Fun With the Jerome Gambit

When recently discussing the "Macbeth Attack" I mentioned the early game Wright - Hunn, Arkansas, 1874, which appeared in the November issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal for that year. The game began 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4, garnering the comment  "Brilliant but not sound" from the editor. (I suspect Jude Acers and George Laven, authors of The Italian Gambit and A Guiding Repertoire for White might challenge that "not sound" assessment.)

After 4...exd4 ("The German Handbuch gives as best variation 4...Bxd4 5.c3 Bb6 6.Ng5 Nh6 7.Qh5 O-O 8.f4 exf4 9.Bxf4 d6 10.Rf1 Qe7 and Black should win."), 5.Bxf7+ the editor commented "An unsound variation of Jerome's double opening." Still, he was able to join in the fun. After 5...Kxf7 6.Ng5+ he suggested that Ne5 "a la Jerome" is better than Ng5. That may not be "objectively" true, but capturing the imaginary pawn on e5 certainly is in line with the outlandish play of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's creation.

I was surprised to find 40 games in The Database that, wittingly or unwittingly, followed the DCJ's suggestion. The following blitz game shows some of the fun behind the lighthearted suggestion.


SupremacyPawn - northug
blitz, FICS, 2014

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.d4 exd4 6.Ne5+ 

6...Nxe5 7.Qh5+ Ke6 8.f4 Nf6 

Black is having so much fun "punishing" White for his audacity of early Queen moves - well, you know how those things sometimes go...

9.Qxe5+ Kf7 10.Qxc5 

Black has quickly returned two pieces. He would do best to calm himself, rationally look at his new position, and plot a new strategy. Something like 10...d5 comes to mind, with either 11.Qxd4 Ne4 or 11.e5 Ne4 to follow, and despite his previous misfortunes, Black would not be worse.

Alas for the defender, he is sure that White has erred (a clear assessment that is out of date, however) and still can and should be punished for his transgressions.

10...Nxe4 11.Qd5+ Kg6 12.Qxe4+ Kf7 13.O-O 
Black resigned

Jerome Gambit: Early Opening Tomes (Part 1)

Recently, Dr. Tim Harding wrote in his "The Kibitzer" column at ChessCafe.com,

In the half century between 1862 and 1912, chess made huge advances in terms of the technical standard of play. The rise of professionalism and annual master tournaments and the growth of chess literature raised the bar in terms of opening knowledge, and positional ideas unknown to the experts of fifty years previously were available to a new generation of players through the example of Steinitz and Lasker and the teachings of Tarrasch.


The "growth of chess literature... in terms of opening knowledge" was apparent during the life of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome (1834 - 1904), and it is no surprise that it overlapped the development of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+).

[The following review is limited mostly to English-language opening books. - Rick] 

In 1874, the year that Jerome's analysis of his gambit was first published in the Dubuque Chess Journal, Synopsis of the Chess Openings by William Cook, Handbuch des Schachspiels (5th edition) by Von der Lasa, and Chess Openings (2nd edition) by Frederick William Longman, all appeared. None contained analysis of the Jerome Gambit.


In 1875, The Chess Openings, by Robert B. Wormald, was equally negligent, as was 1876's Synopsis of the Chess Openings (2nd edition).

Henry Bird's The Chess Openings Considered, Critically and Practically in 1878 also overlooked the American invention.

In 1879, the gambit started to get notice in books, as it was covered in Theory of the Chess Openings by George Hatfeild Dingley Gossip.

The third edition of Cook's Synopsis of the Chess Openings was published in 1882, and it contained analysis as well.

Curiously, at least for those with a modern sense of "intellectual property" and copyright law, in 1884 an American publisher, J.W. Miller, reprinted Cook's Synopsis (originally printed in London) and added an "American Supplement" to create Cook's Synopsis of Chess Openings A Tabular Analysis by William Cook, With American Inventions in the Openings and Fresh Analysis since 1882, by J. W. Miller. Both parts of the book contained Jerome Gambit analysis.

Quoted the New Orleans Times-Democrat in a review

...The "brilliant but unsound" (why, may we ask, is this antithesis so common that one would almost infer it to be necessary?) Jerome Gambit, invented by Mr. Jerome, of Paxton, Ill., about a decade ago, constitutes the next of the Americana, and concerning the analysis given by Mr. S. A. Charles we can only venture to say that it seems to combine much careful original work with variations compiled from such investigations as have been published upon this hazardous attack. The principal basis for most of these has been, we believe, Sorenson's article in the May, 1877, number of the Nordisk Skaktidende, and which as translated in Gossip's Theory, pp.37-39, furnishes the only two variations upon the opening given in the Synopsis proper (ccf. p.49, cols 11 and 12). We note, however, that Mr. Charles differs from this authority in some important particulars.

Miller was the publisher of the Cincinnati Journal Gazette, which had previously employed S.A. Charles to write their chess column, and who had been presenting opening analysis – something he continued to do for the Pittsburgh Telegraph, where his Jerome Gambit analysis appeared. (Skipping ahead, this explains Freeborough and Rankin's comment in their Chess Openings, Ancient and Modern, "Mr. S. A. Charles of Cincinnati, Ohio is named in the American Supplement as the chief analyst of this opening.") 


In 1888, the 4th edition of Cook's Synopsis of the Chess Openings contained Jerome Gambit analysis, with a note of 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"; so it is not surprising that Freeborough and Rankin's 1889 Chess Openings Ancient and Modern also covered the gambit.


Although the Jerome Gambit would appear in further editions of Chess Openings Ancient and Modern – 2nd, 1893; 3rd, 1896; 4th, 1910 – the closing of the 1880s seems to mark its high water mark in inclusion in general opening books.

Like a Needle in a Haystack (Part 1)

Researching the history of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) can be a bit like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Some resources are obvious places to look. Checking the past equivalents of today's Encyclopedia of Chess Opening and Modern Chess Openings is a good start (note: MCO, from its first edition in 1911, has not had coverage).

The Handbuch des Schachspiels, for example, has a Jerome Gambit game reference in its 8th edition (1916) but nothing in its 7th (1891) or 6th (1880) editions.

 Cook's Synopsis of the Chess Openings, 1st and 2nd editions (1874, 1876) have no coverage of the Jerome, while its 3rd edition (1882) does.

The first edition of Chess Openings Ancient and Modern (1889) has analysis. Steinitz' Modern Chess Instructor, Part II (1895), of course, has nothing.

There are many other 19th century chess books touching on the opening – and many, many more, not – and each must be checked for Jerome Gambit material.

Some past authors are apparently ambivalent about the line. G.H.D. Gossip's 1891 Theory of the Chess Openings has nothing on the Jerome Gambit, while his The Chess Player's Vade Mecum and Pocket Guide to the Openings, also published in 1891 does have analysis. Gossip out-does himself in his (with F.J. Lee) 1903 The Complete Chess Guide by writing one place that he has "eliminated obsolete openings" such as the Jerome Gambit, which he mentions by name, and then, later on in the book, he gives analysis of that same opening.

Firsts

An exchange of emails with Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member Pete Banks ("blackburne"):

Hi Rick,

Not sure if I mentioned this, but one of my Internet wins with the Jerome is in Gary Lane's book The Greatest Ever Chess Tricks and Traps .

I wonder if this is the first publication of a complete Jerome game in book form?

Pete

Hi Pete,

I've got dibs on the review copy of Gary's book when it shows up at Chessville, so I'll be able to see your game in print with my own eyes. Congratulations all over again!

As for the first publication of a complete Jerome Gambit game in book form, I think your game is a rare item, but not the first.

Andres Clemente Vazquez included three Jerome Gambits from his second match with William Carrington in his book Algunas Partidas de Ajedrez (1876); and he shared his game against L. Giraudy in the 2nd & 3rd editions of his Analisis del juego de ajedres: libro a propositio para que pueda aprender dicho juego, el que lo ignore del todo, in necesidad de maestro (1885, 1889). (Not in the 1st edition, mind you: it was published in 1874, the first year that the Jerome Gambit saw print.)

Of course, the infamous game Amateur - Blackburne, London 1885, appeared in Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess (1899), and thereafter in numerous books, including Handbuch des Schachspiels - 8th ed (1916); Du Mont's 200 Miniature Games of Chess (1942); Chernev and Harkness' An Invitation to Chess A Picture Guide to the Royal Game (1945); and Wenman's Master Chess Play (1951).

More recently, Eric Schiller has included Amateur -Blackburne in his Unorthodox Chess Openings (1998, 2002) and Gambit Chess Openings (2002); and, with John Watson, his Survive and Beat Annoying Chess Openings (2003).

Hope that isn't rain on your parade -- your game appears to be the first game from this century and the past one to appear in book form, as far as I know. Good enough?

Best wishes,

Rick

Short Controversy

I was looking through Eduard Gufeld and Nikolai Kalienchenko's Chess Strategy (Batsford, 2003) when I ran across an interesting section on "Gambit Systems and How to Evaluate Them."

Openings in which material is sacrificed for the sake of dominating the centre and mobilizing the pieces quickly are called gambit systems. The material sacrificed is usually one or two pawns, or a minor piece for one or two pawns. Sometimes a rook is given up for a knight or bishop; occasionally even a whole rook is sacrificed. How do we judge whether the positional gains compensate for the sacrificed material? Sometimes we can tell from our first glance at the position. But more often the latent possibilities come to light only as a result of lengthy analysis and accumulated practical experience.

If a large quantity of material is sacrificed (two pawns, a piece for a pawn, etc.), then once the gambit becomes generally known, several different authors will give analyses attempting to prove conclusively whether the attack can be repelled while the material is retained. Sometimes the controversy over the sacrifice will last for many years...

When it comes to the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) the "controversy" did not last very long.

The Jerome first appeared in print in the April 1874 edition of the Dubuque Chess Journal. This was likely too late for analysis of the gambit to be included in the 1st edition of Cook's Synopsis of the Chess Openings, Andres Clemente Vazquez's 1st edition of Analisis del juego de ajedrez, the 2nd edition of Longman's Chess Openings, or the 4th edition of Bilguer's Handbuch des Schachspiels -- all which came out the same year.

The following year, the 2nd edition of Wormald's Chess Openings also had nothing on the Jerome Gambit; and in 1876 the 2nd edition of Cook's Synopsis of the Chess Openings was equally neglectful.

However, 1877 saw the publication of a seminal article on the Jerome Gambit by Lieut. Sorensen in his "Chess for Beginners" column in the May issue of Nordisk Skaktidende (see "Bashi-Bazouk Attack") which was translated and reprinted around the world.

Sorensen's conclusion

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.