Not Quite Jerome-Inspired Games (Part 2)

Here we have another manic three-minute game showing the three secrets to winning blitz chess: attack, attack, attack.

Philidor 1792 - guest2151
3-minutes blitz www.bereg.ru, 24.12.2013

1.e4 Nf6 2.Bc4 e5 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Bb3 a5

After offering an Alekhine Defense, but showing no interest in participating in the Krejcik Gambit, Black finds an interesting way to avoid a Delayed Jerome Gambit.

White goes for a Chicago or Halloween Gambit, sacrificing a Knight on e5 (without having sacrificed the Bishop on f7). Of course, 5.Nc3 would have been just fine for White.

5.Nxe5 Nxe5 6.d4 Nc6 7.d5 Ne5 8.f4 Ng6 9.e5 Ng8

10.h4 Nxh4 11.d6 cxd6 12.Qh5 

12...Nxg2+ 13.Kf2 g6 14.Qh3 dxe5 15.Qxg2 exf4

16.Qd5 Qb6+ 17.Kf3 d6 18.Qxf7+ Kd8 19.Qxf8+ Kc7 20.Qg7+ Black resigned

Not Quite Jerome-Inspired Games (Part 1)

Our chessfriend Philidor 1792 is on such a tactical roll, it seems a shame to not present three smashing games of his, just because they don't fit the Jerome Gambit template.

Here is the first. It contains a reminder (again) that even in 3-minute games, endgame skill is essential. 

Philidor 1792 - guest3658
3 0 blitz, www.bereg.ru, 27.12.2013

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Bb3 Be7 5.Nxe5
 

White, unable to reach a Delayed Jerome Gambit (i.e. 4...Bc5, 5.Bxf7+) switches to an opening reminiscent of the Chicago or Halloween Gambit.

5...Nxe5 6.d4 Nxe4 

This looks a bit like I know you want me to play 6... Nc6, so I'll play something else... The problem - for Black - is that 6...Nc6 is the correct move, whereas the text leads to an equal game.

As in the Jerome Gambit, returning the sacrificed material for an even game is often the price a defender is willing to pay.

7.dxe5 O-O 8.Qd4 Nc5 9.Nc3 Nxb3 10.axb3 c6 11.Bf4 Bg5 12.O-O-O Bxf4+ 13.Qxf4 

White would like to make something out of Black's backward d-pawn, or White's strong point at d6.

13...f5 14.Rd3 g5 15.Qc4+ Kh8 16.g4 

Sharper was 16.h4.

16...Qe7 17.Re1 fxg4 18.Re2 Rf4 19.Rd4 Qf7 20.Qxf7 Rxf7

White's lead in development clearly compensates for Black's extra, doubled pawn. In turn, Black decides to give two pawns to activate his pieces.

21.Ne4 d5 22.exd6 Bf5 23.Nxg5 Rg7 24.Ne6 Bxe6 25.Rxe6 Rd8

White's advantage lives at d6.

26.Re7 Kg8 27.Rxg7+ Kxg7 28.Rxg4+ Kf6 29.Rh4 Rd7 30.c4 c5 31. b4 b6 32. bxc5 bxc5 33.b4 

33...Rxd6 34. Rh6+ Ke5 35.Rxd6 Kxd6 36.b5 Ke5 37.Kc2 Kd4

Black's King has taken up a strong position, and now only one move keeps the advantage for White. Which one?

38.f4

White needed to find 38.Kb3! when Black's King cannot safely choose either side of the board to play on. White's King clearly wants to advance and capture Black's pawn on a7, followed by promoting his b-pawn. Black cannot stop that, and White's f-pawn at the same time.

Houdini gives as best play (30 ply) 38...Ke4 39.Ka4 Ke5 40.b6 axb6 41.Kb5 Kd4 42.f4 h5 43.f5 Ke5 44.Kxb6 Kxf5 45.Kxc5 and White's King will lead his passed pawn to the Queening square.

38...Kxc4 

Black misses his opportunity, as 38...Ke4 would now win, as the tempos now favor him.

Now the game is even.

39.f5 Kd5 40.Kd3 Ke5 41.Kc4 Kxf5 42.Kxc5

42...h5 

The wrong kind of activity. Instead, 42...Ke5 would hold the draw.

43.Kc6 h4 44.Kb7 h3 45.Kxa7 Kf4 46.b6 Kf3 47.b7 Kg2 48.b8=Q Black resigned

More Jerome-Inspired Games (Part 4)

In the following 3-minute game, White only head-fakes toward a Jerome Gambit, but the resulting opening still features a piece-for-a-pawn sacrifice, and some foot soldiers who would not be out of place in Jerome's Double Opening.

Philidor 1792 - guest1132
3 0 blitz, www.bereg.ru, 15.12.2013

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Bb3 Be7 5.Nxe5

This unusual Two Knights Defense, possibly heading for a Delayed Jerome Gambit with 4.Bb3 - had Black played 4...Bc5 - now takes a Chicago Gambit or Halloween Gambit turn with this Knight sacrifice.

5...Nxe5 6.d4 Ng6 7.e5 Ng8 8.Qf3 f6

Instead, Houdini suggests 8...d5 9.exd6 Bf6 10.Qe2+ Kf8 11.dxc7 Qxc7.

9.Qd5 d6

An improvement over 9...Nh6 10.Bxh6 Rf8 11.Bxg7 c6 12.Qc4 d5 13.exd6 Qxd6 14.Bxf8 Black resigned, Philidor 1792-guest1063, www.bereg.ru, 2013. 

10.Qf7+ Kd7 11.e6+ 

It is tempting to get after the enemy King, although Houdini prefers letting it go in exchange for winning back a piece and turning the whole board to chaos: 11.exd6 cxd6 12.h4 Nh6 13.Bxh6 gxh6 14.h5 Nf4 15.g3 Rf8 16.Ba4+ Kc7 17.Qc4+ Kb8 18.gxf4 d5.

11...Kc6 12.Nc3 Nh6 13.Be3

Offering the Queen for a mate-in-one.

13...d5 14.Bxh6 gxh6 15.Nxd5

15...a5 16.c4 Qf8 17.h4 a4 18.Bc2 Qxf7 19.exf7 Kd6 20.h5 Nf8 21.0-0-0 Be6 

22.Rhe1 Bd8 23.Nc3 Bxf7 24.c5+ Kd7 25.Bf5+ Kc6 26.Be4+ Kd7 27.Bf5+ Draw

Jerome Gambit-Inspired Play (Part 5)

Actually, it is a bit of a stretch to call the following blitz game some sort of a Jerome Gambit - but the swash-buckling nature of it (and the ornery center pawns) may well have been inspired by that wild opening. Let's give it a chance...

Philidor 1792 - guest1063
3 0 blitz, www.bereg.ru, 2013

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Bb3 Be7 

Similar to Philidor 1792's play against guest1063 - see "Jerome Gambit-Inspired Play (Part 4)" - but this time looking more like a Hungarian Defense than a Two Knights Defense. 

Does that make a difference? Philidor 1792 now bypasses the Jerome-ish Bxf7+ and tries a tactic similar to that in the Chicago Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nxe5, etc. and the Halloween (Müller - Schulze) Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5, etc.

5.Nxe5 Nxe5 6.d4 Ng6 7.e5 Ng8 

8.Qf3 

With all of the subltety of the Scholar's Mate.

8...f6 

And, just like that, White has full compensation for his piece ("Who dares, wins"), according to Houdini, who prefers 8...d5 9.exd6 Bf6 10.Qe2+ Kf8 11.dxc7 Qxc7 with advantage to Black. 

9.Qd5 Nh6 

And here Black turns over the game to his opponent. Wily Houdini suggests, instead, 9...d6 10.Qf7+ Kd7 11.exd6 cxd6 12.h4 Nh6 13.Bxh6 gxh6 14.h5 Nf4 15.g3 Rf8 16.Ba4+ Kc7 17.Qc4+ Kb8 18.gxf4 d5 leading to an unclear mess which may be balanced. 

10.Bxh6 Rf8 11.Bxg7 c6 12. Qc4 d5 13. exd6 Qxd6
14. Bxf8 Black resigned 

After Black captures the Bishop on f8 he will be down the exchange and two pawns.

"...as long as they spell your name right..." redux

A short excerpt from the ever-informative and very readable Chicago Chess Blog reminds me of that famous comment from a contemporary of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome, P.T. Barnum, that “there’s no such thing as bad press, as long as they spell your name right.” Wow! Such company! 

Apart from the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+?? Kxf7 5.Nxe5+) and the Chicago Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nxe5??), the weakest opening that has a generally accepted name may be Damiano's Defense (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6?).

Playing At Odds

Although I always play the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) for fun, sometimes I use the opening as a way of giving "odds" to a lower-rated player. Little did I realize that this strategy was over 150 years old!

The following excerpt should be of historical interest to those who play the Chicago Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nxe5) – see The Myers Opening Bulletin, New MOB No. 4, October - December, 1993 – as it is over 25 years earlier than examples generally known.

From the "Chess" column in Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper, July 12, 1856

We give place to the following communication from Mr. D.W. Fiske, of the Astor Library, inasmuch as it may interest those who are in the habit of giving odds. For our single self, we can only say that we do not delight in any games at odds, and – while we admit the necessity of thus equalizing the game by removing the disparity in force between different players – we never like to encounter "rook" or "pawn and two" men, when we can find an antagonist of the first rank. The toughest match we ever played was with our friend Hamilton, of St. Louis, giving the queen's knight and receiving the pawn and move in return. To those, however, who practice playing at odds, the suggestion of our young friend "Shabiludius" will prove curious and instructive.

SOMETHING NEW IN CHESS

I have been playing latterly some games at a new and curious kind of odds, namely: The odds of giving the Knight in the King's Knight's opening for the King's Pawn. Although my experience in giving these odds has been too brief to enable me to determine their precise value, yet I should hardly be surprised if, upon analysis, they should prove to be little greater than the odds of giving pawn and move – at least I have tried them successfully with players to whom I could only afford to give pawn and move. The following are the opening moves:
WHITE_____________ BLACK
1 P to K 4___________ 1 P to K4
2 Kt to KB3__________2 Kt to QB3
3 Kt takes KP ________3 Kt takes Kt
4 P to Q4
and Black must withdraw his Knight either to King's Knight's third or to Queen's Bishop third. In the former case, White appears to embarass Black's game materially by playing Pawn to King's Bishop's fourth. If he place his Knight at Queen's Bishop's third, perhaps White's best move is Pawn to Queen's fifth, compelling black either to carry his Knight home or to place it on the Queen's Rook's fourth.

CARRERA, who enumerates many curious methods of giving odds, does not, if my memory serves me right, even hint at this. PHILIDOR has left us some games in which he gave the Knight for the Pawn and move, but in that case the Queen's Knight was given by one party and the King's Bishop's Pawn by the other. I have been persuaded to communicate this very brief notice of these novel odds to the ILLUSTRATED NEWSPAPER, in the hope that, if they are of no value, some chess analyst will at once demonstrate their unworthiness. But I also hope that, should they be found to contain any elements of interest, they may be added to the list of the many beautiful and ingenious contrivances by which the devotees of Caissa seek to equalize their disparity at chess skill.
Shabiludius

The Salvio Gambit??

I was visiting Chess.com the other day, and noticed in the Forum section that one poster had mentioned the Salvio Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+.

Another poster had chimed in:

The "Salvio Gambit" is more commonly known as the Jerome Gambit, is most likely better than the Chicago [1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nxe5 Nxe5] and the Halloween or Leipzig Gambit (In the 4 Knights) [1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Nxe5 Nxe5]. White only ends up losing 1 pawn, and Black's king is very uncomfortable, and Black can get blown off the board if he fails to proceed in an accurate manner.

Of course, I was flabbergasted.

Didn't Salvio live two centuries before Alonzo Wheeler Jerome? This was like finding paintings of the Jerome Gambit on a cave wall!

I sent an inquiry to both posters, and soon received a response from one of them who had seen the 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ line with the name "Salvio Gambit" in an old book by Golombek. He didn't mention the title.

Unfortunately – for my research – according to Harry Golombek's obituary in The New York Times, he wrote 38 books.

The poster also noted "In this case, the Jerome Gambit, is completely unsound, and only can work against weak players" – which I found reassuring.

I slipped off to the library where I also discovered Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess (1977) which had this entry

Salvio, Alessandro (1570 – 1640) The dates of Salvio's birth and death are approximate. It is known that he was in his middle twenties when he defeated Paolo Boi who was by then already an old man. He and the Calabrian, Greco, were the chief theorists and writers on chess in Italy in the early seventeenth century. In this they differed markedly from their predecessors, Leonardo and Boi, who were practicing players but committed nothing to paper.

Salvio wrote three work: a treatise on the game, Trattato dell'inventione et arte liberale del gioco degli scacchi, published in Naples in 1604 and dedicated to his patron, Fulvio di Costanzo, Marquis of Corleto; a curious trajedy in verse on chess La Scaccaide, 1612; and in 1634 a life of Leonardo, Il Puttino, altramente detto il cavaliere errante, to which he attached his Trattoto.

Salvio made Naples the Italian centre for chess and he also created a "chess academy" that used to meet regulalrly in the house of another chess enthusiast, Judge Rovito.

As a player he was noted for his resource and brilliancy. As a writer he was largely responsible for the popularity of some variations of the King's Gambit, one of which was to be known later as the Muzio and another that bore his name, the Salvio Gambit (1.P-K4, P-K4; 2.P-KB4, PxP; 3.N-KB3, P-KN4; 4.B-B4, P-N5; 5.N-K5). these lines he owed to his predecessors but it was his analyses and his writing that popularized them.

Feeling lucky, I went to Google Books and did a search on "Salvio", only to discover a massive title:

The Works of Damiano, Ruy-Lopez and Salvio, on the Game of Chess;Translated and Arranged: with Remarks, Observations and Copious Notes on the Games. Containing, also, Several Original Games and Situations, by the Editor, To Which Are Added The Elements of the Art of Playing without seeing the Board. By J. H. Sarratt, 1813

Fantastic!

I quickly found the section I was looking for:

AN OPENING, Denominated by SALVIO, and by all Italian Players, Giuoco Piano; that Name being given to all Openings in which no Pawn is sacrificed for the sake of an attacking position, and in which the K. Kt. and the K. B. are played immediately after the K. Pawn.

Now we were getting somewhere!