Jerome Gambit: In the Meantime

When the third round games in the "Italian Battleground" tournament at Chess.com began to wind down (two left to complete, one a Jerome Gambit) I went looking for action in the "Italian Game Classic" tournament on the same site.

Round 1, Group 2 matched me with 4 other players - and I was able to construct a Jerome. I admit that I benefitted from giving "Jerome Gambit odds", as well as from my opponent's quick moves, despite the 3 days/move time control. Still, the game had its moments, especially the "throw in the kitchen sink" ending.  

perrypawnpusher - Al-der
Italian Game Classic, Chess.com, 2019

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8 

As I posted about this move, some time ago

As early as his first article with analysis (Dubuque Chess Journal 4/1874), Alonzo Wheeler Jerome considered the possibility that Black might refuse to capture the second piece, and play for King safety instead with 5...Kf8.  

This was, in fact, the defense that Jerome, himself, credited to G. J. Dougherty, ("a strong amateur, against whom I first played the opening") of Mineola, New York, in a yet unfound game; that O.A. Brownson, editor of the Dubuque Chess Journal, played against Jerome in an 1875 game (Dubuque Chess Journal3/1875); that magazine editor William Hallock used against D.P. Norton in an 1876 correspondence game played “by special request” to test the gambit (American Chess Journal 2/1877); that William Carrington tried in his 1876 match vs Mexican Champion Andres Clemente Vazquez (Algunas Partidas de Ajedrez Jugadas en Mexico, 1879); and which Lt. Soren Anton Sorensen recommended as “more solid and easier to manage” in his seminal Jerome Gambit essay (Nordisk Skaktidende 5/1877). 

As I noted: early in the Jerome's Gambit's life, there were players willing to accept one "gift", but who were skeptical of accepting two "gifts".

6.Nxc6

Probably the strongest move, although Bill Wall has experimented with 6.0-0!?, intending to meet 6...Nxe5 with 7.d4.

The Banks Variation, 6.Qh5!?, has scored 18-20-1, but is well met by 6...Qe7!?. See "Jerome Gambit Secrets #4".

6...dxc6

The better pawn capture, as 6...bxc6 would allow 7.d4, right away.

7.O-O

I considered both this move and 7.d3, and decided that castling was going to be necessary, in any event, while, perhaps, it wasn't yet time to give up on the opportunity to play d2-d4. My judgement was almost immediately rewarded.

7...Qh4 8.d4 Bg4 

Played quickly, probably with the idea that you don't always have to defend against an opponent's threat if you can come up with a greater threat. In this case, however, Black has overlooked a resource that White has.

9.f3 Bxf3 10.Qxf3+ Qf6 11.Qd3 

Black's game has come off the rails, quickly.

11...Qxf1+ 12.Kxf1 Rd8 13.Qf3+ Ke8 14.dxc5 Ne7

White has a Queen, Bishop and pawn for a Rook, but he still needs to be careful.

15.Kg1 Rf8 16.Qe2 Ng6 17.Nc3 b5 18.Bg5 Rd7 19.Rd1 Ne5

White's pieces are developed. Now it is time to put them to use: nothing subtle, just throw the pieces at him, especially the Queen and Bishop.

20.Qh5+ g6 21.Qh3 Rff7 22.Qe6+ Kf8 23.Bh6+ Rg7 24.Rf1+ Rdf7 25.Qc8+ Ke7 26.Bg5+ Black resigned

The finish would have been 26...Rf6 27.Bxf6+ Kf7 28.Bg5+ Nf3+ 29.Rxf3 checkmate.

The Jerome Gambit Article (Part 1)

Ten years ago I wrote a substantial article on the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) and submitted it to the German language chess magazine, Kaissiber.  The editor, Stefan Buecker, was supportive, and tried, over the years, to somehow make the submission work. His was a serious and well-respected magazine, however, and even a well-written (and revised) piece on a highly suspect chess opening could not find a place in its pages. 

Kaissiber ceased publication 8 years ago. If you have any interest, at all, in creative chess explorations or chess history - even if German is not your first language - you would do well to track down an issue. I guarantee you will not stop at one.

In the meantime, I thought it might be time to share my Jerome Gambit explorations. (I have occasionally sampled from it, but never shared the whole thing.) The article is a bit long, and will take up a number of blog posts, but, believe it or not, there is a lot of ground to cover.

Jerome Gambit theory has progressed since the article was written, but it is important to learn the opening's history.

The Jerome Gambit

Introduction

If you page through Raymond Keene’s The Complete Book of Gambits (1992) you will find a short entry for the Jerome Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 and a dour assessment “This is totally unsound and should never be tried!”

Keene’s warning notwithstanding, the Jerome Gambit has an interesting history.

History

The April 1874 edition of the Dubuque Chess Journal (also known as the American Chess Journal, or the Journal) contained a small article titled "New Chess Opening.” It began “We have received from A.W. Jerome of Paxton, Ford county, Illinois, some analyses of a new move in the Giuoco Piano, first played by him, which we offer our readers as: Jerome's Double Opening.”

            There followed a brief analysis:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ This is the first move, if

now Black reply 4...Kxf7 he continues 5.Nxe5+ and we have the moves

that constitute Jerome's Double Opening.

Suppose in the first place 5...Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4
Qf6 9.fxe5+ Qxe5 10.Qf3 Nf6 11.d3 compelling either K or Q to move

as White threatens Bf4; or Black can play ...g5. If 11...Ke7 12.Nc3 g5

13.Rf1 c6 14.g3 We have space only for a few of Black's best moves,

leaving our readers to test the opening over the board.

            If 5...Kf8 6.Nxc6 dxc6 (if 6...bxc6 White plays 7.d4 putting

Black's KB out of play) 7.0-0 Nf6 8.Qf3 Qd4 9.d3 Bg4 10.Qe3 Qxe3

11.Bxe3 Bxe3 12.fxe3 Ke7 and White should draw by the judicious use

of his pawns.

             The editor of the Dubuque Chess Journal, O. A. Brownson, found the Double Opening interesting enough, or amusing enough, to run further analyses (and a game) by Jerome in the July 1874 issue and in the January 1875 issue. In the March 1875 issue Brownson published two games he had played against A. W. Jerome, and in July 1875, he published one more game, all involving Jerome’s Gambit. (In all, White won 2, drew 1, lost 1.)

The Jerome Gambit was apparently well received by the average chess player. Some indication of this was reflected the “Our Portfolio” section of the Dubuque Chess Journal for May 1874, which contained a “Chess Challenge” which looked a lot like a chess duel

George J. Dougherty, of Mineola, Queen’s County, New York,

hereby respectfully invites John G. Belden, Esq., of Hartford, Conn.,

to play him two games of chess by Postal Card, at his convenience,

Mr. Belden taking the attack in one game and Mr. Dougherty in the other;

the object being to test the soundness of JEROME’S DOUBLE OPENING,

published in the April No. (50) of this CHESS JOURNAL.

            It is not likely that any of the Journal’s readers were aware that the player issuing the challenge was the first person against whom Jerome had played the Double Opening!

            As early as July 1874 it was clear that Alonzo Wheeler Jerome had no illusions about his gambit, as the Dubuque Chess Journal noted

It should be understood that Mr. Jerome claims in this New

Opening "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."

            This modesty did not prevent Jerome from debating for months with William Hallock, who produced the American Chess Journal in the years following the demise of the Dubuque Chess Journal. While testing his invention in over-the-board and correspondence play, Jerome claimed

                        …that the opening has a “reasonable chance of winning,”

            which is sufficient to constitute a “sound opening.” It is not required

            that an Opening shall be sure to win. There is no such opening

            contained in chess; at least none that I know of.

            In the exchanges of games and analysis that appeared in the ACJ in 1876 and 1877, Hallock progressed from referring to “Jerome’s Double Opening” to “Jerome’s Gambit” to “Jerome’s Absurdity.”

[to be continued]

Jerome Gambit: Velveteen Rabbit (Part 1)

The title of today's post was laid out, previously

Like Pinocchio or the Velveteen Rabbit, the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) longs to become a "real" chess opening, or at least a "normal" one. 

Of course, that is a bit of a stretch for something so often refuted. 

Yet, occasionally, I experience a sense of "normality", as I noted a while back in my post "Still More Errors in Thinking 4.0"

I mean, I play a game, I publish it on this blog, someone takes that information and uses it in another one of my Jerome Gambits. I publish that game in this blog, someone elses uses that information in another of my Jerome Gambits...

Just like a real opening.

perrypawnpusher - warwar
"Italian Battleground", Chess.com, 2018

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6

This variation does not have a name, but it could well be titled the Brownson Defense, after O.A. Brownson, who played it in Jerome - Brownson, Iowa, 1875 (1-0, 28), shortly after the Jerome Gambit's debut. 

The defense was subsequently played by William Carrington in the first game of his second match against the Mexican champion, Andres Clemente Vazquez, in 1876 (1-0, 34).

It should be noted that Vazquez played a match against Steinitz in 1888, and one against Blackburne in 1891. The latter match included two Giuoco Piano openings played by Vazquez, and it would have been fascinating - if downright risky for the first player - if one of the strongest players of the Jerome Gambit at that time had used it against the player whose crush of it against "Amateur" a few years earlier had covered the attack in ignomy. Alas, Vazquez opted for 4.0-0 both times.

7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qe3 Nf6 

There are 186 games with this position in The Database, with White scoring a surprising 71%. This more likely reflects the comfort, knowledge and experience of the player with the White pieces, rather than an "objective" evaluation of the state of affairs. 

10.O-O Kf7

Black will castle-by-hand, bringing his Rook to the e-file.

White will urge his "Jerome pawns forward."

11.f4 Re8 12.f5 Ne5 13.d4 

13...Neg4

After enticing White's pawns forward, Black takes a swipe at his Queen.

14.Qb3+ Kf8 15.h3 Nh6 

16.Bxh6 gxh6 17.Nd2

Here we have a strange looking position, quite possibly even, with White's extra (and healthy) pawns and development balancing Black's extra piece and unsafe King.

[to be continued]

Jerome Gambit Secrets #4

One of my favorite Jerome Gambit "secrets" has actually been solved, but the story is always a good one to tell. And tell again.

Let's look at a line.

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

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8

About 4 1/2 years ago I posted about this move

As early as his first article with analysis (Dubuque Chess Journal 4/1874), Alonzo Wheeler Jerome considered the possibility that Black might refuse to capture the second piece, and play for King safety instead with 5...Kf8.  

This was, in fact, the defense that Jerome, himself, credited to G. J. Dougherty, ("a strong amateur, against whom I first played the opening") of Mineola, New York, in a yet unfound game; that O.A. Brownson, editor of the Dubuque Chess Journal, played against Jerome in an 1875 game (Dubuque Chess Journal3/1875); that magazine editor William Hallock used against D.P. Norton in an 1876 correspondence game played “by special request” to test the gambit (American Chess Journal 2/1877); that William Carrington tried in his 1876 match vs Mexican Champion Andres Clemente Vazquez (Algunas Partidas de Ajedrez Jugadas en Mexico, 1879); and which Lt. Soren Anton Sorensen recommended as “more solid and easier to manage” in his seminal Jerome Gambit essay (Nordisk Skaktidende 5/1877). 

It is interesting that early in Jerome's Gambit's life, there were players willing to accept one "gift" but who were skeptical of accepting two "gifts".

6.Qh5

This move shows up in 38 games in The Database, with White scoring 49%.

As I noted

White also has the option of playing 6.Qh5, the Banks Variation, as in Banks - Rees, Halesowen, 2003, when Black can transpose with 6…Nxe5  as recommended by the American Chess Journal, (3/1877) - "The continuation adopted by Jerome, Qh5 looks promising." 

Pete Banks ("blackburne" online), a stalwart member of the Jerome GambitGemeinde (and still the strongest player I know who has played the Jerome regularly over-the-board in rated contests), brought international attention to Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's invention by writing to International Master Gary Lane, who commented at length on the opening, and on a couple of Banks' games, in his March ("The Good Old Days") and April ("Chess Made Easy") 2008 "Opening Lanes" columns at ChessCafe.com. IM Lane also mentioned one of Banks' games in his The Greatest Ever chess tricks and traps (2008), which reprised some of the earlier material. 

It is humorous to note that in his "Opening Lanes" column Lane wrote, after 5.Nxe5+, "I think anyone with good manners playing Black would now kindly ask their opponent if they wanted to take their move back" while in his book he changed this to "I think anyone with good manners playing Black would now go to another room to carry on laughing." 

Apropos the Banks Variation itself (i.e. playing 6.Qh5 in response to 5...Kf8), IM Lane noted in "The Good Old Days" that "6...Qe7 is a good alternative [to 6...Qf6 of Banks - Rees], because it stops the checkmate and protects the bishop on c5." 

A few months later, 6...Qe7 was tested successfully in a GameKnot.com game, splott - mika76, 2008: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8 6.Qh5 Qe7 7.Ng6+ hxg6 8.Qxh8 Qxe4+ 9.Kf1 Qd4 10.Ke1 Qxf2+ 11.Kd1 d6 12.h3 Qxg2 13.Re1 Qf3+ 14.Re2 Bf2 15.d3 Nd4 16.Nc3 Qh1+ 17.Kd2 Nf3 checkmate. Clearly White, the very-slightly-higher rated player, was taken aback by the move. I asked mika76 if he had been influenced by IM Lane's recommendation, but he said he had come up with the move himself.

Jerome Gambit: Playing Over Games

Often the best way to learn an opening is to play over the games of an experienced practitioner - that is what this blog is all about - and pay attention to what is going on - especially when play varies from past experience and analysis.

The following Jerome Gambit game is a good example of what to look at.

Wall, Bill - Guest129367
PlayChess.com, 2017

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8

Checking Bill's Jerome Gambit nomenclature, I am reminded that this is the Sorensen Variation, where Black declines the second sacrifice and moves his King closer to safety.

Lieutenant S. A. Sorensen wrote an early analysis of the Jerome Gambit in his "Chess for Beginners" column in the May 1877 issue of Nordisk Skaktidende. It was widely translated and republished.

He was anticipated in his discussion by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome, who first looked at the line in 1874. The earliest game example that I have in The Database is Jerome - Brownson, Iowa, USA, 1875 (1/2-1/2, 29). For history of the line, see "Critical Line: 5...Kf8 (1, 2 and 3)".

6.Nc3

I was a bit surprised to find that, according to The Database, this move is a novelty, although the game will transpose to an earlier Bill Wall game in a few moves.

White simply develops a piece, and waits to see what Black can make of the position. Similar would be 6.0-0, which Bill is 7-0 with. He also suggests 6.d4!?, which brought him a win the one time he tried it.

Seen more often, and recommended by both Jerome and Sorensen, is 6.Nxc6.

6...Qf6

The Black Queen sometimes goes to f6 to help defend; here it is also attacking.

Of course Black had the option of capturing the Knight with 6...Nxe5, and after 7.d4 Bxd4 8.Qxd4 d6 the game would have transposed into more mainstream play. There is a practical argument for 6...Nxe5 as well: Bill is "only" 8-2 against it. 

Stockfish 8 (30 ply) shows a tiny preference for 6...Nxe5, but also suggests the wild 6...Qg5!?, which it recommends that White meet with 7.Qf3+, looking to exchange Queens. Not surprisingly, The Database has no examples of 6...Qg5.

7.Nd3

White can no longer exchange off his Knight because of 7.Nxc6?? Qxf2 checkmate.

7...Bb6 8.O-O d6 

The game has transposed to Wall, Bill - Tim93612, Chess.com, 2010 (1-0, ), which began 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8 6.Nd3 Bb6 7.0-0 Qf6 8.Nc3, but then continued with 8...Nge7 (1-0, 36).

With a piece for two pawns, Black can be said to have a small advantage, especially in light of White's blocked development. Black has to be aware, however, that his King and Queen are on the same file, which could prove risky if White can exchange off pawns to expose his Rook at f1.

9.Kh1

White wastes no time unpinning his f-pawn, so he can advance it.

9...Ne5

Black would love to exchange Knights at d3 and bury White's Bishop. Bill recommends, instead, 9...Qf7. 

10.Nd5 

The attack on Black's Queen gives White time to exchange off Black's troublesome Bishop and double a couple of pawns - if nothing better comes up.

Why didn't White play the Knight jump the previous move, instead of "wasting time" with 9.Kh1 ? Probably because Black could have answered the move with 9...Qd4, and the Queen would have recaptured, keeping his pawns intact.

10...Qf7 

Bill suggests, instead, 10...Qe6 11.N3f4 Qf7. Why is this different from moving the Queen to f7 immediately?

11.Nxe5 dxe5 12.f4 

Suddenly the "Jerome pawns" take on a menacing potential.

Stockfish 8 suggests that Black continue with reasonable defense, 12...Ke8 13.fxe5 Qg6 14.d4 Ne7 15.Nxe7 Kxe7 16.Qd3 and with 3 pawns for the piece - despite facing the two Bishops - White appears to have somewhat better chances.

12...Nf6 

Black's first real slip. Development is good, and shielding the Queen and King is noble - but the enemy Rook on the f-file is still a danger.

13.fxe5 c6 14.exf6 g6 15.Ne7 

Not only is White up 3 pawns, his advanced Knight and pawn are full of trouble - especially with Black's pawn on g6. (Perhaps Black's Queen should have gone there, instead, with 14...Qg6, but after 15.Nxb6 axb6 White could have continued with 16.b3, intending 17.Bb2 with further pressure on Black's kingside.)

15...Be6 16.d4 Rd8 

Overlooking White's main threat, which could have been met with 16...h5. At that point White would not have an immediate shot, but could continue to build his attack with 17.b3 and 18.Ba3, or work for a breakthrough with 17.d5.

17.Bh6+ Ke8 

Now there is already the win of the exchange after 18.Bg7, but White wants to go after the enemy King.

18.d5 cxd5 

It is difficult to find a safe retreat for Black's light squared Bishop, so Black decides to return it for a couple of pawns. This leaves him down a Rook (and a couple of pawns)

19.exd5 Bxd5 20.Nxd5 Rxd5 

21.Re1+ 

Please excuse Bill for overlooking the checkmate in 20 moves that starts with 21.Qg4 (silly computer) - the text is strong enough (and would checkmate almost as fast, if Black didn't resign sooner).

21...Kd7 22.Qg4+ Kc7 23.Re7+ Black resigned