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 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]