History Update

Earlier this year I posted a game - see "Jerome Gambit: Two English Amateurs" - from R.M. Baird's May 11, 1901 "OVER THE CHESSBOARD" column in The Evening Star.

It turns out that the game had appeared earlier, in the March 17, 1899 chess column (by Samuel Tinsley) in the Kentish Mercury.

It is also quite possible (see "Violet Apple The Life and Works of David Lindsay) that the player of the white pieces was David Lindsay, an early fantasy and science fiction writer (A Voyage to Arcturus [1920], The Haunted Woman [1922], Sphinx [1923], Adventures of Monsieur de Mailly [1926], Devil's Tor [1932]) who appears to have influenced C.S. Lewis and J.R. Tolkien.

There is something "right" about the Jerome Gambit being played by someone caught up in fiction and fantasy.

Proto-Jerome Gambits? (Part 4)

Of course, as Alonzo Wheeler Jerome was putting together his ideas on the Jerome Gambit, he might well have been influenced by the games of Joseph Henry Blackburne, whose aggression often showed up in sharp attacks like the one after 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ as we have seen before; or, a move later, here.

(A correspondence game played after Jerome passed on is still worth passing along again.)

Coming out of the move order that we have been looking at, 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.d4 exd4 the Lewis Gambit, reaches the same position after 4.Bxf7+, and, as the earliest example was Staunton - Cochrane, match, 1841, the line was likely available to Jerome as well. 

It is also available to Readers who would like to check out Secrets of Opening Surprises, Volume 10, edited by Jeroen Bosch, where the Lewis Gambit is examined. 

An Early Lewis Gambit

As a follow-up to yesterday's post on the Lewis Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.d4) (see "S.O.S.") I thought I'd pass along another early game, along with the same advice that I've given to those who defend against the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+): If someone offers you a Bishop, Take it!

De Con - Amateur
correspondence, 1913

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 4...Kf8


It's not clear what Black gains by declining. Perhaps he is just trying to be difficult.

5.Bb3 Nf6

Hebert - Dumesnil, Masters - Juniors, 1997 continued 5...Qe7 6.Ne2 Qxe4 7.0-0 Nc6 8.Nd2 Qg4 9.h3 Qh5 10.Nf3 Ne5 11.Nxe5 Qxe5 12.Bf4 Qf6 13.Bxc7 d6 14.c3 d3 15.Qxd3 Ne7 16.Rad1 Bf5 17.Qg3 Nc8 18.Bd5 a5 19.Bxb7 Ra7 20.Bxc8 Rxc7 21.Bxf5 Qxf5 22.Nd4 Qf6 23.Rfe1 Re7 24.Rxe7 Qxe7 25.Qf3+ Qf7 26.Qa8+ Qe8 27.Qxa5 g6 28.Qc7 Qe7 29.Qc8+ Kg7 30.Ne6+ Kf6 31.Qxh8+ Black resigned


6.e5 Qe7 7.Qe2 Ne8



8.Nf3 d6


The kind of error that a Jerome Gambit player can appreciate.


9.Bg5 Qd7 10.e6 Qc6 11.e7 checkmate


graphic by Jeff Bucchino, The Wizard of Draws

S.O.S.

It was fun to see that one of the articles in S.O.S. #10 – Secrets of Opening Surprises, Volume 10 – by Jeroen Bosch, was on the Lewis Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.d4. It is an old line (the earliest examples I have are from an 1841 Staunton - Cochrane match) and, of course, a piece of it is reminiscent of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+).

While the critical response for Black has to be 3...Bxd4 (Bosch recommends 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.0-0 with compensation) after 3...exd4, the recommendation – by the author (and Rybka 3, for that matter) is 4.Bxf7+.

We've seen this before, in the blindfold game Blackburne -Evelyn, London 1862 (1-0, 32), starting out 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Bc4 Bc5.

After 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.d4 exd4 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Qxc5 Nc6 Bosch sees

...an interesting position. The material is equal, White's queen has been developed rather early and black's king is not entirely safe. Play could continue 7.Nf3 (7.Ne2). Well, at least this is a fun position to play.

Bosch's ultimate assessment is

Black certainly has chances to equalize after 3..exd4, but there are more than enough practical chances for white, and this is clearly not the refuataion of 3.d4