Turn About is Fair Play

I was doing some online research at the Chess Archaeology website when I ran into an interesting game (a cross between the Italian Game and the Petroff Defense) in the "Chess" column of the St. Louis Globe-Democrat for June 24, 1877

Amateur - Jos. N. B.

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nxe5 Bxf2+ 5.Kxf2 Nxe4+ 6.Kf3 d5 7.Bd3 

At this point Black announced mate in two

Of course, I like the Bishop sacrifice theme (it is interesting to think of the game coming out of a Petroff, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Bc5!? 4.Bc4; or even a Busch-Gass Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5!? 3.Nxe5 Nf6 ), even if it is performed this time by Black. 

Has this line appeared in a post in this blog before? I looked up 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Bc5 and ran across it in "Not Quite the Jerome Gambit". Figures.

(By the way, Black does better to 4...0-0, and White should choose the safer 6.Kg1.)

So Much Fun...

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 Knucklehead Gambit

After my two-part article on the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) in the United States Chess Federation's Chess Life for Kids (see " 'The Worst Chess Opening Ever' Warning or Menace??") I am writing an article titled "The Knucklehead Gambit", based on what I have learned about the Busch-Gass Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5.

I was pleased to learn that last winter Chess.com held a Busch-Gass Gambit Thematic chess tournament (winner: Karpikicks) and even more pleased that links were given to three posts on this blog that referred to the gambit: "Worth A Second Look... (Part 1)" "(Part 2)" and "(Part 3)". 

To fill out the list, here are several others: "Danke!", "Busch-Gass Gambit" and "Busch-Gass Pass".

Busch-Gass Pass

As much as I like surprising my opponents with unusual openings like the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) – that's how much I dislike being surprised by my opponents.

The following game is also about having a "Plan B" for when you can't follow "Plan A".

perrypawnpusher  - vladchess
blitz FICS, 2010

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5

My opponent offers to play the Busch-Gass Gambit  (see "Worth a Second Look... Part 1", "Part 2" and "Part 3"), an opening with a number of Jerome-ish characteristics.

The idea is that if White now plays 3.Nxe5, Black can follow with 3...Bxf2+ 4.Kxf2 Qh4+ with mischief ahead.

3.Bc4

I decided to "pass" on the pawn offer.

Maybe Black will relent and play 3...Nc6, allowing me to play the Jerome Gambit after all?

3...f6

This is an awkward transposition to a variation of the Damiano Defense, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6, suggesting that my opponent was not prepared for me to decline his gambit.

Better were 2...Nc6, 2..d6 or 2...Qe7.

4.Nxe5

As in play against the regular Damiano setup.

4...d6

Another surprise.

Black probably would have done best by staying within Damiano lines as well: 4...Qe7.

analysis diagram






Because Black's Bishop will be hanging on c5 – as opposed to being safe at f8, as in the original Damiano Defense – White can now play out his Queen with 5.Qh5+, as after 5...g6 6.Nxg6 Qxe4+ 7.Be2 Black's Damiano-ish 7...Qxg6 could be met with 8.Qxc5.

analysis diagram






Black can desperado that Bishop with 7...Bxf2+ (instead of 7...Qxg6), but after 8.Kxf2 Qxg6 9.Qc5 White will have several advantages that will only grow over the next few moves: King safety, development, the usefulness of the two Bishops.

analysis diagram







5.Qh5+ g6

6.Nxg6 Kd7

The alternative, 6...hxg6 7.Qxh8+ followed by capturing the Knight on g8 is not attractive, either.

7.Nxh8 Qe7 8.Qf7

Stifling any thought of counter-play.

8...Nc6 9.Be6+ Kd8 10.Qxg8+ Black resigned

After 10...Qe8 I planned to quiet things down with exchanges after 11.Nf7+ Ke7 12.Qxe8+ Kxe8 13.Bxc8 Rxc8 14.Nh6, remaining up a Knight, a Rook and two pawns.

Busch-Gass Gambit

From the pages of Edward Winter's Chess Facts and Fables (2006) comes an interesting early, if undated, Busch-Gass Gambit game (see "Worth a Second Look... "Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3) – with White giving Queen Rook odds.

Michaelis,Otho - NN

New York remove White's Queen Rook

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.d4 Bb6 5.b3 d6 6.Ba3 Qd8 7.Nf3 Bg4 8.Bd3 d5 9.0-0 Nf6 10.Re1 dxe4 11.Bxe4 Bxf3 12.Bc6 checkmate

Danke!

The German language chess web site Schacharena.de has a current discussion of the Busch-Gass Gambit (see"Worth A Second Look..." parts 1, 2, and 3) in its Forum area, and Schacharena member Schroeder has kindly mentioned (and linked to) this blog's contribution to the discussion – which, in turn, has led some Schacharena.de readers to stop by JeromeGambit.blogspot.com.

Welcome!

And thank you, Schachfreund Schroeder!

Worth a Second Look... (Part 3)

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?

Worth a Second Look... (Part 2)

Rainer Schlenker refers to 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 (see "Worth a Second Look... (Part 1)") as the "Busch - Gass Gambit" in the May/June 1985 issue (pp. 69-71) of his magazine Randspringer.

He refers to analysis by Oskar Cordel in Führer durch die Schachtheorie (1888)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.d4 Bd6 (4...Bb6 5.Bc4!) 5.f4 f6 6.Nc4 Qxe4+ 7.Kf2 Bxf4 8.Nc3 Qf5 9.Bd3 Qg5 10.Re1+ Ne7 11.Kg1 Nbc6 12.Bxf4 Qxf4 13.Qh5+ Kf8 14.Re4 +/- / +-

and analysis included in Bilguer (1916)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.d4 Bd6 5.Nc3! Bxe5 6.Nd5 Qd6 7.dxe5 Qxe5 8.Bf4 Qxe4+ 9.Qd2

Schlenker, however, modifies the name that Bent Larsen gave to the line ("Busch-Gambit") in Larsen's Sharp Openings (in Danish) based on the game Baird - Busch, 15. Kongresses Deutchen Schachbundes, Nuremberg 1906. Sharp Openings included a portion of the game:

Baird,D - Busch
Nuremberg, 1906
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Nf3 Qe7 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.d4 Nxe4 7.Nd5 Bb4+ 8.Bd2 Nxd2+ 9.Nxe7 Nxf3+ 10.Ke2 Nfxd4+ 11.Kd3 Bxe7 12.c3 Ne6 13.Kc2 0-0 14.g3 d5 15.Bd3 Rd8 16.f4 d4 17.f5 dxc3 18.fxe6 Nb4+ 19.Kxc3 Rxd3+ 20.Qxd3 Nxd3 21.exf7+ Kf8 22.Kxd3 Bf5+ 0-1

Schlenker adds the name "Gass" to the variation after the German master who had been playing the line in the 1970s and 1980s, and gives a few examples.

Many of Gass's blitz games have gone:

NN - Gass
blitz (1970 - 1985)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Nxc6 dxc6 5.d3 Nf6 6.Bg5 Nxe4 7.Bxd8 Bxf2+ 8.Ke2 Bg4 checkmate

and then there's

NN - Gass
blitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Nxc6 dxc6 5.c3 Qe7 6.f3 f5 7.d4 fxe4 8.dxc5 exf3+ 9.Kf2 Nf6 10.Bc4 Ne4+ 11.Kg1 fxg2 12.Kxg2 Bh3+ 13.Kg1 Qxc5+ 14.Qd4 Rd8!! White resigns

While Cordel (1888) and Bilguer (1916) updated the analysis of Salvio (1604) (see "Worth a Second Look... (Part 1)"), Busch and Gass have taken the opening in a different direction: that of a reversed Boden - Kieseritzky Gambit, a move down.

That, too, deserves a second look...