Jerome Gambit: Chaos in a Two Knights (Part 1)

The May, 20, 1899 issue of The Daily Telegraph, of Sydney, New South Wales, carried what it called "A lively game from the recent tourney".

Presenting the contest gives me an opportunity to share some of the delights of doing Jerome Gambit research. It also gives Readers a number of opportunities to try their analytical skills - playing the Jerome, after all, is very much about taking advantage of opportunities as they arise.

(I have changed the newspaper's descriptive notation to algebraic.) 

Dr. Finlay - Elliott, H. E
Dungog, NSW, Australia, 1899

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 

If Dr. Finlay had been looking to play the Jerome Gambit, he got derailed (at least temporarily) by the Two Knights Defense.

This is enough of an issue that it has been discussed a number of times on this blog. For ideas, you could try "Jerome Gambit vs Two Knights Defense" Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4. Follow that up with "Further Explorations" (Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5).

4.Nc3

Opening books recommend against this move, as Black has a reasonable response in 4...Nxe4 (temporary piece sacrifice) 5.Nxe4 d5 (recovering the piece), what Hans Kmoch called the "fork trick" in his Pawn Power in Chess (1949). 

4...Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ 

This is may not have been what Black expected.

The Bishop sacrifice goes by different names.

It has been referred to as the Noa Gambit. Charles Thomsas Blanshard, in his Examples of Chess Master-Play (1894) said of 5.Bxf7+ "The text move, a hobby of Dr. Noa, develops Black's game." See Noa,J - Makovetz,G, DSB-07 Kongress, Dresden, 1892 (0-1, 27).

It has also been called the Monck Gambit. In Pollock Memories: A Collection of Chess Games, Problems, &c., &c., Including His Matches with Eugene Delmar, Jackson Showalter, and G.H.D. Gossip (1899), William Henry Krause Pollock gave a crushing 19-move miniature ending in checkmate as "[A] very fine example, known in Dublin years ago as the 'Monck Gambit' ." 

More recently, Rev. Tim Sawyer, of Blackmar Diemer Gambit fame, applied the very apt name "Open Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit".

It is worth mentioning some early games by players whose names have not been attached to the line -

Zoltowski, E. - Zukertort, Johannes, Berlin, 1869: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe4 Be7 7.Nfg5+ Bxg5 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxg5 d5 10.Qxd8 Rxd8 11.Ng5+ Kg7 12.d3 Nd4 13.O-O Nxc2 14.Rb1 Re8 15.b3 Bf5 16.Rd1 Nb4 17.Ba3 Nxd3 18.g4 Nxf2 19.Rxd5 Nxg4 20.Rbd1 Ne3 21.Rd7+ Bxd7 22.Rxd7+ Kh6 23.Nf7+ Kh5 24.Bc1 Nf5 25.Ng5 h6 26.Rh7 Rad8 White resigned;

Bird, H.E. - Mills, simultaneous exhibition, British Chess Club, London, 1887: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe4 d5 7.Neg5+ Kg8 8.d3 h6 9.Nh3 Bg4 10.c3 Bc5 11.Be3 d4 12.Bc1 Qd7 13.Nhg1 Kh7 14.h3 Be6 15.Ne2 Rhf8 16.b4 Bd6 17.b5 Ne7 18.c4 a6 19.bxa6 Rxa6 20.Ng3 Ng6 21.Ne4 Be7 22.h4 Bf5 23.h5 Bxe4 24.dxe4 Nf4 25.Nxe5 Bb4+ 26.Kf1 Qe8 27.Bxf4 Rxf4 28.Ng6 Rxe4 29.g3 Re1+ 30.Qxe1 Bxe1 31.Rxe1 Qc6 32.Rh4 Qxc4+ 33.Kg1 Qxa2 34.Re8 Rxg6 35.hxg6+ Kxg6 36.Rf4 c5 Black queened in a few moves and White resigned;

Marshall, Frank James - Pollock, simultaneous exhibition (22 boards) Montreal Chess Club, Montreal 1894: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe4 d5 7.Neg5+ Kg8 8.d3 h6 9.Nh3 Bxh3 10.gxh3 Qd7 11.Qe2 Qxh3 12.Bd2 Bd6 13.Rg1 Kh7 14.Rg3 Qf5 15.O-O-O Rhf8 16.Bxh6 gxh6 17.Ng5+ Kh8 18.Rdg1 e4 19.Qh5 Bxg3 20.Qxh6+ Kg8 21.Rxg3 Rf6 22.Nxe4+ Kf7 23.Rg7+ Ke6 24.Nxf6 Rh8 25.Nh7+ Ke5 26.Rg5 Nd4 27.Qf6+ Kf4 28.Qxd4+ Qe4 and White mates in two moves, Black resigned

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+

Wow.

"Making a sort of Jerome Gambit; interesting, but of course quite unsound" wrote the chess columnist of The Daily Telegraph, properly focused on the Knight capture/sacrifice as well as the subsequent Queen sally.

The Database has only 11 game examples of this move - usually played is 6.Nxe4 - with White scoring 28%. Don't let that discourage you - the current game quickly develops chaotic elements like the traditional Jerome Gambit.  

6...Nxe5 7.Qh5+ Ng6 8.Nxe4

White wants to get his Knight into play. Instead, 8.Qd5+ Ke8 9.Qxe4 might have been a bit stronger, but White might also have wanted to avoid the exchange of Queens that would have followed 9...Qe7. 

8...d6

The Daily Telegraph suggested that 8...Be7 followed by 9...d5 was preferrable, but Black could probably have played 8...d5 directly, or even on the next move.

9.O-O Be7 10.f4 Kf8 

Suddenly, the game is equal.

How can that be? The Jerome Gambit themes are strong: Black's King is on the same file as White's Rook, and the dangerous "Jerome pawn" at f4 is about to advance.

11.f5 Ne5 12.d4 

White could have played 12.f6!? directly, ultimately transposing to the line played.

12...Nd7 

Black has protected the f6 square (four times) from an advance of the White pawn - but it is not enough. He would have done best to retreat the Knight to the f-file, where it would provide some shelter from the enemy Rook: 12...Nf7 13.f6 Bxf6 14.Nxf6 gxf6 15.Bh6+ Nxh6 16.Qxh6+ Kf7 17.Rf3!? and the pressure will force Black to give back a piece, e.g. 17...Bg4 18.Rg3 Qg8 19.h3 Qg5 20.Qxg5 fxg5 21.hxg4 Rae8 with an even game.

[to be continued]

5% New (Part 1)

I am always looking for something new in the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ and friends) universe. Before I share any discoveries, though, I check to make sure that I haven't already passed the information along. With over 2,200 blog posts, I can't keep everything in my head. Here's a good example.

Let's start with a Jerome-ish line from the Two Knight's Defense (or the Italian Game, or the Four Knights Game):  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ . It, and similar positions, are discussed under the "fork trick" in Pawn Power in Chess, by Hans Kmoch (1949).

For a brief introduction as it relates to the Jerome, see the post "Jerome Gambit vs Two Knights Defense (Part 3)". Follow that up with "Further Explorations" (Parts 1, 2, 3,  4 & 5). 

A few years ago, Tim Sawyer, a Blackmar Diemer Gambit expert, on his blog, gave the line that we are looking at today the descriptive name the "Open Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit". He was influenced by a game where "jeromed" played the OIFKJG against him.

Tim mentioned that Bill Wall - no stranger to the Jerome Gambit - instead calls the line the "Noa Gambit".

I am guessing that Bill is referring to the following game (there are probably others) by the Hungarian Chess master:

Noa, Josef - Makovetz, Gyula
DSB-07.Kongress, Dresden, 1892
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe4 d5 7.Ng3 e4 8.Ng1 h5 9.d4 h4 10.Nf1 Qf6 11.c3 Ne7 12.Ne3 Kg8 13.Ne2 c6 14.h3 g5 15.Rf1 Bh6 16.f3 exf3 17.Rxf3 Qg6 18.b3 Rh7 19.Ba3 g4 20.hxg4 Bxg4 21.Nxg4 Qxg4 22.Ng3 Rf7 23.Bxe7 Rxe7+ 24.Ne2 Qxg2 25.Rf2 Qg1+ 26.Rf1 Qg3+ 27.Rf2 Rf8 White resigned

I am happy to now add that Examples of Chess Master-Play (1894), by Charles Thomas Blanshard, says of 5.Bxf7+ "The text move, a hobby of Dr. Noa, develops Black's game." (I have not turned up any more examples, however.)

It turned out, however, that I was able to identify a precursor to Noa's play:

Zoltowski, E - Zukertort, Johannes
Berlin, 1869
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe4 Be7 7.Nfg5+ Bxg5 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxg5 d5 10.Qxd8 Rxd8 11.Ng5+ Kg7 12.d3 Nd4 13.O-O Nxc2 14.Rb1 Re8 15.b3 Bf5 16.Rd1 Nb4 17.Ba3 Nxd3 18.g4 Nxf2 19.Rxd5 Nxg4 20.Rbd1 Ne3 21.Rd7+ Bxd7 22.Rxd7+ Kh6 23.Nf7+ Kh5 24.Bc1 Nf5 25.Ng5 h6 26.Rh7 Rad8 White resigned

To date, I have not found any references to the "Zoltowski Gambit".

I also shared a game which was about as close as any sort of Jerome Gambit was going to get to a World Champion:

Fischer, Robert James - Ames, D.
USA, 1955
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bc4 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe4 d5 7.Neg5+ Kg8 8.d4 h6 9.Nh3 Bg4 10.dxe5 Nxe5 11.Nf4 c6 12.h3 Nxf3+ 13.gxf3 Bf5 14.Be3 Bb4+ 15.c3 Ba5 16.Rg1 Qe8 17.Nxd5 Qf7 18.Nf4 Re8 19.Qb3 Bc7 20.Qxf7+ Kxf7 21.Nh5 g6 22.Ng3 Bxh3 23.O-O-O Rd8 24.Rxd8 Bxd8 25.Rh1 Bg2 26.Rxh6 Rxh6 27.Bxh6 Bxf3 28.Be3 drawn

Of course, Bobby wasn't even a teenager when he played that game.

So - what's new?

I recently discovered, in Pollock Memories: A Collection of Chess Games, Problems, &c., &c., Including His Matches with Eugene Delmar, Jackson Showalter, and G.H.D. Gossip (1899), by William Henry Krause Pollock, edited by F. F. Rowland, an undated/unplaced game between Pollock and an Amateur, with the introduction: "The following is a very fine example, known in Dublin years ago as the 'Monck Gambit' ." 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe4 d5 7.Nfg5+ Kg6 8.Qf3 dxe4 9.Qf7+ Kxg5

"White now mates in ten moves."

10.d4+ Kh4 11.h3 Bb4+ 12.Kf1 g6 13.g3+ Kh5 14.g4+ Kh4 15.Qb3 Bc3 16.Qxc3 e3 17.Qxe3 Bxg4 18.hxg4+ Kxg4 19.Qe4 checkmate

I will have more on the Monck Gambit next post. For now, it will suffice to recall Monck's comment about the Jerome Gambit from the Preston Guardian, April 26, 1882, concerning the game Lowe,E - Cudmore,D, correspondence, 1881

Every form of the Jerome Gambit is, I believe, unsound and this is no exception.

[to be continued]

Oh, well, sac anyway

As a contrast to yesterday's column full of Sturm und Drang, I thought I would share a recent game by Bill Wall. You can almost hear him humming a little tune as he plays his moves. You say that the Jerome Gambit goes well with a nice merlot?

Wall,B - Kamy
Chess.com, 2011

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6

The Semi-Italian Opening.

4.0-0 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.a4

Still waiting for ...Bc5, then Bxf7, writes Bill. 

6...Bd6

Oh, well, sac anyway.

7.Bxf7+ Kxf7

What does White have for his piece? Objectively, very little, just a collection of interesting possibilities: Black's unsafe King, the a2-g8 diagonal, the e8-h5 diagonal, a possible weakness at f6, the possibility of opening the f-file against Black's King... Nothing to get upset about.

8.Qe2 Re8  9.Qc4+ Kf8 10.Nh4

"Doctor" Wall diagnoses a certain leukopenia (weakness of the light squares, used by Hans Kmoch in his Pawn Power in Chess) in his opponent's position.

10...Ne7 11.d3

Black's move covers d5, f5 and g6, treating the leukopenia, but this in turn exacerbates possible problems along the f-file, including a potentially weak Knight on f6, which now lack's the Queen's support.

11...b6 12.f4 a5 13.fxe5 Bxe5

Voila! An open file targetting the Knight on f6.

Is Black still better? Feed the position to any computer and it will say "yes". Still, White continues to work on his attack-the-King ideas, because they just might turn into something useful...

14.d4 d5 15.exd5 Bd6 16.Bxh6

Grabbing a pawn.

Is Black still better? Feed the position to any computer and it will say "yes". Still, White continues to work on his attack-the-King ideas, because they just might turn into something useful...

[Oh, I guess I wrote that already.]

16...gxh6

Black still had the better choices of 16...Ba6 17.Nb5 Nexd5 18.Bg5 or 16...Kg8 17.Bg5 Ba6 18.Nb5 Nfxe5, in each case with a roughly even game.

17.Rxf6+ Kg7 18.Raf1 Ba6

This is the counterplay that Black has been counting on. It fails, which seems a bit unfair. How can Black be better for so long, and suddenly be worse?

The most straight-forward answer to that question is "the power of a bad move," but perhaps the following line would make defenders feel better: 18...Nf5 (giving back the piece) 19.Nxf5+ Bxf5 20.R6xf5 Qh4 (White's King has safety issues, too) 21.h3 Qg3 22.Qd3 Qh2+ (calling the tune for a few moves) 23.Kf2 Rf8 24.Ke1 Qxg2 25.Rxf8 Rxf8 26.Rxf8 Bxf8 (White could afford to give up a pawn to get the Rooks off of the board) 27.Qf5 Qg1+ 28.Ke2 Qxd4 29.Qg4+ Qxg4 30.hxg4 and Black is "only" down one pawn, with a Bishop vs White's Knight. However, he will still lose.

19.Nb5 Be5

This hastens the end, but Black's King was too unsafe to survive, in any event.

20.dxe5 Qxd5 21.Qg4+ Kh7 22.Rf7+ Kh8 23.Qg7 checkmate

Jerome Gambit vs Two Knights Defense (Part 3)

Another way for the Jerome Gambiteer to face the Two Knights Defense (see "Jerome Gambit vs Two Knights Defense Part 1" and "Part 2"), besides playing the main lines or opting for 4.Qe2 is to play for a transition to the Italian Four Knights Game, and, thus, the Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

So: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 (hoping for 4...Bc5).

The updated New Year's Database has over 900 games with this position, with White scoring 41%. (By contrast, the Database includes 21 of my games and 21 of Bill Wall's games. We each scored 90%. As they say: your mileage may vary.)

Of course, Black does not have to play 4...Bc5; in fact, the recommended move is 4...Nxe4, planning what Hans Kmoch called "the Fork Trick": 5.Nxe4 d5, winning back a piece.

By the way, after 4...Nxe4 White does not have to recapture immediately, but instead can try the Jerome-ish 4.Bxf7+, although after 5.Kxf7 Nxe4 6.d5 Neg5+ 7.Kg8 Black's King has found safety (and he has the intimidating pawns).

The problem for White here is not so much that his position is worse than in regular Jerome Gambit lines – objectively, it is far better – but that the Fork Trick is standard fare for players learning about openings, whereas the Jerome Gambit is far less known or understood. The chance of surprising Black is less. (Still, this line remains a "project" for further analysis.)

Recommended for White after 4...Nxe4 5.Nxe4 d5 is 6.Bd3 dxe4 7.Bxe4 Bd6.

It is worth examining Y. Bukayev's article on this line, as he sees White as standing slightly better after 8.Bxc6+.

None of this seems as much fun as the Jerome Gambit proper, though, does it?

Tomorrow's post takes a look at 4.0-0, and in the process shows one way to redeem 4.Nc3 as well.