Boden-Kieseritzky-Jerome Gambit??

My fascination with the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) sometimes gets me into adventures that I really shouldn't be able to get out of...

perrypawnpusher - jayshanker
blitz game 12 0, FICS 2009

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6

Not everybody wants to play the Giuoco Piano with 3...Bc5. Lately I've been answering 2...Nf3 (the Petroff Defense) with 3.Bc4 and if 3...Nxe4 then 4.Nc3, the Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit (4...Nxc3 5.dxc3). So I figured in this game to transpose from the Two Knights Defense into the B-KG as well.

4.0-0 Nxe4 5.Nc3 f5

So far, so good, although Black's last move is quite unusual. Since a main defence against the Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit involves ...f6, protecting the black e5 pawn, White should be able to count on decent play after the text with 6.Re1.

Of course, that was not what I was thinking, as I had a case of Jerome-Gambit-on-the-brain...

6.Nxe4 fxe4 7.Nxe5 Nxe5 8.Qh5+


Not precisely Jerome-ish, as White retains his King Bishop, but the thematic foolish sacrifice of material for a dubious attack is recognizable.

8...g6

Tic tac toe! Once again, the "shock and awe" of responding to the sacrifice makes up for much of its theoretical un-soundness.

There should be more to a gambit idea than just crossing my fingers and hoping, as the following defense should have resolved the game quickly in my opponent's favor: 8...Ng6 9.Re1 Qh4! (I don't think I'll test my luck twice with this line.)

9.Qxe5+ Be7

10.Qxh8+ Bf8 11.d3 d6 12.Bh6 Kd7 13.Qxf8 Qxf8 14.Bxf8 Ke8

The rest is silence.

15.Bg7 Bd7 16.Rae1 Kd8 17.Rxe4 c6 18.Be6 Kc7 19.Bxd7 Kxd7 20.Rfe1 Kc7

21.Re7+ Kb6 22.Bd4+ c5 23.Bc3 a5 24.Rd7 Rc8 25.Ree7 Rc6 26.Rxb7+ Ka6 27.Ra7+ Kb6 28.Reb7 checkmate

Chess Improvement

I take my chess instruction where I can find it, so when I stopped by the Chess Improvement blog I was ready to read what the author had posted about the Giuoco Piano (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3) and the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+):

The winner of a chess game is the player that makes fewer wrong moves then his opponent.

In this issue I will present my game played recently on Playchess.com. I didn't play rated game for a long time so I decided to play against weaker opponent. As you'll see I played so badly for my rating but the game was decided by greater number of errors my opponent did.

[Event "Rated game, 30m + 0s"]

[Site "Main Playing Hall"]

[Date "2006.08.18"]

[Round "?"]

[White "Ciprian"]

[Black "Ibarix"]

[Result "0-1"]

[ECO "C50"]

[WhiteElo "1478"]

[Annotator "Fritz 9 (60s)"]

[PlyCount "152"]

[EventDate "2006.08.18"]

{C50: Hungarian Defence and Giuoco Pianissimo}

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5

In earlier posts I said I don't quite know openings. I recently started to study ideas for some openings (Giuoco Piano). It's incredible that I'm quite strong player but have no clue about basic ideas in most of the openings. So I took advice from some of the internet sites and began with Giuoco Piano just as junior players start with it in their chess lives. After these moves white developed 2 pieces, took some share of the center with e4 and cleared way for a short castle. White bishop is eyeing the f7 square which is the weakest point at the start of the game just as white's f2. Why? Because at the beginning it's defended only once - by the king. The main point for black's good chances is central break d5 and Nf6. White has several possibilities in this position.

1. b4 - the Evans gambit

2. c3 - preparing for d4 thrust or playing Modern Italian c3, d3 and after that d4 maybe

3. d3 - leading either to Giuoco Pianissimo after white's Nc3, 0-0 and black's d6, Nf6 and 0-0 or Modern Italian

4. d4 immediately, the Italian Gambit

5. 0-0 weak line according to some authors

6. (read misc. instead of six because this is not quite the option for white) Bxf7+ ??????? Jerome gambit, it doesn't work, don't ever play it...

[The emphasis placed on the last line is mine - RK. You have been warned!]

'Tis A Puzzlement...

I love all-day sessions poring over century-old books and magazines as much as the next person – especially when I'm in the White Collection of the Cleveland Public Library, the world's largest publicly-accessible chess collection.

Getting informative emails from chessfriends around the world puts a big smile on my face; but sometimes no matter what I (we) do, mysteries remain.

Here are a few that have kept me puzzled.

Puzzlement #1:

In the November 1876 issue of the American Chess Journal, editor William Hallock, writing on the Jerome Gambit, noted:

We consider it stronger than the Harvey-Evans and not much inferior to the Cochrane attack, but like most openings where a piece is sacrificed to obtain a violent attack, the first player will generally find himself the loser when met by a careful and steady defence.

Does anyone know what the "Harvey-Evans" attack is? Certainly Hallock cannot be referring to Captain Evans' gambit. Who was Harvey, anyhow?

Puzzlement #2:

In his The Chess Mind (1951) Gerald Abrahams admonishes:

Chess opinion has convincingly condemned many extravagant unbalancing attacks, such as the once popular Jerome gambit, (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Bxf7+), which yield the unbalancer nothing but loss against good defense.

He repeats his guidance in The Pan Book of Chess (1965):

[1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5] ... and nobody in their right senses plays 3.Bxf7+, Jerome's Gambit.

Fair enough – but as far as I can tell Alonzo Wheeler Jerome always played his gambit as a variation of the Giuoco Piano: 2.Nf3 first, then 3.Bc4, and then 4.Bxf7+.

Where did Abrahams get the idea that the Jerome was a variant of the Bishop's Opening?

Puzzlement #3:

Lubomir Kavalek, in his Washington Post chess column of Monday, April 14, 2003, addresses Karl Traxler and his Traxler Counter-Attack: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5!?

Traxler introduced his idea in the game against J. Reinisch, played on March 20, 1890, in Hustoun.

The game was first published with his notes and analysis on Oct. 11, 1892, in the chess column of Golden Prague. I have included some of his notes. They show how he was ahead of his time. The first serious analysis by others appeared only some 40 years later.

Reinisch-Traxler 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5!? ("An original combination that is better than it looks. A small mistake by white can give black a decisive attack. It is not easy to find the best defense against it in a practical game and it is probably theoretically correct," wrote Traxler. "It somewhat resembles the Blackmar-Jerome gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+?! Kxf7 5.Nxe5+?!," he added.)

Say what?? "The Blackmar-Jerome gambit?"

Anyone who can shed any light on any of this is encouraged to make contact!

Bashi-Bazouk Attack

From The Chess Player's Chronicle, August 1, 1877, translated from the May 1877 Nordisk Skaktidende:

Chess Theory for Beginners
by Lieut. Sorensen

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5

With this answering move of the Bishop we have the fundamental position for that good old game which the Italians, hundreds of years ago, when they were masters of the Chess board, called "Giuoco Piano," even game, but the later age, for generality of explanation, the "Italian game." On this basis the usual continuation is 4.P to QB3, whereby the QP at the next move threatens to advance, and the White middle Pawns to occupy the centre.

In the next articles we will make mention of that regular fight for the maintenance or destruction of the centre, which is the essential point of the Italian game; in this, on the contrary, we will occupy ourselves with a Bashi-Bazouk


[Encyclopedia Britannica: Turkish BASIBOZUK ("corrupted head," or "leaderless"), mercenary soldier belonging to the skirmishing or irregular troops of the Ottoman Empire, notorious for their indiscipline, plundering, and brutality]


attack, over which the learned Italians would have crossed themselves had they known it came under the idea of piano, but which is in reality of very recent date - 1874, and takes it origin from an American, A.W. Jerome.

It consists in the sacrifice of a piece by 4.B takes P(ch).

Naturally we immediately remark that it is unsound, and that Black must obtain the advantage; but the attack is pretty sharp, and Black must take exact care, if he does not wish to go quickly to the dogs.

A little analysis of it will, therefore, be highly instructive, not to say necessary, for less practised players, and will be in its right place in our Theory, especially since it is not found in any handbook.

The Americans call the game "Jerome's double opening," an allusion, probably, to the fresh sacrifice of a piece which follows at the next move, but we shall prefer to use the short and sufficiently clear designation, Jerome Gambit.