Not Playing the Jerome Gambit Either

Yesterday's post was enjoyable enough that it was worth looking up another, similar, game in which the first player did not play the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+). Again, Jerome-ish themes echo throughout.

Samuels,L - McCudden,J

Metropolitan Chess League NY, 1925

Notes by Arnold S. Denker unless otherwise indicated, from his "Miniature Games" column in the January 1935 Chess Review (translated from descriptive to algebraic notation)

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.d3 Na5?

4.Bxf7+

4...Kxf7 5.Qh5+ Ke6

If 5...g6 6.Qxe5 winning back the piece with a winning position.

[Obviously Denker expected Black to protect his Rook. Otherwise he would have looked at 6...Nc6 7.Qxh8 h6 8.Bxh6 Bxh6 9.Qh7+ Bg7 10.Nf3, a line Michael Goeller suggested over 70 years later – see "Eric Schiller Doesn't Play the Jerome Gambit". With a Rook and three pawns against two Bishops, White would have a slight edge rather than "a winning position." – RK]

6.Qf5+ Kd6 7.d4

[As we've seen in Schiller - Shipman, New York 1981, 7.f4 was the stronger pawn move – RK]

7...Nc6

8.dxe5+ Kc5

Forced. If 8...Nxe5 9.Bf4 Qf6 [and here Denker wrote "10.Kt-B3!" It is unclear if he meant 10.Nc3! or 10.Nf3! Actually 10.Bxe5+ Qxe5 11.Qxf8+ was the strongest continuation – RK]

9.Be3+ Kb5 10.Qh5


10.e6+ d5 11.exd5 Nb4 12.d6+ Ka6 would also win, but the text move is much finer and wins in shorter order with the continuation Qe2+.

[In response to 10...e6+ Rybka 3 suggests 10...Ka6 11.Nc3 b6 12.0-0-0 Nf6 with a slight edge to Black – RK)

10...Na5 11.Nc3+ Kc6 12.e6 d5

If 12...dxe6 13.Qb5+ Kd6 14.Bc5+ Ke5 15.Be7+ wins the Queen

13.exd5+ Kd6
White now mates in two.

14.Nb5+ Ke7 15.Qf7 checkmate

Eric Schiller Doesn't Play the Jerome Gambit

American author and FIDE Master Eric Schiller doesn't play the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+). Despite his interest in unusual opening lines, he has spent far more time providing the club player with refutations of the Jerome.

His 2003 (with John Watson) Survive and Beat Annoying Chess Openings has a chapter on "Bashing the Jerome Gambit," which would be something akin to "Weapons of Mass Destruction versus the Mosquito" if it didn't at least shine a light on the poor, neglected creation of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome.

Still, as a followup to my two posts on Adolf Albin and the Jerome Gambit (see Part 1 and Part 2), I was wandering through my database when I came across the following game. There's at least a slight resemblance in the play to, well, you know...

Schiller - Shipman
New York, 1981

1.e4 Nc6 2.Bc4 e5 3.d3 Na5


4.Bxf7+
International Master Gary Lane (author of a couple of books on the Bishop's Opening), in one of his Opening Lanes columns at ChessCafe, wrote, in response to a reader who had asked about this line

I wanted to dismiss this bishop sacrifice, but in the spirit of the King's Gambit, I had to see what happens. I was surprised to realize that White is doing very well.

Michael Goeller (maintaining the best online resource for the Bishop's Opening), in his article on "The Hamppe - Meitner Motif" (see "Hamppe -Meitner Revealed" as well as "Godfather of the Jerome Gambit?" Part I, Part II, Part III, and Endnote) for the Kenilworth Chess Club website is more assertive, noting

If White does not have this move it's hard to see how he might even try to gain the advantage.

4...Kxf7 5.Qh5+ Ke6
Of course, the Jerome-ish 5...g6 was an option for Black, but not a particularly good one.

White plays 6.Qxe5 attacking the knight and rook, when 6...Bb4+ 7.Bd2 Nf6 8.Bxb4 is just very good for White – LaneInteresting, but ultimately unsatisfactory, is 5...g6!? 6.Qxe5 Nc6 7.Qxh8 h6 8.Bxh6! (8.Qc3?? Bb4! points up how much difference d3 for White can make!) 8...Bxh6 (8...Nxh6 9.Nc3) 9. Nf3 and White's Queen will not be trapped, meaning White retains a slight material edge and the safer King – Goeller

6.Qf5+

White has a much simpler alternative here: 6.Nf3! Qf6 (6...Nc6? 7.Ng5+ Ke7 8.Qf7+) 7.Ng5+ Ke7 8.Nc3 c6 and White wins back his material with advantage by 9.b4 or 9.Nxh7!? – Goeller
Instead, 6.Nf3 is met by 6...d6! and this simple way to deal with the threat against the e5-pawn 7.Ng5+ Kd7 8.Nf7 Qe8 9.Qf3 Nf6 10.Nxh8 Be7 slightly favors Black because he has two pieces for the rook, but 11.d4 is interesting since the king is misplaced on d7 – Lane

6...Kd6 7.d4

It appears that Schiller wished (mistakenly) to transpose directly to Hamppe - Meitner, but he thus missed his chance to turn White's extra tempo to advantage – Goeller

The move 7.f4 is stronger, according to Goeller and Lane ("The chase is on and White is in hot pursuit of the king").
7...Kc6 8.Qxe5 d5
9.exd5+ Kb6

Black can play for the win with 9...Qxd5! 10.Qe8+ Bd7!! 11.Qxa8 Nf6 12.Qxa7 (12.Nc3 Qxg2 13.Be3 Nc4 14.O-O-O Nxe3 15.fxe3 Qxh1) 12...Qxg2 13.Qxa5 Qxh1 14.d5+ Nxd5 15.Qa4+ Kb6 16.Qxd7 Qxg1+ 17.Ke2 Qxc1 18.Qxd5 Bc5. The text move should also favor Black, but it is much less clear – Goeller

10.Nc3 Qe7 11.Na4+ Kb5 12.Nc3+
Here 12.b3 was the move to draw.

12...Kb6
There was more in 12...Ka6.
13.Bf4 Bf5 Drawn

If Black had wanted to play for a win, he might have tried 13...Nc4!. It remains unclear to me whether this was a pre-arranged draw gone wrong or a real contest – Goeller

Not Quite the Jerome Gambit - Addendum

Readers of yesterday's post "Not Quite the Jerome Gambit" may have noticed that the line played by leif41no and Namecheck – 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Bc5 – did not have to be Jerome-ized at all with 4.Bxf7+. Instead, White had at his disposal 4.d4, which, after 4...exd4 would transpose to The Urusov Gambit – very well covered by Michael Goeller at his website (check links: Kenilworthian).

Hamppe - Meitner Revealed

Michael Goeller, of the Kenilworthian Chess Club (see "Related Sites" on this blog) has a comprehensive article on the exciting Hamppe - Meitner Motif (see Godfather of the Jerome Gambit? (Part I), (Part II) and (Endnote) for its relationship to Alonzo Wheeler Jerome") on his website.

I highly recommend you check out "The Hamppe - Meitner Motif", and the Kenilworthian site itself as a treasure trove of articles covering a whole host of topics.

Wonderful work, Mike, as ever!

A Few Words With... Tim McGrew

Readers interested in the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) and other exciting opening sacrifices are likely familiar – or should become familiar – with Tim McGrew, past author of "The Gambit Cartel" columns for ChessCafe.

Tim has always been supportive of my work with the duck-billed platypus of chess openings, although he maintains an objective attitude:

The Jerome is, of course, completely unsound; it is a kind of miracle, and a tribute to Jerome’s tenacity, that it was analyzed seriously at all.

I was planning to do a short interview with Tim, when I discovered that Michael Goeller, host of The Kenilworthian blog, had already done so, and in great style.

Check it out. Michael said it was fine to make the link.

Pour yourself a cup of coffee first, though. You'll not only find the interview, you'll find links to all of Tim's "Gambit Cartel" columns plus a downloadable zipped file of them. And, as they say in the commercials: But wait! There's more!

I'll wait for you to come back...

Here's some of Tim McGrew's wisdom on adventurism in the opening

When you select an opening, you are not selecting the position that arises at move 20 after best play by both sides. You are selecting the whole opening with all of its traps and twists, its side lines and main lines.

And you are selecting it to play against flesh-and-blood opponents who will very frequently deviate from best play – probably early.

Which raises a very important question, supposing they do deviate from best play, what will happen then?

The answer depends on what I will call the “Caltrop Coefficient,” or CC for short. For readers not familiar with military history, I should explain that caltrops are mid-sized pieces of metal shaped rather like gigantic jacks with sharpened points. Canny soldiers camping just on the other side of a river from their enemies would sow the riverbed liberally with caltrops so that an enemy cavalry charge across the river would be demolished as the horses stepped on the caltrops and went down.

Mutatis mutandis, every wild-eyed gambiteer uses this strategy in chess as well. The more caltrops the better, particularly at blitz or bullet time controls! Let’s agree to say that an opening with a high proportion of moderately well-hidden traps has a high CC.

Of course, if our opponent has studied up on the opening, life will be very hard.

--The Gambit Cartel "Dimensional Analysis" 6/20/2004

graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"