Jerome Gambit: Down the Rabbit Hole, Again (Part 5)

[continued from the previous post]

Robey, James - Steinitz, William
London, 1865

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 

The Evans Gambit, again. This time, it is accepted.

4...Bxb4 5.c3 Bc5 6.O-O d6 7.d4 exd4 8.cxd4 Bb6

A position seen multiple times in the Labourdonnais - McDonnell match, as well as in the games of Andersson, Morphy, Staunton - and many others.

9.Nc3 Na5 10.e5 

This move may have been a novelty at the time, although not a strong one - 10.Bd3 was the usual response of the day. Robey seems to have been attracted by the idea of opening up the center while his opponent's King was still in place.

10...dxe5 

Careless. There was nothing wrong with 10...Nxc4 11.Qa4+ c6 12.Qxc4 d5 13.Qd3 Ne7, with a slight advantage for Black.

11.Bxf7+

This is going to hurt.

11...Kf8

Sad necessity. Capturing the Bishop allows 12.Nxe5+ and checkmate will follow.

12.Ba3+ Ne7 13.Nxe5 

13...Qxd4 14.Qh5 Qxc3 

Black grabs a piece and threatens another. He might as well - there is little else to do other than wait for checkmate.

15.Rad1 c5 16.Rd3 

White settles for winning Black's Queen. For now.

16...Qxd3 17.Nxd3 g6 18.Qf3 Kg7 

Diving into danger, but nothing was going to save his game.

19.Bb2+ Kh6 20.Qf6 Nf5 21.Bc1+ Ne3 22.Bxe3+ Kh5 23.Qg5 checkmate

Verdict: Although the game began as a clear Evans Gambit, it is quite possible that A. G. Johnson, in his Oregon Daily Journal claim, might have been so mesmerized by 11.Bxf7+ that he decided to refer to the game as a Jerome Gambit, anyhow.  Of course, describing Steinitz as being "in the zenith of his career as world's champion" would have been an error, as Steinitz had not yet ascended to the throne, by defeating Adolf Anderssen in match play.

Jerome Gambit: Down the Rabbit Hole, Again (Part 3)

[continued from the previous post]

Foolishly chasing A. G. Johnson's claim, in The Oregon Daily Journal, that Wilhelm Steinitz "in the zenith of his career as world's champion succumbed in his first attempt to defend the [Jerome] gambit", I searched through ChessBase's Big Database for any possibly relevant Steinitz game. I turned up a couple of games that appeared to be distant relations to the Jerome Gambit - and immediately tumbled upon a dissertation by Steinitz on one of his opponents, in, among others, Deacon - Steinitz, match game, London, 1863. Planning, also, to share the other discovery, Robey - Steinitz, London, 1865, I tripped over the following anecdote, concerning both Deacon and Robey, from George Alcock MacDonnell's The Knights and Kings of Chess (Horace Cox, 1894).

The following incident in his game with Mr. F. Deacon (at that time reputed to be one of the strongest players in England) is, I think, not unworthy of record. In the course of the fight, which took place at St. James's Hall, Mr. Deacon left the table, and sought out his friend, the late Mr. Staunton. Finding that gentleman surrounded by a host of admirers— myself included—he invited all of us to come and witness the grand finale with which he was going to crown his victory over James Roby. We at once accepted the invitation, and crowded round his board. "You see," said Deacon, in a whisper, to Staunton, "he must take the pawn or the bishop; if he takes the pawn I sacrifice the exchange and mate in four; and if he takes the bishop I sacrifice the queen, the queen, sir, and mate in seven." "Indeed," muttered the British autocrat. 

Scarce had this little scene been enacted when Roby looked up from the board, on which he had been gazing for a long time, and surveying the increased concourse of spectators, smilingly looked at Deacon, who was standing opposite to him, and exclaimed, "Won't you take your seat, Mr. Deacon?" The polite Deacon at once sat down. 

"It's mate in five," said Roby, still looking at his opponent. "No," replied Deacon; "if you make the best move I cannot mate you in less than seven."  

"It's mate in five," rejoined the hardhearted Roby. "It is I who give the mate, not you." Then followed rapidly a series of brilliant moves, and in two minutes Roby arose from the table triumphant, leaving his opponent to sit on there, utterly amazed and chapfallen.

Another fine chess story! Dr. Tim Harding, in his British Chess Literature to 1914: A Handbook for Historians (McFarland, 2018), dates its first appearance to MacDonnell's chess column in the February 20, 1866 issue of the Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News, and, in considering Deacon - Robey, B.C.A. Grand Tournament, London, 1862, suggested that "the facts somewhat spoil the story". Nonetheless...

Oh? The chess games? The not-quite Jerome Gambit games that A. G. Johnson was probably not referring to? That will have to wait until the next blog post...

[to be continued]

Jerome Gambit: Down the Rabbit Hole, Again (Part 1)

I admit that after assembling the latest blog post concerning some chess history (see "Jerome Gambit: History Reset") I tumbled down the rabbit hole, again, concerning A. G. Johnson's claim, in The Oregon Daily Journal of Portland, Oregon, for  October 25, 1914, that Wilhelm Steinitz, while world chess champion, had lost to the Jerome Gambit the first time he had faced it.

Such a claim is outrageous on its face - a master playing the Jerome Gambit successfully, or, even worse, an Amateur doing so against the great Steinitz - and it could hardly have been hidden from the chess world, nor would the victor of such a game have been able to keep from sharing it with every player he knew!

Contrast this, as one example, with the report on Emanuel Lasker's simultanous exhibition, as reported in the October 18, 1906 Pittsburgh Press, where he defeated E. H. Miller's Jerome Gambit. Apparently neither player was interested in sharing the game score; or, if either did, the chess columnist could not be bothered to publish it. Ho-hum...

Still, how hard could it be to do one more check?

I fired up my copy of ChessBase, peered into the Big Database, and Filtered Games, looking for "Steinitz" playing Black, an outcome of "1-0", ECO of C50, and a game Position featuring Black's King on e8 and White's Bishop on f7.

Nothing.

So, I removed the ECO requirement.

Four games appeared, two of which could immediately be discarded: Blackburne - Steinitz, match game, London, 1863, and Chigorin - Steinitz, World Championship match game, 1889  - known games, and, certainly, not Jerome Gambits (they were Evans Gambits). What remained was Deacon - Steinitz, match game, London, 1863, and Robey - Steinitz, London, 1865. 

This immediately provided me with another distraction.

Frederick Deacon is alleged to have published spurious game accounts of wins against Paul Morphy (who claimed never to have played him) and Steinitz. The 1863 Deacon - Steinitz match game from my database seems to be legitimate, and has certain "Jerome-like" qualities, so it might be worth a peek, with the caveat: we think of Jerome Gambits as primarily arising from the move order 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ and often continuing 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+; the Bishop sacrifice and the Queen excursion are markers, although sometimes the label of "Jerome Gambit" has been mis-applied.

First, though, let us have a look at the thoughts of Wilhelm Steinitz, as he considers Mr. Deacon.

[to be continued]

Jerome Gambit: Balderdash

Not everything that I have discovered in my recent forays into historical research has been of enduring value.

For example, the "CHESS" column ("Conducted by A. G. Johnson") of The Oregon Daily Journal  of Portland, Oregon, for  October 25, 1914 (page 29) has the following

Of the many chess openings in vogue, two are particularly interesting because they are of American origin. The "Jerome Gambit" was first developed in Cincinnati about 40 years ago. S. A. Charles of that city made a thorough analysis of the opening and met with great success in playing the "Jerome" against prominent players. Even Steinitz, then in the zenith of his career as world's champion succumbed in his first attempt to defend the gambit. Although the opening is theoretically unsound, and involves the sacrifice of two pieces for two pawns, the adversary's king is displaced and drawn into the center of the board where all kinds of complications may arise. The following variation of the Jerome, which is rather favorable to white, reveals some of the possibilties of the gambit: 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 Ne7 10.Qh3 Qf8 11.Nb5+ Kc5 12.Nxd4 Kxd4 13.Qe3+ Kc4 14.a4 with slight advantage to white.

Where to begin??

Of course, the Jerome Gambit was "first developed" 40 years before the ODJ column was written, by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome of Paxton, Illinois, having published his first analysis of the "New Chess Opening" in the April 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal.

S. A. Charles, of the Cincinnati, Ohio, Chess Club, wrote opening analyses, first for the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, then later for the Pittsburgh Telegraph. It is in the latter newspaper that in 1881 he presented his examination of the Jerome Gambit, which later found itself in different chess magazines (e.g. the October 1881 issue of Brentano's Chess Monthly) and opening books (e.g. Cook's Synopsis of Chess Openings, 3rd edition, 1882).
In 16 years of researching and analyzing the gambit, I have not uncovered any game examples (or references) of Charles meeting "with great success" while playing the Jerome Gambit "against prominent players"- or any games of his with the gambit at all. I have found a half-dozen correspondence games where Charles defended against the Jerome Gambit - played by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome. Of course, it is possible that there is much more to be discovered, and I have missed it all, but, still...
By the way, it can be fairly said that Charles regularly acknowledged his games and exchanges of ideas with Jerome; it was only the passage of time that seems to have stripped the inventor's name from certain analyses of his invention.

I was absolutely gobsmacked by columnist conductor A. G. Johnson's contention that Steinitz, "in the zenith of his career as world's champion" actually "succumbed in his first attempt to defend the gambit." With all due respect to Blackburne, whose Queen sacrifice leading to checkmate is probably the best known repudiation of the Jerome Gambit, and to Emanuel Lasker, who - I recently discovered - summarily dispatched the Jerome Gambit in a simultaneous display, a loss by a reigning world champion (not to mention a defensive genius) to the Jerome would be one of the most amazing (and horrible) master games played to date. (There was a note in the Oregon Daily Journal that Johnson, after two years of work, was going to be stepping down after 100 columns, so there is always the possibility that his Steinitz story was a parting little joke; although it did not read that way.)

The analysis that Johnson presents in his column goes back to Freeborough and Ranken's Chess Openings, Ancient and Modern, 1st edition, (1889), although he is more likely to have had the 3rd edition (1903, reprinted 1905) lying around. The move 11.Nb5+ is an improvement over Jerome's 11.0-0 in his analysis in the January 1875 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal. The concluding evaluation, "slight advantage to white" is too modest - White has a forced checkmate in 6 moves. (It was Black's faulty 10th move that reversed his fortunes.)