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]

Evans-ish Abrahams Jerome Gambit

In the previous post (see "Jerome Gambit: Move That Knight!") I shared a couple of outrageous ways (other than sacrificing it at e5) for White to move his King's Knight out of the way in the Jerome Gambit so that his Queen can enter the fray.

Of course, one "solution" is not to put the Knight there in the first place. Consider the Abrahams Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Bxf7+!?

I consulted The Database, and learned that it has one 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Bxf7+ game by Bill Wall - always a good openings experimenter to check out - played on the internet in 2001. (Even that far back, he played a couple of games with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+.)

It turns out that at the same time Bill was extending his experiments a bit, as the following game shows.

Wall, Bill - Quianna
Internet, 2001

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.b4

This move is at least as old as the MacDonnell - La Bourdonnais, London match,1834.

3...Bxb4 4.c3 Bc5 5.d4 exd4 6.Bxf7+

Here we have what might be called the "Evans-ish Abrahams Jerome Gambit", as it is not quite an Evans Gambit without Nf3/Nc6. The game follows MacDonnell - Boden, London, 1869, for 5 moves, but the first game example that I have of the move 6 Bishop sacrifice is from 2000. (Light analysis of the sacrifice is at least as old as Jaenisch's Analyse Nouvelle des ouvertures in the 1840s.)

6...Kxf7 7.Qh5+ g6 8.Qxc5

NM Eric Schiller, in notes to a game (Denker - Shayne, Rochester, New York, 1945) at Chessgames.com, said this position "looks very good for White". (It's probably about even - but for White to reach equality in 8 moves in any kind of Jerome Gambit has got to be very good, right?)

8...dxc3

The kind of pawn-grabbing that is usually punished.

Instead, Stockfish 9 suggests 8...Qe7 - as seen in Delanoy - Kamenecki, Cannes, France, 2000 (1-0, 38) - with an even game. However, Michael Goeller, a Bishop's Opening expert, gives that move a "?!" and prefers 8...Nf6 - no games in The Database - which he gives a "!", with an even game. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with 8...Nc6 or 8...d6, either.

9.Nxc3 d6 

10.Qd5+

Psychological warfare. Bill has used a similar Queen check in the Jerome Gambit proper to question Black: Do you want to play ...Be6 and give up the b-pawn? 

10...Kf8

Black replies Not quite, and keeps his King off of the a1-h8 diagonal, where one of his Rooks lives, and where White's remaining Bishop might take up residence. Yet, 10...Kg7 might have been a better move.

11.Nf3 c6

Kicking the Queen, instead of focusing on development.

White has ample compensation for his sacrificed pawn (development, Black's unsafe King), and his opponent's next move, a nervous oversight, ends the game.

12.Qd4 c5 13.Qxh8 Black resigned