Sunday Tournament Update

As the ChessWorld Jerome Gambit Thematic Tournament continues to wind down, with no further resolution of the top finishers (beyond AsceticKingK9 in first place, followed by mckenna215) since last report, I thought I'd flash back to the recent Chess.com  "Kentucky Opening" (also known as the Jerome Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) tournament and present the players, their scores, and their order of finish.

GazzaT (2468)          7-0-1
Topper76 (1474)       5-2-1
tapirus (2089)           3-3-2
Yigor (1665)             3-5-0
mrdenetop (1983)     0-8-0


graphic by Jeff Bucchino, The Wizard of Draws

The End

The following position is from the game tapirus - mrdenetop, from this year's online Kentucky Opening / Jerome Gambit thematic tournament at Chess.com.

The active pieces are on the Kingside, while the inactive pieces are on the Queenside, giving White the opportunity that he needed.

23...Kb6 24.Qd4+ Ka6 25.Qa4+ Kb6 26.Be3+ c5 27.Qb3+ Kc6 28.Qd5+ Kb5 29.Rxb7+ Black resigned

Black has had enough.

The finish is 29...Ka5 30.Qxd6 and Black is helpless to prevent White's Queen from capturing on c5, e.g. 30...Qe7 31.Rxe7 Bd7 32.Qxc5+ Bb5 33.a4 Kxa4 34.Qb4 checkmate, or 30...Bxb7 31.Qxc5+ Ka6 32.Qc4+ Ka5 33.Qb4+ Ka6 34.Qa4 checkmate

Patient Development

Here is an interesting game from the Chess.com "Kentucky Opening" (Jerome Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) tournament mentioned a couple of days ago. It shows that White's patient development, with a little bit of help from Black, can yield acceptable results.



 Topper76- mrdenetop
Chess.com, 2011

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

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 Qf6

One of many reasonable ways to meet the Jerome Gambit, based on the idea of returning one of the two sacrificed pieces.

8.Rf1 g6 9.Qh3+ Ke7 10.Nc3

Houdini sees as a bit better, still leading to an advantage for Black, a slightly different move order: 10.fxe5 Qxe5 11.Qf3 Nf6 12.Nc3 c6 13.Ne2 Rf8 14.d4 Bxd4 15.Bf4 Qxe4 16.Qxe4+ Nxe4 17.Nxd4 g5 18.Be3 Rxf1+ 19.Kxf1 d5

10...c6 11.fxe5 Qxe5 12.d3

A bit stronger, according to Houdini, was the interesting 12.d4, i.e. 12...Bxd4 13.Bf4 Qe6 14.Qf3 Bg7 15.0-0-0 Ke8 when Black is still for choice.

The basis of hope for White is clearly seen after the text, though, in Black's lagging development and centralized King.

12...d5 13.Qh4+ Ke8 14.Bf4 Qe6 15.0-0-0 d4 16.Qf2 b5 17.Kb1 Bb6

Small inexactitudes on Black's part have brought the game to about even. The second player must be careful, as he is still undeveloped and his King is still at risk. 

18.Ne2 c5

Houdini takes a long look at a way for Black to keep the game even: 18...Nf6 19.h3 Nd7 20.Nxd4 Qf7 21.e5 Qd5 22.Be3 Bxd4 23.Bxd4 Qe6 24.Be3 Bb7 25.Rde1 Rf8 26.Qh4 Rxf1 27.Rxf1 h5 28.g4 c5 29.gxh5 gxh5 30.Qxh5+ Kd8 31.Rf7 Bd5 32.Bg5+ Kc7 33.Re7 Bxa2+ 34.Kc1

19.Bg5 Ne7 20.Nf4 Qf7

Black's extra material does him no good, parked in the garage.

21.Qe2 Qg7 22.Nd5 Bd8

A final (un-developing) slip.

23.Nf6+ Black resigned

My Old Kentucky... Opening

Anyone familiar with the Kentucky Derby horse race has heard Stephen Foster's "My Old Kentucky Home", its official song.

Many chess players familiar with the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) know that it was referred to by Joseph Henry Blackburne as "The Kentucky Opening".

Blackburne's reference is a bit obscure, but less so since the advent of this blog: see "The Kentucky Opening" parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and "The Kentucky / Danvers Opening".

In any event, I recently stumbled upon a Kentucky Opening /Jerome Gambit tournament played at Chess.com. The tournament is interesting in a number of respects, not the least of which is the winner, GazzaT, was rated 2468.

So, in addition to monthly samplings from FICS, and the games from the ongoing ChessWorld Jerome Gambit Thematic Tournament, I now have Chess.com games to share with readers!

That is a lot to be thankful for.

Questions, We Have Questions.. And An Occasional Answer

Continuing a look "backward" (started yesterday in "Retro") I have to point out that occasional posts on this blog have listed Jerome Gambit questions or mysteries, some of which have been solved, and some of which continue to puzzle today.

The early series "Jerome Gambit Blog: Tidying Up", "Jerome Gambit Blog: More Tidying Up" and "Jerome Gambit Blog: Still More Tidying Up" are three such efforts in the first year of posts.

Sometimes things become rather clear, as in "The Kentucky Opening" parts 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Clarifying

While Bill Wall has done a good job of naming the different lines of play in the Jerome Gambit (see "Jerome Gambit Nomenclature"), I wanted to take a post to do the same for the various "Jerome Gambits".

At the center of it all is the Jerome Gambit itself, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+. As mentioned in a recent post, Alonzo Wheeler Jerome published analysis of the opening in the April 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal, played it over-the-board and in correspondence games for about 30 years, and was still defending it in 1900 (two years before his death) in the pages of the Literary Digest.

After 4...Kxf7 Jerome followed with 5.Nxe5+. I call this main line the "classical Jerome Gambit" to differentiate it from other 5th move choices for White (5.0-0, 5.Nc3, 5.c3, 5.d4, etc.) which are popular with modern (mostly internet) chess players. This class of "not-5.Nxe5+" lines are referred to as comprising the "modern Jerome Gambit".

I have not found any examples of A.W. Jerome analyzing or playing "modern" variations. The Dubuque Chess Journal, however, in its November 1874 issue, referred to 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4 exd4 5.Bxf7+ as "an unsound variation of Jerome's double opening", which anticipated the "modern" Jerome Gambit, by transposition.

After establishing the "modern" Jerome Gambit, is then easy to understand the Semi-Italian Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 4.0-0 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 to simply be a transposition into a "modern" line, i.e. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.0-0 h6.

Likewise, the Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7, and the Semi-Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 4.0-0 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bc5 6.Bxf7+ Kxf7, are transpositions to the "modern" as well, i.e. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nc3 Nf6 and 5.0-0 h6 6.Nf3 Nc6.

That leaves the Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Bxf7+ whose name is a double pleasantry. While the Shilling Gambit has been named after Blackburne, and the title seems to have stuck well, no game or analysis has (yet) been discovered to link the British master with the line. Likewise, Alonzo Wheeler Jerome (as far as I know) never met the Blackburne Shilling Gambit with 4.Bxf7+, either. I've attached the BSJG name because of its similarities to the Jerome Gambit.

In his The Chess Mind (1951) and again in The Pan Book of Chess (1965), Gerald Abrahams referred to the line 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Bxf7+ as the Jerome Gambit (see "Abrahams Jerome Gambit" Part I and Part II). I have not found any examples of Jerome analyzing or playing the Bxf7+ sacrifice out of the Bishop's Opening, as opposed to the Giuoco Piano. Abrahams could have been a better researcher than I am; or he could simply have been in error. A third possibility is that he focused his understanding of the Jerome Gambit on the Bishop-sacrifice-in-the-double-e-pawn-openings, to the neglect of the other supporting moves (i.e. Nf3 and Nc6).
This focus on Bxf7+ seems to have been the case when a reader at Chess.com explained that the Salvio Gambit was also known as the Jerome Gambit. I believe that he was in error, but the discussion is worth reviewing (see "Salvio Gambit??" and "Salvio Gambit?? [more]").

Too, there is the case of Joseph Henry Blackburne referring to the Jerome Gambit, in his Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess, as "the Kentucky Opening." I believe that I have solved this "mystery" – see "The Kentucky Opening" Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 and "The Kentucky / Danvers Opening" – in this case, Blackburne was focusing on the move Qh5 for White, which was used in both the Jerome Gambit and in 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5, which was known in the 1870s and 1880s as the Kentucky Opening.

The Kentucky / Danvers Opening

The story of "the Kentucky Opening" (see Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4), 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 – which Joseph Henry Blackburne, I believe, likened to the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) in his Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess (after 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+) – can stand one more chapter.

In a post about the opening, which he referred to as the Danvers Opening, Bill Wall (see "The Kentucky Opening (Part 3) ") wrote

It is mentioned in the American Chess Bulletin with that name in 1905

Indeed, it is:

American Chess Bulletin
June 1905

ALL BOSTON VERSUS NEW ENGLAND

One of the largest gatherings of chess players ever brought together in Boston witnessed the struggle for supremacy between teams representing Boston and vicinity and the rest of New England at the rooms of the Boston Chess Club, 241 Tremont Street, on May 30. Boston won by 29 games to 11, the winning team being headed by such well known players as John F. Barry, A.M. Sussmann and Dr. E. E. Southard...

A special prize was offered for the best game at the "Danvers Opening," viz., 1 P-K4, P-K4; 2 Q-R5, which will probably go to Dr. E. E. Southard, the noted ex-Harvard champion, who adopted it successfully against his opponent.

The following month, the American Chess Bulletin gave the score of the two "Danvers Opening" games from the Boston vs New England event, McClure, - Mathewson (1-0, 42) and Southard - Hill (1-0, 27), which were presented in "The Kentucky Opening (Part 4)".

The Kentucky Opening (Part 4)

Finishing up this episode of the Kentucky Opening (see Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3), the line 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5, which had analysis published in 1874 in the same Dubuque Chess Journal that at nearly the same time was publishing analysis on the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 Bxf7+), it is likely that Blackburne, in his Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess (1899), was relating the similarity of the two openings' White Queen sally to h5 when he applied the name of the former to a game with the latter "1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Note - I used to call this the Kentucky opening..."

Thirty years later the line from Danville, Kentucky, took on the name of a Danvers, Massachusetts hospital, out of acknowledgement of one of its top (at that time) players, Dr. E.E. Southard.

We finish with two Kentucky / Danvers Opening games from 1905. The first features a counter-gambit that numerous people since have claimed to have invented. The second is a win by the Good Doctor himself.

McClure,G - Mathewson,F

Boston, 1905

1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nf6 3.Qxe5+ Be7 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.Qf4 0-0 6.Be2 Bd6 7.Qe3 Re8 8.d3 Be5 9.Nf3 Bxc3+ 10.bxc3 d5 11.Nd2 d4 12.cxd4 Nxd4 13.Bd1 Be6 14.f3 Nc6 15.0-0 Qd7 16.Nb3 b6 17.Bb2 Qe7 18.Qg5 h6 19.Bxf6 Qxf6 20.Qxf6 gxf6 21.c3 Rad8 22.d4 Kh8 23.d5 Bxd5 24.exd5 Rxd5 25.Bc2 Rg8 26.Rfe1 Na5 27.Nxa5 Rd2 28.g3 Rxc2 29.Nc6 Rxc3 30.Nxa7 Rxf3 31.Re7 f5 32.Rxc7 f4 33.Rxf7 Ra3 34.Nb5 Ra5 35.Nd6 fxg3 36.h3 g2 37.Ne4 Rg6 38.Nf6 Rxf6 39.Rxf6 Rg5 40.Rf7 Kg8 41.Rc7 Rg3 42.Rd1 1-0

Southard,E - Hill,H

Boston, 1905

1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nc6 3.Bc4 Qf6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.Nf3 Nge7 6.d3 Qg6 7.Qxg6 Nxg6 8.h4 h5 9.Nd5 Bb6 10.Be3 Nge7 11.Bxb6 Nxd5 12.exd5 Nb4 13.Bxc7 Nxc2+ 14.Kd2 Nxa1 15.Bxe5 0-0 16.Rxa1 a6 17.Re1 b5 18.Bb3 Re8 19.d6 Bb7 20.Ng5 Rf8 21.Bd4 a5 22.Re7 a4 23.Bxf7+ Rxf7 24.Rxf7 Bd5 25.Rxg7+ Kf8 26.Nh7+ Ke8 27.Nf6+ 1-0

The Kentucky Opening (Part 3)

Readers who have been following the saga of the Kentucky Opening (see Part 1 and Part 2) may have already found themselves protesting: but I never knew that 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 was called the Kentucky Opening!

Likely they are more familiar with references like the one below, from Bill Wall, chess author and investigator of both games short and openings unusual (and, at least on one occasion, someone willing to play the Jerome Gambit!)

Danvers Opening - 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5
by Bill Wall

The opening 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 was probably first named in the early 20th century as Danvers Opening. It is mentioned in the American Chess Bulletin with that name in 1905. The Danvers opening was named after a hospital.

The opening also has names such as the Queen's Attack or Wayward Queen's Attack or Queen's Excursion or the Patzer Opening or the Terrorist Attack. In Indiana, it is Parham's Opening, named after former Indiana State Champion Bernard Parham, who plays 2.Qh5 on almost any Black reply. ECO name is C20.

The attack with the queen is tried mostly by beginners. It is really not very good to bring out the queen early, and many beginners do, hoping for an early mate.

The first game with this opening may be the following:

Adov - Borisov, St Petersburg 1889

1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nc6 3.Bc4 g6 4.Qf3 Nf6 5.Qb3 [5.Ne2] Nd4 6.Qc3 [6.Qd3] d5 7.Bxd5? [7.exd5] Nxd5 8.exd5 Bf5 9.d3 [9.Na3 Bxa3 10.bxa3 Qxd5] Bb4 0-1

Well, as we've already seen, there have been earlier, if not well-known, examples of the Kentucky / Danvers Opening.

What about Wall's reference to the opening being named after a hospital? The March 1920 issue of the American Chess Bulletin carried a remembrance of "The Late Dr. Elmer E. Southard" – "The famous Harvard varsity [chess] player, who was assistant professor of psychology at Harvard"

Dr. Southard attained distinction in his chosen profession, as a writer of books and assistant editor of the Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, and will be remembered as the most brilliant player who ever represented Harvard in the annual tournaments with Columbus, Yale and Princeton in New York and who, in the days of two-men teams, played for the Crimson in 1895, 1896, 1897 and 1898...

In due course of time Dr. Southard took his place in the front rank of Boston's chess experts, and more than once was nominated substitute on the American teams which played in the Anglo-American cable matches. The Danvers opening (1. P-K4, P-K4; 2.Q-R5, etc.) was originated by him during the period of 1906-9, when he was assistant physician and pathologist in the Danvers State Hospital for the Insane.

The Kentucky Opening (Part 2)

Further looking into Blackburne's quote – "1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Note - I used to call this the Kentucky opening..." – (see "The Kentucky Opening (Part 1)") I found another reference in the September 1875 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal.

GAME NO. 513 (Kentucky Opening.)

Contested lately in Danville, Kentucky.

Fields - J. K. Young

1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nf6

In case the adversary takes the pawn, thus left exposed, his defeat is both swift and sure; and if he refuses to take it, he loses a whole move, and transfers the attack to his opponent.

3.Qxe5+ Be7 4.Bc4 0-0 5.d3 Re8 6.Qg3 d5 7.Bh6 Nh5 8.Qf3 g6
The game was already won, and the move was made to tempt the adversary to capture the pawn, thereby permitting a very neat and pretty ending.

9.Bxd5 Qxd5 10.exd5 Bb4+ 11.K moves R mates

Later in the same issue of the Journal, was this news story:

...A lively Chess Column has also just been inaugurated in the Lebanon (Tenn.) Herald. As an exponent of Southern and South-Western Chess doings, its influence will be great. The Lebanon Chess Club is at present conducting several telegraphic games with Ohio, Tennessee and Mississippi Clubs, and will soon be heard from, having already won a fine "Kentucky Opening" from Nashville...

The Kentucky Opening (Part 1)

I was doing a little bit more "tidying up" (see "Jerome Gambit Blog: Tidying Up", "Jerome Gambit Blog: More Tidying Up" and "Jerome Gambit Blog: Still More Tidying Up" for earlier efforts) the other day, and I was able to come up with the answer to a question that has been challenging me since the first days of my involvement with the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+).

As I had written in "Jerome Gambit Blog: Tidying Up":

In "Nobody expects the Jerome Gambit!" I mentioned that Blackburne, in Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess (1899) referred to the Jerome Gambit as "the Kentucky Opening." I have yet to discover how it is that the British master came up with that name.

The full quote from Blackburne's book is:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Note - I used to call this the Kentucky opening. For a while after its introduction it was greatly favored by certain players, but they soon grew tired of it.

What I recently discovered, taking up the complete page 250 of the May 1875 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal, without introduction or explanation, analysis of what was titled "KENTUCKY OPENING". Reformatted and translated from descriptive notation to algebraic notation, and taken out of columnar form, it looked like this:

1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Qf6

2...Nc6 3.Bc4 g6 4.Qf3 Qf6 5.Qb3 Na5 6.Qc3 Nxc4 7.Qxc4 Ne7 8.Nc3 ( 8.Qxc7 Nc6 9.d4 Bd6 g.g.) 8...c6 9.Nf3 g.g. d6

3.Nc3

3.Nf3 d6 4.Bc4 Be6 and the second player has a good game. ( 4...g6 5.Qg5 Bh6 6.Qxf6 Nxf6 7.Nc3 Bg4 8.Be2 Nbd7 good game) ;

3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Nf3 d6 5.Nc3 c6 6.d3 g6 7.Qg5 h6 8.Qg3 Be6 good game

3...c6 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Nf3 d6 6.d3 g6 7.Qg5 h6 8.Qg3 Be6 9.Bxe6 Qxe6 g.g.

It is significant to note that the format and presentation of the Kentucky Opening analysis was very similar to that on page 38 of the January 1875 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal, where analysis of "Queen's Gambit in Jerome's Double Opening" had been given. (The latter was part three of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's introduction of his gambit, the first two having seen print in the April 1874 and July 1874 issues of the Journal.)

The reference to "Queen's Gambit" was odd, having nothing to do with 1.d4 d5 2.c4, or even the sacrifice of a Queen – it referred to the sally of the Queen at move 5 of the Jerome Gambit, i.e. 5.Qh5.

In fact, the Queen move in the Jerome Gambit, and the Queen move in the Kentucky Opening are an outstanding – but similar – feature in each opening, something which likely caught Blackburne's eye.

Nobody expects the Jerome Gambit!

Apparently Joseph Henry Blackburne (1841-1924) did.

According to Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess (1899) the British master demolished the Jerome Gambit (he referred to it as "the Kentucky opening") in this well-known miniature:

Amateur - Blackburne

London, "about 1880"

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.0-0 Nf6 10.c3 Ng4 11.h3 Bxf2+ 12.Kh1 Bf5 13.Qxa8 Qxh3+ 14.gxh3 Bxe4 mate

It is interesting to note that Blackburne, writing at another time on another topic, in The Strand Magazine in December 1906 ("The Best Games Ever Played at Chess"), argued

Brilliancy in chess is a rarity. It is like the sparkling of a multi-faceted diamond, which can illume darkness and shine best under provocation. Electricians would say it is the bright spark that signalizes the overcoming of resistance. It is not a very common or ordinary experience. It would cease to be a wonder if it were. It would fail to command the great admiration usually bestowed on things of rarity... Brilliancy in actual play very often prevails in spite of a flaw – the dazzling effect, as it were, rendering the flaw invisible...