A Question of Theory and Practice

"Theory" and "practice" in the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) can be light-heartedly summed up as: the leading theory is not to practice the opening.

Yet, we persist.

Today's game highlights an area of theoretical controversy – that is to say there would probably be a controversy, if enough people played the Jerome Gambit to be aware of it.

In typical Jerome fashion, White loses the theoretical battle, wins the game handsomely, nonetheless – while the rest of the world refines the 18th (or 28th) move of Sicilian Najdorf theory...

mrjoker - annicks
2 12 blitz, ICC 2000
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6

Munoz and Munoz wrote in the August 1885 Brooklyn Chess Chronicle

In the American edition of Cook's Synopsis K-K3 [...Ke6] is given as the best defence, but Mr. Blackburne's ingenious counter sacrifice in the present skirmish would seem to show that the text is at least as good.

7.Qxe5 d6

This move is usually given a "!" because the offer of Black's Rook led to a smashing finish in Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1885; but, in truth, it deserves a "?!". The best move, instead, is 7...Qe7!, Whistler's Defense, when the Rook is then truly poisoned.

After White captures the Rook in the current game, his biggest "risk" is in allowing Black chances to draw.

8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.0-0 Again, the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle

He should have attempted to free his piece by P to Q4 [d4] before castling.

My database has three examples of the recommendation, although none were available at the time this game was played: 9.d4 Nf6 ( 9...Bb4+ 10.c3 Qxe4+ 11.Kf1 Qd3+ 12.Ke1 Bg4 13.Qxh7+ Kf8 14.f3 Re8+ 15.Kf2 Qe2+ 16.Kg3 Bf5 17.Bh6+ Nxh6 18.Qxh6+ Ke7 19.cxb4 Qxb2 20.Qg5+ Kd7 21.Nd2 Qxd4 22.Rhe1 Rh8 23.Qe7+ Kc6 24.Rec1+ Kb5 25.a4+ Kxb4 26.Ne4 Rh3+ 27.gxh3 Qh8 28.Nf2 g5 29.Qe1+ Kb3 30.Qe3+ Kb4 31.Qd2+ Kb3 32.Qd5+ Kb4 33.Qb5 checkmate, perrypawnpusher - bakker, FICS, 2007; 9...Qxe4+ 10.Be3 Bxd4 11.Qxh7+ 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.com, 2008) 10.Nd2 Bxd4 11.Rf1 Bh3 12.Qxa8 Bxg2 13.Qxb7 Bxf1 14.Qb3+ Ke7 15.Qg3 Qxg3 16.hxg3 Bg2 17.f3 Bh3 Black resigned, dj222 - invincible1,GameKnot.com, 2003

9...Nf6 10.d4

I have not seen a lot of analysis of this move. The earliest entry in my database is from J. du Mont, in his 1942 200 Miniature Games of Chess, where he only notes that 10.d4 Bxd4 11.c3 would lead back to the Blackburne game. Certainly there must be earlier references.

Hindemburg Melao, Jr., in a 2003 internet article about the Amateur - Blackburne game, at superajedrez.com, mentioned that Idel Becker, in his Manual de xadrez (1974), attributed the move 10.d4 to Euwe, although he did not give the source. In any event, the author was dismissive

but in this case Black could simply follow with 10...Bh3 11.gxh3 (11.Qxa8 Qg4 –+ ) 11...Rxh8 12.dxc5 Qxh3 13.f3 g5 14.Rf2 g4 15.Bf4 (15.fxg4 Qxg4+ –+ )15...gxf3 16.Bg3 h5 17.Nd2 h4 18.Nxf3 Qg4 –+ ...

...The best option seems to be 10.Qd8 after 10...Bb6 11.e5 dxe5 12.Qd3 is not clearly how the Black people can be successful. For example 12...Bf5 13.Qb3+ (13.Qg3 Qxg3 14.hxg3 Bxc2µ) 13...Kg7 14.d4 Rd8 15.Nd2 (15.dxe5? Qxf2+! 16.Rxf2 Rd1#) 15...Qxd4 16.c3 (16.Nf3? Qxf2+!) 16...Qc5 with compensation for the material

10...Bxd4 11.Qd8

The game Glameyer - Piske, www.freechess.de, 2006, continued unsuccessfully 11.Be3 Ng4 12.Qxh7+ Qxh7 13.h3 Bxb2 White resigned.

In our game Black has walked by his chance for advantage, allowing White's Queen to both attack c7 and pin the Black Knight. Best for the second player at this point is 11...Bb6, although White's Queen can still be released with 12.e5 dxe5 13.Be3 (or 13.Qd3).

11...Bf5

Quickly losing the thread of the game.

12.Qxc7+ Bd7 13.Qxd6

White has his choice of ways to win now.

13...Bb6 14.e5 Ng4

This only looks dangerous.

15.Qxd7+ Kg8 16.h3 Bxf2+

An attempt to swindle: 17.Rxf2? Qxf2+ 18.Kh1 Qf1 checkmate!

17.Kh1 h5 18.Bf4 Black resigned

Alas, it was not meant to be...

The March 1891 issue of The International Chess Magazine carried news of a 6-game match in Havana, Cuba between Joseph Henry Blackburne and Andres Clemente Vazquez, from March 5 to March 11.


Vazquez, current Mexican Consul General in Cuba, was an early advocate of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+). The past and future Mexican Chess Champion's handicap game in 1876 against Giraudy was introduced in the November 1876 issue of the American Chess Journal with some fanfare

Odds givers will also find the Jerome Gambit a summary method for disposing of the neophyte. And by the way, we observe that this new opening has found its way to Mexico – An American idea in the halls of the Montezumas. Signor Andres Clemente Vazquez, the Mexican Champion and editor of La Estrategia Mexicane, has been trying the "Double" [Jerome's Double Gambit] on an amateur at the odds of Queen's Rook, and that, too, with brilliant success, as will be seen by the following game, which we copy from La Estrategia.

In 1876 Vazquez was 3-0 with the Jerome Gambit in his second match against William Harrington, games he included in his book of that year, Algunas Partidas de Ajedrez.


Of note is that in his third edition of Analisis del juego de ajedres (1889) Vazquez included (along with the Giraudy game and a Harrington game) analysis of Blackburne's 1885 crushing defeat of the Jerome Gambit played by an amateur (for the game, see "Nobody expects the Jerome Gambit!", "Flaws (Part I)" and "Flaws (Part II)").

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 9.0-0 Nf6 in the Blackburne game, Vazquez suggested that instead of 10.c3 White should have played 10.Qd8, and after 10...Bb6 11.e5 dxe5 12.Qd3 White would have had the better game. (This is the earliest incidence of this analysis that I have seen; Munoz and Munoz, in reporting the Anonymous - Blackburne game in the August 1885 Brooklyn Chess Chronicle, had simply suggested 10.Qd8)

So, in the 4th game of the Blackburne - Vazquez match, with The Black Death leading two games to one, Vazquez had the White pieces and played: 1.e4 e5

In the second game of the match Blackburne had dodged with 1...c6, a Caro-Kann.

2.Bc4 Nc6

Best authorites recommend here 2...Nf6 wrote Steinitz.

3.Nf3 Bc5

The Italian Game! And now... and now... the Jerome Gambit???

And now Vazquez moved 4.0-0 and played a delayed Evans Gambit after 4...Nf6 with 5.b4.... He was checkmated in 40 moves.

The position after the third move again arose in the 6th game, with Blackburne leading the match 4-1, and Vazquez transposed to the pacific Four Knights Game with 4.0-0 Nf6 5.Nc3, losing in 33 moves.

Alas, a Jerome Gambit game was not to be.


(It is interesting to note that Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess, published in 1899, has the more straight-forward move order for the 4th match game: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5, etc. On the other hand, P. Anderson Graham, in his summary of "Mr. Blackburne's Successes" in the same book, refers to Vazquez as the champion of Brazil!)

blackburne as Blackburne with black

Mention the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) and most people will either give you a blank look, or remember "that game that Blackburne played in London in the 1880s".


In the ongoing Jerome Gambit thematic tournament at ChessWorld, player blackburn brought out J.H. Blackburne's defense, a line of some contention. One hundred and twenty four years ago, Blackburne, as Black, crushed the Jerome Gambit with fine sacrificial play. Improvements show that White can do better, and at least draw, if not win -- but the play remains complicated.


DREWBEAR 63 - blackburne
JGTourney4 ChessWorld, 2009

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

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6


J.H. Blackburne's defense, returning a piece and preparing to offer a Rook as well.

7.Qxe5 d6
The start of fireworks.

8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.0-0


From here the Black Death played 9...Nf6 10.c3 (10.Qd8 was an improvement suggested in the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle 8/1885) 10...Ng4 11.h3 Bxf2+ 12.Kh1 Bf5 13.Qxa8 Qxh3+ 14.gxh3 Bxe4 checkmate, Amateur - Blackburne, London 1885







analysis diagram







9...Qxe4



This is blackburne's updating of Blackburne. The move has been seen before, but it omits blocking in the enemy Queen, which brings about dire consequences.
10.Nc3

An alternative was 10.Qxh7+ Kf8 11.d3 Qf5 12.Qxc7 Nf6 13.d4 Be6 14.dxc5 Bc4 15.Bh6+ Ke8 16.Re1+ Ne4 17.Nc3 Qxf2+ 18.Kh1 Qf7 19.Rxe4+ Be6 20.Qxd6 Black resigned, obviously - dmyze, GameKnot, 2004

10...Qxc2 11.Qxh7+ Kf8 12.d3 Qxd3 13.Bh6+

With his Queen unlocked, DREWBEAR 63 can press a mating attack.


13...Ke8

There was no hope in 13...Nxh6, as follows 14.Qxh6+ Kg8 15.Rae1 d5 16.Re8+ Kf7 17.Rfe1 Qd4 18.Nxd5 Qxf2+ 19.Kh1 Qg1+ 20.Rxg1 Kxe8 21.Qxg6+ Kd7 22.Re1 Be3 23.Rxe3 c6 24.Re7+ Kd8 25.Qe8 checkmate

14.Rfe1+ Kd8


Drawing out the pain was 14...Be3 15.Qxg8+ Kd7 16.Rxe3 Kc6 17.Rxd3 Be6 18.Qxe6 a5 19.Qc4+ Kd7 20.Nd5 c6 21.Qg4+ Kd8 22.Bg5+ Ke8 23.Qe6+ Kf8 24.Bh6 checkmate

15.Qxg8+ Kd7 16.Qe8 checkmate

Traps and Zaps

It's always fun to see where the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) turns up. Most recently, it was in IM Gary Lane's latest book (see "The extraordinary and forgotten Jerome Gambit"), but 20 years ago it was in Bruce Pandolfini's Chess Openings: Traps and Zaps.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 d6

A defense made famous by Joseph Henry Blackburne (see "Nobody expects the Jerome Gambit!" and "Flaws (Part II)") and most recently explored on this blog in "Jerome Gambit: Drilling Down" (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10).

8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.d4

An improvement suggested by Munoz and Munoz in the August 1885 Brooklyn Chess Chronicle, repeated by Fletcher in Gambits Accepted (1954) and Druke in the November 1987 Gambit Revue, to give some early citations. (Actually, the move is rarely mentioned, but see "A Closer Look (Part V)".)

9...Nf6

Druke gave this move as an alternative to Fletcher's 9...Qxe4+ 10.Be3, saying that it came from analysis by Fritz 5. Of course, the two lines can transpose; in either case, as Hindemburg Melao, Jr., wrote in an intenet article (2003) on Amateur - Blackburne, London 1885 (not currently available), White's proper response is Nd2.

10.dxc5

Pandolfini appears to be the first to explore this move, and he uses it in a bit of a morality tale (after a few more moves) about grabbing material in his Chess Openings Traps and Zaps.

10...Qxe4+ 11.Be3 Qxg2 12.Rf1

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 form the a8-Rook. If White tries to save the Queen by capturing the Rook, 13.Qxa8 then 13...Qxf1+ 14.Kd2 Ne4 is mate.

Interpretation: White began with a very aggressive, sacrificial line of play which, because of Black's cavalier pawn move (6...g6), led to the gain of material. The price White had to pay was the removal of his Queen from the center of the board. Without his Queen being available for defense, White has to play carefully, and every move becomes critical. Instead of his h1-Rook, he should be more concerned with the potential trap of his Queen. 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?(13...Qxh2 keeps Black's Queen in play), White turns the tables with 14.Bd4!. Black's extra Rook then means little in the face of White's strong counterattack.

Melao's analysis 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.d4 Nf6! ( 9...Qxe4+ 10.Be3 Nf6 11.Nd2 Qxg2 [11...Qxc2 12.0-0+-] 12.0-0-0+-) 10.Nd2!
a)10.dxc5 Qxe4+ 11.Be3 (11.Kd1 Bg4+ -+; 11.Kf1 Bh3 12.Qxa8 Bxg2+ 13.Kg1 Bh3 -+) 11...Qxg2 12.Rf1 Bh3 -+;
b)10.Be3 Bxd4! 11.Bxd4 Qxe4+ 12.Kd2 (12.Be3 Qxg2 -+) 12...Qxd4+ 13.Kc1 Qc5 14.b4 (14.Na3 b5 15.Re1 Bb7 -+) 14...Qc4 15.c3 (15.Na3 Qf4+ 16.Kb1 Qxb4+ -+) 15...b5 -+;
c)10.e5 dxe5! 11.0-0! Bd6! (11...Bxd4 12.Nd2 e4! 13.Qd8 Be5 14.g3 [14.f4 Bf5! 15.Qxa8 Bd4+ 16.Kh1 Ng4 17.h3 Qg3 18.hxg4 Qh4#] 14...Qh3 [14...Qg4 15.Nc4] 15.Nxe4! Qxf1+ [15...Nxe4 16.Qd5+] 16.Kxf1 Bh3+ 17.Ke1 Rxd8 18.Ng5+ Kg7 19.Nxh3 unclear) 12.f4 (12.Nd2 e4 13.g3 [13.f4 b6 -+] 13...Qh3 14.f3 e3 15.Ne4 Nxe4! 16.fxe4+ Qxf1+! 17.Kxf1 Bh3+ 18.Ke2 Rxh8 -+) 12...e4! 13.g3 Qh5 14.f5 gxf5 15.Bf4 Bxf4 16.Rxf4 [16.gxf4 e3 -+] 16...Qd1+ 17.Kg2 [17.Rf1 Qxd4+ 18.Kg2 f4 -+] 17...e3! 18.Qd8 Bd7! [18...e2! 19.Qxc7+ Kg6 20.Nc3! e1N+ 21.Kh1 Qxa1 22.Rf1! Be6 23.g4! fxg4 (23...Nxg4 24.d5) 24.h4! (24.Qe5 Nf3)] 19.Qxc7 (19.Qxa8 Bc6+ 20.Kh3 Qh5+ 21.Rh4 Bg2+! 22.Kxg2 Qe2+ 23.Kg1 [23.Kh3 Qf1#] 23...Qf2+ 24.Kh1 Qf1#) 19...Rc8 20.Qxb7 Rxc2+ 21.Kh3 Qh5+ 22.Rh4 Qe2 23.Qh1 f4+ 24.g4 Bxg4+ 25.Rxg4 Qxg4#;
10...Bxd4 11.0-0! (11.g3 Qh5 12.Qd8 Bxf2+! 13.Kxf2 Qc5+;11.Rf1 b5 [11...Bh3! 12.Qxa8 Bxg2 13.Qxb7! Bxf1 14.Qb3+! d5 15.Qg3] 12.Qd8 Bb6 13.e5 dxe5 14.Qd3 Qxh2 [14...e4 15.Qg3 +/=] 15.Qf3 Rb8 16.Ne4 Qh4 17.Nxf6 Qxf6 18.Qxf6+ Kxf6 unclear)

Flaws (Part II)

Amateur - Blackburne
London, 1885
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6

"Not to be outdone in generosity," Blackburne added in his 1899 collection Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess.

In the American edition of Cook's Synopsis [American Supplement to the "Synopsis," Containing American Inventions In the Chess Openings Together With Fresh Analysis in the Openings Since 1882; also a list of Chess Clubs in the United States and Canada, 1884, edited by J.W. Miller] ...Ke6 is given as the best defence, but Mr. Blackburne's ingenious counter sacrifice in the present skirmish would seem to show that the text is at least as good -- Brooklyn Chess Cronicle, August 15, 1885 [Here and below, the annotation has been changed from descriptive to algebraic notation.]

Not considered in Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's earliest analysis, 6...g6 was seen at least as early as in the 5th game of the second match between Mexican Champion Andres Clemente Vazquez and American William Harrington, Mexico 1876 (Vazquez won the match 12-3-1): 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 Nf6 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qe3 Re8 10.d3 Ng4 11.Qf3+ Kg7 12.0-0 Rf8 13.Qg3 Qf6 14.h3 Ne5 15.Nc3 c6 16.Bg5 Qe6 17.Qh4 Nf7 18.f4 h6 19.f5 hxg5 20.fxe6 gxh4 21.Rxf7+ Rxf7 22.exf7 Kxf7 23.Rf1+ Kg7 24.e5 d5 25.Ne2 b5 26.Nd4 Bd7 27.Rf6 Rc8 28.Rd6 Be8 29.Kf2 Kf7 30.Kf3 c5 31.Ne2 d4 32.Kg4 Rc6 33.Kxh4 Rxd6 34.exd6 Kf6 35.Ng3 Bc6 36.Ne4+ Bxe4 37.dxe4 a5 38.e5+ Ke6 39.Kg3 1-0

7.Qxe5 d6

Despite the accolades awarded to this game, Black has a stronger counter-attack here, starting with 7...Qe7! as Jerome discovered to his dismay in the games of his correspondence match with Lt. G. N. Whistler, secretary of the Lexington, Kentucky Chess Club, in 1876.

8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.0-0

"He should have attempted to free his piece by d4 before castling," was the opinion of the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle, with White then having an edge.

9....Nf6 10.c3

"The only hope he had was 10.Qd8, thus preventing the deadly move of ...Ng4" -- Brooklyn Chess Chronicle.

Masterly analysis by Geoff Chandler and Todor Dimitrov showed that in the resulting play, the game would be drawn.

10.... Ng4 11.h3 Bxf2+ 12.Kh1 Bf5 13.Qxa8 Qxh3+ 14.gxh3 Bxe4 mate

Flaws (Part I)

A more serious look at the Amateur - Blackburne game would reveal a few "flaws," to return to the master's comments on "brilliancy."

Amateur - Blackburne
London, 1885

Yes, 1885. 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."

J. H. Blackburne played tens of thousands of tournament, match and exhibition games. It is understandable that in recalling this one for Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess (1899), he believed that it had been played "at Simpson's Divan about 1880."

It is only speculation, but perhaps Blackburne conflated two memories, as on October 20, 1880, at Simpson's Divan, he sharply finished off a game against a "Mr. L.," having given the odds of two Knights


1…Be7 2 Bxe5+ Qxe5 3 Nxe5 Rxg2+ 4 Kxg2 Rg6+ 5 Kh3 Bg2 mate

This finish was given in the September 1882 issue of Chess Monthly, according to Edward Winter in his "Unsolved Chess Mysteries (26)".

Interestingly enough, Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess has a position similarly identified ("Played at Simpson's Chess Divan in 1880, White giving the odds of two Knights" vs "Mr. L") with colors reversed.

Blackburne, playing White, finishes off the game in the same manner.

1.Be2 Bxe4+ 2.Qxe4 Nxe4 3.Rxg7+ Kxg7 4.Rg3+ Kh6 5.Bg7 mate

At an age where I can smile knowingly at all of this "misremembering," it is also reassuring to recall the words of José Capablanca, from "How I Learned to Play Chess" in the October 1916 issue of Munsey’s Magazine.

It is not correct to assume, however, that my chess ability depends upon an overdeveloped memory. In chess, memory may be an aid, but it is not indispensable. At the present time my memory is far from what it was in my early youth, yet my play is undoubtedly much stronger than it was then. Mastery of chess and brilliance of play do not depend so much upon the memory as upon the peculiar functioning of the powers of the brain.