The Jerome Gambit Article (Part 2)

From the previous post:

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.

My presentation of the article continues. 

This light-hearted approach found full form in the May 1877 issue of the Danish chess magazine Nordisk Skaktidende, where Lieutenant Soren Anton Sorensen, analyzed the Jerome Gambit in his “Chess Theory for Beginners” column:

With this answering move of the Bishop [1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6

3.Bc4 Bc5] we have the fundamental position for that good old game

which the Italians, hundreds of years ago, when they were masters of

the Chessboard, called "Giuoco Piano," even game, but the later age,

for generality of explanation, the "Italian game." On this basis the

usual continuation is 4.c3, whereby the QP at the next move threatens

to advance, and the White middle Pawns to occupy the centre. In the

next articles we will make mention of that regular fight for the

maintenance or destruction of the center, which is the essential point

of the Italian game; in this, on the contrary, we will occupy ourselves

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. A little analysis of it will, therefore, be highly instructive, not to

say necessary, for less practiced players, and will be in its right place

in our Theory, especially since it is not found in any handbook. The

Americans call the game "Jerome's double opening," an allusion,

probably, to the fresh sacrifice of a piece which follows at the next

move, but we shall prefer to use the short and sufficiently clear

designation, Jerome Gambit.

This nomenclature was examined earnestly in the Huddersfield College Magazine of July 1879

            We do not well know why this opening, (a branch of the

“Giuoco”) is styled a gambit, as it consists in White sacrificing a

piece on the fourth move, and Staunton in his Handbook defines a

gambit as a sacrifice of a Pawn.

            The Americans recognize the force of this by styling the

Opening “Jerome’s double opening,” although we don’t quite see

the meaning of this. How “double”? We think that the simple and

natural definition of Jerome’s Attack – as Cochrane’s Attack in

the “Petroff” where a piece is also given up by White on his fourth

move – would suffice)

           

The August 1877 issue of the British Chess Player’s Chronicle and the December 1877 issue of the Italian Nuova Rivista Degli Scacchi, reprinted Sorensen’s article (in English and Italian, respectively), introducing the Jerome Gambit to an even wider audience. Almost every Jerome Gambit analyst since has leaned heavily on Sorensen.

Hallock reconciled with Jerome in the September & October 1877 issue of the American Chess Journal

            We are pleased to note that the daring and brilliant debut

invented by our friend Jerome, of Paxton, Ill, is receiving

recognition abroad, both among players and analysts. Sr. Vazquez,

the Mexican Champion, plays it with fine success when yielding

the odds of a Knight, while Mr. Charlick, a strong Australian

player, has been giving us some fine specimens of his chess skill in

the new opening; some time since the Italian Chess Magazine published

a game at this opening with favorable comments on the “new departure,”

and in the May number of the Nordisk Skaktidende, S. A. Sorensen

gives us a sparkling analysis of the “Americanism,” a translation of

which we herewith present. The MSS was submitted to Mr. Jerome,

who expresses himself highly pleased with the thoroughness and ability

with which our Danish contemporary has presented the subject…

            Now that chess players abroad are investigating the merits of

the Jerome we would suggest that our magnates at home give it some

attention…

               Interest in the Jerome Gambit did not remain just among beginning chess players. 

A couple of years later, Andres Clemente Vazquez included three wins with the Gambit, from 

his 1876 match against carrington, in his Algunas Partidas de Ajedrez Jugadas in Mexico por 

Andres Clemente Vazquez.

G. H. D. Gossip’s 1879 book, Theory of the Chess Openings, included an analysis of the Jerome Gambit,
“substantially the same” as that which appeared in the Chess Player’s Chronicle, as the latter noted in a review of the work. At about the same
time, the American daily newspaper, the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, in its chess column, struck the right tone in its review of Theory,
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 next year, in 1880, when the 6th edition of the illustrious Handbuch des Schachspiels was published, the Commercial
Gazette’s chess columnist was again ready to “complain” about the state of affairs 

…that the"Jerome Gambit" should be utterly (even if deservedly) ignored.



 [to be continued]

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: Move That Knight!

While looking for "secrets" in the Jerome Gambit - moves or lines of play that have been discovered or recommended, but rarely, if ever, used - I occasionally run across some ideas that deserve to remain secret, because they're not really all that good.

Let me share a couple, to show you what I mean.

What do you make of this line from weenar - Quixote, blitz, FICS, 2000 (0-1, 8)?

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Ng1

Wow.

White sacrifices his Bishop at f7 to disturb Black's King, and then decides that that is enough generosity for one day. Ah, but his King's Knight is in the way of his rampaging Queen - one of the benefits, he begrudgingly admits, of 5.Nxe5+ is that it opens the d1-h5 diagonal, admittedly at the cost of another piece. 

So, the solution presents itself - move the Knight home!

A similar idea (admittedly, not after a piece sacrifice) comes to mind in such lines as 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Ng8!?, the Brooklyn variation of Alekhine's Defense; 1.d4 Nc6 2.d5 Nb8!?; and Stefan Bucker's 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.exf5 e4 4.Ng1!? against the Latvian Gambit.

Not surprisingly, the 1 win that White has out of the 5 games with the position in The Database - is a time forfeit, when Black had a winning position. One plan for Black is 5...Qh4!? 6.Qe2 Nd4 7.Nf3!? Nxe2 8.Nxh4 Nxc1, and the Queens will be off the board as White tries to find compensation for his sacrificed piece (no worry, Black's Knight at c1 will fall, but White will still only have a doubled pawn as compensation).

But, let us not laugh too loudly. What do you think of the following line?

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Ng5+

Move that Knight!

This time: not so funny. There are 515 games in The Database with 5.Ng5+. Is it surprising, or not surprising, that White scores 24%?

One "idea" behind this un-blocking Knight move is that White simply didn't notice that his piece would hang - on the average, White's rating is about 100 points below his opponent. On the other hand, there are a significant number of games where Black does not take the Knight - an indication that we are probing the depths of club and blitz play, not grandmaster praxis.

Another idea is the pair of threats - should Black capture the Knight with 5...Qxg5 - embodied in 6.d4!?, attacking both the Queen and the Bishop at c5. It is a hallucination, however, as Black has the crushing 6...Qxg2 and White is in great misery, e.g. 7.Rf1 Qxe4+  8.Be3 Nxd4 - two pieces down, behind in development, King in danger...

Why do Jerome Gambiteers play this kind of stuff? Because it's fun, I guess.