A GM Faces the BSJG: Not Quite (Part 2)

[continued from previous post]

In the previous post, I mused

Last year, on this blog, I had a lot of fun looking at the idea of a Grandmaster playing or facing the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+), online or over-the-board... "A GM Faces the Jerome Gambit (Part 1 and Part 2) and "Jerome Gambit: More GMs? (Part 1 and Part 2)"... 

The other day I started wondering: Did any GMs play or face the Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Bxf7+)? That search would be a different kind of task, as the game would have to feature either a rare example of a GM playing the BSG, or, even less likely, a GM playing the BSJG. But my curiosity was piqued... 

A search of The Database did not turn up any games with a player (of either color) rated 2500...

So, I next turned to my ChessBase "Big Database" (almost 6,5000,000 games), and did a search for the starting position of the Blackburne Shilling Gambit, below.

I was shocked to find 12 games where at least one of the players was rated 2500!

Closer examination, however, showed that all of the examples came from the Bird Variation of Ruy Lopez: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nd4 4.Bc4.

Still searching, however, I checked the online ChessBase Live Database, looking for 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Bxf7+ games, and I came upon one with Ian Rogers playing Black.

Ian Rogers! I knew that name: Australian GM! Amazing!

Well, not quite. The game was played in 1975, a few months before Rogers turned 15, five years before he became an International Master, and ten years before he became a Grandmaster.

Let's look at the game, anyhow, as it is quite educational. 

Nater, Carl - Rogers, Ian
Begonia op 09th, Ballarat, 1975

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 

Rogers, the teenager, is feeling frisky. I don't know much about his opponent, Carl Nater (age 35 at the time of the game), but a check on the FIDE website indicates that he had a rating of 1378, so, perhaps Black wished for a quick, trappy win.

Carl Nater, 80, at the 2018 Begonia tournament. He later played at the Victorian Country Championships in 2019. Recent word from GM Rogers is that Nater is still playing chess.

4.Bxf7+ 

This is the earliest game that I have with the Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit, predating - by 20 years - Melao Jr, H. - Danilo, Centro Cultural, 1996: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke6 6.c3 Kxe5 7.cxd4+ Kxe4 8.Qh5 Kxd4 9.d3 Bb4+ 10.Nc3 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3+ Kxc3 12.Qc5+ Kxd3 13.Qd5+ Kc3 14.Bd2+ Kb2 15.Qb3+ Kxa1 16.O-O#

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke8

The Database has 2,585 games with position, with White scoring 58%.

6.Qh5+ g6

If 6...Ke7, White would have a checkmate in 5, starting with 7.Qf7+.

7.Nxg6 hxg6 8.Qxh8 Nf6 

Nater opted to capture the Rook, instead of the g-pawn (with check), relying on the gain of material. 

Rogers skipped the wild 8...Nxc2+ 9.Kd1 Nxa1 10.Qxg8 Qg5 which might have given him an edge, opting, instead, for reasonable development.

Komodo 10 now sees the position as about even, with Black's piece balancing out White's 3 extra pawns. Black has a lead in development, but his King will be unable to castle.

[to be continued]

A skunk, by any other name...

It was the star-crossed lover Romeo who opined

What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.

I chose that reference to reflect the game below, which contains a mis-named line, as well as a choice of moves by me that has the aroma more of a polecat than a fragrant flower...

perrypawnpusher - igormsp
blitz, FICS, 2011

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

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Nf3+

I checked, and this line is given the name the "Young variation" in the Nomenclature that Bill Wall put together for this blog, after Jack Young, the amazing opening inventor of "Bozo's Chess Emporium" fame.

I think I may have misled Bill in the information that I gave him about the line. Young actually faced the move at the "hands" of the Chess Challenger 10 computer in 1979. That might make it look like the "Challenger Variation," but I think that the name more likely should be the "Norton Variation", after the early Jerome Gambit game Jerome - Norton, correspondence, 1876 (0-1, 42).

My error.

However, the move, itself, is not an error. In fact, it is a great way to set a complacent Jerome Gambit player back on his heels.

9.Kf1

While playing the game, I remembered that the main line goes 9.gxf3 Qh4+ 10.Kd1 Qf2 and that I had quickly reached a drawn position in my game against Sir Osis of the Liver in our 2008 ChessWorld game (winning, when he over-reached).

I didn't remember much more.

More critical was 10...Ne7, from the game perrypawnpusher - sjeijk, blitz, FICS, 2011, (1-0, 19) but I was a little fuzzy on the details there, too.

So, hoping to "surprise" my apparently prepared opponent, I opted for Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's choice of moves against D. P. Norton.

Bad idea: the strategy, and the choice of moves.

9...Kc6

Okay.

There are many reasons that the Jerome Gambit will not be mistaken for, say, the Ruy Lopez, starting with the fact that most of the first 10 moves in the Spanish Game have already been mapped out.

My opponent took enough time in choosing his move for me to believe that I had surprised him. His choice, to leave his Knight en prise and tip-toe his King away from the center, is enough for a draw, similar to the Sir Osis game.

10.Qd5+ Kb6 11.Qb3+ Kc6 12.Qxf3

I could have split the point with 12.Qd5+, etc, but I thought that I would see if I could further confuse my opponent. I was betting on my "Jerome pawns" versus his extra piece, but my poor development seriously hampered my attacking possibilities and actually gave Black the better game.

After the game, Rybka 3 suggested that 12.Nc3 a6 13.d4 was the way for White to fight for a possible, slight, edge. Wow.

12...Qf6

I am sure that the poor Queen has been dying to move since Black played 8...Nf3+ instead of 8...Qh4+. Now, however, it will just be dying.

13.e5+ Black resigned

(See, I wasn't being "modest" when I referred to my recent "lucky wins" in "Three Years Running".)

Hardly a Hopeless Patzer

I am going to leave the final words on the "Ruy Lopez Jerome Gambit" (see "...or should they?") to the host of the blog "Hopeless Patzer", whose perspective I find both entertaining and educational. (I have added a few diagrams.)

BlackKnight8 - lindseyann
www.ChessWorld.net , 2008

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.Nxe5 Qd4 6.Nxf7

Everything was book until now. Although, taking the pawn is not the best, doing this with the knight is even worse.

6...Qxe4+ 7.Kf1 Qc4+

This move lets me win the knight and retain my ablilty to castle.

8.Kg1 Qxf7 9.d3 Bc5 10.Be3 Bd6 11.f3 Nf6 12.Kf2 0-0

Ng4+ was slightly better here. It would have allowed me to simplify, but I was trying to get as many pieces as I could pressuring his king.

13.Re1 Bxh2 14.Nc3 Nd5

Once again, Ng4+ was the best move.

15.Rh1 Be5 16.f4 Nxe3

This was not the best move, but it caused a flood of pieces that he could not recover from.

17.Kxe3

And with this move he stepped into a mate that was easy to spot.

17...Qxf4+ 18.Ke2 Bg4+

Well, I missed the mate in 1 this time, but not the next.

19.Ke1 Qf2 checkmate

jay8172  - lindseyann
www.ChessWorld.net, 2010

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6

I am really not a fan of the Ruy Lopez. I usually manage to make a mess of things. Let's see how this works out.

5.Nxe5 Qd4 6.Nxf7 Qxe4+ 7.Qe2 Qxe2+ 8.Kxe2 Kxf7

Turns out he made a mess of this. I was probably beefing up on my openings when this was played. Now neither of us are able to castle, but at least I'm up a piece.

9.d4 Nf6 10.Rd1 Bg4+

Developing my bishop with a skewer that is easily defended.

11.f3 Re8+ 12.Kf2 Bf5 13.Nc3 c5

I probably should have just taken the material with 13...Bxc2. But, I was trying to get my dark-square bishop into the game. He could have protected the g1-a7 diagonal with 14. Be3, but he didn't.

14.dxc5 Bxc5+ 15.Kg3 Nh5+

This move was no good and gets me into trouble in a minute.

16.Kh4 g6

I miss the completely obvious response 17.g4

17.g4

At this point in the game, I was completely convinced that Be7 would be mate. I did not notice his bishop quietly waiting to come to the defense.

17...Bf2+ 18.Kh3

Now I realize his bishop can come to the defense. I actually wrote in my notes during the game: Bxc2 trying to trick him into playing Rd2, then my mate works. This is what happened, but its never good to rely on your opponent to make a big blunder to win.

18...Bxc2 19.Rd2 Nf4 checkmate

Long Lost Cousin?!

Much like the long lost cousin who you wish had stayed lost, the Knight sacrifice in the Exchange Variation of the Ruy Lopez bears a family resemblance to the Jerome Gambit. 

Jerome Gambit

Ruy Lopez Jerome Gambit

Still, as suggested in the notes to Pigjuice - perrypawnpusher, blitz, FICS, 2011, 6...Qxe4+ was stronger than the move played and reduces the resemblance. The following ICCF game, where a 2200+ player is schooled by someone rated over 450 points lower, puts things in perspective.

Christiaens,R (2242) - Dumont,G (1777)
Tournoi Accession 009, ICCF, 2009

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6

The good old Ruy Lopez, Exchange Variation.

Black's coming pawn grab and Knight sacrifice are not considered part of his best defense.

5.Nxe5 Qd4 6.Nxf7

Recommended by Rybka is 6.Nf3 Qxe4+ 7.Qe2 Qxe2+ 8.Kxe2 Be6 9.Re1 0-0-0 10.d3 h6 11.Kf1 Nf6 12.h3 Bd6 13.Nbd2 Rhe8 14.b3 Nd5 15.Nc4 where Black has an edge.

6...Qxe4+

If, instead, the weaker 6...Kxf6, the game takes on a resemblance to the Jerome Gambit after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5 Kf8 6.Nxc6 dxc6. Amusingly, in the Spanish Game the White Bishop is exchanged on c6 and the Knight is sacrificed on f7, while in the Jerome Gambit the Bishop is sacrificed on f7 and the Knight exchanged on c6.

7.Kf1 Kxf7 8.Nc3 Qf5 9.h3 Bb4 10.a3 Bxc3 11.dxc3 Nf6

White's compensation for the piece is negligible. His timid play hastens the end.

12.b4 Be6 13.Bb2 Bc4+ 14.Kg1 Rad8 15.Qc1 Rhe8 16.Kh2 Re2 17.Re1 Qxf2 18.Rf1 Qxg2 checkmate

I probably will continue to investigate the "Ruy Lopez Jerome Gambit" for historical purposes (and I have added the couple hundred games that I have uncovered to The Database), but after tomorrow's post –  letting a self-styled "hopeless patzer" have the final words – I will not inflict it further upon readers.

Ruy Lopez Jerome Gambit??

Still puzzled and a bit impressed by the opening that Pigjuice sprung on me yesterday (see "...or should they?") I did a Google search, and much to my surprise ran across the following as part of a discussion of the Exchange Ruy Lopez at ChessGames.com

Nov-13-04 drukenknight: Spanish Exchange (N sack on f7). You know w/ my new "back to the basics" approach to chess, I decided to start looking into the exchange spanish, but it seems pretty freakin stupid. I always want to grab that pawn on e5 but it never seems to work out, but wait a minute! WHy can't white simply sack the N on f7 and gain 2 pawns and go on the attack? What could be more basic than that.....?

"No, stupid moron, you cant do that, no one does that, look here stupid...

1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nc6
3.Bb5 a6
4.Bxc6 dxc6
5.Nxe5 Qd4
6.Nxf7 Kxf7
7.Qf3+ Qf6
8.Qb3+ Qe6
9.Qf3+ Nf6
10.d3 Bd6
11.Bf4 Bxf4
12.Qxf4 Qe7
13.00


Errh well maybe it's bad, but hey what about this...?


1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nc6
3.Bb5 a6
4.Bxc6 dxc6
5.Nxe5 Qd4
6.Nxf7 Kxf7
7.d3 Nf6
8.c3 Qe5
9.O-O Bd6
10.f4 Qb5
11.e5


chesslab computer takes black and starts rating it at -2.5 (me so stupid) and then comes almost back to equality, that's odd...


Then I tried another version with an insane K march courtesy of the metal monster, don’t ask me I'm even more confused then ever after....


1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nc6
3.Bb5 a6
4.Bxc6 dxc6
5.Nxe5 Qd4
6.Nxf7 Kxf7
7.Qf3+ Qf6
8.Qg3 Bd6
9.Qb3+ Kg6
10.h4 Kh5


Maybe evaluation of this depends on how good your computer assistant is.

So maybe the Knight sacrifice in the Ruy Lopez Exchange line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.Nxe5 Qd4 6.Nxf7

wasn't something that Pigjuice had made up on the spur of the moment, I wondered.

I checked the FICS games database and found three more games by Pigjuice with that line. Interesting... "Malice aforethought" as they say.

In fact, in the last three months of play at FICS the sac had been played over 200 times. That was "something" but I wasn't exactly sure what kind of "something" – for example, White scored under 20% in those games...

More investigation is needed.



graphic by Jeff Bucchino, the Wizard of Draws

...or should they?

I once wrote that "perhaps not every opening should be Jerome-ized..." I've been re-thinking that: recently an opponent in a 3 0 blitz game found a piece sacrifice that turned that respectable opening into something remarkably Jerome-ish, a trick that gave me quite a headache.

Pigjuice - perrypawnpusher
blitz 3 0, FICS, 2011

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5

The Ruy Lopez, I know. Just wait a few moves.

4...a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.Nxe5

A slip. I think that it was unintentional.

5...Qd4 6.Nxf7

Making things interesting.

6...Kxf7

The resemblance to a Jerome Gambit variation (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8 6.Nxc6 dxc6) is remarkable.

Ruy Lopez

 


Jerome Gambit

 

In the Ruy Lopez White's Bishop was exchanged on c6 and his Knight was sacrificed on f7. In the Jerome Gambit, the Knight was exchanged on c6 and the Bishop was sacrificed on f7. You can not see the difference.

I do not think that having his Queen developed instead of his Bishop is an improvement for Black over the Jerome line. Having the King on f7 instead of f8 is probably helpful in terms of castling-by-hand.

The facts were clear, though: I was now defending a Jerome Gambit (I'll think about calling it a "Ruy Lopez Jerome Gambit" later) – and my clock was ticking.

7.Qf3+ Qf6

An endgame – without White's attacking Queen – appealed to me, but 7... Nf6 was probably better. My opponent was not interested.

8.Qb3+ Qe6 9.Qf3+ Nf6

10.Nc3 Bb4 11.d3 Rf8 12.Bd2 Kg8

13.O-O Qg4 14.Qe3 Bd7 15.a3 Bd6 16. Ne2 Rae8

I was holding my own, although after the game Fritz10 suggested 16...Nd5 17.Qg5 (if 17.exd5 Rae8) 17...Qxe2 18.Rae1 Qg4 19.exd5 Qxg5 20.Bxg5 cxd5 as a way to a comfortable Queenless middlegame.

The next move I had a similar idea, but it did not work out as well.

17.Ng3 Nd5 18.Qa7 Bc8

Overlooking a couple of things.

19.exd5

That was one of them: dropping a piece. Now I was down a pawn with less than a minute to play, no increment.

The other thing? The pawn that I protected was not worth it, as 18...Nb6 would have shown: 19.Qxb7 Rb8 20.Qxa6 Ra8 21.Qb7 Rfb7 and the Queen is lost.

19...cxd5 20.f3 Qg6 21.Qf2 Bxg3 22.Qxg3 Qxg3 23.hxg3 c6

I callously planned on reaching a Bishops-of-opposite-colors endgame that I could shuffle pieces in quickly – important, as I not only had little time left, I had less than my opponent.

24.Rae1 Rxe1 25.Rxe1 Kf7 26.f4 Re8 27.Rxe8 Kxe8

If time were not an issue, we probably would have split the point here, and I would have congratulated my opponent – rated 200 points below me – on his opening play creativity.

I was ready to very quickly do "nothing". My opponent's downfall was that he was trying to quickly do "something."

28.Bc3 g6 29.Bg7 h5 30.Bh6 Kf7 31.Bg5 Ke6 32.Kf2 Kf5 33.Ke3 Be6 34.c3 a5 35.d4 a4 36.Kd3 b5

Don't go away quite yet. There are some interesting positions to come.

37.Kc2 Kg4 38.b3

I was pleased to see my opponent "thinking" instead of "shuffling". Thinking takes more time.

38...axb3+ 39.Kxb3 Kxg3 40.a4 bxa4+ 41.Kxa4 Kxg2 42.Kb4 Kg3

In Bishops-of-opposite-colors endgames the blockade of enemy pawns by both Bishop and King is essential. I realized that White's King excursion gave me a chance to un-blockade my Kingside pawns and I squeezed a few thoughts out of my brain...

43.Kc5 Bd7

More straight-forward, winning White's Bishop, was 43...h4, although it needed some precision: 44.Bxh4+ Kxh4 45.Kxc6 Kg4 46.Kd6 Kf5! Instead, if Black abandons his Bishop to go directly to Queening a pawn he gets his wish, but after 46...Kxf4 47.Kxe6 g5 48.c4 dxc4 49.d5 c3 50.d6 c2 51.d7 c1=Q 52.d8=Q the Q + K + P vs Q + K endgame takes a whole lot of moves – and time – to win.

44.Kd6 Be8

I was ahead of my opponent in time (what was left of it) here, but thinking was still a precious commodity. It seemed like time to abandon my Bishop and win Pigjuice's.

45.Ke7 h4 46.Kxe8

Giving up the Bishop first with 46.Bxh4+ leads to the kind of endgame that I was familiar with and had won on several occasions: 46...Kxh4 47.Kxe8 Kg3 48.Kd7 Kxf4 49.Kxc6 g5 50.Kxd5 g4 51.Kc6 g3 52.d5 g2 53.d6 g1=Q 54.d7 Qg5 – Black's Queen holds the advanced pawn and when Black's King joins the fight, the pawns will be won and then the enemy King checkmated.

Still, that would take moves, thinking, and time – more by Black than White, it seems – so it was probably White's more practical chance. Now, Black's pawn can promote.

46...h3

47.f5

The same idea, without giving up the f-pawn, would arise after 47.Bd8 h2 48.Bc7 h1=Q 49.f5+ Kg4 50.fxg6 although, like in the note to White's 46th move, Black's Queen and King can control White's passer:  50...Qh6 51.Kf7 Kf5 52.g7 Qe6+ 53.Kf8 Qc8+ 54.Kf7 Qxc7+ 55.Kf8 Qd8+ 56.Kf7 Qf6+ 57.Kg8 Kg6.

The cooperation between Black's Queen and King is worth knowing about for this kind of ending.

47... gxf5 48.Bf6 h2 49.Be5+ f4 White forfeited on time

Whew!

Hats off and a deep bow of respect to my opponent.

Busy!

Suddenly, this blog has turned busy!

Not only am I providing updated games and analysis from the ongoing Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) thematic tournament at Chessworld, but I am playing in a 10-player Jerome Gambit Welcoming Tournament at that site as well! (Well, someone has started off against me with the Ruy Lopez, another with the Ponziani Opening; while another has offered a Petroff Defense and yet another a Sicilian; with even someone throwing in a 1.d4 – still working out the bugs, I guess.)

Anyhow, I hope to keep providing daily posts, news, games and analysis; although some days things might be a bit thin, like today...

Jerome Gambit is for the Bird[s]

In his Modern Chess and Chess Masterpieces (1887), Henry Bird addresses his defense to the Ruy Lopez, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nd4 – in a manner that I find parallells my own attitude toward the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+):

I sometimes play this, but not always; it depends upon the state of mind I am in, and whether I want a lively and critical game or a steady contest – one, in fact, in which my adversary considers that I treat him with becoming respect. A well-known and esteemed reverend gentleman once objected that I would not make so silly a move against one of the greatest players.

graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"

The Salvio Gambit??

I was visiting Chess.com the other day, and noticed in the Forum section that one poster had mentioned the Salvio Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+.

Another poster had chimed in:

The "Salvio Gambit" is more commonly known as the Jerome Gambit, is most likely better than the Chicago [1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nxe5 Nxe5] and the Halloween or Leipzig Gambit (In the 4 Knights) [1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Nxe5 Nxe5]. White only ends up losing 1 pawn, and Black's king is very uncomfortable, and Black can get blown off the board if he fails to proceed in an accurate manner.

Of course, I was flabbergasted.

Didn't Salvio live two centuries before Alonzo Wheeler Jerome? This was like finding paintings of the Jerome Gambit on a cave wall!

I sent an inquiry to both posters, and soon received a response from one of them who had seen the 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ line with the name "Salvio Gambit" in an old book by Golombek. He didn't mention the title.

Unfortunately – for my research – according to Harry Golombek's obituary in The New York Times, he wrote 38 books.

The poster also noted "In this case, the Jerome Gambit, is completely unsound, and only can work against weak players" – which I found reassuring.

I slipped off to the library where I also discovered Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess (1977) which had this entry

Salvio, Alessandro (1570 – 1640) The dates of Salvio's birth and death are approximate. It is known that he was in his middle twenties when he defeated Paolo Boi who was by then already an old man. He and the Calabrian, Greco, were the chief theorists and writers on chess in Italy in the early seventeenth century. In this they differed markedly from their predecessors, Leonardo and Boi, who were practicing players but committed nothing to paper.

Salvio wrote three work: a treatise on the game, Trattato dell'inventione et arte liberale del gioco degli scacchi, published in Naples in 1604 and dedicated to his patron, Fulvio di Costanzo, Marquis of Corleto; a curious trajedy in verse on chess La Scaccaide, 1612; and in 1634 a life of Leonardo, Il Puttino, altramente detto il cavaliere errante, to which he attached his Trattoto.

Salvio made Naples the Italian centre for chess and he also created a "chess academy" that used to meet regulalrly in the house of another chess enthusiast, Judge Rovito.

As a player he was noted for his resource and brilliancy. As a writer he was largely responsible for the popularity of some variations of the King's Gambit, one of which was to be known later as the Muzio and another that bore his name, the Salvio Gambit (1.P-K4, P-K4; 2.P-KB4, PxP; 3.N-KB3, P-KN4; 4.B-B4, P-N5; 5.N-K5). these lines he owed to his predecessors but it was his analyses and his writing that popularized them.

Feeling lucky, I went to Google Books and did a search on "Salvio", only to discover a massive title:

The Works of Damiano, Ruy-Lopez and Salvio, on the Game of Chess;Translated and Arranged: with Remarks, Observations and Copious Notes on the Games. Containing, also, Several Original Games and Situations, by the Editor, To Which Are Added The Elements of the Art of Playing without seeing the Board. By J. H. Sarratt, 1813

Fantastic!

I quickly found the section I was looking for:

AN OPENING, Denominated by SALVIO, and by all Italian Players, Giuoco Piano; that Name being given to all Openings in which no Pawn is sacrificed for the sake of an attacking position, and in which the K. Kt. and the K. B. are played immediately after the K. Pawn.

Now we were getting somewhere!