Before This Blog Began...

Before I started this blog (see "Welcome") I had a series of Jerome Gambit-related posts at www.chesshistory.com (under the "Puzzles and Mysteries" section) from 11/24/01 to 9/6/04. A lot of topics were explored, and some paths crossed and re-crossed, as I was finding my way in the world of "Jerome's Double Gambit".

Probably the funniest episode was my mis-guided search for the imaginary book All or Nothing! The Jerome Gambit, by Chiam Schmendrick...

Trips to the White Collection in the Cleveland Public Library helped fill in the gaps of my knowledge, as did the contribution of many chessfriends world-wide. 

Following that "debut", I started to find my "voice" in the ChessPub Forum (www.chesspub.com), a discussion forum for ChessPublishing.com, from 1/19/05 to 12/29/07. What began as a series of posts by me, responding to others, quickly became a series of posts by me, responding to me -- and I was eventually dis-invited to continue.

[Although there was a bit of a fall-off from the previous months, the number of visitors to this blog in February 2014 was the best for a February since I began posting. Welcome, again - and many thanks for visiting! - Rick] 

"Bishop in a Hurry"

A few days after posting on the Jerome-ish 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ (see "Offside!" and "The Other Side") I discovered that a similar line of play from the Vienna Opening rather than the Italian Game (a reminiscent reflection of "Godfather of the Jerome Gambit?" Part I, Part II, Part III and Endnote) – 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ – had been addressed in a "Reader's Challenge" at ChessPublishing (

http://www.chesspublishing.com/content/1/puz2.htm):

Reader’s Challenge P2.1.1 referring to M.Adams-P.Motwani, London 1989

The idea of ...Na5 has been mentioned, but would it have been OK for Black to play it even earlier, at move three?

Solution

3...Na5? loses to 4 Bxf7+

! Kxf7 5 Qh5+, intending 5...g6 6 Qe5 (forking the loose black pieces on a5 and h8) or 5...Ke6 6 Qf5+ Kd6 7 d4 and then, for example, 7...Qf6 8 dxe5+ Qxe5 9 Bf4 or 7...Qe8 8 dxe5+ Kc6 9 e6 b6 10 Qd5# or 7...Nc6 8 dxe5+ Nxe5 9 Bf4 Qf6 10 Bxe5+ Qxe5 11 0-0-0+, costing Black his queen.

It's pretty easy to back this analysis up with games, as I have only a handful in my database:

Schelkonogov - Morozenko, corr, 1989: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Qh5+ Ke6 6.Qf5+ Kd6 7.d4 Nc6 8.dxe5+ Kc5 9.Be3+ Kb4 10.a3+ Ka5 11.e6+ d5 12.exd5 Nce7 13.b4+ Black resigned;

Keizer - Kroes, corr NLD, 1991: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ Ke7 5.Bxg8 Rxg8 6.Nd5+ Kd6 7.d4 Black resigned;

Stalker - Palmer Douglas, Scotland Tch B, 1994: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Qxe5 Nc6 7.Qxh8 Nf6 8.Nf3 Bh6 9.Qxd8 Nxd8 10.d4 Bg7 11.0-0 d6 12.Re1 Nc6 13.e5 dxe5 14.dxe5 Ng4 15.e6+ Black resigned;

Gutt - Schiller, Bergisch Gladbach (4), 1996: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Qh5+ Ke6 6.Qf5+ Kd6 7.d4 exd4 8.Bf4+ Ke7 9.Nd5+ Ke8 10.Nxc7+ Ke7 11.Nd5+ Ke8 12.Nc7+ Ke7 13.Qxa5 d6 14.Qg5+ Nf6 15.Nxa8 h6 16.Qg6 Be6 17.Nf3 Qxa8 18.Bxd6+ Kxd6 19.e5+ Kd7 20.exf6 gxf6 21.0-0-0 Qc8 22.Nxd4 Kc7 23.Qxf6 Bg4 24.Nb5+ Black resigned;

McCall - Harvey, Kent vs Essex, Swanscombe, 2001: 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nc3 e5 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Qh5+ Ke6 6.Qf5+ Kd6 7.d4 Qe8 8.dxe5+ Kc6 9.e6 Qxe6 10.Qb5+ Kd6 11.Bg5 c6 12.Qxa5 b6 13.Qa3+ c5 14.Nf3 Kc6 15.0-0-0 h6 16.Bf4 Nf6 17.Qa4+ Kb7 18.e5 Ne8 19.Rhe1 g5 20.Bg3 a6 21.Nd5 Ka7 22.Nf6 b5 23.Qa5 Nxf6 24.Qc7+ Bb7 25.exf6 Rc8 26.Rxe6 Rxc7 27.Re8 Rc6 28.Rxd7 Rxf6 29.Bb8+ Kb6 30.Bc7+ Kc6 31.Ne5 checkmate;

Olmos - Esteves, 54th Villa Ballester (5), 2004: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Qh5+ Black resigned

graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"