Jerome Gambit: Return to the Literary Digest

In mid-1900, Alonzo Wheeler Jerome convinced the chess columnist for the Literary Digest to start a Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) consultation game involving the magazine's readers. The tale of this match was told on this blog in "A Jerome Discovery (Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5)".

I found myself returning to the last of Jerome's suggestions, which I had reported without comment.

The game had proceeded this far -

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5 Nxe5 6.d4 Qh4 7.0-0 Ng4 8.h3 Bd6 

This position was seen as far back as Sorensen - NN, Denmark, 1888 (1-0, 27).

9.f4 h5

At this point, the Literary Digest continued (descriptive notation changed to algebraic)

Mr. Jerome suggests White's 9th move instead of e5, and writes: "This looks like a sure move for White." Black has, in reply, two moves: ...Nh6, saving the piece, or ...h5. We prefer the latter, as it is evident that Black [sic: it should read White] can not play hxg4.

I have to admit that Jerome was not at his sharpest in "improving" upon Sorensen's play. (According to The Database, 9.f4 is a novelty.)

For starters, the chess columnist at the Literary Digest was correct, that 10.hxg4 was unplayable, as, after 10...hxg4, Black would be threatening 11...g3 with checkmating threats that would cost White his Queen, unless he played the best (but still inadequate) 11.Re1 - the immediate 11...g3 would be strong, while developing moves such as 11...Nf6 or 11...b6 (preparing ...Ba6, covering the escape square f1) would be even stronger.

White would have to answer 9...h5 with 10.Qd3 (keeping the enemy Queen out of g3) when some caution by Black, such as 10...Bf8 or 10...N4h6 should allow him to eventually take advantage of his two-pieces-for-two-pawns material imbalance.

Of course, Black's alternative line of play, 9...N4h6, also allows him to hang onto material, and as long as he avoids opening lines for White's Rook, his advantage should tell.

Kicking the enemy Bishop with 9.e5, as in the Sorensen game, seems best for White, although Black should retreat his Bishop with 9...Be7 (a novelty, according to The Database) - not return it for pawns, as Sorensen's opponent did, with 9...Bxe5. White can then grab the Knight with 10.hxg4, and side-step the thematic 10...h5 with 11.g5, but his game will still be worse after 11...Qg4 (not 11...Bxg5, because of 12.g3!?, which will cost Black the Bishop.

Jerome Gambit: History Reset

NN - Blackburne, London, 1884

The other day, I stumbled over a remark (from May 22, 2017) by zanzibar, at the Chessgames.com website. He was commenting on the (in)famous Jerome Gambit game,  NN - Blackburne, casual game, London, 1884, and noted

Fine uses a position from this game (p088, d135), after Black's 12th move, but omits the White queen on a8.

zanzibar was referring to Reuben Fine's The Middle Game in Chess (David McKay, 1952), the chapter on "The Mating Attack". After giving the diagram (see above), Fine wrote [descriptive notation changed to algebraic notation]

Blackburne also found the mate in diagram 135 during a blindfold seance. He played 1...Qxh3+!! 2.gxh3 Bxe4 mate

It is likely that, in his diagram, GM Fine left off White's Queen from a8, where it was placed in the game, for instructional purposes, as it arrived on that square after accepting Black's double Rook sacrifice, in the most scruffy of chess openings, where White had sacrificed two pieces - all too much distraction from the case at hand.

GM Fine's contention that the game was played blindfold also raises an eyebrow. The Illustrated London News' May 10,1884 account of the game makes no mention of Blackburne playing blindfold. Indeed, Mr Blackburne's Games at Chess (1899) places the game in the "Games Played Off-Hand, Simultaneously or at Odds" chapter, rather than the "Games Played Blindfold" chapter.

Interestingly, the Blackburne position in The Middle Game in Chess follows one given by Fine as

reached by Pillsbury in a blindfold exhibition 

What is a bit odd about this is that Pillsbury was, according to the diagram, playing the Black pieces - usually the blindfold player is given the White pieces. For example, Jaques N. Pope's Harry Nelson Pillsbury American Chess Champion (Pawn Island Press, 1996), contains almost 250 blindfold games, and Pillsbury has White in all but one of the games. While P.W. Sergeant and W.H. Watts, in their Pillsbury's Chess Career (American Chess Bulletin, 1922) suggest that "he must have played many thousands such games" - only one of their 44 blindfold games had Pillsbury with Black.

Fortunately, Pope comes to the rescue. On the first page of his "Other Games" chapter, he gives the following position, from which follows "a pretty combination he played as black in a knight odds game [emphasis mine] in 1899." Popes's reference is Vol. XIX, no. 22, November 25, 1899, the Literary Digest, which gives the piece placement in a "Pillsbury Brilliancy", describing it as coming from an

offhand game betwen Pillsbury and a strong amateur, the latter securing the odds of a Kt. 

Amateur - Pillsbury, 1899 (Kt odds)

 1...Qf7 2.Bxe4 Reaching the position that Fine started with in his diagram [descriptive notation changed to algebraic notation]. 2...Qf1+ 3.Bg1 Qf3+ 4.Bxf3 Bxf3 checkmate.

(I mean no offense to the memory GM Fine, whose chess set I would have been unworthy to carry. History needed a reset, and I've done it before.) 

The Jerome-Kennedy Gambits!?

Wow.

The other day I received an email from Yury V. Bukayev, in Russia, suggesting the description "Jerome-Kennedy Gambit in different opening systems."

It was similar to the encouragement that Bill Wall made a while back, that we begin to talk about the "Jerome-Kennedy Gambit"  when we look at 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+, in the manner of the "Smith-Morra Gambit".

Thanks, guys.

For now, I'd like to stick with using Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's name for the gambit, as I further research his efforts: the earliest being analysis published in the 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal, and the latest (that I have found) a correspondence game against readers in the Literary Digest in 1900.

As I noted in my afterward to the posts on the Literary Digest game [1, 2, 3, 4], Mr. Jerome has had a hard time holding on to "his" opening: sources such as Cook's Synopsis of the Chess Openings (1882), The American Supplement (1884), and Freeborough and Rankin's Chess Openings Ancient and Modern, (1889) were happy to keep the name "Jerome Gambit", but identified the chief analyst of the opening as "Mr. S. A. Charles of Cincinnati, Ohio." Sic transit gloria mundi.

Plus,

However...

If my Jerome Gambit article ever appears [insert laugh track] in Kaissiber, or if I do succeed in completing a book on the Jerome Gambit and it's relatives; then, I'd consider adding my name...

graphic by Geoff Chandler

Like a Needle in a Haystack (Part 3)

The March 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal contains a game between "Mr. S" (William A. Shinkman?) and Alonzo Wheeler Jerome – a King's Gambit won by Jerome. This was followed by further contributions by Jerome, in April and July of the same year; and in January, March, June, October and November of the following year.

Consistent with yesterday's post (see "Like a Needle in a Haystack Part 2"), after information from Jerome appeared in the March 1876 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal, new items began to appear in Hallock's American Chess Journal, in June, September, October, November and December of 1876. Alonzo Wheeler Jerome had begun corresponding with the "new" chess journal.

Jerome contributed to the February, March and April 1877 issues of the American Chess Journal, and then seems to have lost contact or interest. Hallock's ACJ ended publication December 1877.

Brownson's Chess Journal had one Jerome item that year, in March of 1877

For the Jerome Opening play a few games by correspondence with A. W. Jerome (the inventor), P.O. address, Paxton, Ford Co., Illinois, and try it over the board when the opportunity offers. It is brilliant.

(Ten years later, the May 1887 issue of Brownson's Chess Journal published an unusual Giuoco Piano with Jerome playing Black.)

What publication did A.W. Jerome correspond with after the American Chess Journal ? The trail grows cold...

Until Jerome appears, mostly in support of S.A. Charles, in the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette and Pittsburgh Telegraph of the early 1880s (a tale for another time); and then over 20 years later, in the pages of the 1900 Literary Digest, offering to play his Gambit against readers in consultation.

Yet, just the other day I was wandering through the Chess Archaeology site (http://www.chessarch.com/) and encountered the "Jack O'Keefe Project Index" which has viewable chess columns from 33 older periodicals. By chance I happened upon some "cuttings" there from "Mackenzie's Chess Chronicle" published in Turf, Field and Farm. The August 30, 1878 column has the following

We are indebted to Mr. A. W. Jerome for some correspondence games illustrative of the new Jerome Gambit, which shall receive early attention.

Aha! The game is afoot!

Sadly, the Chess Archaeology site's collection of "Mackenzie's Chess Chronicle" runs only to December 27, of 1878, and there is no further mention of the Jerome Gambit in that span... Although that last held issue provides some foreshadowing, announcing as it does

We welcome with pleasure a new chess column in the Cincinnati Commercial. It made its first appearance in the issue of Dec. 14, and is to appear every Saturday in the daily; the column is conducted by Mr. J. W. Miller, and, judging from the two specimens we have seen, it promises to be a valuable addition to the chess periodicals.

A Jerome Discovery (Afterword)

The chess columns from The Literary Digest (see Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5) are an exciting discovery for Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) fans on several counts.

First, it gives analysis of an important defense for Black that is not very well known, but is very effective. See "Jerome Gambit Tournament: Chapter X" for both its first appearance (Sorensen - X, Denmark, 1888) and my use of it in Sir Osis of the Liver - perrypawnpusher, chessworld.net, 2008.

It also is the first "live" account of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome that I have run across, since the 1884 mention of him by the chess columnist of the Pittsburgh Chronicle-Telegraph (see "100 Posts - What more to say?").

That year must have been a difficult one for A.W. Jerome, as 1884 saw the publication of Cook's Synopsis of Chess Openings A Tabular Analysis by William Cook, With American Inventions in the Openings and Fresh Analysis since 1882, by J. W. Miller.

Cook's Synopsis of Chess Openings, 3rd Edition, (surely the English language MCO/ECO of its time) had been published in 1882 and sold out quickly. The newer edition from Miller contained analysis of the Jerome Gambit in both Cook's reprinted work and in the American "supplement" – without mention of Jerome, the man, and including the notation

We give the fullest analysis of this American invention that has yet been in print. The author is Mr. S. A. Charles, Cincinnati, O.

S. A. Charles, a member of the Cincinnati Chess Club (as was J. W. Miller), had written a series of analytical articles years earlier for the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, Miller's newspaper, before going on to submit his work to the Pittsburgh Telegraph (later Chronicle-Telegraph).

In 1881, the Telegraph published Charles' "compilation" of what he could find of Jerome Gambit analysis, suplemented later by mostly incomplete correspondence games he had played with A. W. Jerome. This look at the Jerome Gambit was later that year picked up by Brentano's Chess Monthly, and the following year by Cook's Synopsis.

Although Charles mentioned Jerome when he wrote, by the time Cook got ahold of the analysis in 1882, Jerome's name, except for the Gambit's title, had been dropped. Then along came Miller in 1884, with the same "oversight".

This was all sealed with the 1889 publication of the first edition of Freeborough and Rankin's Chess Openings Ancient and Modern, which explained

Mr. S. A. Charles of Cincinnati, Ohio is named in the American Supplement as the chief analyst of this opening.

The Literary Digest's chess columns suggest that there might be other magazines out there with Jerome Gambit games and analysis by the gambit's inventor, from the mid-1880s to 1900.

A Jerome Discovery (Part 5)

It seems that after the following exchange, either the chess columnist for The Literary Digest or Alonzo Wheeler Jerome himself lost interest in further discussion of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) as no further mention of the Consultation Game appears in subsequent issues.

From the July 28, 1900 issue of The Literary Digest [descriptive notation changed to algebraic notation]

The Jerome Gambit

Consultation Game

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5 Nxe5 6.d4 Qh4 7.0-0 Ng4 8.h3 Bd6 9.f4 h5

Mr. Jerome suggests White's 9th move instead of e5, and writes: "This looks like a sure move for White." Black has, in reply, two moves: ...Nh6, saving the piece, or ...h5. We prefer the latter, as it is evident that Black [sic: it should read White] can not play hxg4.

A Jerome Discovery (Part 4)

Continuing the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) analysis from the pages of The Literary Digest from over a century ago...

Be sure to check out Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 as well.

From the July 14, 1900 issue of The Literary Digest [descriptive notation changed to algebraic notation]:

The Jerome Gambit

Consultation Game

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5 Nxe5 6.d4

Mr Jerome writes: "Your move (...Qh4) is undoubtedly the best, as it puts White on the defensive at once," and suggests as White's 7th 0-0.

F.H. Johnston believes that White's best (7th) is Nc3, "thus defending the e-pawn. It would not be sound to play 0-0 at this stage, neither would it do to play dxc5." Nc3 is dangerous on account of ...Ng4 forcing White to defend his f-pawn, and preventing him from castling.

The best continuation seems to be: 7.0-0, Ng4; 8.h3, Bd6 9.e5, etc.

A Jerome Discovery (Part 3)

This is a continuation of the series of articles on the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) from The Literary Digest of 1900 – see "A Jerome Discovery (Part 1)" and "A Jerome Discovery (Part 2)" for earlier information.

On June 30, 1900, The Literary Digest's chess column contained the following [notation changed from descriptive to algebraic]

The Jerome Gambit

Consultation Game

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4

A majority of those who sent Black's 6th move played 6...Bxd4. The reason given for this move is that as Black must lose a piece he had better get a P for it. This is not good reasoning, as White's continuation demonstrates: 6... Bxd4; 7.Qxd4 d6; 8.f4, and White still has the attack. If 8...Nc6; 9.Qd5+ Be6 10.Qh5+ g6 11.Qf3 Nd4 12.Qd3 Nc6 13.f5 and White has a good game.

Another move suggested was 6...Qf6. The object of this is (a) to prevent 7.dxe5; (b) to continue ...d6, ...Ng4, etc. The weakness of this is that it allows White to Castle. For instances: 6...Qf6 7.0-0 d6 8.dxe5 Qxe5 9.Nc3 Be6 10.Kh1 followed by 11.f4 giving White a strong attack.

We believe that Black's best (6) is ...Qh4. the superiority of this move is discoverable in several directions. White can't play 7.dxe5; if 7.dxc5 then ...Ng4, with a strong game. We hope that Mr. Jerome and others will suggest White's best move after Black's (6) Qh4.

A Jerome Discovery (Part 2)

As compared to its Composite Game, The Literary Digest's Consulation Game with its readers – see "A Jerome Discovery (Part 1)" – a test of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) got off to a slow start.

A couple weeks after its introduction, on June 23, 1900, the following notice appeared in the chess column.

The Consultation Game

We are sorry that so far only nine persons have shown an interest in this game, by sending Black's 7th move; and five of them, so it seems to us, did not make the best move for black. The strength or weakness of the Jerome Gambit depends on black's 7th move; but a weak move here does not prove anything. the benefit of a Consultation Game is the opportunity it gives for analysis of some opening, thus showing the best continuations. It is, in a certain sense, a problem for the time being. We shall give Black's 7th move in our next issue. We think it best not to give the move sent by the majority, but, after giving the several moves sent, select as the move the one which, in our opinion, is the best.

A Jerome Discovery (Part 1)

In early 1900, the chess columnist for the weekly magazine The Literary Digest received a suggestion to play a "composite game." The idea was "to have 30 or 40 players on a side; each player having a number, representing the number of the move he is to make."

"While" [the correspondent] says, "the game would not prove anything as to the merits of the respective sides, it would be a curiosity of Chess."

The suggestion was mentioned on March 10. A rallying cry was given two weeks later, as only 20 players had so far signed up.

By April 21, however, "about seventy" players, "from California to New York; from Louisiana to Vermont; from Texas to Wisconsin" had offered to take part.

On May 5 the teams were announced, and the following week the curious game began, a Ruy Lopez, Berlin variation.

This experiment may have inspired Alonzo Wheeler Jerome, as the June 9 issue of The Literary Digest contained the following [notation changed from descriptive to algebraic]

A Consultation Game

We begin a series of games to-day which ought to be interesting and instructive. The special features are these:

(1) The move to be made will be that of the majority; (2) Notes or comments by the players and others. As the first of these games we give the opening moves of the Jerome Gambit. The author of this Opening, Mr. A. W. Jerome, Springfield, Ill., writes that in offering this Opening he has an interested motive, i.e., to test the soundness of the Gambit, and to furnish a bushel, perhaps five pecks, of fun.

The Jerome Gambit

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4

As Mr. J. says, "Here is where the fun begins." We will give the first of the comments:

(a) This is a very risky opening and can not win against a player of equal strength. At the same time, Black must make the proper defense. In all games of this kind, White, in a sense, presupposes that black will make a false move.

Send Black's 6th move, with reasons for making it.