Jerome Gambit: Chaos in a Two Knights (Part 3)

[continued from previous post]

Dr. Finlay - Elliott, H. E
Dungog, NSW, Australia, 1899

21.c4 Qe8 22.Qh4

Black and White struggle to make something out of the closed position. With Black's King strongly blockading White's advanced e-pawn, an endgame would strongly favor the second player.

22...Qa4 23.a3 Qc2 24.Rf2 Qg6 

25.Rf3 Qg5 26.Qh3

The problem with this move is that Black can now try 26...Ng4, adding pressure to the Kingside while threatening to exchange Rooks - when the heavy pieces come off the board, this is better for Black.

26...h5 27.Rg3 Ng4 28.Rd3 Rf6 29.Qg3 Raf8 

It appears that Black has overlooked the pin on his Knight. Much stronger was 30...h4, booting the enemy Queen.

30.h3 Qe5

The Daily Telegraph gives Black's last move a "!" but it is not clear why. Better was to accept the loss of the Knight with 30...Rf4 and after 31.hxg4 Rxg4 continue to apply pressure.

31.Qxe5 

There was nothing wrong with 31.hxg4, leading to an edge for White.

31...Nxe5

The Daily Telegraph notes "Black has conducted an uphill defence with considerable skill, and now scores a well-deserved victory."

Jerome Gambit: Chaos in a Two Knights (Part 2)

[continued from previous post]

Dr. Finlay - Elliott, H. E
Dungog, NSW, Australia, 1899

The position is complicated, and the players take turns missing their chances.

13.Bg5

Loosening Black's grip on f6 - but missing 13.f6!? Nxf6 14.Nxf6 Bxf6 15.Bg5!? which was the right idea, e.g. 15...Be6 16.Rxf6+!? gxf6 17.Qh6+ Ke8 18.Bxf6 Qd7 19.Bxh8 and White would be a bit better, although Black would have good drawing chances.

13...Bxg5

Black obliges his opponent, but misses his chance to shore up the Kingside, as with 13...Nf6! he could make sure that the exchanges at f6 would not require his g-pawn to capture, weakening the protection of his King, e.g. 14.Bxf6 Bxf6 and 15.Nxf6 would be answered by 15...Qxf6.

14.Nxg5 

Here we have a theme familiar to Jerome Gambiteers: Black's Knight blocks his Bishop on its home square, which in turn entombs the Rook. White's advantage in development shows he is better.

14...Qe7 15.Rae1 Nf6

16.Qf3 

White repositions his Queen, with a plan in mind on how to open the f-file for her. Instead, he could have won back a piece with the combination 16.Rxe7 Nxh5 17.Rfe1 (threatening mate) Bxf5 18.Rf7+ Kg8 19.Rxf5 when his initiative and lead in development would still make him better.

16...Qd8 17.Ne6+ 

The Daily Telegraph questions this move: "This N is too useful to be lightly exchanged. Re6, followed by the doubling of the rooks, with a view of Re7 or R takes N, was a more promising continuation." The columnist, however, overlooks the fact that 17.Re6 h6!? disrupts this plan and allows Black to win the exchange with little risk.

17...Bxe6 18.fxe6 Ke7

White's plans for using the f-file for an attack by the Queen have gone up in smoke. Black's blockading King and Knight on f6 have shut things down.

19.d5 

White decides to protect his one asset - the advanced e-pawn - and hold on. He might have done better by playing 19.c4 first, as, with the text, Black can immediately reply with 19...c6!?

19...Rf8

I suspect that neither player was thinking about a draw at this point, but it is hard not to point out that here White can play 20.Qg3, and after 20...Rg8, then 21.Qd3!? when White's threat of Rxf6 forces 21...Rf8, and 22.Qg3 will lead to a repetition of position and an eventual draw. 

20.Qh3 h6 

The position has not fundamentally changed. White can play protect his d-pawn with 21.c4, and then return to Qg3, threatening the pawn at g7; and Black can guard the pawn with ...Rg8, only to see White move his Queen to d3 - and eventually back to g3.

How to get out of this "inescapable" draw?

[to be continued]

Jerome Gambit: Chaos in a Two Knights (Part 1)

The May, 20, 1899 issue of The Daily Telegraph, of Sydney, New South Wales, carried what it called "A lively game from the recent tourney".

Presenting the contest gives me an opportunity to share some of the delights of doing Jerome Gambit research. It also gives Readers a number of opportunities to try their analytical skills - playing the Jerome, after all, is very much about taking advantage of opportunities as they arise.

(I have changed the newspaper's descriptive notation to algebraic.) 

Dr. Finlay - Elliott, H. E
Dungog, NSW, Australia, 1899

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 

If Dr. Finlay had been looking to play the Jerome Gambit, he got derailed (at least temporarily) by the Two Knights Defense.

This is enough of an issue that it has been discussed a number of times on this blog. For ideas, you could try "Jerome Gambit vs Two Knights Defense" Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4. Follow that up with "Further Explorations" (Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5).

4.Nc3

Opening books recommend against this move, as Black has a reasonable response in 4...Nxe4 (temporary piece sacrifice) 5.Nxe4 d5 (recovering the piece), what Hans Kmoch called the "fork trick" in his Pawn Power in Chess (1949). 

4...Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ 

This is may not have been what Black expected.

The Bishop sacrifice goes by different names.

It has been referred to as the Noa Gambit. Charles Thomsas Blanshard, in his Examples of Chess Master-Play (1894) said of 5.Bxf7+ "The text move, a hobby of Dr. Noa, develops Black's game." See Noa,J - Makovetz,G, DSB-07 Kongress, Dresden, 1892 (0-1, 27).

It has also been called the Monck Gambit. In Pollock Memories: A Collection of Chess Games, Problems, &c., &c., Including His Matches with Eugene Delmar, Jackson Showalter, and G.H.D. Gossip (1899), William Henry Krause Pollock gave a crushing 19-move miniature ending in checkmate as "[A] very fine example, known in Dublin years ago as the 'Monck Gambit' ." 

More recently, Rev. Tim Sawyer, of Blackmar Diemer Gambit fame, applied the very apt name "Open Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit".

It is worth mentioning some early games by players whose names have not been attached to the line -

Zoltowski, E. - Zukertort, Johannes, Berlin, 1869: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe4 Be7 7.Nfg5+ Bxg5 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxg5 d5 10.Qxd8 Rxd8 11.Ng5+ Kg7 12.d3 Nd4 13.O-O Nxc2 14.Rb1 Re8 15.b3 Bf5 16.Rd1 Nb4 17.Ba3 Nxd3 18.g4 Nxf2 19.Rxd5 Nxg4 20.Rbd1 Ne3 21.Rd7+ Bxd7 22.Rxd7+ Kh6 23.Nf7+ Kh5 24.Bc1 Nf5 25.Ng5 h6 26.Rh7 Rad8 White resigned;

Bird, H.E. - Mills, simultaneous exhibition, British Chess Club, London, 1887: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe4 d5 7.Neg5+ Kg8 8.d3 h6 9.Nh3 Bg4 10.c3 Bc5 11.Be3 d4 12.Bc1 Qd7 13.Nhg1 Kh7 14.h3 Be6 15.Ne2 Rhf8 16.b4 Bd6 17.b5 Ne7 18.c4 a6 19.bxa6 Rxa6 20.Ng3 Ng6 21.Ne4 Be7 22.h4 Bf5 23.h5 Bxe4 24.dxe4 Nf4 25.Nxe5 Bb4+ 26.Kf1 Qe8 27.Bxf4 Rxf4 28.Ng6 Rxe4 29.g3 Re1+ 30.Qxe1 Bxe1 31.Rxe1 Qc6 32.Rh4 Qxc4+ 33.Kg1 Qxa2 34.Re8 Rxg6 35.hxg6+ Kxg6 36.Rf4 c5 Black queened in a few moves and White resigned;

Marshall, Frank James - Pollock, simultaneous exhibition (22 boards) Montreal Chess Club, Montreal 1894: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe4 d5 7.Neg5+ Kg8 8.d3 h6 9.Nh3 Bxh3 10.gxh3 Qd7 11.Qe2 Qxh3 12.Bd2 Bd6 13.Rg1 Kh7 14.Rg3 Qf5 15.O-O-O Rhf8 16.Bxh6 gxh6 17.Ng5+ Kh8 18.Rdg1 e4 19.Qh5 Bxg3 20.Qxh6+ Kg8 21.Rxg3 Rf6 22.Nxe4+ Kf7 23.Rg7+ Ke6 24.Nxf6 Rh8 25.Nh7+ Ke5 26.Rg5 Nd4 27.Qf6+ Kf4 28.Qxd4+ Qe4 and White mates in two moves, Black resigned

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+

Wow.

"Making a sort of Jerome Gambit; interesting, but of course quite unsound" wrote the chess columnist of The Daily Telegraph, properly focused on the Knight capture/sacrifice as well as the subsequent Queen sally.

The Database has only 11 game examples of this move - usually played is 6.Nxe4 - with White scoring 28%. Don't let that discourage you - the current game quickly develops chaotic elements like the traditional Jerome Gambit.  

6...Nxe5 7.Qh5+ Ng6 8.Nxe4

White wants to get his Knight into play. Instead, 8.Qd5+ Ke8 9.Qxe4 might have been a bit stronger, but White might also have wanted to avoid the exchange of Queens that would have followed 9...Qe7. 

8...d6

The Daily Telegraph suggested that 8...Be7 followed by 9...d5 was preferrable, but Black could probably have played 8...d5 directly, or even on the next move.

9.O-O Be7 10.f4 Kf8 

Suddenly, the game is equal.

How can that be? The Jerome Gambit themes are strong: Black's King is on the same file as White's Rook, and the dangerous "Jerome pawn" at f4 is about to advance.

11.f5 Ne5 12.d4 

White could have played 12.f6!? directly, ultimately transposing to the line played.

12...Nd7 

Black has protected the f6 square (four times) from an advance of the White pawn - but it is not enough. He would have done best to retreat the Knight to the f-file, where it would provide some shelter from the enemy Rook: 12...Nf7 13.f6 Bxf6 14.Nxf6 gxf6 15.Bh6+ Nxh6 16.Qxh6+ Kf7 17.Rf3!? and the pressure will force Black to give back a piece, e.g. 17...Bg4 18.Rg3 Qg8 19.h3 Qg5 20.Qxg5 fxg5 21.hxg4 Rae8 with an even game.

[to be continued]