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]

Jerome Gambit: Historical Precedent

My historical discoveries continue...

From the Western Mail, Thursday, March 31, 1932 (page 12) chess column, noting

THE JEROME GAMBIT.A good specimen of the little-known Jerome Gambit, played at Norwich. 

[Move notation changed to algebraic; notes remain in the article's descriptive format; diagrams added - Rick]

Temple, W. - Thornton, F.
Norwich, 1932

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6

Black could interpose Kt when White would ch at Q 5 and then take B. This gambit is, of course, unsound, but productive of brilliant play against a weaker opponent.

7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Qf6

Best.

9.fxe5+ Qxe5 10.Qf3 c6

Weak. Kt to KB3 was the proper move.

11.d3

White finishes prettily.

11...g5 12.c3 Qf6 13.Qg3+ Ke6 14.Rf1 Qe5 15.Qg4+ Ke7 16.Bxg5+ Ke8 17.Qh5 checkmate

[A couple of additions:

The game begins the same as Jerome - Shinkman, Iowa, 1874, (0-1, 21), according to the July 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal (the earliest example that I have of Jerome playing his gambit) although in that earlier game Black varied with 10...Nf6.

The Temple - Thornton game had been anticipated. The Chess Player's Chronicle of November 10, 1886 (p. 116)  quoting from the "Leeds Mercury", gave identical moves, noting

A brilliant specimen of the Jerome Gambit, played on the 16th September 1886, between Messrs J Keeble and J W Cubitt, two strong amateurs of Norwich.

"All is new that has been forgotten."]

Jerome Gambit: Merely Commentators, or Players?

One of the reasons I started a discussion at the English Chess Forum searching out early English game examples of the Jerome Gambit was because of the quote by Joseph Henry Blackburne in Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess (1899)

I used to call this the Kentucky Opening. For a while after its introduction it was greatly favored by certain players, but they soon grew tired of it.

The issue of the "Kentucky Opening" has been dealt with previously on this blog - see "The Kentucky Opening" parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and "The Kentucky / Danvers Opening".

That the Jerome Gambit had been "greatly favored by certain players" seems to suggest that games should be available - but none new to me have surfaced so far.

Blackburne may have been referring to coverage of the Jerome Gambit in some print sources.

For example, The Chess Player's Chronicle, August 1, 1877, translated and reprinted the early and in depth article on the Jerome Gambit, from "Chess Theory for Beginners" by Lieut. Sorensen, from the May 1877 issue of Nordisk Skaktidende. I believe that the translation was by Rev. C.E. Ranken.

Later, the third edition of Cook's Synopsis of Chess Openings A Tabuled Analysis by William Cook (1882) had Jerome Gambit analysis, including thanks to

Mr. Freeborough of Hull, and Rev. C.E. Ranken, of Malven, for material assistance in the compilation of the tables, original variations in the openings, and help in the examination of proof.

Versions of Chess Openings Ancient and Modern, starting with the first edition in 1889, include Jerome Gambit analysis and suggested moves by Freeborough and Rankin.

It should be noted, too, that George Hatfield Dingley Gossip covered the Jerome Gambit in his Theory of the Chess Openings (1879) and The Chess Player's Vade Mecum (1891). James Mortimer also had Jerome Gambit analysis in the many editions of his The Chess Player's Pocket-Book, starting in 1888.

Freeborough and Ranken, Gossip and Mortimer - merely commentators or players?

Capt. Evans Faces the Sarratt Attack

At different times on this blog, I have looked for possible fore-runners to the Jerome Gambit (inspirations to Alonzo Wheeler Jerome), including the Sarratt or Vitzthum Attack. (See "A Bridge To... Somewhere?", "Another Distant Relative?", "The Sarratt Attack", "Another look at the Sarratt Attack" and "Another Example of the Vitzthum Attack"). 

Recently I was reading Dr. Tim Harding's Eminent Victorian Chess Players Ten Biographies (2012), and in its Appendix II "Games by Captain Evans" I found the following game. While its date is unknown, the fact that it was published in 1843 makes it one of the earliest examples of the opening that I have seen. It also features a creative fortress defense (R + N vs Q) in the endgame.

Wilson, Harry - Evans, William Davies
Unknown place and date
Notes by Harding and CPC.

From CPC [Chess Player's Chronicle], IV (1843) pages 293-295: "This and the following game are from a choice collection of unpublished MS. games in the possession of Mr. Harry Wilson, which that distinguished Amateur, with his accustomed liberality, has kindly placed at the disposal of the Editor." The games could have been played in Wales (if before 1840) or in London, or at
Wilson's home at Carisbrooke on the Isle of Wight.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Ng5 Nh6 6.Nxf7 Nxf7 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxc5 

9...Re8 10.Qd5+ Kg7 11.Bg5 Rxe4+ 12.Qxe4 Qxg5 13.O-O d5 14.Qf3 Ne7 15.Qg3 Qxg3 16.hxg3 Bf5 17.Rc1? c5 18.Nd2 c4 19.c3 d3 20.b3 Rc8 21.bxc4 dxc4 22.Rab1 Rc7 23.Rb4 Be6 24.Rcb1 b6 25.Re1 Rc6 26. Re4? a5 27.Rb5 Kf7 28.Rf4+? Kg7 29.Kf1 Nd5 30.Rxd5 Bxd5 31.Rd4 Rc5 32.f3 b5 33.a3 Kf6 34.Kf2 b4 35.axb4 axb4 36.cxb4 c3! 

37.bxc5 c2 38.Rxd5 c1=Q 39.Rxd3 Qxc5+ 40.Ke2 Qg1 41.Ne4+ Ke5 42.Re3 Qxg2+ 43.Nf2+ Kd4 44.Re4+ Kd5 45.g4 h5 46.gxh5 gxh5 47.Rh4 Qg5 48.Rh3 Kd4 49.Kf1 Ke3 50.Nd1+ Kd2 51.Nf2 Qb5+ 52.Kg2 Ke1 53.Rh1+ Ke2 54.Nh3 Qf5 55.Ng1+ Ke3 56.Rh3 Qc2+ 57.Kh1 Qg6 58.Rh2 Qg5

59.Re2+ Kd3 60.Rh2 h4 61.Rg2 Qf5 62.Rh2 Qf4 63.Rh3 Kd2 64.Rh2+ Ke1 65.Ra2 Qd4 66.Re2+ Kf1 67.Rg2 Qd7 68.Ra2 Qg7 69.Nh3 Qf6 70.Rf2+ Ke1 71.Kg1 Qg6+ 72.Rg2 Qf5 73.Ng5 h3 74.Rg4 Qc5+ 75.Kh2 Qf2+ 76.Kxh3 Kf1 77.Rg3 Qb6 78.f4 Qf2??

An egregious blunder! The game should have been drawn 20 moves before.

79.Rf3

Black resigned

"New" Old Analysis - But Not Quite

I recently stumbled over Part 10 of the "Index To The Chess Openings" on page 100 of the June 27, 1891 issue of the Chess Player's Chronicle. 

"New" old analysis of the Jerome Gambit, I thought!

It turns out that the CPC was simply reprinting the analysis of the 1884 American Supplement to Cook's Synopsis of Chess Openings, the Supplement "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",
edited by J.W. Miller. The author of the analysis was S. A. Charles of Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5! [5...Kf8? 6.Nxc6 dxc6 (6...bxc6 7.d4) 7.0-0 Nf6 8.Qf3 (8.d4 Bg4 9.Qe1 Kf7) 8...Qd4 9.d3 Bg4 10.Qg3 Bd6 11.c3 +] 6.Qh5+ [6.d4 Bxd4 7.Qxd4 d6! (7...Qf6 8.Qd1 d6 9.0-0 g6 10.f4 Nc6) 8.Nc3 (8.0-0 Nf6 9.f4 Nc6) 8...Nf6 9.Bg5 h6! 10.Bxf6 Qxf6 11.0-0-0 Be6 12.Kb1 Nc4 13.Qd3 b5 14.f4 Nxb2 15.Kxb2 b4!] 6...Ke6! [6...Ng6? 7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qc3 Nf6 10.d3] 7.Qf5+ [7.f4 d6 8.Qh3+ (8.f5+ Kd7 9.d3 Nf6 10.Qd1 Nxe4 +) 8...Ke7 9.f5 Bxf5 10.exf5 Qd7 11.d4 Bxd4 12.Qh4+ Nf6 13.Qxd4 Qxf5 +; 7.0-0 d6! (7...g6 8.Qh3+ K moves 9.Qc3) 8.Nc3 Nf6 9.Qd1 Nd3 (9...Kf7 10.d4 Bg4 11.f3 {11.Qd2 Bb6 12.dxe5 dxe5!} 11...Nxf3+ 12.gxf3 Bh3 +) 10.cxd3 Kf7 11.Ne2 Bb6 12.Kh1 Ng4 13.d4 Nxh2 14.Kxh2 Qh4+ 15.Kg1 Qxe4 16.d3 Qg4 17.Be3 d5 18.f3 Qe6 19.Bf2 c6 +] 7...Kd6 8.f4 [8.d4 Bxd4 9.Na3 Nc6] 8...Qf6 9.fxe5+ Qxe5 10.Qf3 Nf6 11.d3 Kc6 12.Nc3 d6 [12...d5 also looks good] 13.h3 Qh5 14.Qg3 Be6 15.Ne2 Raf8 16.Nf4 Nxe4 17.dxe4 Qe5 18.Qd3 Bf5 +

The Norton - Hallock Game (Part 3)

While it can be fun to read contemporary analyses of a chess game (see "The Norton - Hallock Game" Part 1 and Part 2), the personal involvement of the commentators / players can get in the way. 

I sat down with my friend Rybka and my ChessBase files to go over this particular Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) game and evaluate what American Chess Journal editor William Hallock and gambit originator Alonzo Wheeler Jerome had to say about it.

Norton,D.P. - Hallock,W.A.
correspondence, 1877

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8

Hallock: The usual continuation is 5...Nxe5 but this seems equally good.

Jerome: 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 [after 5...Kf8 6.Nxc6] 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.

It is interesting to point out that this "discussion" between Hallock and Jerome about the merits of 5...Kf8 took place in the February and March 1877 issues of the American Chess Journal, two months before Lt. Sorensen published his very influential article on the Jerome Gambit in the May 1877 issue of the Danish chess magazine Nordisk Skaktidende. (For a taste of the article, see "Bashi-Bazouk Attack".)

It is quite possible that the Americans only became aware of Sorensen's work when his article was translated into English and was reprinted in the August 1877 issue of the Chess Player's Chronicle.

Sorensen considered 5...Kf8 the best defense for Black, and he recommended it as "more solid" and "easier to manage" than 5...Nxe5. After 5...Kf8 6.Nxc6 he gave the 6...dxc6 capture as best, continuing 7.0-0 Nf6 8.Qf3, as in Jerome - Brownson, USA 1875 (1/2-1/2, 28)

A modern assessment supports Sorensen's (and thus, Hallock's) point of view – but only marginally. After four moves Black already has enough material to win the game, and therefore he does not need to complicate the game further by grabbing another piece with 5...Nxe5. The Danish author was already being influenced by Steinitz's "positional" style, as opposed to his (and the chess world's) earlier "romantic" (attacking) style.

On the other hand, Rybka shows a clear preference for 5...Nxe5 over 5...Kf8 (by about 3/4 of a pawn) – showing that even with its positional "insights" the computer software still has a materialistic side.

6.Nxc6

Hallock: The continuation adopted by Jerome, 6.Qh5 [instead] looks promising.

Jerome: 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 [5...Kf8 6.Qh5] 6...Qe7 best; I think [5...Kf8 6.Qh5] 6...Nxe5 best; if 7.Qxe5 Qe7.

The variation 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8 6.Qh5, which was mentioned by Brownson in the March 1875 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal, while commenting upon Jerome - Brownson, USA, 1875 (1-0, 28), is currently known as the Banks Variation, after the game Banks - Rees, Wolverhampton, 2003 (1-0, 45).

Jerome's mention of 5...Kf8 6.Qh5 Qf6 7.Ng4 Qe7 is a red herring, as his later suggestion of 7.Nxd7+ Bxd7 8.Qxc5+ – a line which Banks successfully followed against Rees – gives White comparatively better prospects.

Modern theory holds 6...Qe7 to be the best response to 6.Qh5.

6...dxc6 7.0-0 Nf6 8.e5

Jerome: 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.

8...Bg4

Hallock: An excellent move cramping White's game and enabling Black to optimally deploy his forces.

Jerome: 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).

White's 8.e5 was an error – one that Sorenson made note of in his Nordisk Skaktidende article, giving "8.e5 Bg4 9.Qe1 Kf7!", showing that he was likely aware of this Hallock - Norton game.

The above-mentioned Jerome - Brownson, USA, 1875 game continued with 8.Qf3, better than Norton's 8.e5, but not as strong as 8.d3 (which would show up a couple of years later in Lowe - Parker, England, 1879 – one of the games recently supplied by Senior International Master of Correspondence Chess Tim Harding). Nonetheless, even after 8.d3 Black would retain the advantage.

Hallock's response, 8...Bg4, is a good move, as he maintains, with positional strengths; although Rybka sees 8...Ng4 as a bit less than 1/2 a pawn better.

We will tackle Jerome's argument that "8...Bg4 loses [the] Bishop" in tomorrow's post.

[to be continued] 

Bashi-Bazouk Attack

From The Chess Player's Chronicle, August 1, 1877, translated from the May 1877 Nordisk Skaktidende:

Chess Theory for Beginners
by Lieut. Sorensen

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5

With this answering move of the Bishop we have the fundamental position for that good old game which the Italians, hundreds of years ago, when they were masters of the Chess board, called "Giuoco Piano," even game, but the later age, for generality of explanation, the "Italian game." On this basis the usual continuation is 4.P to QB3, 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 centre, which is the essential point of the Italian game; in this, on the contrary, we will occupy ourselves with a Bashi-Bazouk


[Encyclopedia Britannica: Turkish BASIBOZUK ("corrupted head," or "leaderless"), mercenary soldier belonging to the skirmishing or irregular troops of the Ottoman Empire, notorious for their indiscipline, plundering, and brutality]


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.B takes P(ch).

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 practised 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.