from 10 years ago suggested, as well, "I have doubts about the reality of this game, based on a Google translation of a Wikipedia article from German (no English available) which suggests Neumann quit chess before 1880." Without further support from contemporary sources, the game must also be considered bogus.

Finally, it must be noted that it has occasionally been suggested that Blackburne's opponent in his fateful game was a player named "Millner" - although, again, my research has not confirmed this (or even identified the player). Occasionally the date of the game is given as other than 1885 or 1880, and the "amateur" involved has been mistakenly identified by one author as Alonzo Wheeler Jerome, himself. 

[to be continued]

Updating the Blackburne Defense (Part 1)

Chess players who know about the Jerome Gambit are most familiar with the game Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1885. Many believe that the Blackburne Defense, when played properly, leads to an advantage for the second player.

Players a bit more familiar with the Jerome Gambit and past published analysis might well believe that White has the advantage.

Readers familiar with this blog would know that modern analysis has termed the Blackburne Defense as difficult, but actually a draw.

I thought of all of this as I played my most recent game, and decided that the Blackburne Defense needed another update.

Of course, you can start first with earlier efforts: "Update: Old Dog Can Still Bite", "A Closer Look (Part V)", "Update: Blackburne Defense" and "Junk Openings".

perrypawnpusher - lfcanales
blitz, FICS, 2014

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 d6

Here is the famous Blackburne defense, from Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1885. The Brooklyn Chess Chronicle (edited by J.B. and E.M. Munoz) Vol. III, August 15, 1885, p. 169, noted the game was

"played some months ago in London between Mr. Blackburne and an Amateur..."

8.Qxh8 Qh4

Here Amateur played 9.0-0. The editors of the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle suggested

He should have attempted to free his pieces by P to Q4 before castling. 

Although my opponent lfcanales played 9.0-0 as well, I would like first to look at the under-investigated 9.d4. After all, if 9.0-0 leads to a draw, as Chandler and Dimitrov have argued, then 9.d4 might be the better chance for White to fight for an advantage.

Here is some of what I have found.

After 9.d4, thematic and best for Black is 9...Nf6, although other moves have been played.

For example, Black has the alternative 9...Qxe4+ 10.Be3 Qxg2 -best - there have been several games with lesser 10th moves:
     1)10...Bb6?! 11.Qxh7+ Kf8 12.Nc3 Qe7 13.Qxe7+ Nxe7 14.0-0-0 Bf5 15.Bg5 Nc6 16.Nd5 Be6 17.Nxb6 axb6 18.d5 Bxd5 19.Rxd5 Nb4 20.Rd4 Nxa2+ 21.Kb1 Ra5 22.Bd2 Black resigned,  MrJoker - carrotop, Internet Chess Club, 2011; 
     2)10...Bxd4 11.Qxh7+ (better 11.Qxd4) Kf8 12.0-0 b6 13.Bh6+ Ke8 14.Qxg8+ Kd7 15.Qf7+ Kc6 16.Qf3 Qxf3 17.gxf3 Bh3 18.Rd1 Re8 19.c3 Bc5 20.b4 Bxf2+ 21.Kxf2 Re7 22.Nd2 a5 23.a3 Rf7 24.Ne4 Bg4 25.Ng5 Rf6 26.Rd4 Kd7 27.Rxg4 d5 28.Rd1 c5 29.Rxd5+ Kc6 30.Rd8 axb4 31.axb4 cxb4 32.Rc4+ Kb5 33.Rxb4+ Kc5 34.Ne4+ Kc6 35.Nxf6 Kc7 36.Rd7+ Kc6 37.Be3 b5 38.Rd5 g5 39.Rbxb5 Black resigned, mediax - yorkypuddn, ChessWorld.net  2008; 
     3)10...Bh3 (shouldn't work here) 11.Qxh7+ Kf8 12.Qxh3 Bxd4 13.Qf3+? (13.Nd2) 13...Qxf3 14.gxf3 Bxb2 15.Rg1 Kf7 16.Nc3 Bxc3+ 17.Ke2 Bxa1 18.Rxa1 Ne7 19.Rb1 b6 20.f4 Rh8 21.Rh1 Nd5 22.Bd2 c5 23.h4 Kf6 24.Kf3 b5 25.Kg4 Ne7 26.h5 gxh5+ 27.Rxh5 Rxh5 28.Kxh5 Kf5 29.Kh4 Nd5 30.Kg3 c4 White resigned, chrisdeb - stephPaillade, Echecs.com 2004; 
     4)10...Qxc2 11.dxc5 dxc5 12.Qc3 Qxc3+ 13.Nxc3 Bf5 14.Bxc5 Re8+ 15.Be3 Re5 16.0-0 Bd3 17.Rfd1 Bc2 18.Rd7+ Re7 19.Rxe7+ Nxe7 Black resigned, Marfia,J - Stelter,J, offhand game, 1964; 
     5)10...Nf6 11.Nd2 Qxg2 12.0-0-0 and White wins, comment by Bad Temper, Chessgames.com, 2005; 

Continuing -11.Qxh7+ Kf8 12.Rf1 Bh3 (12...Bb6 13.Nd2 Bf5 14.c3 Bd3 15.0-0-0 winning for White - personal communication, Paul Keiser, 2004) 13.Bh6+ Nxh6 14.Qxh6+ Kf7 15.Qf4+ Kg7 16.Kd2 Qxf1 17.dxc5 Rd8 18.Qd4+ Kh7 19.b3 Qb5 20.Qh4+ Kg7 21.Qxd8 Qxc5 22.Qe7+ Kh6 23.Qh4+ Kg7 24.Qxh3 Qxf2+ 25.Kc3 Qc5+ 26.Kb2 Qe5+ 27.Qc3 Black resigned, darumsdad - KolaTwoOFour, FICS, 2013. 

Black can also respond to 9.d4 with 9...Bb4+ 10.c3 Qxe4+ (not 11.Kf1? from perrypawnpusher - bakker, blitz, FICS, 2007) 11.Be3 Qxg2 12.Qxh7+ Kf8 13.Rf1 when White will hold on and keep his advantage.

10.Nd2 Bxd4 11.0-0

Given by Hindemburg Melao, in an internet article  at www.superajedrez.com, (which identified Blackburne's opponent as "Millner") as good for White. 

Instead, 10.dxc5 was given in Chess Openings: Traps and Zaps, by Bruce Pandolfini (1989) - see""Traps and Zaps" -  10...Qxe4+ 11.Be3 Qxg2 12.Rf1 where he wrote

Scenario: 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.

Actually, the correct response to 11...Qxg2? is 12.Nc3!? which later prevents Black's Knight from moving to e4 and giving mate. After  12...Qxh1+ 13.Kd2 Qxa1? White turns the tables with 14.Bd4! (13...Qxh2 would keep Black's Queen in play) when Black's extra Rook would mean little in the face of White's strong counterattack.

Also, 10.e5 does not appear as strong as 10.Nd2 - and seems more dangerous for White - after 10...dxe5 11.Nd2 (11.dxc5? Qe4+; 11.dxe5?? Qxf2+ 12.Kd1 Bg4 mate) Bxd4 12.0-0 Be6!? 13.Qxa8 Bd5 14.Qc8 Ng4 15.Qxc7+ Ke6 16.Nf3 Bxf3 17.Bf4 Bxf2+ 18.Kh1 exf4 19.Qxf4 g5 20.Qb8 Be2 21.c4 Bxf1 22.Rxf1 Nf6 23.Qc8+ Ke5 24.Qxb7 Ne4 White has an edge, analysis by Houdini.

[to be continued]