Like a Needle in a Haystack (Part 1)

Researching the history of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) can be a bit like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Some resources are obvious places to look. Checking the past equivalents of today's Encyclopedia of Chess Opening and Modern Chess Openings is a good start (note: MCO, from its first edition in 1911, has not had coverage).

The Handbuch des Schachspiels, for example, has a Jerome Gambit game reference in its 8th edition (1916) but nothing in its 7th (1891) or 6th (1880) editions.

 Cook's Synopsis of the Chess Openings, 1st and 2nd editions (1874, 1876) have no coverage of the Jerome, while its 3rd edition (1882) does.

The first edition of Chess Openings Ancient and Modern (1889) has analysis. Steinitz' Modern Chess Instructor, Part II (1895), of course, has nothing.

There are many other 19th century chess books touching on the opening – and many, many more, not – and each must be checked for Jerome Gambit material.

Some past authors are apparently ambivalent about the line. G.H.D. Gossip's 1891 Theory of the Chess Openings has nothing on the Jerome Gambit, while his The Chess Player's Vade Mecum and Pocket Guide to the Openings, also published in 1891 does have analysis. Gossip out-does himself in his (with F.J. Lee) 1903 The Complete Chess Guide by writing one place that he has "eliminated obsolete openings" such as the Jerome Gambit, which he mentions by name, and then, later on in the book, he gives analysis of that same opening.

The next best thing...

A few posts ago (see "London calling... Seven Months of Blog") I asked readers to suggest "another totally obscure and disreputable tactical opening line or gambit that I could go digging for information about, while I'm researching the Jerome Gambit."

Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member Pete Banks ("blackburne"), in a Comment, suggested 1.h4, a move with which he has had some success, following his own idea of 2. g3, 3.Nh3, 4.Bg2, and 5.0-0.

So I did a little research.

Althought Tim Harding, in his Dynamic White Openings (1989), calls 1.h4 "The most despised of openings, not even worthy of a name," it has sometimes been called the Deprès Opening, according the Oxford Companion to Chess (1984).

More often, though, 1.h4 goes by the name of the Kadas Opening. Eric Schiller, in his Unorthodox Chess Openings (1998, 2002), writes

The Hungarian player Kadas has the dubious distinction of being perhaps the greatest living exponent of 1.h4, a move even Myers, a true fan of bizarre openings, considers poor.

He is referring to Hugh E. Myers, who in his Exploring the Chess Openings (1978) had this to say

If there were an election for the worst possible first move, 1.P-KR4 would have excellent winning chances.

Grandmaster Bent Larsen, in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, Volume A (1979), gave "1.h4? e5 =/+"

So Kadas' Opening would seem to meet the criteria set above for "disreputable" – even if it receives more complete and respectful treatment in Stefan Bücker's Groteske Schacheröffnungen (1990).

Do readers have other suggestions?