When I mentioned the video "Is Jerome Gambit Sound?" April 5, a few posts ago, I neglected to list the three other Jerome Gambit videos that Mato Jelic had posted earlier at YouTube.
They were pointed out to me by Roland Kensdale at the English Chess Forum.
"Must See Jerome Gambit" concerns the game "NN vs Blackburne, England, 1880" - the best-known and most exciting Jerome Gambit. (As we have only very recently learned, the year was more likely 1884).
Check out also "The Birth of Jerome Gambit", focused on "Alonzo Wheeler Jerome vs William A Shinkman, correspondence 1874". This is the earliest game that I have a score of, although Jerome, himself, said he first played his gambit against G.J. Dougherty.
The "Practical Application of Jerome Gambit" features the game "Bill Wall vs Itboss , Online, 2016"
All of Mato Jelic's videos are great fun and well worth viewing.
Showing posts with label English Chess Forum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label English Chess Forum. Show all posts
Sunday, May 14, 2017
Friday, May 12, 2017
Jerome Gambit: Merely Commentators, or Players?
One of the reasons I started a discussion at the English Chess Forum searching out early English game examples of the Jerome Gambit was because of the quote by Joseph Henry Blackburne in Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess (1899)
That the Jerome Gambit had been "greatly favored by certain players" seems to suggest that games should be available - but none new to me have surfaced so far.
Blackburne may have been referring to coverage of the Jerome Gambit in some print sources.
For example, The Chess Player's Chronicle, August 1, 1877, translated and reprinted the early and in depth article on the Jerome Gambit, from "Chess Theory for Beginners" by Lieut. Sorensen, from the May 1877 issue of Nordisk Skaktidende. I believe that the translation was by Rev. C.E. Ranken.
Later, the third edition of Cook's Synopsis of Chess Openings A Tabuled Analysis by William Cook (1882) had Jerome Gambit analysis, including thanks to
It should be noted, too, that George Hatfield Dingley Gossip covered the Jerome Gambit in his Theory of the Chess Openings (1879) and The Chess Player's Vade Mecum (1891). James Mortimer also had Jerome Gambit analysis in the many editions of his The Chess Player's Pocket-Book, starting in 1888.
Freeborough and Ranken, Gossip and Mortimer - merely commentators or players?
I used to call this the Kentucky Opening. For a while after its introduction it was greatly favored by certain players, but they soon grew tired of it.The issue of the "Kentucky Opening" has been dealt with previously on this blog - see "The Kentucky Opening" parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and "The Kentucky / Danvers Opening".
That the Jerome Gambit had been "greatly favored by certain players" seems to suggest that games should be available - but none new to me have surfaced so far.
Blackburne may have been referring to coverage of the Jerome Gambit in some print sources.
For example, The Chess Player's Chronicle, August 1, 1877, translated and reprinted the early and in depth article on the Jerome Gambit, from "Chess Theory for Beginners" by Lieut. Sorensen, from the May 1877 issue of Nordisk Skaktidende. I believe that the translation was by Rev. C.E. Ranken.
Later, the third edition of Cook's Synopsis of Chess Openings A Tabuled Analysis by William Cook (1882) had Jerome Gambit analysis, including thanks to
Mr. Freeborough of Hull, and Rev. C.E. Ranken, of Malven, for material assistance in the compilation of the tables, original variations in the openings, and help in the examination of proof.Versions of Chess Openings Ancient and Modern, starting with the first edition in 1889, include Jerome Gambit analysis and suggested moves by Freeborough and Rankin.
It should be noted, too, that George Hatfield Dingley Gossip covered the Jerome Gambit in his Theory of the Chess Openings (1879) and The Chess Player's Vade Mecum (1891). James Mortimer also had Jerome Gambit analysis in the many editions of his The Chess Player's Pocket-Book, starting in 1888.
Freeborough and Ranken, Gossip and Mortimer - merely commentators or players?
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
Jerome Gambit: Dr. Harding Checks In
As a followup to the previous post, I returned to the online English Chess Forum and asked members if they were aware of any early (pre-WWI) Jerome Gambit games.
Not surprisingly, Dr. Tim Harding, author of Joseph Henry Blackburne A Chess Biography, (and other fine books), published by McFarland, responded quickly.
Re: Early English Jerome Gambit Games?
Tim Harding
Historian and Kibitzer
Author of 'Joseph Henry Blackburne: A Chess Biography' and 'Eminent Victorian
Chess Players'
Dr. Harding's response adds to information about the Blackburne game,
from the Illustrated London News, giving "Mr. M" as the amateur player
of the White pieces. Other (not primary) sources have named this person
"Milner".
from the Illustrated London News, giving "Mr. M" as the amateur player
of the White pieces. Other (not primary) sources have named this person
"Milner".
More importantly, the Illustrated London News account of May 10,1884
helps focus the possible date of the game, usually given as 1880 - which I
had challenged, based upon an article in August 15, 1885 issue of the
Brooklyn Chess Chronicle. So, 1884 is the corrected date.
Finally, Dr. Harding is being modest in merely mentioning the three postal
games played by E. B. Lowe correspondence games, as a good while back
he provided them for me.
Monday, May 8, 2017
Jerome Gambit: Refuted Openings
There is a light discussion on "refuted openings" at the English Chess Forum which, of course, mentions the Jerome Gambit, if only in passing. (I will be contacting the poster to see how serious or casual his knowledge is of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+.)
It is enjoyable to see some back-and-forth as to what actually is refuted, and why.
I would have preferred a bit of a further look at the impact of time control on the playability of some openings, e.g. "suicide at regular time controls; risky at blitz; winning at bullet". Perhaps that will be added in future posts.
It is enjoyable to see some back-and-forth as to what actually is refuted, and why.
I would have preferred a bit of a further look at the impact of time control on the playability of some openings, e.g. "suicide at regular time controls; risky at blitz; winning at bullet". Perhaps that will be added in future posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)