Jerome Gambit: Down the Rabbit Hole, Again (Part 5)

[continued from the previous post]

Robey, James - Steinitz, William
London, 1865

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 

The Evans Gambit, again. This time, it is accepted.

4...Bxb4 5.c3 Bc5 6.O-O d6 7.d4 exd4 8.cxd4 Bb6

A position seen multiple times in the Labourdonnais - McDonnell match, as well as in the games of Andersson, Morphy, Staunton - and many others.

9.Nc3 Na5 10.e5 

This move may have been a novelty at the time, although not a strong one - 10.Bd3 was the usual response of the day. Robey seems to have been attracted by the idea of opening up the center while his opponent's King was still in place.

10...dxe5 

Careless. There was nothing wrong with 10...Nxc4 11.Qa4+ c6 12.Qxc4 d5 13.Qd3 Ne7, with a slight advantage for Black.

11.Bxf7+

This is going to hurt.

11...Kf8

Sad necessity. Capturing the Bishop allows 12.Nxe5+ and checkmate will follow.

12.Ba3+ Ne7 13.Nxe5 

13...Qxd4 14.Qh5 Qxc3 

Black grabs a piece and threatens another. He might as well - there is little else to do other than wait for checkmate.

15.Rad1 c5 16.Rd3 

White settles for winning Black's Queen. For now.

16...Qxd3 17.Nxd3 g6 18.Qf3 Kg7 

Diving into danger, but nothing was going to save his game.

19.Bb2+ Kh6 20.Qf6 Nf5 21.Bc1+ Ne3 22.Bxe3+ Kh5 23.Qg5 checkmate

Verdict: Although the game began as a clear Evans Gambit, it is quite possible that A. G. Johnson, in his Oregon Daily Journal claim, might have been so mesmerized by 11.Bxf7+ that he decided to refer to the game as a Jerome Gambit, anyhow.  Of course, describing Steinitz as being "in the zenith of his career as world's champion" would have been an error, as Steinitz had not yet ascended to the throne, by defeating Adolf Anderssen in match play.

Jerome Gambit: Down the Rabbit Hole, Again (Part 3)

[continued from the previous post]

Foolishly chasing A. G. Johnson's claim, in The Oregon Daily Journal, that Wilhelm Steinitz "in the zenith of his career as world's champion succumbed in his first attempt to defend the [Jerome] gambit", I searched through ChessBase's Big Database for any possibly relevant Steinitz game. I turned up a couple of games that appeared to be distant relations to the Jerome Gambit - and immediately tumbled upon a dissertation by Steinitz on one of his opponents, in, among others, Deacon - Steinitz, match game, London, 1863. Planning, also, to share the other discovery, Robey - Steinitz, London, 1865, I tripped over the following anecdote, concerning both Deacon and Robey, from George Alcock MacDonnell's The Knights and Kings of Chess (Horace Cox, 1894).

The following incident in his game with Mr. F. Deacon (at that time reputed to be one of the strongest players in England) is, I think, not unworthy of record. In the course of the fight, which took place at St. James's Hall, Mr. Deacon left the table, and sought out his friend, the late Mr. Staunton. Finding that gentleman surrounded by a host of admirers— myself included—he invited all of us to come and witness the grand finale with which he was going to crown his victory over James Roby. We at once accepted the invitation, and crowded round his board. "You see," said Deacon, in a whisper, to Staunton, "he must take the pawn or the bishop; if he takes the pawn I sacrifice the exchange and mate in four; and if he takes the bishop I sacrifice the queen, the queen, sir, and mate in seven." "Indeed," muttered the British autocrat. 

Scarce had this little scene been enacted when Roby looked up from the board, on which he had been gazing for a long time, and surveying the increased concourse of spectators, smilingly looked at Deacon, who was standing opposite to him, and exclaimed, "Won't you take your seat, Mr. Deacon?" The polite Deacon at once sat down. 

"It's mate in five," said Roby, still looking at his opponent. "No," replied Deacon; "if you make the best move I cannot mate you in less than seven."  

"It's mate in five," rejoined the hardhearted Roby. "It is I who give the mate, not you." Then followed rapidly a series of brilliant moves, and in two minutes Roby arose from the table triumphant, leaving his opponent to sit on there, utterly amazed and chapfallen.

Another fine chess story! Dr. Tim Harding, in his British Chess Literature to 1914: A Handbook for Historians (McFarland, 2018), dates its first appearance to MacDonnell's chess column in the February 20, 1866 issue of the Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News, and, in considering Deacon - Robey, B.C.A. Grand Tournament, London, 1862, suggested that "the facts somewhat spoil the story". Nonetheless...

Oh? The chess games? The not-quite Jerome Gambit games that A. G. Johnson was probably not referring to? That will have to wait until the next blog post...

[to be continued]

Jerome Gambit: Down the Rabbit Hole, Again (Part 1)

I admit that after assembling the latest blog post concerning some chess history (see "Jerome Gambit: History Reset") I tumbled down the rabbit hole, again, concerning A. G. Johnson's claim, in The Oregon Daily Journal of Portland, Oregon, for  October 25, 1914, that Wilhelm Steinitz, while world chess champion, had lost to the Jerome Gambit the first time he had faced it.

Such a claim is outrageous on its face - a master playing the Jerome Gambit successfully, or, even worse, an Amateur doing so against the great Steinitz - and it could hardly have been hidden from the chess world, nor would the victor of such a game have been able to keep from sharing it with every player he knew!

Contrast this, as one example, with the report on Emanuel Lasker's simultanous exhibition, as reported in the October 18, 1906 Pittsburgh Press, where he defeated E. H. Miller's Jerome Gambit. Apparently neither player was interested in sharing the game score; or, if either did, the chess columnist could not be bothered to publish it. Ho-hum...

Still, how hard could it be to do one more check?

I fired up my copy of ChessBase, peered into the Big Database, and Filtered Games, looking for "Steinitz" playing Black, an outcome of "1-0", ECO of C50, and a game Position featuring Black's King on e8 and White's Bishop on f7.

Nothing.

So, I removed the ECO requirement.

Four games appeared, two of which could immediately be discarded: Blackburne - Steinitz, match game, London, 1863, and Chigorin - Steinitz, World Championship match game, 1889  - known games, and, certainly, not Jerome Gambits (they were Evans Gambits). What remained was Deacon - Steinitz, match game, London, 1863, and Robey - Steinitz, London, 1865. 

This immediately provided me with another distraction.

Frederick Deacon is alleged to have published spurious game accounts of wins against Paul Morphy (who claimed never to have played him) and Steinitz. The 1863 Deacon - Steinitz match game from my database seems to be legitimate, and has certain "Jerome-like" qualities, so it might be worth a peek, with the caveat: we think of Jerome Gambits as primarily arising from the move order 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ and often continuing 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+; the Bishop sacrifice and the Queen excursion are markers, although sometimes the label of "Jerome Gambit" has been mis-applied.

First, though, let us have a look at the thoughts of Wilhelm Steinitz, as he considers Mr. Deacon.

[to be continued]

Jerome Gambit: Balderdash

Not everything that I have discovered in my recent forays into historical research has been of enduring value.

For example, the "CHESS" column ("Conducted by A. G. Johnson") of The Oregon Daily Journal  of Portland, Oregon, for  October 25, 1914 (page 29) has the following

Of the many chess openings in vogue, two are particularly interesting because they are of American origin. The "Jerome Gambit" was first developed in Cincinnati about 40 years ago. S. A. Charles of that city made a thorough analysis of the opening and met with great success in playing the "Jerome" against prominent players. Even Steinitz, then in the zenith of his career as world's champion succumbed in his first attempt to defend the gambit. Although the opening is theoretically unsound, and involves the sacrifice of two pieces for two pawns, the adversary's king is displaced and drawn into the center of the board where all kinds of complications may arise. The following variation of the Jerome, which is rather favorable to white, reveals some of the possibilties of the gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.d4 Bxd4 9.Na3 Ne7 10.Qh3 Qf8 11.Nb5+ Kc5 12.Nxd4 Kxd4 13.Qe3+ Kc4 14.a4 with slight advantage to white.

Where to begin??

Of course, the Jerome Gambit was "first developed" 40 years before the ODJ column was written, by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome of Paxton, Illinois, having published his first analysis of the "New Chess Opening" in the April 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal.

S. A. Charles, of the Cincinnati, Ohio, Chess Club, wrote opening analyses, first for the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, then later for the Pittsburgh Telegraph. It is in the latter newspaper that in 1881 he presented his examination of the Jerome Gambit, which later found itself in different chess magazines (e.g. the October 1881 issue of Brentano's Chess Monthly) and opening books (e.g. Cook's Synopsis of Chess Openings, 3rd edition, 1882).
In 16 years of researching and analyzing the gambit, I have not uncovered any game examples (or references) of Charles meeting "with great success" while playing the Jerome Gambit "against prominent players"- or any games of his with the gambit at all. I have found a half-dozen correspondence games where Charles defended against the Jerome Gambit - played by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome. Of course, it is possible that there is much more to be discovered, and I have missed it all, but, still...
By the way, it can be fairly said that Charles regularly acknowledged his games and exchanges of ideas with Jerome; it was only the passage of time that seems to have stripped the inventor's name from certain analyses of his invention.

I was absolutely gobsmacked by columnist conductor A. G. Johnson's contention that Steinitz, "in the zenith of his career as world's champion" actually "succumbed in his first attempt to defend the gambit." With all due respect to Blackburne, whose Queen sacrifice leading to checkmate is probably the best known repudiation of the Jerome Gambit, and to Emanuel Lasker, who - I recently discovered - summarily dispatched the Jerome Gambit in a simultaneous display, a loss by a reigning world champion (not to mention a defensive genius) to the Jerome would be one of the most amazing (and horrible) master games played to date. (There was a note in the Oregon Daily Journal that Johnson, after two years of work, was going to be stepping down after 100 columns, so there is always the possibility that his Steinitz story was a parting little joke; although it did not read that way.)

The analysis that Johnson presents in his column goes back to Freeborough and Ranken's Chess Openings, Ancient and Modern, 1st edition, (1889), although he is more likely to have had the 3rd edition (1903, reprinted 1905) lying around. The move 11.Nb5+ is an improvement over Jerome's 11.0-0 in his analysis in the January 1875 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal. The concluding evaluation, "slight advantage to white" is too modest - White has a forced checkmate in 6 moves. (It was Black's faulty 10th move that reversed his fortunes.)

MuddleGame Blues

More "muddlegame" blues: White has all the makings of an attack on the enemy King – well, almost all – but his efforts look like someone trying to put together a 1,000 piece puzzle when some of the parts are missing. After such a failure, to win the game based on what seems to be an optical illusion makes things even more bizarre.


perrypawnpusher - Fazmeister
blitz, FICS, 2011

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bc5

The Italian Four Knights Game.

5.Bxf7+

The Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.d4

7...Bxd4 8.Qxd4 Re8 9.0-0 d6

10.f4

A standard move in this kind of position, but probably 10.Bg5, as in Wall,B - Foman, Chess.com, 2010 (1-0, 22) was stronger.

10...Nc6 11.Qd3 Kg8 12.Bd2 Kh8

The King's cautious double-move eliminates the risk of a Queen-check-and-fork at c4, should Black move a piece to b4 to attack Her Majesty. Previously I had seen 12...a6 13.Rae1 Kh8 in perrypawnpusher - KaZC, blitz, FICS, 2010 (½-½, 61).

Actually, in my post on the KaZC game, I said I'd try 10.Bg5 "next time", but I forgot to...

13.Nd5

Another "standard move in this kind of position", but with Black's Rook at e8 this should simply lose the e-pawn.

13...Nxd5

A curious example of "playing the player" (or "playing the player's misconceptions") rather than "playing the board."  Folie a deux?

14.exd5 Nb4

I don't know what to say. Some people just want to attack my Queen. Now that there is no insidious check-fork (see my comment to Black's 12th move) my opponent goes ahead...

15.Bxb4 a5

White has regained his sacrificed piece and is even a pawn up.

One look at Black's undeveloped Queenside suggests that White should focus an attack on the enemy King, using the a1-h8 diagonal and possibly the g-file as well.

That much, I understood. But I could not put the attack together. 

16.Bc3 b6 17.Qd4

This move is adequate, but after the game Houdini suggested the cold-blooded 17.f5 Ba6 18.Qg3 Qd7 19.f6, since 19...Bxf1 is only a temporary material gain for Black, as he quickly has to return the exchange with 20.Rxf1 Re5. After 21.Bxe5 dxe5 22.Qxe5 Qf7  23.fxg7+ Qxg7 Black has turned back the attack, but he is two pawns down without any compensation at all.

The idea of an attack that does not necessarily end up with checkmate, but which is "expensive" for the opponent to defend against, is part of middlegame play (in my games, "muddlegame play") that I'm still trying to understand.

One of the "missing pieces" in my own construction of the attack was the move f4-f5.

17...Re7

Stronger was 17...Qf6, because the text move makes the Rook a target after f4-f5-f6; but I was oblivious to that.

18.Rae1

Solid, but take a look at 18.f5 Rf7 19.f6 Rxf6 20.Qxf6!? gxf6 21.Bxf6+ Qxf6 22.Rxf6 when White has the exchange and a pawn to comfort him for his "failed" attack on the King.

18...Rf7 19.Re3

Planning to transfer the Rook to the g-file, but without the "can opener" f4-f5 the attack will not be sufficient.

19...Bf5

20.Rg3

With the arrival of Black's Bishop, his Kingside is almost secure.

20...Qd7 21.Rff3 Bxc2 22.f5

The pawn finally takes a step, but it turns out now that the Rook sacrifice at g7, which I try a move later, is the key here: 22.Rxg7 Rxg7 23.Rg3 Bg6 24.f5 Re8 25.fxg6 Re5 26.Qd3 Qa4 27.Qf3 Qe8 28.gxh7 Kxh7 29.Rxg7+ Kxg7 30.Bxe5+ dxe5. White is up a pawn in a Queen + pawns endgame; and at our level of play, in blitz, that's probably what they call "3/4 of a point" (i.e. a draw, with a big sigh).

22...Raf8 23.Rxg7

I was thinking "something like this should work", which is a very bad substitute for analysis. I had also lost my patience, which is a very bad substitute for actually playing chess.

It was better to stay the course, as Houdini showed afterward: 23.Rg5 b5 24.Rfg3 Rg8 25.f6 g6 when White is better, but he will probably have to sacrifice the exchange to break through. The win is a long ways off.

23...Rxg7 24.Rg3

The sad fact is that Black has adequate defensive resources, and White will end up with a pawn for a piece.

24...Rff7 25.Rxg7 Rxg7 26.Qf2 Be4 27.Bxg7+ Qxg7 28.f6 Qf7 29.g4 Bxd5

It is hard to believe that this is the same game that I was playing 4 diagrams back. White is simply busted.

30.g5 Bxa2 31.h4 Bb1 32.h5 c5 33.Qf4 Ba2 34.Qxd6 Qxh5

I think the only explanation for this move is that my opponent has been looking at moves for his pieces along the light squares, while he has been assessing my Queen's movements along the dark squares. Kind of an optical illusion.

Well, that, and maybe a shortness of time on the clock.

35.Qf8+ Bg8

Of course.

36.Qg7 checkmate

Well, that was far better than I expected.

(It looks like I need a serious refresher course on attacking the King, starting with Joel Johnson's Formation Attacks.)