There is a phrase in chess, "annotation by result", which refers to the practice of judging a move or a series of moves by the outcome of the game. Won game? Good move! Lost game? Bad move!
Strong, inquisitive and creative players work against this tendency and are often rewarded with new ideas and positive results over-the-board.
Consider Yury V. Bukayev, whose opening discoveries have been mentioned here before. Recently, Yury has been looking at the Fritz Variation in the Two Knights Defense.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4
To quote from "Having Fun with the Two Knights" from Chess Asia, Volume 11, Issue 3, 1995, by Bobby Ang,
By way of a short historical background, this is known as the Fritz/Schlechter Variation, used by Hans Berliner extensively in his rise to first place in the World Correspondence Championship. Indeed, it seems to be a lot more logical than the usual 5...Na5 which locks the knight out of play on the edge of the board.
Some of our readers might be wondering how this opening got its name. In fact, if you are in possession of the excellent book by Warren Goldman on Carl Schlechter which is a biography and a collection of most of the wins of "The Austrian Chess Wizard", you might have noticed that this variation does not even appear even once. Lest you think that he lost all his games with this line we hasten to note that this Defense was suggested by the German player Alexander Fritz to Schlechter who analysed it in Deutsche Schachzeitung in 1904, thus the name.
6.d6
This line has largely been dismissed by the sources that I consulted.
6...Qxd6 7.Bxf7+ Ke7 8.Bb3 Nxb3 9.axb3 h6 10.Nf3
Black has good play for his sacrificed pawn in Bogoljubov - Rubinstein, Stockholm, 1919. He enjoyed his "two Bishops" and transitioned to one of those Rooks-and-pawns engame that he was famous for winning. What else did Bogoljubov expect? seemed to be the concensus of the observers.
Yury, in an email he sent me, enthused
I think this new gambit is a distant relative (!!) of the Classical Jerome Gambit. Thus, the difference of Black's and White's material in my gambit and in Classical Jerome Gambit is the same after the acceptance of these gambits; the initial position (3.Bc4) is the same; White plays Bc4xf7; White plays without the white-squared bishop in result; Black's king is on f7 a in variant of acceptance of gambits etc.
I think that the line is interesting enough that I would point it out, even if it were not "Jerome-ish", but I can't resist sharing an odd line from the Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit Declined: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 c6 3.Bc3 Nd4 4.Bxf7+ Ke7 (we have seen this before) 5.Ng5 (a bit unusual, but many people play the move in many Jerome variations) Nf6 6.Bb3 Nxb3 7.axb3 d5 8.exd5 h6 9.d6+ Qxd6 10.Nf3 and, indeed, we have reached that position from Bogoljubov - Rubinstein, above!
10...e4 11.Ng1
A gloomy retreat. An unkind annotator might say White is already lost.
An Italian correspondence game between Antritter and Balletti in 1969 introduced 11.Nh4, but White lost in 18 moves. A rather obscure game played in Tennessee in the United States, 15 years later, R. Carpenter - S. McGiffert, tried an improvement, but White lost in 13 moves.
Yet, Antritter and Carpenter were on the right trail.
I will leave it to readers to visit Yury's website and learn about the "Nh4-Bukayev-gambit" which gives White new hope!
After the correspondence game Norton - Hallock – a Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) – appeared in the February issue of the American Chess Journal – see "The Norton - Hallock Game (Part 1)" – the Gambit's creator was quick to respond.
Jerome's letter to editor William Hallock, below, is from the February 1877 American Chess Journal.
The Jerome Gambit
A.W. Jerome Defends His Opening as tested in game 79.
Paxton, ILL March 7, 1877
Editor, American Chess Journal,
Your card received this morning, and I thank you for your kind offer of room in The Journal for an article on the "Jerome Double Opening," alias "Jerome's Absurdity."
I have neither the time nor the ability to prepare such an article, for it would require analyses without number almost, and I have satisfied myself that my head is not level enough for such work. Of this I need not be very much ashamed when even Mr. Carpenter oversights occasionally.
Besides I believe "the proof of the pudding" is in the eating therov and not in "chewing the string." Norton, Shinkman and Kinnier have beaten me in "eating the pudding" more in consequence of dexterity in handling the "chess sticks" than in any superiority of their pudding over mine. In most of their tests they have made dough of my pastry, by reason of the lack of one essential ingredient in my part, viz foresight.
But in game 7 with Norton, and in the variation of that game from 22nd move, I think my side has been played as well as it could be, and the outcome will probably justify your opinion expressed in the November Journal, that "against careful, steady play the opening cannot win." A master might make a draw from the present position in each game. I probably cannot do that against Norton.
To those who like a lively, exciting game, I would say, try an "absurdity." If the first player gets no fun out of it, the second will.
But all joking aside, I maintain that the loss of the King's and Kings' Bishop's pawns, and privilege of castling comes very close in value to the one piece which has been sacrificed, and the second player must be on the alert or he will be quickly defeated.
Your game with Mr. Norton would seem to show the reverse to be truth but Norton's first mistake was in playing 5.e5 instead of 5.Qf3 as in game 472, Dubuque Chess Journal where the defense was the same. That game was drawn, but should have been won. Note (a) to your game with Norton says 5...Kf8 "seems equally good with 5...Nxe5" which is a mistake in fact and theory. 5...Nxe5 if properly followed up wins White's KBP, wheras 5...Kf8 leaves White's pawns intact while Black has lost two strong pawns and doubled another. This defense was adopted by G.J. Dougherty of Mineola, NY, a strong amateur, against whom I first played the opening, and I think he will agree that 5...Kf8 is not a good defense. He generally played 6.bc and that was the play of Mr. J. C. Young of Danville, KY, who subsequently abandoned the game. Why, I do not know, as it was not necessarily lost to either of us. It is a question with which Pawn it is best to take.
The move suggested in note (b) 6.Qh5, is not my idea, but belongs to Mr. Norton himself, and I have to acknowledge that I thought it unsound when he suggested it to me, during the process of the game, because 6...Qf6 gets up a counter attack at once; but 7.Ng4 compels Black to "crawfish" and permits White to castle with a good game. However if Black play 7...Qe7 it makes White 's game uncomfortable. But White may play 7.Nxd7+ Bxd7 8.Qxc5+ with 3 Pawns for his Knight which the books hold to be an equivalent. And I would not hesitate to exchange Queens if offered. Norton thinks 6...Qe7 best; I think 6...Nxe5 best; if 7.Qxe5 Qe7
Ending notes (c) and (d) at the first glance, seems as safe as endorsing U.S. Treasury notes, but closer examination will show that 8...Bg4 loses Bishop as I think I will prove in the correction of note (f).Note (e) says "waste of time" not so; on the contrary is much better than 10.c3, for it 10...Re8 11.d4 Bxd4 12.cd Qxd4 and the KP is lost and Black has the best position. 10.Kh1 is good and safe. In note (f) there seems to me to be quite an oversight for if 13...Nxf2 14.Rxf2 and then if 14...Qf6 as suggested in the note, 15.d4 and it is Black's goose which is immediately done brown. Of course 13...Nxf2 is not best. Again I cannot see the easy win after 15...Rxe5 the attack is with White.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8 6.Nxc6 [6.Qh5 Qf6 (6...Nxe5 7.Qxe5 Qe7) 7.Ng4 (7.Nxd7+ Bxd7 8.Qxc5+) 7...Qe7] 6...dxc6 7.0-0 Nf6 8.e5 Bg4 9.Qe1 Kf7 10.h3 Re8 11.Kh2 Rxe5! 12.Qxe5 Bd6 13.f4 Bxe5 14.fxe5 Be2 15.Rf2 Qd4 16.Rxe2 Re8 17.d3 Rxe5 18.c3 Qd5 White resigned
Never fear, good readers: tomorrow's post will apply Hallock's and Jerome's comments to the Norton - Hallock game in a much more understandable fashion.
