Henry Charlick was known for his gambit 1.d4 e5!?, (also known as the Englund Gambit). That was not his only sacrificial creation, however. One is reminiscent of a reversed Jerome Gambit. From the Adelaide Observer, Saturday, June 14, 1884 (page 44) column CHESS, "Chess in Adelaide". Notes are from the column, changed from descriptive notation to algebraic notation. Diagrams have been added. Appended are two [see previous post for Charlick - Cooke, Adelaide Chess Club, 1884, a Jerome Gambit - Rick] of a series of even games now being contested between Messrs. H. Charlick and W. Cooke, of the Adelaide Chess Club. The notes are by Mr. E. Govett, of the Semaphore Chess club. Cooke, W. - Charlick, H. Adelaide Chess Club, 1884 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5!
The Charlick Gambit. This move will probably not more surprise our readers than it did Mr. Cooke. No walnut shells are needed. Mr. Cooke humourously dabbed this "alarming sacrifice" the " Charlick Gambit." [The line is also known by the modern name the Busch-Gass Gambit, although Salvio's analysis of the line, from Il Puttino, altramente detto, il Cavaliero Errante, del Salvio, sopra el gioco de Scacchi, dates back to 1604. After a further 3.Nxe5 Nc6 it is known as Chiodini's Gambit. The similarity to a reversed Jerome Gambit is noted. - Rick] 3.Nxe5 Bxf2+!! "Let shining charity adorn your soul." 4.Kxf2 Qh4+ 5.g3 Qxe4 6.Nf3 Nf6
7.Qe2 d5 8.Qxe4+ This must have placed Black in the same uncomfortable position as the woman who -
Before her face her handkerchief she spread
To hide the flood of tears - she did not shed.
8...dxe4 9.Nd4 O-O
10.Bg2 He should stop the range of the N. 10...Ng4+ 11.Ke2 f5 12.h3
Somewhat weakening. He should develop his pieces quickly. 12...Ne5 13.d3 c5 14.Nb5 Nbc6 15.dxe4
The Black pawns have a sinister look, but there is nothing immediately dangerous about them if White's position is assisted by Be3, Nd2, and so on. Taking the P only opens out Black's game. 15...a6 16.Nc7 Nd4+ 17. Kd2 Ra7 18.Na3 b5 19.c3 Ndc6
20.Nd5 fxe4 21.Ke3 b4 22.Nc2 Nc4+ 23.Kxe4 Rb7!!
24.Nce3 Out of the frying-pan (...Bf5+) into the fire (an exquisite little mate in two). 24.Bf4 would have enabled him to hold out a little longer.
Years ago I read a first person account by a small time boxer who managed to wrangle some sparring time with Muhammad Ali. After some warm up exchanges, The Champ was momentarily distracted by a loud noise - a slamming door, a falling chair - and the author landed a solid punch on him. I hit Ali! I hit Ali! the writer enthused. Of course, that was all he remembered, as Ali almost immediately returned a knockout punch... Imagine my excitement when the Chess.com app on my phone indicated that Philidor1792 wanted to play a game. Sure! I thought. We took more time on our moves than some of the 3 0 games of his that I have posted here, but the result was still the same: a flurry of punches and a KO. perrypawnpusher - Philidor1792 Chess.com, 2015 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 The Busch-Gass Gambit, which can turn out similar to a reversed Jerome Gambit, a move down. 3.Nxe5 Nc6
Chiodini's Gambit. 4.Nc3 I don't know if this move is good or not, but there was no way that I was going to follow along with Black's offer of 4.Nxc6. which would lead to a kind of reversed Boden Kieseritzky Gambit. Instead, I would prefer to see something calm now like 4...Nxe5 5.d4 Bd6 6.dxe5 Bxe5 7.Bd3 Nf6, a reversed Italian Four Knights. No such luck. Philidor1792 came to complicate. 4...Nf6 5.Nf3 Nd4 6.e5
This risky pawn move is good, but I did not appreciate why. 6...Ng4 7.Bc4 I had anticipated Black's upcoming sacrifice, but I would have done better to prevent - not provoke - it with 7.Ne4, protecting f2. 7...Nxf2 8.Kxf2 d5
9.Bxd5 Nxf3+ 10.d4 Nxd4 11.Be3 O-O
Here it looked for a moment like the game might settle down, after exchanges on d4 and a pin-and-win on d5, to a positional advantage for Black. Ha! 12.Bxd4 Qh4+ 13.g3 After the game Stockfish "reassured" me that 13.Ke3 would have led to an even game, or one where Black had only a slight advantage. I don't think it would have helped me much, though. 13...Bxd4+ 14.Kg2 Qh3+
Is this strange enough for you? 9...g6 10.Qxh7 White would do better to capture Black's Bishop at c5 rather than protect his Knight at h8. Bad things now happen. 10...Qc2+ 11.Ke1 Qxb1+ 12.Ke2 Qc2+ 13.Ke1 Bb4+ 14.Bd2 Qxd2 checkmate
In past posts we have looked at reversed Jerome Gambits, currently referred to as the Busch-Gass Gambit (see "Worth A Second Look" Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3; as well as "Busch-Gass Gambit"); and a variation calledChiodini's Gambit. The most recent look at the latter came in "No Fun Against the Pawns". I wanted to share a SCID (Shane's Chess Information Database) Opening Report I recently ran across, which has games and analysis on Chiodini's. (For an older Report on the Jerome Gambit, start here.)
Philidor1792 recently shared the following game, where his quest to play a sort of reversed Jerome Gambit led him to a situation where he faced a piece sacrifice and he had to deal with the onslaught of some very uncomfortable "Jerome-like pawns". It took a while to win this one. hitorkoal - Philidor1792 Chess.com, 2015 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5
An old line, going back at least as far as Salvio's analysis in Il Puttino, altramente detto, il Cavaliero Errante, del Salvio, sopra el gioco de Scacchi, (1604), it is currently referred to as the Busch-Gass Gambit ( See "Worth A Second Look" Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3; as well as "Busch-Gass Gambit"). 3.Nxe5 Nc6
Chiodini's Gambit. Chessville.com had a good article by Clyde Nakamura on the line. (Chessville is no longer functioning, but I was able to use the WayBackMachine to recover the article; the link should be good.) 4.Nxf7 Interestingly, Nakamura in his article on Chiodini's Gambit quotes analysis by Stefano Vezzani, an email friend of his, which gives this move a "??" and refers to it as "a common mistake". 4...Qf6
A light-hearted alternative: 4...Qh4 5.Bc4 Qxf2 checkmate, Nguyen Bao Do - Dich Tai Khuu, VIE-ch, U07, 2014. 5.Qe2
Or 5.d4 Bxd4 6.Be3 Bxe3 7.fxe3 Qxf7 8.Nc3 Nf6 9.Bd3 0-0 10.0-0 d6 11.Nd5 Ne5 12.Qe1 Be6 13.Nxf6+ gxf6 14.Be2 Kh8 15.Qh4 Qg6 16.Rf4 Qg5 17.Qf2 Ng6 18.h4 Qe5 19.Rf3 Bg4 20.Rf4 Bxe2 21.Rf5 Qxe4 22.Rxf6 Bg4 23.Rf1 Kg7 24.h5 Bxh5 White resigned, Ake - Evilonek, ICC, 1998. 5...Qxf7 6.c3
Here we have reached the end of Vezzani's analysis of the sub-variation, a position he evaluates as a winning advantage for Black ("-+").
Houdini 3 considers it simply advantageous for Black (by about a pawn).
As we will see - and as many have seen while facing "Jerome pawns", things are still not easy. 6...Nf6
From a strategic point of view, Houdini suggests retreating the Bishop to the Kingside with6...Be7. 7.d4 Bb6 8.g3 0-0 9.Bg2 d5 10.e5 Ne8
Instead, Houdini suggests the cold-blooded madness of 10...Nxe5!? 11.dxe5 Ng4 12.f4 Bf2+ 13.Kf1 Bb6 14.Na3 Bf5 but I am not sure how appealing that is to human players. 11.0-0 Be6 12.f4 g6 13.Nd2 Qd7 14.Nf3 Bg4 15.Qe3 Ng7 16.Ng5 h6 17.Nf3 Bh3
Looking back at some of the highlights of the early posts to this blog was so much fun, I decided to do a little more digging and sharing... Here we go. I have made at least a half-dozen trips to the White Collection of the Cleveland Public Library to look up Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) games and analyses. I have also used my local library, interlibrary loan and the online Google Books. For example, a few years ago I came across Volume XI of The Westminster Papers of London, "A Monthly Journal of Chess, Whist, Games of Skill, and The Drama" which had this note in its February 1, 1879 issue: We shall be most happy to receive some games fairly well played in which the Jerome Double Gambit was adopted. They will be handed to our annotator indue course and will analyse them in an unprejudiced and impartial manner. Unfortunately, the The March and April issues which complete Volume XI have no further reference to Jerome's Gambit; and, alas, they were the last issues of The Westminster Papers to be published
Sometimes the searching turns up fun stuff. What about a "reversed Jerome Gambit?" Sounds crazy, but the posts on 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5, known by some as the "Busch - Gass Gambit", or, with the addition of 3.Nxe5 Nc6, as "Chiodini's Gambit" might be"Worth A Second Look" Jumping on the trend, I invented the fictional "Jerome Gambit For Dummies" and provided educational material that I've added to from time to time (you can use the "search" feature on the blog). It's as lighthearted as "Whodunnit?", but that's okay. It makes more sense than "The Jerome Gambit shows up in the oddest places..." The "Optical Illusion" variation of the Jerome Gambit continued to crop up.Jyrki Heikkinen shared his version of the "Sicilian Jerome Gambit". There was some work on "The Kentucky Opening". Then, there is that "Pie-in-the-Face" Variation"... I opined on "A Side Line to Watch". I started sharing some "Stats" on the Jerome. Who knows if there is a "Conspiracy of Silence" surrounding a particular variation of the Jerome Gambit? What about that "Critical Line 5...Kf8"? What do we know about "The Life of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome"? What's with "the Nudge"? Did Adolph Albin actually play the Jerome Gambit? Can you handle the "Jerome Gambit Quiz"? These are just some of the highlights of the blog posts made in 2009 alone (with 365 a year, there are plenty to choose from). Many games were presented that year, and I continued to share my Jerome Gambit wins and losses (my score is 83% in games with that refuted opening)
The most recent analysis of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 (see "Worth a Second Look (Part 1)" and "Worth a Second Look (Part 2)") is by NM Clyde Nakamura, in his very creative "The Search for Dragons & Mythical Chess Openings" column at Chessville.Nakamura refers to the line, after the additional 3.Nxe5 Nc6, as "Chiodini's Gambit" apparently so-named by a chessfriend-of-a-chessfriend. He gives earlier (1998) analysis by Stefano Vezzani and by Sverre Johnsen, and then gives a host of annotated games, including one by Busch and one by Gass.
The Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Nxe4 4.Nc3) was suggested by Lionel Kieseritzky in 1848. Samuel Boden published the first analysis of it in his Popular Introduction to Chess in 1851. Over 150 years later, will the BKG, in Chiodini form, rise again like the mythical Phoenix?
