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 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.

100 Posts - What more to say?

Huddersfield College Magazine
July 1879

"Review of Mr. Gossip's Book" Theory of the Chess Openings
(1879)

...The Jerome Gambit

We do not well know why this opening (a branch of the "Giuoco") is styled a gambit, as it consists in White sacrificing a piece on the fourth move, and Staunton in his Handbook defines a gambit as a sacrifice of a Pawn.The Americans recognize the force of this by styling the opening "Jerome's double opening," although we don't quite see the meaning of this. How "double"? We think that the simple and natural definition of Jerome's Attack - as Cochrane's attack in the "Petroff" where a piece is also given up by White on his fourth move - would suffice.Like all presents of a piece early in the opening, the party so venturesome comes to early disaster. Mr. Gossip was right, therefore, in not devoting too much space to a debut which he could not establish as sound...

[Gossip replied next month, August 1879, but said nothing about the Jerome]


...............................

Cincinnatti Commercial Gazette
March 13, 1880

"Review 6th Edition German Handbook"

We are somewhat disappointed that the "Thorold Variation" of the "Allgaier Gambit" should be dismissed with only a casual note in the appendix, and that the "Jerome Gambit" should be utterly (even if deservedly) ignored.

...............................

Cincinnati Commercial Gazette

November 29, 1884

"Chess and Checkers"
"The Jerome Gambit"

Chess Editor Commercial Gazette
I notice in your chess column of to-day a review (copied from The New Orleans Times Democrat) of some analyses published in the American Supplement to Cook's Synopsis including my own analysis of the Jerome Gambit...The principal portion of the analysis is based on a number of correspondence games played between Mr. Jerome and myself, with some few compilations from other sources, including the above-mentioned. The result led me to regard the sacrifice of the Bishop as unsound, but that Black may easily err in his defense and lose...

Very respectfully,
S. A. Charles

...............................

American Supplement to the "Synopsis," containing American Inventions In the Chess Openings Together With Fresh Analysis in the Openings Since 1882; also a list of Chess Clubs in the United States and Canada

edited by J.W. Miller, Editorial Staff of the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette

The "Jerome Gambit," 4.BxPch, involves an unsound sacrifice; but it is not an attack to be trifled with. The defense requires study, and is somewhat difficult.

...............................

The Pittsburgh Chronicle-Telegraph

October 29, 1884

Our readers will perhaps remember that about two years ago we published an analysis of the Jerome Gambit which was furnished by its author. The following is from the New Orleans Times-Democrat, in an extended review of the American Edition of Cook's Synopsis. 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...

...............................

Pittsburgh Chronicle-Telegraph

February 27, 1884

In Cincinnati we met a number of players in the Mercantile Library, the chess room of which... We also had the pleasure of contesting several games with Mr. Jerome, of Paxton, Ill. He is well known as the author of the so-called Jerome Gambit, in which white sacrifices the Bishop by taking KBP on the fourth move of the Giuoco Piano game. Neither the gambit nor its author proved strong in the contest.