From the Corner - Smiling

It is hard to mention the chess wise guy Geoff Chandler without thinking about the following game that he posted, years ago, on his "Chandler Cornered" site

Anon - Anon
Edinburgh Congress

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bf4 Be7 7.Nc3 Nf6 8.Nb5 Bb4+

Geoff noted

Black played Bb4+ with the idea of playing Ba5 covering c7.
Whilst White was pondering on his next move Black suddenly stated:
"I thinks It's checkmate!"
And it was!!!
Before the start of the game neither player had noticed that the Black King and Queen were on the wrong squares.

(Okay, that was a Petroff Defense, not a Jerome Gambit. If you feel cheated, don't worry, I have you covered: check out Geoff's legendary "Mars Attacks!") 

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.)

Chandler on the Loose

When honorary Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member Geoff Chandler (yes, he has played the Jerome!) finished his postings at Chandler Cornered, (see "Chandler Unbound") he left a gap in chess commentary that was almost impossible to fill. 

(See "Mars Attacks!", "Whodunnit??", and "Hitler vs Lenin in Chess?!" for a few examples.)

So it was with great excitement that I noticed recently that Chessville now has Chandler on the Loose; and, furthermore, the folks at C'ville point out that at the Red Hot Pawn site, Geoff has been blogging at The Planet Greenpawn.

Wonderful!

(By the way, observe closely the drawing of Chandler, above. See the tiniest indication of a white square at the right of the chessboard in front of Geoff? Aha! See, the illustration does follow the rule of "white on the right" when it comes to setting up the board. Of course, if you count all of the squares, from right to left, there are nine, including "white on the left" too!) 

Chandler Unbound

If the posting at the Chandler Cornered website is not an April Fool's joke (what next – radio shock jock Howard Stern playing in the US Chess Championship??), then it looks like chessfriend-of-all and Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member Geoff Chandler has finished his 400th and final column for Chess Edinburgh.

Of course, the "Obituary" and the picture of the gorilla likeness that accompany the announcement (I always thought Geoff was taller) make it hard to take things totally seriously.

Yet he writes

It was brilliant fun and I really enjoyed doing them all...Don't know what I'll do now. I won't do a blog, perhaps write a chess book, perhaps not. Who Knows.

I hope Who – or Geoff, or WhoEver – keeps in touch. His puckish wit and insight into the Royal Game as we commoners play it will be sorely missed.

Chandler Cornered and the Blackburne Shilling Gambit

If you are not visiting Geoff Chandler's Chandler Cornered website on a regular basis, then you are taking life and chess way too seriously.* Follow the link above, or the link that this blog provides, and go visit Geoff as soon as you can. (I won't mind if you leave this post and go there. Really.)

Recently, Geoff posted on the Blackburne Shilling Gambit – here and here –  typical great stuff. Check it out. You'll leave smiling. 



* a few of my posts that point out his good senses of chess and humor are"Mars Attacks!", "Queened! and Rooked!", "Whodunnit??", "Blunder Table" and "Hitler vs Lenin in Chess".

Hitler vs Lenin in Chess?!

Good chessfriend and Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) Gemeinde member Geoff Chandler has another hysterically funny (as opposed to his usual "quite funny": see "Mars Attacks!" as an example) post on his "Chandler Cornered" site. Check it out!

Blunder Table

From Geoff Chandler, of Chandler Cornered – its application to the play and enjoyment of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) is clear:

Here is a one-move blunder table showing how severe the blunder needs to be in a game between two players of the same grade.

All players should be able to spot their opponent leaving a mate in one on.

A 1200 player should win if an opponent blunders a Queen or a Rook. But not necessarily if they pick up a Bishop or Knight.

1500 players often convert piece-up games into a win, but this is not the case if a pawn or two up.

An 1800 player usually wins if they are two pawns up.

In a game between two 2000+ players a blundered pawn is usually enough to win.

Queened! and Rooked!

Geoff Chandler, of Chandler Cornered (see "Mars Attacks!"), has produced Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) analysis (see "Flaws (Part II)") and games (see "Stuff happens...") – not to mention regular, hysterical and education posts at his own site.

I clearly should have included him in the Jerome Gambit Gemeinde (see "Jerome Gambit Gemeinde (modern)").
Recently Geoff wrote of a challenge he made at the RedHotPawn site for someone to compose a game where all 16 pawns promote to Queens. "Swiss Gambit" of the site sent him a creation by Ed Collins.



Just play it over...

1.e4 f5 2.e5 Nf6 3.exf6 e5 4.g4 e4 5.Ne2 e3 6.Ng3 e2 7.h4 f4 8.h5 fxg3 9.h6 g5 10.Rh4 gxh4 11.g5 g2 12.g6 Bg7 13.hxg7 g1Q 14.f4 h3 15.f5 h2 16.b4 a5 17.b5 a4 18.b6 a3 19.Bb2 Ra7 20.bxa7 axb2 21.a4 b5 22.a5 b4 23.a6 b3 24.c4 h1Q 25.c5 h5 26.c6 Bb7 27.cxb7 c5 28.d4 c4 29.d5 Nc6 30.dxc6 c3 31.c7 c2 32.c8Q c1Q 33.b8Q Qcc7 34.a8Q d5 35.a7 d4 36.Nc3 dxc3 37.Qa6 c2 38.Qa8b7 c1Q 39.a8Q Qhd5 40.gxh8Q+ Kd7 41.g7 bxa1Q 42.g8Q b2 43.f7 b1Q 44.f8Q h4 45.f6 h3 46.f7 h2 47.Qfa3 h1Q 48.f8Q exf1Q+

He then put out a challenge for a composed game with 20 Rooks in it – and soon received this from "Dood in the Mood"...

1.d4 d5 2.e4 e5 3.f4 a5 4.f5 h5 5.Bf4 exf4 6.c4 b5 7.c5 b4 8.Bc4 dxc4 9.Nc3 bxc3 10.d5 g5 11.e5 g4 12.Nf3 gxf3 13.d6 c2 14.c6 c1R 15.f6 Rb1 16.e6 Bb7 17.cxb7 Na6 18.b8R Bg7 19.fxg7 f5 20.e7 Kf7 21.exd8R c3 22.Rdc8 c2 23.d7 c5 24.d8R c1R 25.a3 Nb4 26.axb4 c4 27.b5 c3 28.b6 c2 29.Kd2 f2 30.b7 f1R 31.b4 f3 32.g4 f2 33.g5 Nh6 34.h3 Ng4 35.hxg4 Rg1 36.g8R f1R 37.g6+ Ke6 38.Rc5 f4 39.Rbc8 f3 40.b8R f2 41.R8c7 Re1 42.b5 f1R 43.b6 a4 44.Ra2 a3 45.Rb2 a2 46.b7 a1R 47.Rbc8 h4 48.b8R h3 49.Rgf8 Rh7 50.Rh2 Rh8 51.Rhf2 h2 52.g7 h1R 53.g8R R8h7 54.g5 R7h6 55.g6 Rh7 56.g7 R7h6 57.Rh8 Rh7 58.g8R cxd1R

Amazing!

I love a great used bookstore

I like a good bookstore.

I love a great used bookstore.

I have always enjoyed reading (and been a little jealous) of the chess treasures that Geoff Chandler turns up, in his travels through Edinburgh, searching for used books (see Chandler Cornered at Chess Edinburgh).

So it was with interest and a sense of excitment that I recently received an email:

From: Scott at Browsers' Bookstore
(scott@browsersbookstore.com)
Sent: Sat 12/13/08 7:40 PM
To: richardfkennedy@hotmail.com

Hi,

Google led me to your "Joys of Discovery" blogs re: Jerome Gambit & Ernest H. Quayle. Don't have much further information for you, but I do have a book (and the reason I googled in the first place) that was once owned by Ernest H. Quayle, or at least signed by him in July 1944. "One-Hundred-and-One of My Best Games of Chess" by F. D. Yates & W. Winter. May or may not be of any use, but possible slight interest to you.

Best wishes,

Scott Givens
Browsers' Bookstore

Ah, yes, "Joys of Discovery (Part I)", Part II and Part III – the Jerome Gambit game between Sgt. W. A. Harris and Ernest H. Quayle, Los Angeles, California, 1944. The same year that he signed the Yates & Winter book – you don't think there could be a connection...?

Browsers' Bookstore is in Corvalis, Oregon ("Volume II" of the store is in Albany, Oregon), and looks like a great place to spend a few hours and a few bucks. (Where low prices meet high quality – Works for me.) They've got a very useful "Links" page, as well.

Stuff happens...

Well, well, well...

It seems that greenpawn34, at RedHotPawn.com, recently decided to try out the Jerome Gambit in a blitz game, against the willing Homedepotov:

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

"Elsewhere on here" greenpawn34 posted, "I advocated playing the Jerome Gambit. I practise what I preach in this very good natured four minute game."

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5 Nxe5 6.Qh5 Ke6 7.Qf5 Kd6 8.Nc3

Practically a "TN" - I have only one other game with it in my database, another internet blitz game from 7 years ago.

8....c6 9.d4 Bxd4 10.Bc1-e3 Bxe3

There is nothing wrong with this move, per se, but I sense an underlying theme of cooperation that will doom Black.

11.fxe3 Qf6 12.O-O-O+ Kc7 13. Qh3 d5 14. Qg3 dxe4

Not the best time to stop and snack.

15.Rhf1 Qe7 16.Rf7!

Guaranteeing indigestion.

16....Qxf7 17.Qxe5+ Kb6 18.Na4+ Ka6 19.Nc5+ Kb6 20.Na4+ Ka6 21.Nc5+ Kb6 22.Na4+ Ka6+ draw

"Good fun – it's what the chess pieces were designed for" smiled greenpawn34 gracefully, "Thank you Homedepotov for the compliment on my Rook sac."

And then, suspecting that he might receive some celebrity or notoriety for his game – is the point half-lost or is the point half-won, I wonder? – he noted: "I've not looked at it yet – I bet some wise guy is going to show me a forced win when I took the perpetch."

Rest easy, greenpawn34. It's a draw.

An impressive one.

Who knew that the best way to get out of a two-piece-down situation was to sacrifice a rook?

Mars Attacks!

Several years ago, the Scottish chess player Geoff Chandler (left) -- whose tales are regularly told at his extremely entertaining web site, Chandler Cornered, -- decided to "annotate" the Amateur - Blackburne, London 1880 Jerome Gambit game.


Instead of using typical master or grandmaster comments, though, he inserted copies of the infamous 1962 bubble-gum card set, from Bubbles, Inc. -- "Mars Attacks!"

Here, then, is the game "Mars v Earth"

1. e4 .... 1. .... e5

2. Nf3 Nc6

3. Bc4 Bc5

4. Bxf7+ Kxf7

5. Nxe5+ Nxe5

6. Qh5+ g6

7. Qxe5 ....

7. .... d6

8. Qxh8 Qh4

9. O-O Nf6

10. c3 Bf5

11. Qxa8 ....

11. .... Ng4

12. h3 Bxf2+

13. Kh1 Qxh3+

14. gxh3 ....

14. .... Bxe5 mate

(Earthlings take note: Mars Attacks! was created by Len Brown and Woody Gelman, pencilled by Wally Wood and Bob Powell, and painted was by Norm Saunders. Illustrations above came from Zelda's MARS ATTACKS! )