Preston Guardian

Here is the first of three Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) games, printed in the Preston Guardian, provided by Tim Harding, from the deep resources of his correspondence chess databases.

The notes are by Harding, and from the Preston Guardian.

Lowe, EB - Parker, J (Grimsby)
Preston Guardian tournament, 1879

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+

Invented by A. W. Jerome of Paxton, Illinois

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8

Parker: My opponent remarked that this was not the best or recognised defence. It may be he was right, but it seems to me to give White less chance of attack than 5... Nxe5

[Readers may want to compare with the "Norton -  Hallock Game," Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4 - RK]

6.Nxc6 dxc6 7.O-O Nf6 8.e5

8...Bg4

9.Qe1 Qd4 10.c3

Referring to this game when printing the later friendly, the Preston Guardian says this was a mistake White did not recover from. Lowe maintained that Parker didn't play the best defence to White's 8th so they played the new game for a 5 shilling book stake.

10...Qd3

11.b4 Bb6 12.a4 a6

13.a5 Ba7 14.Bb2 Ne4

15.Qc1 Be2 16.Ra4 Bxf1 17.b5

17...Bxf2+ 18. Kh1 Qe2 19. Ba3+ Kg8

The paper just says 'K moves', not naming the square, so this may not be right.

20.Rxe4 Bxg2+ 21. Kxg2 Be3+ 22. Kg3 Qf2+ 23. Kg4 h5+ 24. Kh3 Qf3+ 25. Kh4 g5 checkmate

The Norton - Hallock Game (Part 4)

We continue a look at the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) game Norton - Hallock, correspondence, 1877 (see "The Norton - Hallock Game" Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3), assessing the contemporary evaluations of American Chess Journal editor William Hallock and gambit originator Alonzo Wheeler Jerome; while adding a modern perspective, the insights of Rybka, and various contents of my ChessBase files...

9.Qe1 Kf7

Hallock: Very good again. Brings the KR into the field. Obviously the capture of the Knight would lose the Queen.

10.h3

Hallock: A mere waste of time. Should have played Kh1 or c3

Jerome: Note (e) says "waste of time" not so; on the contrary is much better than 10.c3, for if 10...Re8 11.d4 Bxd4 12.cd Qxd4 and the KP is lost and Black has the best position. 10.Kh1 is good and safe.

White's best move, giving up a pawn to get some breathing room for his Queen, was 10.d4, when either 10...Qxd4 or 10...Bxd4 can be answered by 11.exf6. Black will remain a pawn up, with intense piece pressure and the two Bishops, but that would be better for White than either 10.h3, as played in the game, or 10.Kh1 or 10.c3 as mentioned by Jerome (all of which still favor Black).

The line proposed by Jerome as good for Black, 10.c3 Re8 11.d4 Bxd4 12.cxd4 Qxd4 is advantageous for the second player, but 10...Qd3 would have been even more so.

10...Re8

Hallock: Sound and brilliant.

11.Kh2

Hallock: If White answer 11.hxg4 Nxg4! 12.g3 (12.Qe4 Qh4! 13.Qf3+ Kg8 14.Qh3 Bxf2+ 15.Kh1 Rxe5 wins easily) 12...Rxe5 13.Qd1 Nxf2 etc If 14.Rxf2+ (If 14.c3 Qg5) 14...Qf6.

Jerome: In note (f) there seems to me to be quite an oversight for if 13...Nxf2 14.Rxf2 and then if 14...Qf6 as suggested in the note, 15.d4 and it is Black's goose which is immediately done brown. Of course 13...Nxf2 is not best. Again I cannot see the easy win after 15...Rxe5 the attack is with White.

Clearly 10...Re8 is a good and thematic move for Black.

White's best response seems to be 11.d3, followed by Nb1-d2-f3 and possibly Bc1-f4; although Black would still have the advantage.

Hallock is correct that capturing Black's Bishop with 11.hxg4 is well-answered by 11...Nxg4. This is especially clear after the further 12.d4 Qxd4 13.Nc3 Rxe5 when Black's pieces dominate.

However, in extending his analysis Hallock leaves himself open to Jerome's retort that after 11.hxg4 Nxg4 12.g3 Rxe5 13.Qd1 Nxf2 14.Rxf2 Qf6 Black is bested by 15.d4. Black's last move is a mistake: substitute 14...Bxf2+ for 14...Qf6 and he is winning. In this line 13...Bxf2+ is better than Hallock's suggested 13...Nxf2 – supporting Jerome's assertion that the latter move was "not best" – but 13...Nxf2 is also good, just not best.

It is hard to accept Jerome's argument that after Hallock's 11.hxg4 Nxg4 12.Qe4 Qh4 13.Qf3+ Kg8 14.Qh3 Bxf2+ 15.Kh1 Rxe5 "the attack is with White."  Black's crushing threat of ...Re5-h5 forces White to exchange Queens, after which Black's development and King safety vastly overshadow White's game – over 3 pawns' worth, according to Rybka.

Hallock now wraps the game up nicely.

11...Rxe5 12.Qxe5 Bd6 13.f4 Bxe5 14.fxe5

14...Be2 15.Rf2 Qd4 16.Rxe2 Re8 17.d3 Rxe5 18.c3 Qd5 White resigned

The Norton - Hallock Game (Part 3)

While it can be fun to read contemporary analyses of a chess game (see "The Norton - Hallock Game" Part 1 and Part 2), the personal involvement of the commentators / players can get in the way. 

I sat down with my friend Rybka and my ChessBase files to go over this particular Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) game and evaluate what American Chess Journal editor William Hallock and gambit originator Alonzo Wheeler Jerome had to say about it.

Norton,D.P. - Hallock,W.A.
correspondence, 1877

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8

Hallock: The usual continuation is 5...Nxe5 but this seems equally good.

Jerome: Note (a) to your game with Norton says 5...Kf8 "seems equally good with 5...Nxe5" which is a mistake in fact and theory. 5...Nxe5 if properly followed up wins White's KBP, wheras 5...Kf8 leaves White's pawns intact while Black has lost two strong pawns and doubled another. This defense was adopted by G.J. Dougherty of Mineola, NY, a strong amateur, against whom I first played the opening, and I think he will agree that 5...Kf8 is not a good defense. He generally played 6...bc [after 5...Kf8 6.Nxc6] and that was the play of Mr. J. C. Young of Danville, KY, who subsequently abandoned the game. Why, I do not know, as it was not necessarily lost to either of us. It is a question with which Pawn it is best to take.

It is interesting to point out that this "discussion" between Hallock and Jerome about the merits of 5...Kf8 took place in the February and March 1877 issues of the American Chess Journal, two months before Lt. Sorensen published his very influential article on the Jerome Gambit in the May 1877 issue of the Danish chess magazine Nordisk Skaktidende. (For a taste of the article, see "Bashi-Bazouk Attack".)

It is quite possible that the Americans only became aware of Sorensen's work when his article was translated into English and was reprinted in the August 1877 issue of the Chess Player's Chronicle.

Sorensen considered 5...Kf8 the best defense for Black, and he recommended it as "more solid" and "easier to manage" than 5...Nxe5. After 5...Kf8 6.Nxc6 he gave the 6...dxc6 capture as best, continuing 7.0-0 Nf6 8.Qf3, as in Jerome - Brownson, USA 1875 (1/2-1/2, 28)

A modern assessment supports Sorensen's (and thus, Hallock's) point of view – but only marginally. After four moves Black already has enough material to win the game, and therefore he does not need to complicate the game further by grabbing another piece with 5...Nxe5. The Danish author was already being influenced by Steinitz's "positional" style, as opposed to his (and the chess world's) earlier "romantic" (attacking) style.

On the other hand, Rybka shows a clear preference for 5...Nxe5 over 5...Kf8 (by about 3/4 of a pawn) – showing that even with its positional "insights" the computer software still has a materialistic side.

6.Nxc6

Hallock: The continuation adopted by Jerome, 6.Qh5 [instead] looks promising.

Jerome: The move suggested in note (b) 6.Qh5, is not my idea, but belongs to Mr. Norton himself, and I have to acknowledge that I thought it unsound when he suggested it to me, during the process of the game, because 6...Qf6 gets up a counter attack at once; but 7.Ng4 compels Black to "crawfish" and permits White to castle with a good game. However if Black play 7...Qe7 it makes White 's game uncomfortable. But White may play 7.Nxd7+ Bxd7 8.Qxc5+ with 3 Pawns for his Knight which the books hold to be an equivalent. And I would not hesitate to exchange Queens if offered. Norton thinks [5...Kf8 6.Qh5] 6...Qe7 best; I think [5...Kf8 6.Qh5] 6...Nxe5 best; if 7.Qxe5 Qe7.

The variation 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8 6.Qh5, which was mentioned by Brownson in the March 1875 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal, while commenting upon Jerome - Brownson, USA, 1875 (1-0, 28), is currently known as the Banks Variation, after the game Banks - Rees, Wolverhampton, 2003 (1-0, 45).

Jerome's mention of 5...Kf8 6.Qh5 Qf6 7.Ng4 Qe7 is a red herring, as his later suggestion of 7.Nxd7+ Bxd7 8.Qxc5+ – a line which Banks successfully followed against Rees – gives White comparatively better prospects.

Modern theory holds 6...Qe7 to be the best response to 6.Qh5.

6...dxc6 7.0-0 Nf6 8.e5

Jerome: Norton's first mistake was in playing 5.e5 instead of 5.Qf3 as in game 472, Dubuque Chess Journal where the defense was the same.

8...Bg4

Hallock: An excellent move cramping White's game and enabling Black to optimally deploy his forces.

Jerome: Ending notes (c) and (d) at the first glance, seems as safe as endorsing U.S. Treasury notes, but closer examination will show that 8...Bg4 loses Bishop as I think I will prove in the correction of note (f).

White's 8.e5 was an error – one that Sorenson made note of in his Nordisk Skaktidende article, giving "8.e5 Bg4 9.Qe1 Kf7!", showing that he was likely aware of this Hallock - Norton game.

The above-mentioned Jerome - Brownson, USA, 1875 game continued with 8.Qf3, better than Norton's 8.e5, but not as strong as 8.d3 (which would show up a couple of years later in Lowe - Parker, England, 1879 – one of the games recently supplied by Senior International Master of Correspondence Chess Tim Harding). Nonetheless, even after 8.d3 Black would retain the advantage.

Hallock's response, 8...Bg4, is a good move, as he maintains, with positional strengths; although Rybka sees 8...Ng4 as a bit less than 1/2 a pawn better.

We will tackle Jerome's argument that "8...Bg4 loses [the] Bishop" in tomorrow's post.

[to be continued] 

The Norton - Hallock Game (Part 2)

After the correspondence game Norton - Hallock – a Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) – appeared in the February issue of the American Chess Journal – see "The Norton - Hallock Game (Part 1)" – the Gambit's creator was quick to respond.

Jerome's letter to editor William Hallock, below, is from the February 1877 American Chess Journal.

The Jerome Gambit

A.W. Jerome Defends His Opening as tested in game 79.

Paxton, ILL March 7, 1877

Editor, American Chess Journal,

Your card received this morning, and I thank you for your kind offer of room in The Journal for an article on the "Jerome Double Opening," alias "Jerome's Absurdity."

I have neither the time nor the ability to prepare such an article, for it would require analyses without number almost, and I have satisfied myself that my head is not level enough for such work. Of this I need not be very much ashamed when even Mr. Carpenter oversights occasionally.

Besides I believe "the proof of the pudding" is in the eating therov and not in "chewing the string." Norton, Shinkman and Kinnier have beaten me in "eating the pudding" more in consequence of dexterity in handling the "chess sticks" than in any superiority of their pudding over mine. In most of their tests they have made dough of my pastry, by reason of the lack of one essential ingredient in my part, viz foresight.

But in game 7 with Norton, and in the variation of that game from 22nd move, I think my side has been played as well as it could be, and the outcome will probably justify your opinion expressed in the November Journal, that "against careful, steady play the opening cannot win." A master might make a draw from the present position in each game. I probably cannot do that against Norton.

To those who like a lively, exciting game, I would say, try an "absurdity." If the first player gets no fun out of it, the second will.

But all joking aside, I maintain that the loss of the King's and Kings' Bishop's pawns, and privilege of castling comes very close in value to the one piece which has been sacrificed, and the second player must be on the alert or he will be quickly defeated.

Your game with Mr. Norton would seem to show the reverse to be truth but Norton's first mistake was in playing 5.e5 instead of 5.Qf3 as in game 472, Dubuque Chess Journal where the defense was the same. That game was drawn, but should have been won. Note (a) to your game with Norton says 5...Kf8 "seems equally good with 5...Nxe5" which is a mistake in fact and theory. 5...Nxe5 if properly followed up wins White's KBP, wheras 5...Kf8 leaves White's pawns intact while Black has lost two strong pawns and doubled another. This defense was adopted by G.J. Dougherty of Mineola, NY, a strong amateur, against whom I first played the opening, and I think he will agree that 5...Kf8 is not a good defense. He generally played 6.bc and that was the play of Mr. J. C. Young of Danville, KY, who subsequently abandoned the game. Why, I do not know, as it was not necessarily lost to either of us. It is a question with which Pawn it is best to take.

The move suggested in note (b) 6.Qh5, is not my idea, but belongs to Mr. Norton himself, and I have to acknowledge that I thought it unsound when he suggested it to me, during the process of the game, because 6...Qf6 gets up a counter attack at once; but 7.Ng4 compels Black to "crawfish" and permits White to castle with a good game. However if Black play 7...Qe7 it makes White 's game uncomfortable. But White may play 7.Nxd7+ Bxd7 8.Qxc5+ with 3 Pawns for his Knight which the books hold to be an equivalent. And I would not hesitate to exchange Queens if offered. Norton thinks 6...Qe7 best; I think 6...Nxe5 best; if 7.Qxe5 Qe7

Ending notes (c) and (d) at the first glance, seems as safe as endorsing U.S. Treasury notes, but closer examination will show that 8...Bg4 loses Bishop as I think I will prove in the correction of note (f).Note (e) says "waste of time" not so; on the contrary is much better than 10.c3, for it 10...Re8 11.d4 Bxd4 12.cd Qxd4 and the KP is lost and Black has the best position. 10.Kh1 is good and safe. In note (f) there seems to me to be quite an oversight for if 13...Nxf2 14.Rxf2 and then if 14...Qf6 as suggested in the note, 15.d4 and it is Black's goose which is immediately done brown. Of course 13...Nxf2 is not best. Again I cannot see the easy win after 15...Rxe5 the attack is with White.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8 6.Nxc6 [6.Qh5 Qf6 (6...Nxe5 7.Qxe5 Qe7) 7.Ng4 (7.Nxd7+ Bxd7 8.Qxc5+) 7...Qe7] 6...dxc6 7.0-0 Nf6 8.e5 Bg4 9.Qe1 Kf7 10.h3 Re8 11.Kh2 Rxe5! 12.Qxe5 Bd6 13.f4 Bxe5 14.fxe5 Be2 15.Rf2 Qd4 16.Rxe2 Re8 17.d3 Rxe5 18.c3 Qd5 White resigned

Never fear, good readers: tomorrow's post will apply Hallock's and Jerome's comments to the Norton - Hallock game in a much more understandable fashion.

The Norton - Hallock Game (Part 1)

Responding to the Jerome - Norton games (see "The Jerome - Norton Games" Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4), the editor of the American Chess Journal, William Hallock, conducted a game in which he defended against the Gambit, allowing D.P. Norton the white pieces.

The game was discussed in consecutive issues of the American Chess Journal. Today's post will present what appeared in the February 1877 issue (with notes by Hallock), and tomorrow's post (with comments by Jerome) will cover what appeared in the March 1877 issue.

Third and fourth posts will be necessary to reconcile the two, as will be seen.

Norton,D.P. - Hallock,W.S.
correspondence, 1877

Having in a former number (see Journal for November) expressed a doubt as to the soundness of Jerome's Gambit, the following correspondence game was played "by special request" for the purpose of proving that there was more in the Jerome Gambit than we had been willing to admit.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8

The usual continuation is 5...Nxe5 but this seems equally good.

6.Nxc6

The continuation adopted by Jerome, 6.Qh5 looks promising.

6...dxc6 7.0-0 Nf6 8.e5 Bg4

An excellent move cramping White's game and enabling Black to optimally deploy his forces.

9.Qe1 Kf7

Very good again. Brings the KR into the field. Obviously the capture of the Knight would lose the Queen.

10.h3

A mere waste of time. Should have played Kh1 or c3

10...Re8

Sound and brilliant.

11.Kh2

If White answer 11.hxg4 Nxg4! 12.g3 (12.Qe4 Qh4! 13.Qf3+ Kg8 14.Qh3 Bxf2+ 15.Kh1 Rxe5 wins easily) 12...Rxe5 13.Qd1 Nxf2 etc If 14.Rxf2+ (if 14.c3 Qg5) 14...Qf6

11...Rxe5! 12.Qxe5 Bd6 13.f4 Bxe5 14.fxe5 Be2

15.Rf2 Qd4 16.Rxe2 Re8 17.d3 Rxe5 18.c3 Qd5 White resigns

The Jerome - Norton Games (Part 3)

The third Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) correspondence game between Alonzo Wheeler Jerome and D. P. Norton was published in the November 1876 issue of the American Chess Journal. Comments are by the ACJ editor, William Hallock.

Jerome,A - Norton,D.P.
1876

Unfinished game by correspondence between A.W. Jerome and D. P. Norton

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Bxd4 7.Qxd4 Qf6

8.Qd1 Ne7 9.0-0 Rf8 10.f4 N5c6 11.c3 Kg8 12.Be3 d6

13.Nd2 b6 14.f5 d5 15.Qc2 dxe4 16.Nxe4 Qf7 17.f6

and here the author of the Double Opening asks "Now what is Black's best move?" From a cursory glance at the situation it seems to us that Ba6 would be a satisfactory reply for Black.

We are not at all disposed to turn up the nose at Mr. Jerome's pet, as he seems to infer; on the contrary we regard it with favor, and therefore have frequently given games at this opening an airing in the Journal, thus introducing it to the chess public, and subjecting it to that criticism and analysis which will speedily determine its claim to a place in chess literature. 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. For this reason it will never find favor among match players or the professional representatives of the game. But among the lighter lances - those who cultivate chess an an amusement and not as a means of obtaining bread and butter - it will, no doubt, become quite popular, as it affords a sparkling variation to the tiresome Piano game.

It seems unfair to let William Hallock have the "last word", as his suggestion 17...Ba6 loses a piece and the exchange to 18.Ng5, for example: 18...Qg7 19.Qb3+ Kf8 20.fxe7 Nxe7 21.Nf7+ Rxf7 22.Rxf7.

On the other hand, Alonzo Jerome should not get off easily, either, as 17...Nf5 18.fxg7 Qxg7 would maintain Black's advantage after, say, 19.Bf4 Ba6.

The Jerome - Norton Games (Part 2)

A second Alonzo Wheeler Jerome - D.P. Norton correspondence game was published in the September 1876 issue of the American Chess Journal.

The ACJ editor, William Hallock, was at times skeptical of the value of the Jerome Gambit, and this led to exchanges with Jerome (see "A sparkling variation to the tiresome Piano game"), and to a game between Hallock and Norton.

The notes to the game below are from the American Chess Journal.

Jerome,A - Norton,D.P.
1876

One of a series of games now being contested by corresondence between A.W. Jerome of Paxton, Ill. and D. P. Norton of DesMoines, Iowa, for the purpose of testing the merits of the Double Opening invented by Mr. Jerome.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Nf3+

A new departure. 8...Qf6 is the usual play. The text move prevents White from castling.

9.Kf1

9.Kd1 seems better.; If 9.gxf3 Qh4+ 10.Kd1 Qf2 and Black has the better position.

9...c6

If 9...Ne7 10.e5+ Kc6 11.Qe4+ d5 etc

10.gxf3 Qe7

10...Bd4 is good; 11.c3 Nh6 12.e5+ Kc7 13.Qe4 Bc5

11.b4

A beautiful attacking move.

11...Bb6

Weak and inconsiderate, losing a Pawn and the exchange. If Black captures the pawn then 11...Bxb4 12.c3 Bc5 13.d4 Bxd4! 14.Ba3+ c5 15.cxd4 Kc7 16.dxc5 Qf6! and White has the better game. 11...Bd4 was better, followed by 12.c3 Nh6 etc.

12.Bb2 Kc7 13.Qe5+ Qxe5 14.Bxe5+ d6 15.Bxg7 Bh3+

16.Ke2 Bg2 17.Rd1 Ne7 18.Bxh8 Ng6

If 18...Rxh8 19.f5 and Black's game is seriously cramped while White's Pawns would be very strong and difficult to stop.

19.d4

Preferring to save his centre Pawns and [to play]

19...Rxh8 20.Kf2 Nxf4 21.c3 Rg8 22.Nd2 Kd7 23.Ke3 Rf8 24.Rg1 Bd8 25.Kf2 Rg8 26.Ke3 Nh3 27.f4 Nxg1

28.Rxg1 Rg4 29.Nf1 Bh3 30.Ng3 Rh4 31.Nf5 Bxf5 32.exf5 Bf6 33.Rg3 Rxh2 34.a4 Rh1 35.a5 Re1+ 36.Kf3 Re7 37.Rh3 c5! 38.bxc5 dxc5 39.Rh6 cxd4! 40.cxd4 Bxd4 41.f6 Rf7 42.Ke4 Bxf6 and wins

The Jerome Gambit Gemeinde (early)

Followers of Emil J. Diemer and the Blackmar Diemer Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6) composed a community they referred to as the Blackmar Diemer Gemeinde.

It only seems fitting to outline such a community for those associated with the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+).

Among the early members would of course be Alonzo Wheeler Jerome (1834-1902), credited with inventing the gambit, exploring it in over-the-board and correspondence play, and discussing it in the pages of the Dubuque Chess Journal and American Chess Journal.

Orestes A. Brownson, editor of the Dubuque Chess Journal, deserves membership in the Gemeinde, as he was enthusiastic about the Jerome Gambit, and from 1874 to 1876 published games played by Jerome and others.

William Hallock, editor of the American Chess Journal, was skeptical about the merits of the Jerome Gambit, referring to it at one point as "Jerome's Absurdity," but he carried on a discussion of the opening with Alonzo Jerome in the pages of the ACJ during the years 1876 and 1877. He can be considered part of the "loyal opposition" in the Jerome Gambit Gemeinde, (a role Gerhard Gunderam often took in the Blackmar Diemer Gemeinde).

Andres Clemente Vazquez, Mexican Chess Champion, played the Jerome Gambit three times in his 1876 match against William Carrington, scoring 3-0. The second (1885) and third (1889) editions of his Analisis del juego de ajedrez contain analysis of the gambit.

Henry Charlick, of Australia, who experimented with 1.d4 e5, played the Jerome Gambit in his 1881 match with J. Mann; and earlier experimented in his 1877 game against Holloway with what might be called the "Evans Jerome Gambit": 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Bc5 6.Bxf7 (1-0, 76).

Lt. S. A. Sorensen, whose "Skaktheori for Segyndere" ("Chess Theory for Beginners") in the May 1877 Nordisk Skaktidende analyzed the Jerome Gambit, saw his work translated and published all around the world. His 1888 game against an anonymous player (the first example of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.d4 Qh4 that I have found) shows that he played the Jerome as well.

S. A. Charles, a member of the Cincinnati (Ohio, USA) Chess Club, wrote opening analyses, first for the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, then later for the Pittsburgh Telegraph. It is in the latter paper that in 1881 he presented his examination of the Jerome Gambit. That year he also played an incomplete Jerome Gambit correspondence match with Alonzo Jerome.

J.W. Miller, also of the Cincinnati Chess Club, published in 1884 Cook's Synopsis of Chess Openings A Tabular Analysis by William Cook, With American Inventions in the Openings and Fresh Analysis since 1882. It included a reprint of Cook's Synopsis, 3rd edition (1882) which had been very popular and was already out of print. The Synopsis contained analysis of the Jerome Gambit which was based largely on Sorensen's article. The American supplement portion of the book contained Jerome Gambit analysis based largely on the work of S.A. Charles.

E. Freeborough and and C. E. Ranken included analysis of the Jerome Gambit in their Chess Openings Ancient and Modern (1st edition 1889, 2nd edition 1893, 3rd edition 1896, 4th edition 1910), a book that has been reprinted at least once in the modern era (Hippocrene Books, 1974) and which has been the introduction to the Jerome for a good number of players.

There are others who played or wrote about the Jerome Gambit in its early days, and I hope to welcome them into the Gemeinde in future posts.

Jerome Gambit Tournament: Chapter III

It wasn't long at all – the very next game of mine to finish, as it turned out – when I again had someone walk into my "preparations."

perrypawnpusher - Sir Osis of the Liver
JG3 thematic www.chessworld.net, 2008

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Nf3+

This follows the previously mentioned ("Jerome Gambit Tournament: Chapter II") correspondence game Jerome - D. P. Norton, 1876, although he did not immediately capture Black's Knight, replying 9.Kf1, and the game continued 10...c6 10.gxf3 Qe7 11.b4 Bb6 12.Bb2 Kc7 13.Qe5+ Qxe5 14.Bxe5+ d6 15.Bxg7 Bh3+ 16.Ke2 Bg2 17.Rd1 Ne7 18.Bxh8 Ng6 19.d4 Rxh8 20.Kf2 Nxf4 21.c3 Rg8 22.Nd2 Kd7 23.Ke3 Rf8 24.Rg1 Bd8 25.Kf2 Rg8 26.Ke3 Nh3 27.f4 Nxg1 28.Rxg1 Rg4 29.Nf1 Bh3 30.Ng3 Rh4 31.Nf5 Bxf5 32.exf5 Bf6 33.Rg3 Rxh2 34.a4 Rh1 35.a5 Re1+ 36.Kf3 Re7 37.Rh3 c5 38.bxc5 dxc5 39.Rh6 cxd4 40.cxd4 Bxd4 41.f6 Rf7 42.Ke4 Bxf6 and wins

9.gxf3 Qh4+ 10.Kd1 TN Qf2

The American Chess Journal editor William Hallock assessed Black as better after this move. Not so. Black probably has the edge, though, after 10...Ne7 11.Qe5+ Kc6 although 12.b4!? would keep things interesting.

11.Qe5+ Kc6 12.Qd5+ Kb6 13.Qb3+ Ka6 14.Qa4+ Kb6 15.Qb3+ Kc6 16.Qd5+ Kb5 17.Nc3+

White has a draw here, which I would have been happy with.

Black, however, believes in his extra piece and misplaces his King.

17...Ka6 18.Qc4+ Kb6 19.Qb5 mate

A much happier outcome – for me, any way.

'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!

"A sparkling variation to the tiresome Piano game"

From the September 1876 issue of the American Chess Journal:

A.W. Jerome of Paxton, Ills, and D.P. Norton, of Des Moines, Iowa, are contesting a series of games by correspondence for the purpose of testing the strength of the "Double Opening" invented by Mr. Jerome. One of the games is given in this number. So far the Des Moines player has proved too much for the "Double Opening."

Jerome - Norton, D. P.
correspondence, 1876
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Nf3+ 9.Kf1 c6 10.gxf3 Qe7 11.b4 Bb6 12.Bb2 Kc7 13.Qe5+ Qxe5 14.Bxe5+ d6 15.Bxg7 Bh3+ 16.Ke2 Bg2 17.Rd1 Ne7 18.Bxh8 Ng6 19.d4 Rxh8 20.Kf2 Nxf4 21.c3 Rg8 22.Nd2 Kd7 23.Ke3 Rf8 24.Rg1 Bd8 25.Kf2 Rg8 26.Ke3 Nh3 27.f4 Nxg1 28.Rxg1 Rg4 29.Nf1 Bh3 30.Ng3 Rh4 31.Nf5 Bxf5 32.exf5 Bf6 33.Rg3 Rxh2 34.a4 Rh1 35.a5 Re1+ 36.Kf3 Re7 37.Rh3 c5 38.bxc5 dxc5 39.Rh6 cxd4 40.cxd4 Bxd4 41.f6 Rf7 42.Ke4 Bxf6 0–1


From the November 1876 issue of the American Chess Journal:

Jerome's Double Opening

From Mr. A.W. Jerome of Paxton, Ills, inventor of "Jerome's Double Opening" we have received following studies in regard to a comment on a game which appeared in the September Journal and willingly publish them as throwing some light upon a line of attack but little known, and therefore of interest to those who admire variety and novelty in the Royal Game.

Paxton, Illinois
10/21/86

Dear American Chess Journal,
Dear Sir -

In your notes (September Journal) you say, referring to my games with Norton: "So far the Des Moines player has proven too much for the Double Opening." There is an inaccuracy of considerable magnitude in the above statement. It should read "too much for the Paxton player."

The man who beats Mr. Norton in any opening is a much stronger player than I.

To illustrate the strength of the Opening I enclosed a card, containing the score of an off-hand game over the board, played against a man who is at least as strong a player as I, and who used to pooh-pooh the opening. He has more respect for it now.

Jerome - Amateur offhand game, USA, 1876 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Qf6 9.fxe5+ Qxe5 10.Qf3 Nf6 11.d3 Ke7 12.Nc3 c6 13.Bf4 Qh5 14.e5 Ng4 15.0-0-0 g6 16.Ne4 Nf2 17.Bg5+ Ke6 18.Qf6+ Kd5 19.c4+ Kd4 20.e6 mate

I also gave the moves in a game I am now playing with Mr. Norton which I think, proves that the "Double Opening" has something in it. If you see any winning move for Black please point it out.

When he transmitted his 15th move, he wrote: "It seems to me your attack is about 'busted'."

Later with his 17th move he says "Your attack is strong as well as pretty."

And again: "The position is critical and very interesting the neatest I have seen for some time."

I think the position is the natural result of the "weak" Double Opening and not from weak play on Mr. Norton's part.

I may yet lose the game, but claim that the Opening has a "reasonable chance of winning," which is sufficient to constitute a "sound opening." It is not required that an Opening shall be sure to win. There is no such Opening contained in chess; at least none that I know of.

Mr. Norton would have played the Double Opening on Mr. H. Had he (H) given him the opportunity.

I think Norton is about half converted, notwithstanding he has won or drawn all the finished games.

Game 40 September Journal I ought to have won, or drawn at least, but he outplayed me.

Yours truly,
A. W. Jerome

Jerome - Norton, D. P. correspondence (unfinished), 1876 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Bxd4 7.Qxd4 Qf6 8.Qd1 Ne7 9.0-0 Rf8 10.f4 N5c6 11.c3 Kg8 12.Be3 d6 13.Nd2 b6 14.f5 d5 15.Qc2 dxe4 16.Nxe4 Qf7 17.f6

And here the author of the Double Opening asks "Now what is Black's best move?" From a cursory glance at the situation it seems to us that 17...Ba6 would be a satisfactory reply for Black.

We are not at all disposed to turn up the nose at Mr. Jerome's pet, as he seems to infer; on the contrary we regard it with favor, and therefore have frequently given games at this opening an airing in the Journal, thus introducing it to the chess public, and subjecting it to that criticism and analysis which will speedily determine its claim to a place in chess literature.

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.

For this reason it will never find favor among match players or the professional representatives of the game. But among the lighter lances - those who cultivate chess an an amusement and not as a means of obtaining bread and butter - it will, no doubt, become quite popular, as it affords a sparkling variation to the tiresome Piano game.