Jerome Gambit: Time Bomb (Part 1)

Some thoughts, previously posted

I have long subscribed to the "time bomb" notion in club chess: that players are apt to play reasonable chess until, suddenly, a cognitive "time bomb" goes off, and they make a blunder. The frequency of these "explosions"/blunders depends upon the level of skill of the player: strong players may slip only once a game (or even less often) while more "average" club players can have their "time bombs" go off much more often, even every other move.
The following game shows Black defending reasonably well (and White, solidly) until - Boom! The unbalanced and unbalancing Jerome Gambit is the kind of opening that increases the likelihood of such a slip. 

Recently, in the first round of the "Italian Game Battlegrounds" tournament at Chess.com, I tried my hand at playing the Noa Gambit, otherwise known as the Monck Gambit, otherwise known as the Open Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

I don't think that my play was anything special, but the historical sidelines are interesting.

Unfortunately, for my opponent, a few poorly-timed "time bomb" moves spoiled his game.

perrypawnpusher - RemoveKubab1
Italian Game Battlegrounds, Chess.com, 2019

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 

The Two Knights Defense.

4.Nc3

Hoping for 4...Bc5, when 5.Bxf7+ would be the Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

4...Nxe4 

The Database says that I have reached this position two times previously, each time responding, with 5.Nxe4 - perrypawnpusher - aborigen, blitz, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 20) and perrypawnpusher - aquitanus, blitz, FICS, 2016 (1-0, 42).

5.Bxf7+ 

It seemed like a good idea at the time.

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe4 d5 7.Ng3 

There is a lot of history in the alternative moves, as the following notes will show. I had originally intended to play 7.Neg5+, just because Bobby Fischer once played it. (When he was young.)

7.Neg5+ Kg8 8.d3 (8.d4 h6 9.Nh3 Bxh3 (9...Bg4 10.dxe5 Nxe5 11.Nf4 (11.Nhg1 Bc5 12.Bf4 Ng6 13.Bg3 Kh7 14.Qd3 Re8+ 15.Kf1 Re4 16.Re1 Qe7 17.Qxd5 Rxe1+ 18.Nxe1 Rd8 19.Qc4 Black mates in two moves, Blanchard - Pollock,W, Chicago, 1890) 11...c6 (11...Bxf3 12.gxf3 c6 13.Be3 Bd6 14.Rg1 Kh7 15.Rxg7+ Kxg7 16.Ne6+ Black resigned, Archer,R - Parkins,J, corr, 1908) 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 draw, Fischer,R - Ames,D, Lincoln ch-US jr, 1955) 10.gxh3 exd4 11.O-O Qf6 12.c3 Bc5 13.Qd3 Rd8 14.Re1 dxc3 15.bxc3 Kf7 16.Bb2 Qg6+ 17.Qxg6+ Kxg6 18.Rad1 Rhf8 19.Kg2 Rxf3 20.Kxf3 Rf8+ 21.Kg4 h5+ 22.Kg3 Bxf2+ 23.Kg2 Bxe1 24.Rxe1 Rf5 25.Bc1 Re5 26.Rg1 Rf5 27.Re1 Ne5 28.Be3 b6 29.Bd4 Kf7 30.h4 c5 31.Be3 Nf3 White resigned, Kelemen - Charousek,R, corr, 1893) 8...h6 9.Nh3 g5 (9...Bg4 10.c3 Qf6 (10...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 Bird,H - Mills, simul, British CC, London, 1886) 11.Nhg1 Re8 12.Qb3 e4 13.dxe4 Qf7 14.Be3 dxe4 15.Nd4 Ne5 16.Nge2 Nd3+ 17.Kd2 c5 18.Qxf7+ Kxf7 19.Nb3 Rd8 20.f3 Ne5+ 21.Ke1 exf3 22.gxf3 Bxf3 23.Rf1 Be7 24.Ng3 Kg6 25.Bf4 Nd3+ 26.Kd2 Nxf4+ 27.Ke3 Rd3+ 28.Kxf4 Bd6 checkmate, Neidich,G - Marshall,F, Atlantic City, 1920) 10.Nd2 Rh7 11.f3 Bxh3 12.gxh3 Rf7 13.Nb3 Qf6 14.Rf1 Re8 15.Qe2 Re6 16.Bd2 Nd4 17.Qd1 Nxf3+ White resigned, Lenzer -Lasker,E, 1913; and

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.Qh3 checkmate, Pollock,W - Amateur, Dublin, date unknown

7...e4 8.Ng1 g6 

Or 8...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, Noa,J -  Makovetz,G, Dresden, 1892; 

Or 8...Bc5 9.N1e2 Qf6 10.O-O h5 11.Nc3 h4 12.Nxd5 Qe5 13.Nxe4 Qxe4 14.Nxc7 Nd4 15.d3 Qc6 16.Be3 h3 17.f3 hxg2 18.Rf2 Qxc7 19.Rxg2 Nxc2 White resigned, NN-Lasker,E, London, 1900. 

If you are looking for a wild attacking position for White - it hasn't arrived, yet. Black's pawns own the center, and his one developed piece seems better placed than White's one developed piece.

As often happens in a Jerome Gambit, White has to rely on his comfort in unusual positions to make some headway.

[to be continued]

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]

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 2)

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ 

As we have seen in the previous post, here we have the "Open Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit", otherwise known as the "Noa Gambit", otherwise not known as the "Zoltowski Gambit", otherwise known as the "Monck Gambit".

So, who was Monck?

A quick trip to Dr. Tim Harding's website reveals that he has a page on William Henry Stanley Monck (1839 - 1915), an Irish amateur chess player. Monck wrote a chess and logic column in Our School Times (Derry), from 1878 to 1884.

There is also on the site a downloadable PGN file of Monck's games, although only one showcases "his" gambit.

Monck, WH Stanley (IRL) - Patterson, T (IRL)
FLS correspondence tourney division 8, 1905

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 6.Nxe4 h6 7.d4 d6

8.dxe5 Nxe5 9.Nxe5+ dxe5 10.Qxd8 Bb4+ 11.Qd2 Bxd2+ 12.Bxd2 Bf5

13.Ng3 g6 14.Nxf5 gxf5 15.Bc3 f4 16.O-O-O Black resigned

Since I introduced the Monck Gambit with a game by William Henry Krause Pollock, let me finish this post with another one, also from Pollock Memories - this time with WHKP defending. 

Blanchard - Pollock, WHK
Chicago, 1890
notes (converted from descriptive to algebraic notation) from Pollock Memories 

A bright little game played at Chicago.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+

These moves give Black a chance to free his game through a slight counter attack.

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe4 d5 7.Neg5+ Kg8 8.d4 h6 9.Nh3 Bg4 

9...Bxh3 10.gxh3 exd4 11.Nxd4 Qf6 is rather preferable.

10.dxe5 Nxe5 11.Nhg1

For here White can improve matters by 11.Nf4. 

11...Bc5 12.Bf4 Ng6 13.Bg3 Kh7 14.Qd3 Re8+ 15.Kf1 Re4

Insidious, as threatening ...Bf5 in some cases, and also preventing Ne5

16.Re1 Qe7 17.Qxd5

Black's coveted opportunity

17...Rxe1+ 18.Nxe1 Rd8 19.Qc4

Black mates in two moves.

We will finish up our look at William Henry Stanley Monck in the next post, which features a Jerome-ish Evans Gambit Declined.

[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]

Further Explorations (Part 6)

I have provided a link to an interesting Opening Report on the Noa Gambit, aka the "Open Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit", nka ("never known as") the Fischer Attack, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+, for interested readers. 



(Okay, I lied. One more graphic from the good people at the Cafe Press website.)

Further Explorations (Part 4)

One challenge to naming 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ the "Noa Gambit" as opposed to the "Open Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit" (see "Further Explorations" Part 1, 2, and 3) is the following, earlier, game.

Zoltowski,E - Zukertort,J 
Berlin, 1869


1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Bxf7+ 

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe4 Be7 7.Nfg5+ Bxg5 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxg5 d5 10.Qxd8 Rxd8 11.Ng5+ Kg7 

12.d3 Nd4 13.0-0 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 0-1

So, should the title of the line stay with the traditional, or follow the earlier game example, or be based on similarity in tactical themes?


Who was that future World Champion who played the line, anyhow?


(Still grabbing graphics from a the Cafe Press website. Check them out.)