Research Mystery

Around 2003, Brazilian chess master Hindemburg Melão, Jr., wrote an article for the online chess site, SuperAjedrez, featuring Joseph Henry Blackburne's famous defeat of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+).

Today I can only trace the essay as far as an essay which is no longer available, which is unfortunate, as it contained some very interesting analytical and historical information, including [Note: my translation - RK]  

...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...

Although it is in conflict with the information given in Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess (1899) – that the game in question was played "around 1880" – my preferred source for information on Amateur - Blackburne, London (see "Flaws" 1 & 2) – the August 15, 1885 issue of the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle, edited by J.B. and E.M. Munoz – gives the year as 1885.

I would love to ask Senhor Melao about his sources, as he clearly has access to materials that I do not. (That would not be at all unexpected: Lt. S.A. Sorensen's seminal work on the Jerome Gambit, in the May 1877 issue of Nordisk Skaktidende, was subsequenly translated and reprinted around the chess world.)

For example, I have never seen the Blackburne game dated as having been played in 1868 – six years before Alonzo Wheeler Jerome published analysis of "his" opening in the Dubuque Chess Journal. Nor have I seen it reported as played in 1888 – the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle reported that it had been played "some months ago in London", highly suggestive of the year 1885.

As for the references to the game being played in Manchester and the naming of the Amateur as "Millner" – both were news to me as well. And: was it a blindfold game?

Is any reader familiar with the SuperAjedrez article?

Does anyone have acces to the Brazilian chess master, to pass on my questions? 

What a mystery!

The Norton - Hallock Game (Part 3)

While it can be fun to read contemporary analyses of a chess game (see "The Norton - Hallock Game" Part 1 and Part 2), the personal involvement of the commentators / players can get in the way. 

I sat down with my friend Rybka and my ChessBase files to go over this particular Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) game and evaluate what American Chess Journal editor William Hallock and gambit originator Alonzo Wheeler Jerome had to say about it.

Norton,D.P. - Hallock,W.A.
correspondence, 1877

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8

Hallock: The usual continuation is 5...Nxe5 but this seems equally good.

Jerome: Note (a) to your game with Norton says 5...Kf8 "seems equally good with 5...Nxe5" which is a mistake in fact and theory. 5...Nxe5 if properly followed up wins White's KBP, wheras 5...Kf8 leaves White's pawns intact while Black has lost two strong pawns and doubled another. This defense was adopted by G.J. Dougherty of Mineola, NY, a strong amateur, against whom I first played the opening, and I think he will agree that 5...Kf8 is not a good defense. He generally played 6...bc [after 5...Kf8 6.Nxc6] and that was the play of Mr. J. C. Young of Danville, KY, who subsequently abandoned the game. Why, I do not know, as it was not necessarily lost to either of us. It is a question with which Pawn it is best to take.

It is interesting to point out that this "discussion" between Hallock and Jerome about the merits of 5...Kf8 took place in the February and March 1877 issues of the American Chess Journal, two months before Lt. Sorensen published his very influential article on the Jerome Gambit in the May 1877 issue of the Danish chess magazine Nordisk Skaktidende. (For a taste of the article, see "Bashi-Bazouk Attack".)

It is quite possible that the Americans only became aware of Sorensen's work when his article was translated into English and was reprinted in the August 1877 issue of the Chess Player's Chronicle.

Sorensen considered 5...Kf8 the best defense for Black, and he recommended it as "more solid" and "easier to manage" than 5...Nxe5. After 5...Kf8 6.Nxc6 he gave the 6...dxc6 capture as best, continuing 7.0-0 Nf6 8.Qf3, as in Jerome - Brownson, USA 1875 (1/2-1/2, 28)

A modern assessment supports Sorensen's (and thus, Hallock's) point of view – but only marginally. After four moves Black already has enough material to win the game, and therefore he does not need to complicate the game further by grabbing another piece with 5...Nxe5. The Danish author was already being influenced by Steinitz's "positional" style, as opposed to his (and the chess world's) earlier "romantic" (attacking) style.

On the other hand, Rybka shows a clear preference for 5...Nxe5 over 5...Kf8 (by about 3/4 of a pawn) – showing that even with its positional "insights" the computer software still has a materialistic side.

6.Nxc6

Hallock: The continuation adopted by Jerome, 6.Qh5 [instead] looks promising.

Jerome: The move suggested in note (b) 6.Qh5, is not my idea, but belongs to Mr. Norton himself, and I have to acknowledge that I thought it unsound when he suggested it to me, during the process of the game, because 6...Qf6 gets up a counter attack at once; but 7.Ng4 compels Black to "crawfish" and permits White to castle with a good game. However if Black play 7...Qe7 it makes White 's game uncomfortable. But White may play 7.Nxd7+ Bxd7 8.Qxc5+ with 3 Pawns for his Knight which the books hold to be an equivalent. And I would not hesitate to exchange Queens if offered. Norton thinks [5...Kf8 6.Qh5] 6...Qe7 best; I think [5...Kf8 6.Qh5] 6...Nxe5 best; if 7.Qxe5 Qe7.

The variation 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8 6.Qh5, which was mentioned by Brownson in the March 1875 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal, while commenting upon Jerome - Brownson, USA, 1875 (1-0, 28), is currently known as the Banks Variation, after the game Banks - Rees, Wolverhampton, 2003 (1-0, 45).

Jerome's mention of 5...Kf8 6.Qh5 Qf6 7.Ng4 Qe7 is a red herring, as his later suggestion of 7.Nxd7+ Bxd7 8.Qxc5+ – a line which Banks successfully followed against Rees – gives White comparatively better prospects.

Modern theory holds 6...Qe7 to be the best response to 6.Qh5.

6...dxc6 7.0-0 Nf6 8.e5

Jerome: Norton's first mistake was in playing 5.e5 instead of 5.Qf3 as in game 472, Dubuque Chess Journal where the defense was the same.

8...Bg4

Hallock: An excellent move cramping White's game and enabling Black to optimally deploy his forces.

Jerome: Ending notes (c) and (d) at the first glance, seems as safe as endorsing U.S. Treasury notes, but closer examination will show that 8...Bg4 loses Bishop as I think I will prove in the correction of note (f).

White's 8.e5 was an error – one that Sorenson made note of in his Nordisk Skaktidende article, giving "8.e5 Bg4 9.Qe1 Kf7!", showing that he was likely aware of this Hallock - Norton game.

The above-mentioned Jerome - Brownson, USA, 1875 game continued with 8.Qf3, better than Norton's 8.e5, but not as strong as 8.d3 (which would show up a couple of years later in Lowe - Parker, England, 1879 – one of the games recently supplied by Senior International Master of Correspondence Chess Tim Harding). Nonetheless, even after 8.d3 Black would retain the advantage.

Hallock's response, 8...Bg4, is a good move, as he maintains, with positional strengths; although Rybka sees 8...Ng4 as a bit less than 1/2 a pawn better.

We will tackle Jerome's argument that "8...Bg4 loses [the] Bishop" in tomorrow's post.

[to be continued] 

The Jerome - Norton Games (Part 4)

Thanks to Senior International Master of Correspondence Chess Tim Harding (see "Tim Harding, PhD") and his correspondence chess resources, we know that Alonzo Wheeler Jerome and D.P. Norton played at least four correspondence chess games to test the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+).

The following game was apparently published in a late October or early November 1877 issue of News of the Week. Notes are by Harding; some quote from the NotW column.

Norton (Kansas) sent letter dated 29 Oct 1877 to News of the Week columnist noting the interest in Europe in Jerome's gambit. 'Having contested several games myself by corr. with Mr Jerome, I presume a specimen of our play might perhaps interest your readers...'

Jerome, A. - Norton, D.P.

correspondence 1877

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

It is understood that Mr Jerome admits the unsoundness of the variation 9 Na3... Nevertheless great care is necessary for the defence, especially in play across the board.

9...Qf6!?

9...c6 preferred by Sorensen in Danish magazine (Nordisk Skaktidende?); Norton disagrees and thinks the text at least as good, but both allow White to win back the piece. He hints a third move is better than either and invites readers to find it. 9...Kc6! is perhaps what he meant.

10.Nb5+ Kc5 11.Nxd4 d6!-+

This move decides the game. White reels from the shock, is henceforth pressed to the wall, and Black has an easy victory.

11...Qxf5? 12.Nxf5 g6 13.Be3+ Kc6 14.Nd4+ Kd6 15.0-0-0 Ke7 16.Nb5 was given in the Danish magazine.

12.Nb3+ Kb6 13.Qg5 Qxg5 14.Bxg5 Nf6 15.f3 Be6

16.Nd4 Rhe8 17.0-0 c5 18.Nb3 Bxb3 19.cxb3 a5 20.Rfd1 Kc6 21.a4 b6 22.Rd2 Rad8 23.h3 Nf7 24.Bh4 g5 25.Bf2

25...d5 26.Rad1 dxe4 27.Rxd8 Rxd8 28.Re1 Re8 29.fxe4 Rxe4 30.Rf1 Re6 31.Be3 h6 32.g4 Ne5 33.Bd2 Ne4

34.Bc3 Nxc3 35.bxc3 c4 36.bxc4 Kc5 37.Rb1 Kxc4 38.Rb5 Kxc3 39.Kg2 Nd3 40.h4 gxh4 41.Kh3 Nc5 White resigned

Shocked

Several times in the following Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) game – a pretty serious struggle – my opponent made shocking moves that had devastating effects – on his own game.

I couldn't figure it out at all.

perrypawnpusher  - fortytwooz
blitz FICS, 2010

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

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8

A very practical defense, as old as Jerome - Brownson, USA 1875 (1/2-1/2, 29) and enthusiastically endorsed by Lt. Sorensen in his 1877 article on the Jerome Gambit in Nordisk Skaktidende.

6.Nxc6

The standard reply, although there have been other interesting lines of play:

6.Nd3 Bb6 7.0-0 Qf6 8.Nc3 Nge7 9.Na4 Kf7 10.Nxb6 axb6 11.Qh5+ g6 12.e5 gxh5 13.exf6 Kxf6 14.b3 Rg8 15.a4 d6 16.Bb2+ Kg6 17.Rae1 Bf5 18.Nf4+ Kh6 19.d3 Rg4 20.Bc1 Kg7 21.f3 Rg6 22.Nxg6 hxg6 23.Bb2+ Kf7 24.Re2 Rg8 25.Rfe1 Nd5 26.Kf2 Nf4 27.Rd2 Nb4 28.Kg3 g5 29.h4 Ne6 30.hxg5 Rxg5+ 31.Kh4 Kg6 32.g3 Nc5 33.Re7 Kh6 34.Rxc7 Nd7 35.Rxb7 Nf6 36.Bxf6 Black resigned, Wall - Tim93612, Chess.com, 2010;

6.d4 Nxe5 7.dxe5 Qh4 8.0-0 Qxe4 9.Nc3 Qxe5 10.Re1 Qd4 11.Qf3+ Qf6 12.Qe2 Qe6 13.Ne4 d6 14.Bg5 h6 15.Qf3+ Qf7 16.Bf4 Nf6 17.Nxc5 dxc5 18.Rad1 Bg4 19.Qxb7 Re8 20.Rxe8+ Nxe8 21.Re1 Qxf4 22.Qxa7 Kf7 23.Qxc5 Qd6 24.Qc4+ Be6 25.Qe4 Nf6 26.Qf3 Re8 27.h3 Bd5 28.Qf5 Rxe1 checkmate, Petasluk - robertj, FICS, 2005;

6.Ng4 d6 7.0–0 Nf6 8.Nxf6 Qxf6 9.c3 Ne5 10.d4 Ng4 11.dxc5 Qh4 12.h3 Nf6 13.cxd6 cxd6 14.Qxd6+ Kf7 15.Qc7+ Kg6 16.e5 Ne8 17.Qc5 Rf8 18.Be3 Rf5 19.Nd2 Qh5 20.Nf3 Kf7 21.Rad1 Qg6 22.Nh4 Qh5 23.Nxf5 Qxf5 24.Rd8 Kg8 25.Rxe8+ Black resigned naffets - pavlo, FICS, 2008; and

6.0–0 Qf6 7.Nxc6 dxc6 8.c3 Qh4 9.Qf3+ Nf6 10.e5 Bg4 11.Qf4 Qh6 12.Qxh6 gxh6 13.exf6 Kf7 14.d4 Bf8 15.f3 Be6 16.Bf4 Bd6 17.Bxh6 Kxf6 18.Nd2 Kg6 19.Be3 Rae8 20.Rfe1 Bf5 21.Nc4 Re6 22.Nxd6 cxd6 23.d5 Ree8 24.dxc6 bxc6 25.g4 Bd7 26.Rad1 d5 27.c4 Rhf8 28.Kg2 Re5 29.h3 Rfe8 30.Kf2 Bc8 31.f4 Re4 32.cxd5 cxd5 33.f5+ Kf6 34.Rxd5 Bb7 35.Rd7 h6 36.Rxb7 Black resigned,  natarajanm - BiH, FICS, 2008,

6...dxc6

This capture prevents d2-d4 by White, at the slight cost of making the e-pawn passed.

The alternative was seen in the sloppy game perrypawnpusher - hdig, blitz FICS, 2007: 6...bxc6 7.d4 Bb6 8.0-0 d6 9.f4 Bb7 10.Nc3 Qf6 11.e5 dxe5 12.fxe5 Bxd4+ 13.Kh1 Qxf1+ 14.Qxf1+ Ke8 15.Bg5 Kd7 16.Qf7+ Kc8 17.Qe8 checkmate

7.d3

I've been here before, playing a bit differently: 7.0-0 (7.Nc3 Nf6 8.d3 Kf7 9.0-0 Rf8 10.Bg5 Kg8 11.e5 Bg4 drawn, perrypawnpusher - Ykcir, blitz FICS, 2009) Be6 (7...Bd6 8.f4 g6 9.d4 Bd7 10.Nc3 Nh6 11.f5 Qh4 12.e5 Nxf5 13.exd6 cxd6 14.g4 Re8 15.gxf5 Bxf5 16.Qf3 Qxd4+ 17.Kh1 Kg7 18.Qf2 Black forfeited on time, perrypawnpusher - Lark, blitz FICS, 2009; 7...Nf6 8.Qf3 Qd4 9.d3 Bg4 10.Qg3 Bb6 11.e5 Nh5 12.Qh4 Be2 13.Qxd4 Bxd4 14.Re1 Bxe5 15.Rxe2 Re8 16.g3 Kf7 17.f4 Bd4+ 18.Kf1 Nf6 19.Nd2 Rxe2 20.Kxe2 Re8+ 21.Ne4 a5 22.Kf3 h6 23.c3 Ba7 24.Be3 Bxe3 25.Kxe3 Ng4+ 26.Kf3 Nxh2+ 27.Kg2 Ng4 28.Re1 b6 29.a4 Rd8 drawn, Jerome - Brownson, USA 1875) 8.Qf3+ Qf6 9.Qxf6+ Nxf6 10.d3 Kf7 11.Bg5 Rhe8 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.Nd2 Bd4 14.c3 Bb6 15.d4 Rad8 16.f4 c5 17.d5 Bd7 18.c4 c6 19.Rae1 cxd5 20.cxd5 Ba5 21.Rf2 Bb6 22.Nc4 Bc7 23.e5 fxe5 24.fxe5+ Kg7 25.e6 Bb5 26.Rf7+ Kh8 27.Re4 Bxc4 28.Rxc4 Rxd5 29.Rh4 Be5 30.Rhxh7+ Kg8 31.e7 Rd1+ 32.Kf2 Bd4+ 33.Ke2 Rc1 34.Kd2 Rf1 35.Rxf1 Kxh7 36.Re1 Bf6 37.Kd3 Rxe7 38.Rxe7+ Bxe7 39.Ke4 Kg6 40.b3 Kh5 41.a4 Bf6 42.Kf3 Bd4 43.g3 a6 44.h3 b5 45.axb5 axb5 46.Kf4 Kg6 47.g4 Bc3 48.h4 Bd2+ 49.Ke4 Kf6 50.Kd5 Be3 51.Ke4 Bf2 52.Kd5 Bd4 53.Ke4 Kg6 54.Kd5 Kf6 55.Ke4 Ke6 56.g5 Bf2 57.h5 Kf7 58.Kd5 Be3 59.g6+ Kf6 60.Ke4 Bd4 61.Kf4 Be5+ 62.Ke4 Bd4 63.Kf4 Kg7 64.Kf5 Kh6 65.Kg4 c4 66.bxc4 bxc4 67.Kf3 c3 68.Ke2 Kxh5 69.Kd3 Bg7 70.Kc2 Kxg6 71.Kd3 Kf5 72.Kc2 Ke4 73.Kd1 Kd3 74.Kc1 Bh6+ White resigned, perrypawnpusher - CorH, blitz FICS, 2009;

7...Qf6 8.0-0

8...Qg6 9.Kh1 Bg4 10.f3 Be6 11.f4 Bd7

One difference between computer and human chess players is that the former is not embarassed by a repetition of moves. Here 11...Bg4  is what Black needed to play, keeping a small edge. This is not the last time that my opponent's reluctance to play that move costs him the advantage.

12.Nd2 Nf6 13.Nf3

13...Ng4

fortytwooz wants to attack my King, but 13...Bg4 was a bit more to the point.

14.Qe2 Ke7

Planning to swing the Queen Rook over to join the attack.

I can't sit still, I have to activate the "Jerome pawns".

15.d4 Bb6 16.f5 Qf7

17.h3 Rae8

This came as quite a shock. There are other ways to give the piece back, including the cold-blooded 17...h5. Choosing this way, Black probably should have put his Queen on h5 at move 16.

18.hxg4 Kd8 19.e5

Here come the pawns.

Still, after the game Rybka suggested that stronger was some piece development first: 19.Ne5 Qg8 20.Be3 Kc8 21.a4 a6 22.c4 Rd8 23.b4 h5 24.g5 Qe8.

analysis diagram







19...Qd5

20.Bg5+ Kc8 21.c4

21...Rxe5

Whoa.... What's this??

After 21...Qg8 Black will have to give up a piece (for two pawns)22.e6 Bxe6 23.fxe6 Rxe6 but the text is hard to fathom. (Perhaps Black saw the d-pawn as pinned?)

22.dxe5 h6

Okay, I give up; I don't know what's going on.

23.cxd5

23...hxg5+ 24.Nh2 cxd5

25.e6 Bc6 26.e7 a6 27.f6

27...Bb5 28.Qe6+ Kb8 29.f7 Black resigned

Søren Anton Sørensen

I have been visiting Martin Møller´s (see "Jerome Gambit Strikes in Denmark!" and "Deadly Duel in Denmark" among others) online Skakjournal, which he describes:

This is an attempt to describe Danish chess history from its beginnings around 1830 until the first Danish championship 1923. I will include Niemzowitsch and also Jens Enevoldsens first Danish championship 1940.

Lt. S. A. Sørensen wrote in the May 1877 issue of the Danish chess magazine, Nordisk Skaktidende, a very influential article on the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) – see "Bashi-Bazouk Attack" – and later played an interesting game against a little-known defense in the 6.d4 variation (Sørensen - Anonymous, Denmark 1887)

 
Møller tells us:

Søren Anton Sørensen (January 31, 1840 - February 11, 1896)

Søren Anton Sørensen was taught chess at the age 11 (1851) by H.Møller, when he was a regular visitor at Sulsted præste-gård (vacarage) - (H.Møller was former chairman in the first Copenhagen chess club/Københavns skak forening 1844-1846).

When Søren Anton Sørensen was 18 the following episode occured : One day S.A.S. came into a café in Aalborg where he saw two amateurs playing chess, when one of the players made a blunder, S.A.S. could not help but notice it. The two men got angry beeing corrected by a boy and challenged him to play for money, S.A.S. said he would be delighted but he would then play both men blindfold ! Needless to say S.A.S. won convincingly.

Around 1860 S.A.S. came to Copenhagen and soon got involved in the Copenhagen Chess scene.

I hope to learn more about chess history in Denmark from Martin, and maybe even discover one or two more early Jerome Gambits! 

Disconnect

Every once in a while, a chess game that I am playing (often a Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) online gets interrupted when my opponent disconnects from the playing site (usually FICS).



Sometimes we can continue the game, sometimes it is like the game – or my opponent – has disappeared.


perrypawnpusher - Ykcir
blitz 14 0, FICS, 2009

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7
5.Nxe5+ Kf8
The defense recommended by Lt. Sorensen in his much-reprinted article on the Jerome Gambit in the Nordisk Skaktidende, May 1877.

6.Nxc6

If 6.Qh5 – the Banks Variation – then 6...Qe7!? is the strongest response, suggested last year by both International Master Gary Lane and Mika76.

6...dxc6

Or 6...bxc6 7.d4 Bb6 8.0-0 d6 9.f4 ( 9.Nc3 Qe7 10.f4 Nh6 11.f5 Bd7 12.g4 Bxd4+ 13.Qxd4 Nxg4 14.Bf4 Rb8 15.Rae1 Qf6 16.Qxa7 Qh4 17.Qxb8+ Black resigned, perrypawnpusher - mika76, GameKnot.com 2008) 9...Bb7 10.Nc3 Qf6 11.e5 dxe5 12.fxe5 Bxd4+ 13.Kh1 Qxf1+ 14.Qxf1+ Ke8 15.Bg5 Kd7 16.Qf7+ Kc8 17.Qe8 checkmate, perrypawnpusher - hdig, blitz 7 4, FICS, 2007

7.Nc3
Alonzo Wheeler Jerome gave 7.0-0 in his first analysis in the April 1874 Dubuque Chess Journal – a move he played a year later against Brownson (1/2 - 1/2, 29).

7...Nf6 8.d3 Kf7 9.0-0 Rf8 10.Bg5 Kg8
Black has castled-by-hand and has the familiar piece-for-two-pawns advantage. White's "Jerome pawns" look a bit healthier due to the doubled black c-pawns. Black now stays on top with 11...h6.

11.e5 Bg4

Here my opponent lost his connection with FICS, and the game was automatically adjourned.

After some time passed, I requested from FICS that the game be adjudicated as a draw, as after 12.Qd2 White will recover his sacrificed piece, e.g. 12...Bd4 13.exf6 Bxf6 and after something like 14.Ne4 Bxg5 15.Qxg5 Qxg5 16.Nxg5 White's edge is not great.

For some reason the response was that FICS aborted the game. Nonetheless, I consider it drawn.

Bashi-Bazouk Attack

From The Chess Player's Chronicle, August 1, 1877, translated from the May 1877 Nordisk Skaktidende:

Chess Theory for Beginners
by Lieut. Sorensen

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.P to QB3, 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 centre, which is the essential point of the Italian game; in this, on the contrary, we will occupy ourselves with a Bashi-Bazouk


[Encyclopedia Britannica: Turkish BASIBOZUK ("corrupted head," or "leaderless"), mercenary soldier belonging to the skirmishing or irregular troops of the Ottoman Empire, notorious for their indiscipline, plundering, and brutality]


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.B takes P(ch).

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.