Showing posts with label Parker. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Parker. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 1, 2014

Happy New Year! (A Hysterical/Historical Jerome Gambit, Part 2)



                               [Continued from Christmas.] 


So far, the close look at my recent Jerome Gambit game has progressed a half-dozen moves. See "Merry Christmas! A Hysterical/Historical Jerome Gambit, Part 1".

Again, I have historical information from my never-published article submitted to Stefan Bucker for his magazine Kaissiber (and revised, and revised, and revised, and revised, and reassessed).


blitz, FICS, 2013

perrypawnpusher - spince

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8 6.Nxc6 
dxc6 


This position was reached in his first article with analysis of the Jerome Gambit (Dubuque Chess Journal 4/1874) by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome

As early as July 1874 it was clear that Alonzo Wheeler Jerome had no illusions about his gambit, as the Dubuque Chess Journal noted

It should be understood that Mr. Jerome claims in this New Opening "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.
This modesty did not prevent Jerome from debating for months with William Hallock, who produced the American Chess Journal in the years following the demise of the Dubuque Chess Journal. While testing his invention in over-the-board and correspondence play, Jerome claimed
…that the opening has a “reasonable chance of winning,” which is sufficient to constitute a “sound opening.” It is not required that an Opening shall be sure to win. There is no such opening contained in chess; at least none that I know of.
In the exchanges of games and analysis that appeared in the American Chess Journal in 1876 and 1877, Hallock progressed from referring to “Jerome’s Double Opening” to “Jerome’s Gambit” to “Jerome’s Absurdity.”
                       
This light-hearted approach found full form in the May 1877 issue of the Danish chess magazine Nordisk Skaktidende, where Lieutenant 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.
The August 1877 issue of the British Chess Player’s Chronicle and the December 1877 issue of the Italian Nuova Rivista Degli Scacci, 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.

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.

The Cincinnati connection is an important one in the story of the development of the Jerome Gambit. In the 1870 and 1880s, the chess column of the Commercial Gazette, conducted by J. W. Miller, was considered to be one of the best in the United States. It occasionally ran opening analysis presented by S. A. Charles, a member of the local chess club. By January 1881, Charles had switched to sending his analyses to the Pittsburgh Telegraph (later, the Chronicle-Telegraph).

In October 1881, the Jerome Gambit broke onto the international scene again, in Brentano's Chess Monthly, (edited by H.C. Allen & J.N. Babson), with a letter and analysis from S. A. Charles.


The November 2, 1881 chess column in the Pittsburgh Telegraph ran Charles’ corrected and slightly updated version of his analysis from Brentano's Chess Monthly.


The year 1882 brought yet more attention, from respectable sources, to the Jerome Gambit. William Cook, with the assistance of E. Freeborough and C. E. Ranken, brought out the third edition of his Modern Chess Openings-style Cook's Synopsis of the Chess Openings A Tabulated Analysis. 



7.0-0


Like in the "annoying defense" against the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5+ 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 d6 8.fxe5 dxe5, etc.), Black has returned a piece to achieve a static position that limits White's attacking chances.

Here, though, White has the long-term plan of developing and deliberately advancing his "Jerome pawns". If Black is watchful during this process, he can probably return a second piece for two pawns and sue for peace.

Also played (often transposing) has been 7.d3, as in perrypawnpusher - Jore, blitz, FICS, 2011 (0-1, 16); perrypawnpusher - Conspicuous, blitz, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 13); perrypawnpusher - fortytwooz, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 29); perrypawnpusher - Lark, blitz, FICS,  2011 (1-0, 12); perrypawnpusher - pitrisko, blitz, FICS, 2011 (0-1, 30); and Wall,B - WMXW, FICS, 2012 (1-0, 31).


7.Nc3 (followed by 8.d3 and 9.0-0 ) was seen in perrypawnpusher - Ykcir, FICS, 14 0 blitz, 2009 (½-½, 11).


7.c3 was seen in Vazquez,A - Carrington,Wm, Mexico, 2nd match 1876 (1-0, 43).


7...Be6 


7...Nf6 was popular in the early games of this line, as in Jerome,A - Brownson,O, Iowa 1875 (½-½, 29); Norton,D - Hallock,A, correspondence, 1877 (0-1,18), Lowe,E - Parker,J, correspondence, 1879,  (0-1, 25);  and Lowe,E - Parker,J, correspondence, 1879 (1-0, 37).


Subsequent analysis has generally followed Jerome - Brownson, Iowa, 1875, with 7.O-O Nf6 8.Qf3 (Sorensen said 8.e5 would be met by 8…Bg4 9.Qe1 Kf7! which was how Norton – Hallock had continued ) Qd4 9.d3 Bg4 10.Qg3. At this point, Brownson played 10…Bb6. Jerome responded with 11.e5, and drew the game, with help from his opponent, in 29 moves. Brownson, in the Dubuque Chess Journal (3/1875), suggested 11.Kh1 and 12.f4 as an improvement for White.


Sorensen, Nordisk Skaktidende, (5/1877) gave the alternative line 10…Bd6, attacking White’s Queen, and followed this up with 11.Bf4 g5 12.Bxd6+ cd 13.h3 Be6 14.Qxg5 Rg8 15.Qh6+ Ke7 16.Nc3 Rg6 17.Qh4 Rag8 with a better game for Black. However, Charles later in the Pittsburg Telegraph (4/27/81) offered 11.c3 as an improvement, suggested to him by Jerome, which they believed reversed the valuation of the line.


As an historical aside, later sources, relying on - read: copying - Sorensen’s analysis, miss 11.c3; those that follow - read: copy - Charles’ work, based on his Brentano article or on the American Supplement, include it.


8.d3 


Better than my goofball 8.Qf3+ from perrypawnpusher - CorH, blitz, FICS, 2009 (0-1, 74). 


8...Qf6 9.Nc3 Ne7 10.Be3 Bd6





[To Be Continued on my birthday January 13, 2014.] 
[Comments and Emails are Welcomed and Encouraged.]

Thursday, June 30, 2011

Crash and Burn

If a chess game were a rocket, then the opening moves would be the first stage of the vehicle, designed to boost further stages and the payload into orbit. In the following game the Jerome Gambit does its duty and propels the game to equality. Shortly afterward, though, everything crashes and burns...

perrypawnpusher - roccovargas
blitz, FICS, 2011

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6

The Semi-Italian Opening.

4.0-0 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bc5


The Semi-Italian Four Knights Game.

6.Bxf7+

The Semi-Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

6...Kxf7 7.Nxe5+ Kg8


I was surprised to see that this move was not in The Database.

8.Nxc6 dxc6 9.d3 Bg4


The two Black Bishops remind me of the game Lowe-Parker, correspondence, 1879 as well as two of my contests against MRBarupal.

10.Qe1 Bb4 11.f4 Kh7


Black has castled-by-hand. White's "Jerome pawns" are sufficiently robust as to suggest an even game.

But that "problem" can be "fixed".

12.h3 Bd7 13.g4 Rf8 14.g5 hxg5 15.fxg5



White is "attacking", but the problem is similar to several previous debacles (see "Slaughter") where I left my King insufficiently guarded.

15...Nh5 16.Rxf8 Qxf8 17.Qh4

Still "attacking". Combine this with criminal neglect of defense, and my game falls apart quickly.

17...g6

More painful would have been 17...Bc5+, which my opponent and I both overlooked.

18.Be3 Qf3 19.Qf2 Qxf2+ 20.Kxf2 Bxh3 21.Rh1 Rf8+ 22.Ke2 Ng3+ White resigned

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Battle Again

My introduction to MRBarupal was rather ubrupt: he beat my Jerome Gambit three straight times.

Since then we had met once more, and I had scored my first win.

Today's game is my second.

perrypawnpusher - MRBarupal
blitz, FICS, 2011

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


4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8

This is Sorensen's Variation, a solid defense and a change from the games MRBarupal and I had previously played, all of which had continued 5...Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qe3.

6.Nxc6 dxc6

I was surprised to see that Rybka 3 prefer 6...bxc6 by the tiniest bit, even though it allows 7.d4. Alonzo Wheeler Jerome is on record as preferring 6...dxc6.

7.d3

7.0-0 as in Jerome - Brownson, Iowa, USA, 1875 (1/2-1/2, 29) is probably more accurate, as it is clear that White will be castling Kingside, but it is not totally clear (depending on Black's development) that the first player has to completely forego d2-d4.

That said, after 7.0-0 Nf6 White may respond with 8.d3 (better than 8.e5 of Norton - Hallock, corr 1877), which would simply be a transposition to this game.

7...Nf6

I have had mixed success against 7...Qf6: perrypawnpusher - fortytwooz, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 29); perrypawnpusher - Lark, FICS, 2011, (1-0, 12); and perrypawnpusher - Jore, FICS, 2011, (0-1, 16).

8.0-0 Bg4

A slower game came about after 8...h6 9.Be3 Qe7 10.d4 Bb6 11.f3 Kg8 12.Nc3 Kh7 13.Qd3 g6 in perrypawnpusher - vladchess, blitz, FICS, 2011, (½-½, 46).

9.Qe1

Black's Bishops are really annoying! It was beginning to feel like my "nemesis" was taking over the game again.

9...Qe8

Instead, 9...Qe7 was seen in Lowe - Parker, corr, 1879 (1-0, 37)

10.Be3 Bd6

10...Qe7 and 10...Bb6 are slightly better alternatives, mostly because they prove to be less complicated than the text.

11.f4 Nh5

Instead, after the game Rybka 3 suggested that it was time to return the piece for three pawns: 11...Nxe4 12.dxe4 Qxe4 13.Nc3 Qxc2




analysis diagram









Here Black is a pawn up, but the uncertain placement of his King and the open lines against it give White sufficient counterplay to call the game even.

The text allows White's "Jerome pawns" to advance with malice.

12.e5 Be7 13.f5

Black resigned

I admit that I was a bit surprised at my opponent's decision, as in the past he had shown some strong tactical chops in messy situations.

It is true that after 13...Qf7 14.Nd2 Bxf5 15.g4 g6 16.gxf5 gxf5 material is even and Black's f-pawn is hanging, but after 17.Qf2 Rg8+ 18.Kh1 Qd5+ 19.Ne4 Ng7 it still has not fallen and after 20.Qg3 Ke8 21.c4 Qf7 22.Bh6 Ne6 23.Rxf5 Rxg3 24.Rxf7 Kxf7 25.hxg3 Rd8 it doesn't look like the extra pawn for White will account for much, at least according to Rybka 3 and Fritz 8.

Perhaps events off of the chess board accounted for his need to leave.

Monday, February 14, 2011

No Way to Make A Living


Using my "extra" pawns to chase down a draw or a win against Black's extra piece in the Jerome Gambit can sometimes be an exhausting task. "That's no way to make a living," as they say. Even if your opponent slips at the end...

perrypawnpusher  - vladchess
blitz, FICS, 2011

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


4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8

One way to change the flow of the game and try to keep his King out of trouble.

6.Nxc6 dxc6 7.O-O


I've had success after 7.d3 Qf6 8.O-O in two games in which I reversed my 7th and 8th moves:  perrypawnpusher - fortytwooz, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 29) and perrypawnpusher - Lark, blitz, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 12).

7...Nf6

Also seen: 7... Bd6 perrypawnpusher - Lark, blitz, FICS, 2009 (1-0, 18) and 7... Be6, perrypawnpusher - CorH, blitz, FICS, 2009 (0-1, 74).

8.d3 h6

8...Bg4 was seen in Lowe - Parker, corr, 1879, (1-0, 37)

9.Be3 Qe7

Exchanging Bishops was also okay.

10.d4 Bb6 11.f3 Kg8


Computers like Rybka tend to like solid pawn centers like the one White has and rate it accordingly, but there is a lot to do to get "something" out of the position for White.

12.Nc3

Moving another pawn with 12.c4 might have been better, at least according to Houdini 1.5a.

12... Kh7

The cute 12...Nd5 (note the pin on the e-pawn) was a bit better.

13. Qd3 g6 14.f4

Instead, Houdini prefers 14.Na4 Ba5 15.c4 b6 16.a3 c5 17.dxc5 Rd8 18.Qc2 bxc5 19.Bxc5 Bb6 20.Qf2 Qe8 21.Nxb6 axb6 22. Be3 Qe7 23.Rfd1 Be6 24.Qc2 Nd7 25.Qc3 Qg7 26.Bd4 Qf7 when Black's advantage is minimal.

Okay, if you say so... (The next book that I review for Chessville will be a strategy book!)

14...Rg8 15.Rae1 Ng4 16.h3 Nxe3 17.Qxe3 c5 18.Nd5 Qd6 19.Nxb6 axb6

20.dxc5 bxc5 21.Rd1 Qb6 22.Qb3 Be6 23.Qxb6 cxb6

If there was a thread in this game, I've probably lost it...

My only chance is to activate my Rooks.

24.a3 c4 25.Rd6 Bc8 26.Rxb6 Re8 27.e5 c3 28.bxc3 Rxa3 29.Rb3 Ra2 30.Rf2 Re7 31.Rd2 Rf7


32.g3

Simply overlooking the loss of a pawn.

32...Bxh3 33.Rb5 Re7 34.Kf2 Bf5 35.Kf3 h5 36.Rbd5 Ra3


Black is still better, but 36...Rc7 here would have been stronger.

Time was getting short for both of us. My plan was to continue to harass Black until one of us blundered.

37.Rc5 b6 38.Rc6 Rb7 39.Kf2 b5 40.e6  Re7 41.Rd7


Going for the swindle.

41...Rxd7 42.exd7 Bxd7

Simply 42... Ra8 was Game Over.

43.Rc7 Kh6 44.Rxd7 Rxc3 45.Rd2 b4 46.Kg2 draw.


This game reminds me of the saying about airplane landings: any one that you can walk away from is a good one...

Sunday, May 23, 2010

Rematch

Here is the second of three Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) games, printed in the Preston Guardian, provided by Tim Harding, from the deep resources of his correspondence chess databases. (See also "Preston Guardian".)

The notes are by Harding, and from the Preston Guardian of August 25, 1880.

Lowe,E - Parker,J
friendly thematic correspondence, 1879

These two players seem to have played a few games to test the gambit; the Preston Guardian published an earlier one with Black's fifth move.
Hull Bellman of September 11, 1880 confirms they agreed to play this test game afterwards for a 5 shilling book.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+?!

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8!?


6.Nxc6 dxc6 7.0-0 Nf6 8.d3
8.e5  was, Lowe - Parker, Preston Guardian, December 31, 1879; 8.Qf3 with the idea of d3, is the correct continuation says the Preston Guardian editor.
8...Bg4 9.Qe1 Qe7 10.Kh1

10.c3? failed in Lowe-Parker from a Preston Guardian correspondence tournament. "Mr Lowe, however, maintained that Mr Parker did not play the best defence to White's 8th and following moves, so challenged him to play another game for a 5 shilling book, commencing at White's 8th, with the result given below."
10...Kf7 11.f3
11.f4!? Lowe
11...Bd7 12.b3

12...b5 13.Bb2 h5 14.e5 Nd5 15.Qg3 Rag8 16.d4 h4

17.Qe1 Bb6 18.Qe4 Rh5 19.f4 Rf5

20.c4 bxc4 21.bxc4 Nf6 22.Qe1 Nh5 23.c5 g5

24.cxb6 gxf4 25.Rf3 Qg5 26.Qf2 cxb6

27.Nd2 Qg4 28.h3 Qg6 29.Ra3 Rg5 30.Rg1 a5

31.Nf3 Ng3+ 32.Kh2 Ne4 33.Nxg5+ Qxg5 34.Qe2
34...Bf5

Rybka suggests that Black can reach a draw after: 34...Qg3+ 35.Rxg3 hxg3+ 36.Kh1 Nf2+ 37.Qxf2 gxf2 38.Rf1 Be6 39.a3 Bd5 40.Rxf2 Ke6 41.Kh2 Rg3.




analysis diagram







35.Re1 Ke8 36.Qf3

This time, the computer shows how White wins: 36.Bc1 Ng3 37.Qf3 Qg6 38.Bxf4 Be4 39.Qg4 Qxg4 40.hxg4 Rxg4 41.Bxg3 Bd5 42.Rb1 hxg3+ 43.Rxg3 Rxd4 44.Rxb6 Kf7 45.Ra6 Ke6 46.Rxa5 Kxe5 47.a4 Kd6 48.Rg6+ Kc7 49.g4.





analysis diagram






36...Rg6? 37.Rxe4 Black resigned

Saturday, May 22, 2010

Preston Guardian

Here is the first of three Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) games, printed in the Preston Guardian, provided by Tim Harding, from the deep resources of his correspondence chess databases.

The notes are by Harding, and from the Preston Guardian.
Lowe, EB - Parker, J (Grimsby)
Preston Guardian tournament, 1879

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
Invented by A. W. Jerome of Paxton, Illinois
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8
Parker: My opponent remarked that this was not the best or recognised defence. It may be he was right, but it seems to me to give White less chance of attack than 5... Nxe5
[Readers may want to compare with the "Norton -  Hallock Game," Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4 - RK]
6.Nxc6 dxc6 7.O-O Nf6 8.e5

8...Bg4
9.Qe1 Qd4 10.c3
Referring to this game when printing the later friendly, the Preston Guardian says this was a mistake White did not recover from. Lowe maintained that Parker didn't play the best defence to White's 8th so they played the new game for a 5 shilling book stake.
10...Qd3


11.b4 Bb6 12.a4 a6


13.a5 Ba7 14.Bb2 Ne4


15.Qc1 Be2 16.Ra4 Bxf1 17.b5


17...Bxf2+ 18. Kh1 Qe2 19. Ba3+ Kg8

The paper just says 'K moves', not naming the square, so this may not be right.
20.Rxe4 Bxg2+ 21. Kxg2 Be3+ 22. Kg3 Qf2+ 23. Kg4 h5+ 24. Kh3 Qf3+ 25. Kh4 g5 checkmate