Jerome Gambit: Eminently Unsound

Recently, a little bit of online research took me to the pages of The Daily Colonist, of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, and, in particular, the issue of  December 31, 1906 (page 19).

Chess Column 
To Correspondents: 
F. G. C. (Nanoose) ...We do not recognize the opening outlined by you, although a similar early sacrifice occurs in the Jerome Gambit, as follows: 1. P-K4 P-K4 2. Kt-KB Kt-QB3 3. B-B4 B-B4 4. BxP ch KxB 5.K[sic]xP ch Kt x Kt 6.Q-R5 ch, etc. It is of course eminently unsound, a criticism which we should also be inclined to address to your suggestion.

Of course, if you know anything at all about the Jerome Gambit, you probably have heard all sorts of comments and evaluations. Contrast Raymond Keene’s assessment in The Complete Book of Gambits (1992) -“This is totally unsound and should never be tried!” - with that of the creator of the opening, Alonzo Wheeler Jerome, who considered it

...only a pleasant variation of the Giuoco Piano, which may win or lose according to the skill of the players, but which is capable of affording many new positions and opportunities for heavy blows unexpectedly.

A few years later, Jerome was quoted in the Pittsburgh Telegraph, which noted

Mr. A. W. Jerome calls attention to the fact that he does not claim the Jerome Gambit to be analytically sound, but only that over the board it is sound enough to afford a vast amount of amusement. 

Still, the opinions started early, and flowed easily. William Hallock, of the American Chess Journal, in 1877, referred to “Jerome’s Absurdity” - but, later, he referenced the Gambit as "the daring and brilliant debut".

Lieutenant Soren Anton Sorensen, whose article in the May 1877 issue of the Danish chess magazine Nordisk Skaktidende was the first serious, in-depth look at the Jerome Gambit - one which was translated into several different languages and informed chess players around the world - was still light-hearted in his assessment

...with a Bashi-Bazouk attack, over which the learned Italians would have crossed themselves had they known it came under the idea of piano, but which is in reality of very recent date - 1874, and takes it origin from an American, A.W. Jerome. It consists in the sacrifice of a piece by 4.Bxf7+. Naturally we immediately remark that it is unsound, and that Black must obtain the advantage; but the attack is pretty sharp, and Black must take exact care, if he does not wish to go quickly to the dogs.

In 1879, the chess columnist for the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, in its chess column, struck the right tone in its review of G. H. D. Gossip’s Theory of the Chess Openings, noting gleefully

...the Jerome Gambit, which high-toned players sometimes affect to despise because it is radically unsound, finds a place, and to this it is certainly entitled. 

The February 2, 1881 Pittsburgh Telegraph column noted that the gambit

…although unsound, as shown by Mr. Charles' analysis in this column, yet [it] leads to some interesting and critical positions. 

Likewise the chess column  in the New Orleans Times-Democrat, for October 19, 1884, referred to the Jerome as "brilliant but unsound".

Skepticism rightly persisted. E. Freeborough and C. E. Rankin's Chess Openings Ancient and Modern (1889), proceeded

The Jerome Gambit is an American invention, and a very risky attack. It is described in the American Supplement to Cook's Synopsis as unsound but not to be trifled with. The first player sacrifices two pieces for two Pawns, and the chances arising from the adversary's King being displaced and drawn into the centre of the board. "The defense requires study, and is sometimes difficult." It may be added that it is equally difficult for the first player to maintain the attack. 

I could go on,  but I will leave the final word to a World Champion, who, in the March 1906 issue of  his Lasker’s Chess Magazine, responded to an inquiry

No; the Jerome gambit is not named after St. Jerome. His penances, if he did any, were in atonement of rather minor transgressions compared with the gambit.

The Jerome Gambit Article (Part 2)

From the previous post:

Ten years ago I wrote a substantial article on the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) and submitted it to the German language chess magazine, Kaissiber.  The editor, Stefan Buecker, was supportive, and tried, over the years, to somehow make the submission work. His was a serious and well-respected magazine, however, and even a well-written (and revised) piece on a highly suspect chess opening could not find a place in its pages.

My presentation of the article continues. 

This light-hearted approach found full form in the May 1877 issue of the Danish chess magazine Nordisk Skaktidende, where Lieutenant Soren Anton Sorensen, analyzed the Jerome Gambit in his “Chess Theory for Beginners” column:

With this answering move of the Bishop [1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6

3.Bc4 Bc5] we have the fundamental position for that good old game

which the Italians, hundreds of years ago, when they were masters of

the Chessboard, called "Giuoco Piano," even game, but the later age,

for generality of explanation, the "Italian game." On this basis the

usual continuation is 4.c3, whereby the QP at the next move threatens

to advance, and the White middle Pawns to occupy the centre. In the

next articles we will make mention of that regular fight for the

maintenance or destruction of the center, which is the essential point

of the Italian game; in this, on the contrary, we will occupy ourselves

with a Bashi-Bazouk attack, over which the learned Italians would

have crossed themselves had they known it came under the idea of

piano, but which is in reality of very recent date - 1874, and takes it

origin from an American, A.W. Jerome. It consists in the sacrifice of a

piece by 4.Bxf7+. Naturally we immediately remark that it is unsound,

and that Black must obtain the advantage; but the attack is pretty sharp,

and Black must take exact care, if he does not wish to go quickly to the

dogs. A little analysis of it will, therefore, be highly instructive, not to

say necessary, for less practiced players, and will be in its right place

in our Theory, especially since it is not found in any handbook. The

Americans call the game "Jerome's double opening," an allusion,

probably, to the fresh sacrifice of a piece which follows at the next

move, but we shall prefer to use the short and sufficiently clear

designation, Jerome Gambit.

This nomenclature was examined earnestly in the Huddersfield College Magazine of July 1879

            We do not well know why this opening, (a branch of the

“Giuoco”) is styled a gambit, as it consists in White sacrificing a

piece on the fourth move, and Staunton in his Handbook defines a

gambit as a sacrifice of a Pawn.

            The Americans recognize the force of this by styling the

Opening “Jerome’s double opening,” although we don’t quite see

the meaning of this. How “double”? We think that the simple and

natural definition of Jerome’s Attack – as Cochrane’s Attack in

the “Petroff” where a piece is also given up by White on his fourth

move – would suffice)

           

The August 1877 issue of the British Chess Player’s Chronicle and the December 1877 issue of the Italian Nuova Rivista Degli Scacchi, reprinted Sorensen’s article (in English and Italian, respectively), introducing the Jerome Gambit to an even wider audience. Almost every Jerome Gambit analyst since has leaned heavily on Sorensen.

Hallock reconciled with Jerome in the September & October 1877 issue of the American Chess Journal

            We are pleased to note that the daring and brilliant debut

invented by our friend Jerome, of Paxton, Ill, is receiving

recognition abroad, both among players and analysts. Sr. Vazquez,

the Mexican Champion, plays it with fine success when yielding

the odds of a Knight, while Mr. Charlick, a strong Australian

player, has been giving us some fine specimens of his chess skill in

the new opening; some time since the Italian Chess Magazine published

a game at this opening with favorable comments on the “new departure,”

and in the May number of the Nordisk Skaktidende, S. A. Sorensen

gives us a sparkling analysis of the “Americanism,” a translation of

which we herewith present. The MSS was submitted to Mr. Jerome,

who expresses himself highly pleased with the thoroughness and ability

with which our Danish contemporary has presented the subject…

            Now that chess players abroad are investigating the merits of

the Jerome we would suggest that our magnates at home give it some

attention…

               Interest in the Jerome Gambit did not remain just among beginning chess players. 

A couple of years later, Andres Clemente Vazquez included three wins with the Gambit, from 

his 1876 match against carrington, in his Algunas Partidas de Ajedrez Jugadas in Mexico por 

Andres Clemente Vazquez.

G. H. D. Gossip’s 1879 book, Theory of the Chess Openings, included an analysis of the Jerome Gambit,
“substantially the same” as that which appeared in the Chess Player’s Chronicle, as the latter noted in a review of the work. At about the same
time, the American daily newspaper, the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, in its chess column, struck the right tone in its review of Theory,
noting gleefully

...the Jerome Gambit, which high-toned players sometimes affect 

to despise because it is radically unsound, finds a place, and to this it is certainly entitled.”

The next year, in 1880, when the 6th edition of the illustrious Handbuch des Schachspiels was published, the Commercial
Gazette’s chess columnist was again ready to “complain” about the state of affairs 

…that the"Jerome Gambit" should be utterly (even if deservedly) ignored.



 [to be continued]

Jerome Gambit: Playing Over Games

Often the best way to learn an opening is to play over the games of an experienced practitioner - that is what this blog is all about - and pay attention to what is going on - especially when play varies from past experience and analysis.

The following Jerome Gambit game is a good example of what to look at.

Wall, Bill - Guest129367
PlayChess.com, 2017

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8

Checking Bill's Jerome Gambit nomenclature, I am reminded that this is the Sorensen Variation, where Black declines the second sacrifice and moves his King closer to safety.

Lieutenant S. A. Sorensen wrote an early analysis of the Jerome Gambit in his "Chess for Beginners" column in the May 1877 issue of Nordisk Skaktidende. It was widely translated and republished.

He was anticipated in his discussion by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome, who first looked at the line in 1874. The earliest game example that I have in The Database is Jerome - Brownson, Iowa, USA, 1875 (1/2-1/2, 29). For history of the line, see "Critical Line: 5...Kf8 (1, 2 and 3)".

6.Nc3

I was a bit surprised to find that, according to The Database, this move is a novelty, although the game will transpose to an earlier Bill Wall game in a few moves.

White simply develops a piece, and waits to see what Black can make of the position. Similar would be 6.0-0, which Bill is 7-0 with. He also suggests 6.d4!?, which brought him a win the one time he tried it.

Seen more often, and recommended by both Jerome and Sorensen, is 6.Nxc6.

6...Qf6

The Black Queen sometimes goes to f6 to help defend; here it is also attacking.

Of course Black had the option of capturing the Knight with 6...Nxe5, and after 7.d4 Bxd4 8.Qxd4 d6 the game would have transposed into more mainstream play. There is a practical argument for 6...Nxe5 as well: Bill is "only" 8-2 against it. 

Stockfish 8 (30 ply) shows a tiny preference for 6...Nxe5, but also suggests the wild 6...Qg5!?, which it recommends that White meet with 7.Qf3+, looking to exchange Queens. Not surprisingly, The Database has no examples of 6...Qg5.

7.Nd3

White can no longer exchange off his Knight because of 7.Nxc6?? Qxf2 checkmate.

7...Bb6 8.O-O d6 

The game has transposed to Wall, Bill - Tim93612, Chess.com, 2010 (1-0, ), which began 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8 6.Nd3 Bb6 7.0-0 Qf6 8.Nc3, but then continued with 8...Nge7 (1-0, 36).

With a piece for two pawns, Black can be said to have a small advantage, especially in light of White's blocked development. Black has to be aware, however, that his King and Queen are on the same file, which could prove risky if White can exchange off pawns to expose his Rook at f1.

9.Kh1

White wastes no time unpinning his f-pawn, so he can advance it.

9...Ne5

Black would love to exchange Knights at d3 and bury White's Bishop. Bill recommends, instead, 9...Qf7. 

10.Nd5 

The attack on Black's Queen gives White time to exchange off Black's troublesome Bishop and double a couple of pawns - if nothing better comes up.

Why didn't White play the Knight jump the previous move, instead of "wasting time" with 9.Kh1 ? Probably because Black could have answered the move with 9...Qd4, and the Queen would have recaptured, keeping his pawns intact.

10...Qf7 

Bill suggests, instead, 10...Qe6 11.N3f4 Qf7. Why is this different from moving the Queen to f7 immediately?

11.Nxe5 dxe5 12.f4 

Suddenly the "Jerome pawns" take on a menacing potential.

Stockfish 8 suggests that Black continue with reasonable defense, 12...Ke8 13.fxe5 Qg6 14.d4 Ne7 15.Nxe7 Kxe7 16.Qd3 and with 3 pawns for the piece - despite facing the two Bishops - White appears to have somewhat better chances.

12...Nf6 

Black's first real slip. Development is good, and shielding the Queen and King is noble - but the enemy Rook on the f-file is still a danger.

13.fxe5 c6 14.exf6 g6 15.Ne7 

Not only is White up 3 pawns, his advanced Knight and pawn are full of trouble - especially with Black's pawn on g6. (Perhaps Black's Queen should have gone there, instead, with 14...Qg6, but after 15.Nxb6 axb6 White could have continued with 16.b3, intending 17.Bb2 with further pressure on Black's kingside.)

15...Be6 16.d4 Rd8 

Overlooking White's main threat, which could have been met with 16...h5. At that point White would not have an immediate shot, but could continue to build his attack with 17.b3 and 18.Ba3, or work for a breakthrough with 17.d5.

17.Bh6+ Ke8 

Now there is already the win of the exchange after 18.Bg7, but White wants to go after the enemy King.

18.d5 cxd5 

It is difficult to find a safe retreat for Black's light squared Bishop, so Black decides to return it for a couple of pawns. This leaves him down a Rook (and a couple of pawns)

19.exd5 Bxd5 20.Nxd5 Rxd5 

21.Re1+ 

Please excuse Bill for overlooking the checkmate in 20 moves that starts with 21.Qg4 (silly computer) - the text is strong enough (and would checkmate almost as fast, if Black didn't resign sooner).

21...Kd7 22.Qg4+ Kc7 23.Re7+ Black resigned

Jerome Gambit: Merely Commentators, or Players?

One of the reasons I started a discussion at the English Chess Forum searching out early English game examples of the Jerome Gambit was because of the quote by Joseph Henry Blackburne in Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess (1899)

I used to call this the Kentucky Opening. For a while after its introduction it was greatly favored by certain players, but they soon grew tired of it.

The issue of the "Kentucky Opening" has been dealt with previously on this blog - see "The Kentucky Opening" parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and "The Kentucky / Danvers Opening".

That the Jerome Gambit had been "greatly favored by certain players" seems to suggest that games should be available - but none new to me have surfaced so far.

Blackburne may have been referring to coverage of the Jerome Gambit in some print sources.

For example, The Chess Player's Chronicle, August 1, 1877, translated and reprinted the early and in depth article on the Jerome Gambit, from "Chess Theory for Beginners" by Lieut. Sorensen, from the May 1877 issue of Nordisk Skaktidende. I believe that the translation was by Rev. C.E. Ranken.

Later, the third edition of Cook's Synopsis of Chess Openings A Tabuled Analysis by William Cook (1882) had Jerome Gambit analysis, including thanks to

Mr. Freeborough of Hull, and Rev. C.E. Ranken, of Malven, for material assistance in the compilation of the tables, original variations in the openings, and help in the examination of proof.

Versions of Chess Openings Ancient and Modern, starting with the first edition in 1889, include Jerome Gambit analysis and suggested moves by Freeborough and Rankin.

It should be noted, too, that George Hatfield Dingley Gossip covered the Jerome Gambit in his Theory of the Chess Openings (1879) and The Chess Player's Vade Mecum (1891). James Mortimer also had Jerome Gambit analysis in the many editions of his The Chess Player's Pocket-Book, starting in 1888.

Freeborough and Ranken, Gossip and Mortimer - merely commentators or players?

Ouch

The following game shows some interesting play by White, burying Black's Bishop - the risk the second player takes when he opts to play 6...bxc6 instead of 6...dxc6. Still, Black is doing fine until he sends his Queen off on what turns out to be a suicide mission, to liberate the entombed piece. Ouch!

chessmanjeff - ouucch
blitz, FICS, 2013

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

4...Kxf7 5. Nxe5+ Kf8

This is as old as Jerome - Brownson, Iowa, USA, 1875 (1/2-1/2, 29) and was enthusiastically endorsed by Lt. Sorensen in his 1877 article on the Jerome Gambit in Nordisk Skaktidende. See "Critical Line: 5...Kf8 (1)".

The Database has 171 games, with White scoring 53%.

6.Nxc6

Instead, 6.Qh5 would reach the Banks Variation. See "Critical Line: 5...Kf8 (2)".

6...bxc6 

Not as accurate as 6...dxc6. See "Critical Line: 5...Kf8 (3)".

7.d4 Bb6 8. O-O d6 

The alternative, 8...Qf6, was seen in Petasluk - Snorkledorf, blitz, FICS, 2006 (1-0, 24).

9.c4 

White plays positionally against Black's dark-square Bishop. Alternatives include 9.f4, as in perrypawnpusher - hdig, blitz, FICS, 2007 (1-0, 17); 9.Nc3, as in perrypawnpusher - mika76, GameKnot.com, 2008 (1-0, 17); and 9.Qf3+, as in MrJoker - Melbourne, blitz, ICC, 2011 (1-0, 37).

9...c5 10.d5  Qf6 11.Nc3 a5 12.f4 Ne7

Instead, 12...Qd4+ would keep Black's edge.

13.e5 Qg6 14.e6 Ke8 15.Qf3

Houdini suggests the pawn sacrifice 15.f5!?, seeing White as better after 15...Nxf5 16.Qa4+ Kd8 17.Bd2 Nd4 18.Rae1 Nxe6 19.dxe6 Bxe6.

15...Rf8 16.Ne4 Nf5 17.Qh3 Nd4 18.Ng5

A slip which should be punished by the Queen offer 18...Qxg5!, as 19.fxg5 Ne2+ 20.Kh1 Rxf1 would be checkmate.

18...h6 19.Nf7 Qe4 

Houdini prefers that, instead of pawn-hunting, Black return the exchange with 19...Rxf7 20.exf7 Kxf7, when he still is better.

The second player, however, is focused upon freeing up his imprisoned dark-square Bishop, and absolutely nothing will get in the way of completing that mission.

20.Bd2 Ne2+ 21.Kh1 Qxc4

22.Qh5 Qxd5 

Freeing the c5 pawn to advance, freeing the Bishop... But ignoring the danger to his King - and Queen.

23.Qxd5 Black resigned

The Classics II (a first look)

As mentioned in the last post, I have suggested that those who play, and those who face, the Jerome Gambit, would benefit from becoming familiar with "the classics" of that line.

That got me thinking: What would those classics be?

Here are the additional games from a preliminary sketch.

6. Charlick - Mann, correspondence, Australia, 1881

The Australian player Charlick, who had already played an "Evans-Jerome Gambit" against Holloway in 1877, won a long correspondence game with the Jerome Gambit against John Mann in 1881. Again, an interesting game, and another example of the Gambit's spread around the world.

7. Jerome - S.A. Charles, correspondence, 1881

As I noted in "The Jerome Gambit Gemeinde (early)"

S. A. Charles, a member of the Cincinnati (Ohio, USA) Chess Club, wrote opening analyses, first for the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, then later for the Pittsburgh Telegraph. It is in the latter paper that in 1881 he presented his examination of the Jerome Gambit. That year he also played an incomplete Jerome Gambit correspondence match with Alonzo Jerome.

None of the games were completed before Jerome withdrew, because of "business engagements". This match has been given scant coverage in the blog. The situation will be rectified later this year.

8. Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1885

The best-known Jerome Gambit game (even if Blackburne got the year wrong in his book), a crushing win by Black. Later analysis showed how White could get the advantage. Even later analysis showed how the game could have ended in a tense draw.

9. Sorensen, S.A. -X, Denmark, 1888

This game, the first that I have been able to find with the "pie in the face" defense, also celebrates Lt. Sorensen, who, in the May 1877 issue of Nordisk Skaktidende, wrote a very influential article on the Jerome Gambit, which was translated and republished widely.

10. Tonetti - Ruggieri, Rome, 1863

The King-hunt in this game makes the Jerome Gambit almost look like a legitimate opening. Almost.

Something New In Something Old

In an old line, Black discovers something new.

Not quite new enough, however.

MrJoker  - KnickAtKnight
blitz, 2 12, Internet Chess Club, 2012

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8 

The Sorensen Variation, based on a line recommended by Lt. Sorensen in his article on the Jerome Gambit in the Nordisk Skaktidende, May, 1877. 

The idea is simple: Black does not get greedy, seeing one extra piece as enough to win.

6.Qh5 

The Banks Variation, after Banks,P - Rees,M, Halesowen v Lucas, 2003 (1-0, 45). Pete Banks, playing the Jerome Gambit over-the-board, risked rating points and club pride with "Jerome's Double Opening."

6...Bxf2+

A creative response ("what's good for the goose is good for the gander"), which only shows up in one other game in The Database. Unfortunately for KnickAtKnight, that game was played (and won) by Mr.Joker six months earlier.

It was possible for Black to return to normal Jerome Gambit lines with 6...Nxe5, as in MrJoker - Marduk, blitz, Internet Chess Club 2012 (1-0, 64).

Best for Black seems to be 6...Qe7, discovered four years ago. See "Jerome Gambit, Vlad Tepes, and... Garlic!"

7.Kxf2 Nxe5

As mentioned in the note Black's 6th move, there had already occurred: 7...Qf6+ 8.Nf3 d6 9.d3 Nd4 10.Na3 h6 11.c3 Nxf3 12.Qxf3 Qxf3+ 13.gxf3 Nf6 14.Be3 Bh3 15.Nb5 a6 16.Nd4 Ke7 17.Kg3 Bd7 18.h3 Rhf8 19.Raf1 c5 20.Ne2 Nh5+ 21.Kh4 Nf6 22.f4 Bb5 23.c4 Ba4 24.b3 Bc6 25.Rhg1 Rg8 26.f5 b5 27.Nf4 Be8 28.Ng6+ Bxg6 29.Rxg6 bxc4 30.bxc4 Rab8 31.Rfg1 Kf7 32.R6g2 a5 33.Bc1 a4 34.Bb2 Rb7 35.Bxf6 Kxf6 36.Rg6+ Ke7 37.f6+ gxf6 38.Rxg8 Rb2 39.R1g7+ Ke6 40.Re8 checkmate, MrJoker - Chicagojr, Internet Chess Club, 2012. 

8.Qxe5 Qh4+ 

Black has stalled White's attack and is counter-attacking, but he is doing so a pawn down.

9.g3 Qf6+ 10.Qf4 d6 11.d4 Ke7 12.Qxf6+ Nxf6 13.Nc3 Rf8 14.Bg5 Ke8 15.Bxf6 Rxf6+ 16.Kg2 b6 

White still does not have a raging attack: only a better center, a safer King, and an extra pawn.

17.Rhf1 Re6

Putting pressure on White's center, but exchanging the Rook with 17...Rxf1 18.Rxf1 was probably better, even if it brought the game closer to a simple endgame.

18.Nd5 Kd8

A consistent example of what might be called a "negative halo effect": the second player, having faced the ridiculous 4.Bxf7+ and the outrageous 5.Nxe5 and the preposterous 6.Qh5 shrugs off White's Knight leap as just another simple threat. Otherwise he would have realized that his "best" choice was 18...Re7, "neutralizing" the Knight by exchanging it off for his Rook right away. (Ouch)

19.Rf8+ Kd7 20.Rf7+ Ke8 21.Rxg7 c6 22.Nc7+ Kf8 Black resigned 

Things would settle down after 23.Nxe6+ Bxe6 24.Rxh7 with White ahead the exchange and three pawns.

Early Opening Tomes: Addendum

Gathering in all that we have covered in the last week and a half on the Jerome Gambit line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.d4 Bxd4 9.Na3 – see "An Intriguing Letter" Parts 1, 2 and 3; "Some History of the Jerome Gambit" Parts 1, 2 and 3; and "Jerome Gambit: Early Opening Tomes" Parts 1 and 2 – we see that Alonzo Wheeler Jerome considered 3 responses in his analysis: 9...Ne7, 9...Qf6 and 9...Ke7.

It is time to pause and make an important addition – not from an opening tome, but from a chess magazine.

There was one singular event after Jerome's Dubuque Chess Journal articles were published that gave the gambit incredible exposure, and carried its analysis to those who would later include the attack in their opening books.

The editor of the Dubuque Chess Journal was in the habit of exchanging issues with different chess magazines around the world, and this led to the publication, in the May 1877 issue of Nordisk Skaktidende, a Danish chess magazine, of Lt. Sorensen's column "Skaktheori for Segyndere" ("Chess Theory for Beginners") covering the Jerome Gambit.

The article was translated into (at least) English, Spanish, French and Italian and appeared in chess magazines around the world.

Here is the article, from the English translation in The Chess Player's Chronicle of August 1, 1877 (I have substituted algebraic notation for descriptive.)


Chess Theory for Beginners
by Lieut. Sorensen
(translated from the Nordick Tidende for May.)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5

With this answering move of the Bishop we have the fundamental position for that good old game which the Italians, hundreds of years ago, when they were masters of the Chess board, called "Giuoco Piano," even game, but the later age, for generality of explanation, the "Italian game." On this basis the usual continuation is 4.c3, whereby the d-pawn at the next move threatens to advance, and the White middle Pawns to occupy the centre.

In the next articles we will make mention of that regular fight for the maintenance or destruction of the centre, which is the essential point of the Italian game; in this, on the contrary, we will occupy ourselves with a Bashi-Bazouk attack, over which the learned Italians would have crossed themselves had they known it came under the idea of piano, but which is in reality of very recent date – 1874, and takes it origin from an American, A.W. Jerome.

It consists in the sacrifice of a piece by 4.Bxf7+.

Naturally we immediately remark that it is unsound, and that Black must obtain the advantage; but the attack is pretty sharp, and Black must take exact care, if he does not wish to go quickly to the dogs. A little analysis of it will, therefore, be highly instructive, not to say necessary, for less practised players, and will be in its right place in our Theory, especially since it is not found in any handbook.

The Americans call the game "Jerome's double opening," an allusion, probably, to the fresh sacrifice of a piece which follows at the next move, but we shall prefer to use the short and sufficiently clear designation, Jerome Gambit.

4.Bxf7+ Kxf7

That the King must take is evident, otherwise the Bishop without any hindrance can retire with his booty.

5.Nxe5+

Once must confess that this is a forcible invention, and difficulties begin now already for Black. There is clearly a choice between two things; between taking, and so maintaining further the preponderance of two pieces, or going with the King, for example, to f8, and being content with the one piece, which, however, has cost two pawns. We will treat these contingencies separately under First and Second Defence.

First Defence

5...Nxe5

White's best move is now 6.d4 or 6.Qh5+. By the first move he wins back one piece quite easily, but when there follows 6...Bxd4, he only receives the scanty recompense of one pawn for the other; by the second move exposes himself to the evil of gaining no piece back, inasmuch as Black can protect himself by 6...Ke6.

According to our conviction, the check with the Queen gives the best chances, and we therefore carry out this, while we point out the result of 6.d4 in the Specimen Game No. 1.

6.Qh5+ Ke6

Black now essays to keep both the pieces, and this must, after the defence adopted, 5...Nxe5, be regarded as consequently the most correct. For if he prefers to interpose the Kt at g6, White plays 7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5, and one of the pieces falls under far more unfavorable conditions than if the King had immediatley retreated on the 5th move (Second Defence).

In Specimen Game No. 2 we shall see unfolded some of the inconveniences which the move treated of, 6...Ng6, brings with it.

7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.d4

It is impossible to decide whether this attacking move is stronger than a multitude of others which offer themselves in this interesting position, and of which we expecially 8.f4 and 8.Na3, but it seems clear every case into what abysses Black is plunging.

8...Bxd4 9.Na3 c6

With this move Black escapes; under (a) and (b) are seen less favourable modes of play. (a) 9...Qf6 10.Nb5+ Kc5 11.Nxd4 Qxf5 12.Nxf5 g6 13.Be3+ Kc6 14.Nd4+ Kd6 15.0-0-0 Ke7 16.Nb5 and White has the best position; (b) 9...Ne7 10.Qh3 Qf8 11.Nb5+ Kc5 12.Nxd4 Kxd4 13.Bg5 and White must win.

10.c3 Qf6 11.cxd4 Qxf5 12.exf5 Nf7 13.Bf4+ Ke7

Black must now, though not completely out of danger, be able to make his superiority of a piece and a pawn prevail.


Second Defence

5...Kf8 (best)

Althought the first defence was not thus to be abandoned, we shall still recommend this as more solid, and easier to manage.

6.Nxc6 dxc6 (best)

If 6...bxc6 7.d4 follows, and the Bishop becomes shut out from the game. It is also here of importance to have the open Queen's file.

7.0-0 Nf6 8.Qf3

Upon 8.d4 follows 8...Bg4 9.Qe1 Kf7 and Black is completely extricated, and has the advantage.

8...Qd4 9.d3 Bg4 10.Qg3 Bd6 11.Bf4 g5

This move, which costs a pawn, is not absolutely necessary, but it promotes and energetic liberation of Black's game, which is important in such positions to have in view.

12.Bxd6+ cxd6 13.h3 Be6 14.Qxg5 Rg8 15.Qh6+ Ke7 16.Nc3

The best move to preserve the b-pawn, which is necessary.

16...Rg6 and Black's attack becomes irresistable.




Specimen Game No. 1

6.d4

See the remark upon this under First Defence

6...Bxd4 7.Qxd4 d6 8.0-0 Nf6 9.f4 c5

This move, and the development of the Queen's wing standing in connection with it, we cannot regard as right, at any rate not until all was in order on the King's side. 9...Nc6 eventually followed by ...Re8, would have been the proper continuation, and must have left few favourable chances remaining for White.

10.Qc3 Neg4 11.Nd2 b5 12.h3 h5

Black must now prepare to sacrifice a little, because he did not protect himself in time.

13.e5 (best).

To have taken immediately would not have been near so good; the situation now requires thoroughly attentive play.

13...b4 14.Qf3 Ba6 15.exf6 Bxf1 16.Qb7+

Here 16.hxg4 would also have been good; White, however, plays to drive Black into a mating position.

16...Kxf6 17.Ne4+ Kg6 18.f5+ Kxf5 19.hxg4+ Kg6

With any other move Black is mated in a few moves, or loses the Queen.

20.Ng5

To the sufficiently threatening move 20.Bg5 Black has a good reply in 20...Qb6.

20...Qe8 21.Bd2 (best) Rf8 22.gxh5+ Kxh5 23.Qxg7 Bxg2

In order to avoid the mate threatened in two moves by Qh7 and Qh3.

24.Qh7+ Kg4 25.Re1 and White wins.




Specimen Game No. 2

6...Ng6

See the note to Black's 6th move in First Defense. The reader is now requested to observe for himself the difficulties which we mentioned that this mode of play entails, as we can spare with the subjoined game no space for further notes.

7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qc3 Nf6 10.d3 c6 11.0-0 Kd7 12.f4 Qb6+ 13.Kh1 Kc7 14.Qe1 Re8 15.b3 Nd5 16.Qg3 Nb4 17.Na3 Bd7 18.c3 Nxa2 19.f5 Ne5 20.d4 Qxb3 21.dxe5 dxe5 22.Rb1 Qxc3 23.Rf3 Qa5 24.Rfb3 b5 25.Rxb5 cxb5 26.Nxb5+ Kc8 27.Nd6+ Kc7 28.Rb7+ Kxd6 29.Qd3+ and White wins