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.) 

Jerome Gambit: Worse vs Best (Part 2)

While I tend to refer to 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ as the Jerome Gambit, the name has been attached to other move orders, especially in earlier years. The issue often comes down to which aspect of the opening, the Bishop sacrifice at f7, or the Queen advance to h5 (after 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+), the annotator is looking at.

For example, Joseph Henry Blackburne, in his Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess (1899) refers to the Jerome Gambit a "the Kentucky Opening". He was clearly focused on the Queen move, as my posts on "The Kentucky Opening" Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and "The Kentucky/Danvers Opening" [1.e4 e5 2.Qh5] argue.

On the other hand, some writer focus upon the Bishop sacrifice. Gerald Abrahams is, perhaps, the most extreme example, coming out of the Bishop's Opening rather than the Giuoco Piano, labeling 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Bxf7+ as The Jerome Gambit, despite no analysis or games by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome focusing on that line. See "The Abrahams Jerome Gambit" Part 1 & 2.

(For that matter, Alessandro Salvio wrote, in the early 1600s, about 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Qe2 Nc6/Nf6 4.Bxf7+, although White's Queen would subsequently go to c4, with check, instead of h5, to pick up the Bishop at c5.)

Similar is the Lewis Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.d4 exd4 4.Bxf7+, and the similar Von der Lasa Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4, 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+. Both, with their focus on the Bishop sacrifice, seem to have escaped the Jerome Gambit label, however, at least as I can tell.

Further extended are lines like 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4 exd4 5.Bxf7+, arising from either the Scotch Opening or the Giuoco Piano. The earliest game that I have with it is Wright - Hunn, Arkansas, US, 1874, which in the Dubuque Chess Journal of November, 1874, was referred to as "an unsound variation of Jerome's double opening." It has also been referred to, later on, as "the Macbeth Attack". (Of course, the first 4 moves have been recently covered in The Italian Gambit and A Guiding Repertoire For White - E4! by Acers and Laven.)

Finally, we come to 1.e4 e5. 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+, which has been referred to, variously, as the Noa Gambit, the Monck Gambit - and, more recently, as the Open Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit. A closer look will probably muddy thing further.

[to be continued]

History Clouded

In Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess (1899), the notorious Jerome Gambit game Amateur - Blackburne was given as "played at Simpson's Divan about 1880."

I have questioned the date that Blackburne gave - See "Flaws (Part I)" - as the August 15, 1885 issue of the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle (J.B. and E.M. Munoz, editors) presented the game as having been "played some months ago" which would suggest that it was played during 1885, but not likely in July or August of that year.

It now looks like I will have to back off from my correction, and add even more uncertainty to the date of the game.

Tim Harding's Joseph Henry Blackburne A Chess Biography (2015) - which, as I have noted, does not give Amateur - Blackburne - shows that the British master left for Australia in December 1884, and spent the first half of 1885 "Down Under". A return home was short-lived, as there was an important tournament to participate in

Blackburne and son apparently disembarked at Plymouth on 4 July. As the ship was only docked at Gravesend on the fifth, they must have come up to London by express train. Every day counted, the first round in Hamsburg being on 12 July. After less than a week in England, Blackburne was off on his travels again. 

The Hamburg tournament ended July 27, wherupon Blackburne went to Hereford for the Counties Chess Association Masters tournament, which started August 3.

The events of 1885, therefore, do not appear consistent with the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle admittedly casual dating.

It is possible to extend Munoz and Munoz's "some months" further back in time and look for Amateur - Blackburne in 1884, although there are difficulties in this, too. Harding notes

Blackburne's mid-career health breakdown began before Christmas 1883 when he was forced to cancel all his engagements.

In an age "long before antibiotics or even aspirin and other effective medicines", Blackburne was quite ill.

In late April or early May [1884] he resumed playing at the [Simpson's] Divan; some casual games are preserved from that period...

However, his participation in Simpson's handicap tournament in the spring was affected by his "unfortunate illness" and it is worth noting

[T]he Morning Post, 30 June 1884, said that Blackburne's illness had "left him in a weak state of health, and has prevented him for several months from pursuing his avocation."

Although he travelled to Glasgow the last week in July 1884, it does not appear that his full health returned before his trip to Australia.

Unless I guess "late April or early May" 1884 (above), then "about 1880" (from Blackburne's book) will be as "precise" as I will be able to date Amateur - Blackburne, until another chess column, magazine, or book reference surfaces; especially if we recall the uncertainties mentioned by Brazilian chess master Hindemburg Melão, Jr. in his article for the online chess site, SuperAjedrez,

...Some sources indicate year of the game as 1868, others indicate 1888, and others indicate 1880. Some sources affirm that it was played in Manchester, others in London. Normally the name of the adversary is not given, having only "NN" or "Amateur", but in at least one source "Millner" is indicated as the name. Also it is not known if it was an individual game or part of a simultaneous display... [T]he game deserves to be cited as one of most beautiful pearls of blindfold Chess...

The Best Jerome Gambit Game of the Year (Part 1)

Although the year is only about half-over, the following game has lept to the top of the heap for Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) games. It has history, analysis, tactics, strategy, surprises and come-backs - not bad, for a 10-minute game!

Readers are encouraged to dispute my assessment by sending in other great Jerome Gambit games, but at this point I can think of only one game (hint: see "The Jerome Gambit is Going to Drive Me..." Part 1 and Part 2) likely to challenge (and that was only mentioned, not played, in 2014).

Wall, Bill - Guest871838
PlayChess.com, 2014

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

The Jerome Gambit.

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 d6

This defense is attributed to Joseph Henry Blackburne, whose miniature game brought the Jerome Gambit to the attention of chess players all around the world.

That game appeared in the August 15, 1885 issue of the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle, which noted that it was "played some months ago in London between Mr. Blackburne and an Amateur." It is likely that the game appeared elsewhere, most likely in a British chess magazine or newspaper chess column, but to date I have not found such an appearance. (Any help, Readers?)

The game received greatest exposure when included in Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess (1899), although it was given there as played "at Simpson's Divan about 1880." Dr. Tim Harding, currently completing a biography of J.H. Blackburne, notes "It has been estimated that Blackburne may have played as many as 100,000 chess games"; so a small error in recall on behalf of the chess master is not unexpected. Six years ago on this blog, in "Flaws" Part I and Part II, I speculated about this possible "mis-remembering".

In my early years exploring the Jerome Gambit, I collected games from everywhere, including electronic game databases, some of which might best be referred to as "junk bases" because their inclusiveness (i.e. as many games as possible) often accentuated their inexclusiveness (i.e. including errors and bogus games). Two games complicate the story of Blackburne's Defense.

The first game is "Halpern, Jacob C. - Von Scheve, Theodor, England, 1880" which is given as having the exact same moves as Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1885. However, "Halpern - Von Scheve" has not shown up in any of the print resources (i.e. 19th and early 20th century newspaper chess columns, chess magazines, chess opening tomes) that I have encountered to date (over a decade of research) - and as such has to be considered spurious.

Equally curious is "Amateur - Neuman, Guestav, London, 1880" which follows the Blackburne game exactly, except that it substitutes 10.b3 for 10.c3, robbing the sacrificial ending of some of its logic (i.e. White's Queen can escape and defend). A note to myself from 10 years ago suggested, as well, "I have doubts about the reality of this game, based on a Google translation of a Wikipedia article from German (no English available) which suggests Neumann quit chess before 1880." Without further support from contemporary sources, the game must also be considered bogus.

Finally, it must be noted that it has occasionally been suggested that Blackburne's opponent in his fateful game was a player named "Millner" - although, again, my research has not confirmed this (or even identified the player). Occasionally the date of the game is given as other than 1885 or 1880, and the "amateur" involved has been mistakenly identified by one author as Alonzo Wheeler Jerome, himself. 

[to be continued]

Shillings: One Found, Two Lost (Part 1)

Sometime back I contacted Edward Winter, of "Chess Notes" and Chess History fame, with some questions about the origin and naming of the Blackburne Shilling Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4). He posted my query, and recently presented some relevant information. 

3786. Blackburne Shilling Gambit

From Rick Kennedy (Columbus, OH, USA):

‘The opening 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nd4 has been called the Blackburne Shilling Gambit, in recognition, apparently, of J.H. Blackburne’s use of it to win small stakes from players. However, I have yet to find a single game with it played by Blackburne. In fact, the earliest game uncovered was played in New Zealand in 1911. How did Blackburne’s name become attached to the variation? Indeed, when did it become attached?

Steinitz’s Modern Chess Instructor has a note on the line, but does not refer to Blackburne. Mr Blackburne’s Games at Chess makes no mention of it. Nor does Freeborough and Ranken’s Chess Openings Ancient and Modern attribute the line (given in a footnote) to anyone. E.E. Cunnington’s books (one on traps, one on openings for beginners), which were published in London shortly after the turn of the century, give the moves but do not name Blackburne.

One clue may be that the first edition of Hooper and Whyld’s Oxford Companion to Chess (1984) does not call the line by name, but the second edition (1992) calls it the Blackburne Shilling Gambit. Did the co-authors discover some historical information during that eight-year period?’

6470. Blackburne Shilling Gambit (C.N. 3786)

From page 429 of the December 1897 American Chess Magazine:

"All chess life seems to be with America," writes an esteemed and particularly well-posted English correspondent. "A great change has come over English chess. The 'old masters' are dying out. The new-born strength of amateurs has slaughtered them. They have no prestige. Names once of weight are now spoken of with contempt. No new professionals are coming in – no new Blackburnes or Birds. The 'nimble shilling,' for which the old professionals played at the Divan, is now too hardly earned. The country joskins know the openings and the principles, and instead of Bird's giving a Queen and winning twenty games in an hours, as I have seen ('hoc egomet oculis mei vidi'), he plays on even terms, and of five games wins only the odd one and a shilling. The ancient 'Shilling Gambit' is no longer a thing of dread. Young men from Birmingham walk into the Divan without awe and speak of giving odds. And the late H. Macaulay of this city (now Birmingham) actually conceded the Knight to a master who played and won a prize in the Manchester International, and Macaulay, giving the odds, won a majority of the games." - New Orleans Times-Democrat.

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

Jerome Gambit Blog: Tidying Up

Time to clean up a few things in this blog...

"In The Beginning..." refers to the first appearance in print of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) as being in the Dubuque Chess Journal, April 1874, Vol. VI, No. 50, p. 358-9.

This is a correction to the reference in the Oxford Companion to Chess, Whyld and Hooper, first (1984) and second editions (1992), noting "It appeared first in American Chess Journal, 1876." The authors are correct in that the June, September, November and December issues of the ACJ had Jerome Gambit content -- the Dubuque Chess Journal simply had prior coverage.
I have not been able to find an earlier reference than April 1874.

"To Infinity... And Beyond! (Part II)" and "Breaking News" indicated that at some time in the future Stefan Bücker's quarterly chess magazine, Kaissiber, would carry my article on the Jerome Gambit. Current speculation is there may be a short article in the October 2008 issue.

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.

"Is This Blog About YOU??" and "You, too, can add to Jerome Gambit theory" both have been well-answered by games from ongoing Jerome Gambit thematic tournaments, and the occasional Comment to this blog or email to its Editor (richardfkennedy@hotmail.com). Of course, fresh games and analysis are always appreciated.

In "The Man, The Myth, The Legend..." I mentioned placing a classified ad with the online Paxton, Illinois (home of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome) website, http://www.paxtonil.com/, seeking information about the originator of the Jerome Gambit. While I have received no reply, and the ad has expired (and no longer appears), I can report that if you have an unwanted Paxtonopoly game, please contact the PRIDE office at 379-3388 or email pride@paxtonil.com.
I am no further enlightened on the things that puzzled me in " 'Tis A Puzzlement..."

After some progress on learning about the Jerome Gambit game Harris,W.A. Sgt. - Quayle,Ernest H.Los Angeles, California, USA 1944, as given in "The Joy of Discovery" Parts I, II, and III, the trail has gone cold.

"We are not alone..." heralded HANGING PAWN:: Tip's Chess Blog's coverage of the Jerome Gambit, and the offer therein of not just the computer vs computer Jerome Gambit games where White won (via download), but all of the games (contact the blogmaster). To date I have not received the larger stash.

With Rail2Rail winning his Jerome Gambit thematic tournament at ChessWorld, (see "Rail2Rail by a length" and "Rail2Rail Nails It") I had hoped for an annotated game or two from the winner; but nothing, yet.

"My head is spinning" Truly. Rybka 3.0 – or, in my case, Deep Rybka 3.0 Aquarium – is the real deal. It has got to be the tool for the serious (and very serious) chess player. Like having a "Grandmaster In A Box". A rather intimidating Grandmaster, at times – but: Wow!

After "The Salvio Gambit??" and "The Salvio Gambit?? (More)" I have not heard back from my friends at Chess.com, so I will tentatively suggest that I got my analysis correct.

Having fun with "Jerome Gambit and Vlad Tepes..." and "Jerome Gambit, Vlad Tepes and... Garlic!" I've started a couple of games at GameKnot with he-of-the-garlic, mika76.

As always, I'm "Looking for a few Jerome Gambit games..."
"Hey Wiki, it's me, Ricky!" So far the link to this blog from the Wikipedia article on the Jerome Gambit has been intact - and people are following it. Gotta love that.















Clipart from Clipartheaven.com

Seeing clearly, regardless...

The game is not quite a Jerome Gambit
("'Tis A Puzzlement") but it does include a Bxf7+ sac followed by a marauding Queen and it shows "The Black Death" at his blindfold best - featuring a tactical shot followed by outplaying his opponent in the calm after the storm.

J.H. Blackburne - E.J. Evelyn
London, 1862

Blackburne playing without sight of the board
notes by Blackburne, Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess (1899)
(English descriptive notation changed to algebraic)

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Bc4 Bc5

Nc6 at this juncture allows Black to retain the Pawn.

4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Qd5+ Kg7 7.Qxc5





7...d5 8.Qxd4+ Nf6 9.Bg5 dxe4 10.Bxf6+ Qxf6 11.Qxf6+

Qxe4 would be disadvantageous, and only facilitate Black's development.

11...Kxf6 12.Nc3 Kf5

Black by any attempt to defend the e-Pawn with Bishop, would have subjected himself to the loss of the exchange at least by Nd5+.

13.Nge2 Be6 14.Ng3+ Kf4 15.Ngxe4




White's game is already so superior that winning requires only ordinary care.

15...Nc6 16.O-O Rad8 17.g3+ Kf5 18.f4 Nd4 19.Rf2 h5 20.h3 Bc4 21.Re1 Rhf8 22.Nd2 Be6 23.Re5+ Kf6 24.Nde4+ Kg7 25.Ng5 Bf7 26.Re7 Rc8 27.Rd7 c5 28.Nce4 Rcd8 29.Rxb7 Kg8 30.Nf6+ Kg7 31.Nd7

"The manoeuvring of the Knights is admirably planned, and in the peculiar circumstances is the more credible to White."-Lowenthal

31...Bd5 32.Nxf8

Because if ...Bxb7 White regains Rook by Ne6+, and if ...Kxf8 then Nh7+ followed by Nf6+, etc.

Black resigns

Flaws (Part I)

A more serious look at the Amateur - Blackburne game would reveal a few "flaws," to return to the master's comments on "brilliancy."

Amateur - Blackburne
London, 1885

Yes, 1885. The August 15, 1885 issue of the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle (J.B. and E.M. Munoz, editors) presented the game as having been "played some months ago."

J. H. Blackburne played tens of thousands of tournament, match and exhibition games. It is understandable that in recalling this one for Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess (1899), he believed that it had been played "at Simpson's Divan about 1880."

It is only speculation, but perhaps Blackburne conflated two memories, as on October 20, 1880, at Simpson's Divan, he sharply finished off a game against a "Mr. L.," having given the odds of two Knights


1…Be7 2 Bxe5+ Qxe5 3 Nxe5 Rxg2+ 4 Kxg2 Rg6+ 5 Kh3 Bg2 mate

This finish was given in the September 1882 issue of Chess Monthly, according to Edward Winter in his "Unsolved Chess Mysteries (26)".

Interestingly enough, Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess has a position similarly identified ("Played at Simpson's Chess Divan in 1880, White giving the odds of two Knights" vs "Mr. L") with colors reversed.

Blackburne, playing White, finishes off the game in the same manner.

1.Be2 Bxe4+ 2.Qxe4 Nxe4 3.Rxg7+ Kxg7 4.Rg3+ Kh6 5.Bg7 mate

At an age where I can smile knowingly at all of this "misremembering," it is also reassuring to recall the words of José Capablanca, from "How I Learned to Play Chess" in the October 1916 issue of Munsey’s Magazine.

It is not correct to assume, however, that my chess ability depends upon an overdeveloped memory. In chess, memory may be an aid, but it is not indispensable. At the present time my memory is far from what it was in my early youth, yet my play is undoubtedly much stronger than it was then. Mastery of chess and brilliance of play do not depend so much upon the memory as upon the peculiar functioning of the powers of the brain.

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...