No Way A GM Plays the Jerome Gambit! (Part 1)

Readers of this blog have seen a lot of creative and historical coverage of the Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+, and related openings, such as the Blackburne Shilling Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Bxf7+. In addition, there have been explorations of "proto-Jerome Gambits" - earlier lines of play that might have inspired Alonzo Wheeler Jerome to create his opening. 

One such Jerome Gambit "relative" was showcased in "Adolf Albin Plays the Jerome Gambit (Part 1 & 2)", highlighting the game Albin,A - Schlechter,C, Trebitsch Memorial Tournament Vienna, 1914. The game began 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Qe2 Bc5 5.Bxf7+, which easily could have been a transposition from 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Qe2 Nf6, a "modern" (no 5.Nxe5+) Jerome Gambit.

White's 4th move was anticipated at least by James Mason, who, in the August 1895 British Chess Magazine, gave a game “played recently by correspondence between Brandfort and Bloemfontein, South Africa” which went 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Qe2 d6. Mason suggested the move 4…Nf6, because “there would be plenty of time to play the Pawn - perhaps two squares instead of one. For, as the Cape Times remarks, if White adopts the ‘Jerome Gambit’ 5.Bxf7+ Black replies 5…Kxf7 6.Qc4+ d5 7.Qxc5 Nxe4 with advantage.”

The Salvio Gambit (see"The Salvio Gambit??" and "The Salvio Gambit?? [more]"), from analysis from the early 1600s, is related: 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 and now 3.Qe2 Nf6/Nc6 4.Bxf7+.

It is probably timely to reiterate that I refer to 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Bxf7+ as the "Abrahams Jerome Gambit" (see "Abrahams Jerome Gambit" Part 1 & Part 2), not because Alonzo Wheeler Jerome ever played the line, nor Abrahams, as far as I know, but because it was referred to as the Jerome Gambit in The Chess Mind (1951) and The Pan Book of Chess (1965), by Gerald Abrahams.

It is hard to overlook another possible precursor: the game Hamppe - Meitner, Vienna Club, 1872, which begins a little bit like a reversed Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Bc5 3.Na4 Bxf2+ and is covered in "Godfather of the Jerome Gambit? (Part I, Part II, Part III, and Endnote)".

Another opening with themes akin to the Jerome - with an initial Knight sacrifice at f7 - which may have caught Alonzo Jerome's eye - is the Sarratt Attack, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Ng5 usually followed by 5...Nh6 6.Nxf7 Nxf7 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7. Similar (although I occasionally mix them up) is the Vitzthum Attack, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Ng5 Nh6 followed by 6.Qh5. A good review can be found in the post "Capt. Evans Faces the Sarratt Attack".

Then, of course, there was the rumor that culminated in the post, here,"A GM plays the Jerome Gambit??", followed by "Here, have a Bishop..." and "Here, have another...".

That was topped by the rumor that Alexander Alekhine had defended against the Jerome Gambit - see "The Jerome Gambit is Going to Drive Me... (Part 1 & Part 2)"; and then, sadly "Much Ado About... Nothing".


Oh, oh, oh... Can we get back to the time when a modern, 2700+-rated Grandmaster didn't play the Jerome Gambit??

[to be continued]

Another Charlick Gambit

Henry Charlick was known for his gambit 1.d4 e5!?, (also known as the Englund Gambit). That was not his only sacrificial creation, however. One is reminiscent of a reversed Jerome Gambit.

From the Adelaide Observer, Saturday, June 14, 1884 (page 44) column CHESS, "Chess in Adelaide". Notes are from the column, changed from descriptive notation to algebraic notation. Diagrams have been added.

Appended are two [see previous post for Charlick - Cooke, Adelaide Chess Club, 1884, a Jerome Gambit - Rick] of a series of even games now being contested between Messrs. H. Charlick and W. Cooke, of the Adelaide Chess Club. The notes are by Mr. E. Govett, of the Semaphore Chess club.

Cooke, W. - Charlick, H.
Adelaide Chess Club, 1884

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5!

The Charlick Gambit. This move will probably not more surprise our readers than it did Mr. Cooke. No walnut shells are needed. Mr. Cooke humourously dabbed this "alarming sacrifice" the " Charlick Gambit."

[The line is also known by the modern name the Busch-Gass Gambit, although Salvio's analysis of the line, from Il Puttino, altramente detto, il Cavaliero Errante, del Salvio, sopra el gioco de Scacchi, dates back to 1604. After a further 3.Nxe5 Nc6 it is known as Chiodini's Gambit. The similarity to a reversed Jerome Gambit is noted. - Rick] 

3.Nxe5 Bxf2+!!

"Let shining charity adorn your soul."

4.Kxf2 Qh4+ 5.g3 Qxe4 6.Nf3 Nf6 

7.Qe2 d5 8.Qxe4+

This must have placed Black in the same uncomfortable position as the woman who - 

Before her face her handkerchief she spread  

To hide the flood of tears - she did not shed.

8...dxe4 9.Nd4 O-O

10.Bg2

He should stop the range of the N. 

10...Ng4+ 11.Ke2 f5 12.h3

Somewhat weakening. He should develop his pieces quickly.

12...Ne5 13.d3 c5 14.Nb5 Nbc6 15.dxe4

The Black pawns have a sinister look, but there is nothing immediately dangerous about them if White's position is assisted by Be3, Nd2, and so on. Taking the P only opens out Black's game. 

15...a6 16.Nc7 Nd4+ 17. Kd2 Ra7 18.Na3 b5 19.c3 Ndc6 

20.Nd5 fxe4 21.Ke3 b4 22.Nc2 Nc4+ 23.Kxe4 Rb7!!

24.Nce3

Out of the frying-pan (...Bf5+) into the fire (an exquisite little mate in two). 24.Bf4 would have enabled him to hold out a little longer.

And Black mates in two moves. Time, 80 minutes.

No Fun Against the Pawns

Philidor1792 recently shared the following game, where his quest to play a sort of reversed Jerome Gambit led him to a situation where he faced a piece sacrifice and he had to deal with the onslaught of some very uncomfortable "Jerome-like pawns". It took a while to win this one.

hitorkoal  - Philidor1792
Chess.com, 2015

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 

An old line, going back at least as far as Salvio's analysis in Il Puttino, altramente detto, il Cavaliero Errante, del Salvio, sopra el gioco de Scacchi, (1604), it is currently referred to as the Busch-Gass Gambit ( See "Worth A Second Look" Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3; as well as "Busch-Gass Gambit").

3.Nxe5 Nc6 

Chiodini's Gambit. Chessville.com had a good article by Clyde Nakamura on the line. (Chessville is no longer functioning, but I was able to use the WayBackMachine to recover the article; the link should be good.)

4.Nxf7 

Interestingly, Nakamura in his article on Chiodini's Gambit quotes analysis by Stefano Vezzani, an email friend of his, which gives this move a "??" and refers to it as "a common mistake". 

4...Qf6 

A light-hearted alternative: 4...Qh4 5.Bc4 Qxf2 checkmate, Nguyen Bao Do - Dich Tai Khuu, VIE-ch, U07, 2014.

5.Qe2 

Or 5.d4 Bxd4 6.Be3 Bxe3 7.fxe3 Qxf7 8.Nc3 Nf6 9.Bd3 0-0 10.0-0 d6 11.Nd5 Ne5 12.Qe1 Be6 13.Nxf6+ gxf6 14.Be2 Kh8 15.Qh4 Qg6 16.Rf4 Qg5 17.Qf2 Ng6 18.h4 Qe5 19.Rf3 Bg4 20.Rf4 Bxe2 21.Rf5 Qxe4 22.Rxf6 Bg4 23.Rf1 Kg7 24.h5 Bxh5 White resigned, Ake - Evilonek, ICC, 1998.

5...Qxf7 6.c3 

Here we have reached the end of Vezzani's analysis of the sub-variation, a position he evaluates as a winning advantage for Black ("-+").

Houdini 3 considers it simply advantageous for Black (by about a pawn).

As we will see - and as many have seen while facing "Jerome pawns", things are still not easy.

6...Nf6

From a strategic point of view, Houdini suggests retreating the Bishop to the Kingside with 6...Be7. 

7.d4 Bb6 8.g3 0-0 9.Bg2 d5 10.e5 Ne8 

Instead, Houdini suggests the cold-blooded madness of 10...Nxe5!? 11.dxe5 Ng4 12.f4 Bf2+ 13.Kf1 Bb6 14.Na3 Bf5 but I am not sure how appealing that is to human players. 

11.0-0 Be6 12.f4 g6 13.Nd2 Qd7 14.Nf3 Bg4 15.Qe3 Ng7 16.Ng5 h6 17.Nf3 Bh3 

18.Nh4 Bxg2 19.Kxg2 Nf5 20.Nxf5 Qxf5 21.Bd2 Ne7 22.Rac1 Rac8 23.h3 h5 24.Qf3 c5 

25.g4 hxg4 26.hxg4 Qe4 27.Qxe4 dxe4 28.dxc5 Bxc5 29.Rce1 Rcd8 30.Bc1 e3 31.Bxe3 Bxe3 32.Rxe3 Rd2+ 33.Rf2 Rxf2+ 34.Kxf2 Rxf4+ 35.Kg3 Ra4 

36.a3 Ra5 37.c4 Rc5 38.Re4 Kf7 39.b4 Rc6 40.Kf4 Ke6 41.Ke3 Ra6 42.Kd4 Rxa3 43.Rf4 Nc6+ 44.Ke4 Nxe5 45.g5 Nd7 

With patience, Black has captured a couple of pawns.

46.Kd4 Rg3 47.Re4+ Kd6 48.c5+ Kc7 49.b5 Rxg5 50.c6 bxc6 51.bxc6 Kxc6 52.Re6+ Kc7 53.Ra6 Kb7 54.Ra3 a5 

55.Ke4 Kb6 56.Rb3+ Rb5 57.Ra3 a4 58.Kf4 Ka5 59.Ra1 Nc5 60.Rg1 Rb6 61.Ke5 a3 62.Kd4 a2 63.Kxc5 Rb1 64.Rxg6 Rc1+ 65.Kd4 a1Q+ 66.Kd3 Qb1+ 67.Kd2 Qxg6 68.Kxc1 Qg2 69.Kd1 Kb4 70.Ke1 Kc3 71.Kd1 Qf1 checkmate

Retro

With over 1,200 daily posts to this blog to day, I sometimes like to wander back in time and see what things caught my interest over 3 years ago...

Of course, it all started with a "Welcome!"

It was not long before I had to address the objection "But - is this stuff playable??" (part i and part ii).

It was not surprising to find, among the early "Jerome Gambit Tournaments" some contests where both players lost the same game.

I let early Readers in on "Pitfall Numero Uno in the Jerome Gambit" and filled them in a bit on "What kind of a man...?"  would conjure up such a gambit, one who became "The Man, The Myth, The Legend..."

I started gathering up Jerome Gambit mysteries that I still have not solved. " 'Tis A Puzzlement" was only the first list.

Explored was the link between the Jerome Gambit and the Salvio Gambit. Was there a link?

Then there was "Les Femmes des Echecs...& the Jerome Gambit" and the story of how this blog sidled up to the Jerome Gambit entry in Wikipedia...  

All that, and a whole lot more, in only the first three months of this blog.

And there are many, many more Jerome Gambit tales to be told!

Did he jump, or was he pushed?

My guess is that the first chessplayer to follow 1.e4 with Bc4 (either right away, as in the Bishop's Opening, or later, as in the Italian Game or the King's Gambit) already had the move Bxf7+ in mind. That seminal moment would have been long before the birth of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) – and who knows which of those early attacks might have inspired Alonzo Wheeler Jerome to create his "Double Gambit"?

In the following game, Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member blackburne is playing the venerable King's Gambit Accepted, until the game takes a Bxf7+ swerve. Was blackburne's hand forced by the ghost of Lolli, Salvio, or Muzio, or of A.W. Jerome himself?

blackburne - notverydeepblue
ChessWorld, 2011

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 a6

I have found only 3 or 4 game examples of this move, all from amateur play. Black is either experimenting wildly, or he is essaying the weak psychological gambit: do you know your opening as White well enough to play it without any help from me??

Either way, knowing blackburne, this signals a short game.

4.Bc4 b5 5.Bxf7+

Of course, there was nothing preventing White from playing 5.Bb3 followed by 6.d4, instead – except, perhaps, his sense of adventure.

5...Kxf7 6.Ne5+ Ke6 7.d4

Does any reader care to wager that the next time blackburne reaches this position, he will offer a further piece with 7.O-O ?

7...c6 8.Qg4+ Kd6 9.Nf7+ Black resigned

Worth a Second Look... (Part 2)

Rainer Schlenker refers to 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 (see "Worth a Second Look... (Part 1)") as the "Busch - Gass Gambit" in the May/June 1985 issue (pp. 69-71) of his magazine Randspringer.

He refers to analysis by Oskar Cordel in Führer durch die Schachtheorie (1888)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.d4 Bd6 (4...Bb6 5.Bc4!) 5.f4 f6 6.Nc4 Qxe4+ 7.Kf2 Bxf4 8.Nc3 Qf5 9.Bd3 Qg5 10.Re1+ Ne7 11.Kg1 Nbc6 12.Bxf4 Qxf4 13.Qh5+ Kf8 14.Re4 +/- / +-

and analysis included in Bilguer (1916)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.d4 Bd6 5.Nc3! Bxe5 6.Nd5 Qd6 7.dxe5 Qxe5 8.Bf4 Qxe4+ 9.Qd2

Schlenker, however, modifies the name that Bent Larsen gave to the line ("Busch-Gambit") in Larsen's Sharp Openings (in Danish) based on the game Baird - Busch, 15. Kongresses Deutchen Schachbundes, Nuremberg 1906. Sharp Openings included a portion of the game:

Baird,D - Busch
Nuremberg, 1906
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Nf3 Qe7 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.d4 Nxe4 7.Nd5 Bb4+ 8.Bd2 Nxd2+ 9.Nxe7 Nxf3+ 10.Ke2 Nfxd4+ 11.Kd3 Bxe7 12.c3 Ne6 13.Kc2 0-0 14.g3 d5 15.Bd3 Rd8 16.f4 d4 17.f5 dxc3 18.fxe6 Nb4+ 19.Kxc3 Rxd3+ 20.Qxd3 Nxd3 21.exf7+ Kf8 22.Kxd3 Bf5+ 0-1

Schlenker adds the name "Gass" to the variation after the German master who had been playing the line in the 1970s and 1980s, and gives a few examples.

Many of Gass's blitz games have gone:

NN - Gass
blitz (1970 - 1985)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Nxc6 dxc6 5.d3 Nf6 6.Bg5 Nxe4 7.Bxd8 Bxf2+ 8.Ke2 Bg4 checkmate

and then there's

NN - Gass
blitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Nxc6 dxc6 5.c3 Qe7 6.f3 f5 7.d4 fxe4 8.dxc5 exf3+ 9.Kf2 Nf6 10.Bc4 Ne4+ 11.Kg1 fxg2 12.Kxg2 Bh3+ 13.Kg1 Qxc5+ 14.Qd4 Rd8!! White resigns

While Cordel (1888) and Bilguer (1916) updated the analysis of Salvio (1604) (see "Worth a Second Look... (Part 1)"), Busch and Gass have taken the opening in a different direction: that of a reversed Boden - Kieseritzky Gambit, a move down.

That, too, deserves a second look...

Worth a Second Look... (Part 1)

Continuing the discussion from "London Calling... Seven Months of Blog", "The next best thing..." and "The next worst thing..." based on my self-challenge from that first post:

I also got wondering the other day: is there another totally obscure and disreputable tactical opening line or gambit that I could go digging for information about, while I'm researching the Jerome Gambit [1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+]??

Who – especially a Jerome Gambiteer – couldn 't get excited about the opening in the following game?

Kaidanov,Gregory - Martinenko,Sergey

Pioneer House Tournament, 1969

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Bxf2+ 4.Kxf2 Qh4+ 5.Kg1 Qxe4 6.Qh5 Qd4 checkmate

Granted, the future Grandmaster was only 10 years old and in only his second year in the Pioneer House program when he played that game, but still...

Where did such a thing come from??

Unfortunately, the earliest example that I have in my database of the 3...Bxf2+ line is a little less optimistic for Black:

Krejcik, Josef - Baumgartner

Troppau, 1914

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Bxf2+ 4.Kxf2 Qh4+ 5.g3 Qxe4 6.Qe2 Qxh1 7.Bg2 Black resigns

Oh, well. But, still... The thing surely is worth a second look.

The opening 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 actually has a long pedigree. When J.H. Sarratt published his The Works of Damiano, Ruy-Lopez and Salvio on the Game of Chess in 1813, he noted Salvio's analysis of the line (from Il Puttino, altramente detto, il Cavaliero Errante, del Salvio, sopra el gioco de Scacchi, 1604), including the following (translated into modern algebraic notation)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.d4 Bb4+ (4...Bd6 5.f4 f7 6.Nc4 Qxe4+ 7.Kf2 Bxf4 8.Nc3 Qf5 9.Bd3 Qg5 10.Re1+; 4...d6 5.dxc4 Qxe5 6.cxd5 Qxe4+ 7.Be3 cxd6 8.Qxd6 Qxc2) 5.c3 Ba4 6.f3 f6 7.Nc4

Note, though, that Salvio focused on 3.Nxe5 Qe7, rather than 3...Bxf7+, with the goal of capturing White's e-pawn to maintain material equality. To him, Black's 2...Bc5 didn't lose a pawn as much as it made capturing White's e-pawn, in turn, more awkward (due to 4.d4), and caused Black to fall behind in development.

That put 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 in a whole class of defenses where Black appeared indifferent to the loss of his e-pawn, as shown in these examples:

Pilkington,R - Harvey,E

Dublin Evening Mail corr, 1889

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 a5 3.d4 exd4 4.Qxd4 h5 5.Bc4 f6 6.0-0 d6 7.Nc3 Be7 8.Qd5 Black resigns

Judd,M - MacLeod,N

USA-06.Congress New York (8), 1889

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 c6 3.Nc3 d6 4.d4 Bg4 5.dxe5 Bxf3 6.Qxf3 dxe5 7.Bc4 Nf6 8.0-0 Be7 9.Qg3 0-0 10.Qxe5 Nbd7 11.Qf5 b5 12.Bd3 Bd6 13.Bg5 Qc7 14.f4 g6 15.Qh3 Nh5 16.e5 Bc5+ 17.Kh1 Rae8 18.Ne4 Be7 19.Bh6 Ng7 20.Rad1 f5 21.exf6 Bxf6 22.Bc4+ bxc4 23.Rxd7 Qc8 24.Nxf6+ Rxf6 25.Rxg7+ Kh8 26.Qxc8 Rxc8 27.Rxa7 Rg8 28.Re1 Rd6 29.h3 Black resigns

Csipkes,A - Sutro,J

Hungary, corr, 1893

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e5 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.d4 Nc6 5.Nxc6 Qxe4+ 6.Be3 Qxc6 7.Nc3 cxd4 8.Qxd4 Nf6 9.0-0-0 Be7 10.Rg1 0-0 11.g4 d6 12.g5 Ne8 13.Bb5 Qc7 14.Nd5 Qd8 15.Bxe8 Rxe8 16.Qf4 Rf8 17.Bd4 Be6 18.Nf6+ Kh8 19.Qh4 Bxf6 20.gxf6 g6 21.Rxg6 Rg8 22.Rdg1 Rxg6 23.Rxg6 Bf5 24.Qh6 Qf8 25.Rg7 a6 26.Bc3 Black resigns

Brody,M - Albin,A

Kolisch mem, Vienna (5), 1899

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 a6 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.d4 d6 5.Nf3 Qxe4+ 6.Be2 Bf5 7.c4 Qc2 8.0-0 Qxd1 9.Rxd1 Be7 10.Nc3 Nf6 11.Bf4 0-0 12.h3 Re8 13.Bd3 Bxd3 14.Rxd3 Bf8 15.Re3 Nbd7 16.Rae1 c6 17.Rxe8 Nxe8 18.d5 c5 19.Kf1 h6 20.g4 g5 21.Bg3 f6 22.Ke2 Kf7 23.Kd3 b5 24.b3 bxc4+ 25.bxc4 Rb8 26.Kc2 Rb4 27.Nd2 Ng7 28.a3 Rb6 29.f4 gxf4 30.Bxf4 h5 31.Nde4 hxg4 32.hxg4 Ne5 33.Bxe5 dxe5 34.Na4 Rb8 35.Kc3 Ne8 36.Naxc5 Rc8 37.Nd3 Nd6 38.Nxd6+ Bxd6 39.Rb1 e4 40.Nb4 Rb8 41.Re1 Be5+ 42.Kc2 a5 43.Nc6 Rb2+ 44.Kc1 Rb3 45.Rxe4 Rxa3 46.Nxe5+ fxe5 47.Kb2 Ra4 48.Kb3 Rb4+ 49.Kc3 Kf6 50.Re1 Rb8 51.Ra1 Rg8 52.Rf1+ Ke7 53.Rf5 Kd6 54.Rf6+ Kd7 55.Re6 Rg5 56.c5 Rxg4 57.Rxe5 Rg1 58.Rh5 Rc1+ 59.Kd4 Ke7 60.Rh6 a4 61.Ra6 Ra1 62.Ra7+ Kf6 63.c6 a3 64.Kc5 Ke5 65.Re7+ Kf5 66.Kd6 Rh1 67.c7 Rh6+ 68.Kc5 Rh8 69.d6 Kf6 70.Re2 a2 71.Rxa2 Ke6 72.Re2+ Black resigns

It's all too much to reflect on at once...

Jerome Gambit Blog: Tidying Up

Time to clean up a few things in this blog...

"In The Beginning..." refers to the first appearance in print of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) as being in the Dubuque Chess Journal, April 1874, Vol. VI, No. 50, p. 358-9.

This is a correction to the reference in the Oxford Companion to Chess, Whyld and Hooper, first (1984) and second editions (1992), noting "It appeared first in American Chess Journal, 1876." The authors are correct in that the June, September, November and December issues of the ACJ had Jerome Gambit content -- the Dubuque Chess Journal simply had prior coverage.
I have not been able to find an earlier reference than April 1874.

"To Infinity... And Beyond! (Part II)" and "Breaking News" indicated that at some time in the future Stefan Bücker's quarterly chess magazine, Kaissiber, would carry my article on the Jerome Gambit. Current speculation is there may be a short article in the October 2008 issue.

In "Nobody expects the Jerome Gambit!" I mentioned that Blackburne, in Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess (1899) referred to the Jerome Gambit as "the Kentucky Opening." I have yet to discover how it is that the British master came up with that name.

"Is This Blog About YOU??" and "You, too, can add to Jerome Gambit theory" both have been well-answered by games from ongoing Jerome Gambit thematic tournaments, and the occasional Comment to this blog or email to its Editor (richardfkennedy@hotmail.com). Of course, fresh games and analysis are always appreciated.

In "The Man, The Myth, The Legend..." I mentioned placing a classified ad with the online Paxton, Illinois (home of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome) website, http://www.paxtonil.com/, seeking information about the originator of the Jerome Gambit. While I have received no reply, and the ad has expired (and no longer appears), I can report that if you have an unwanted Paxtonopoly game, please contact the PRIDE office at 379-3388 or email pride@paxtonil.com.
I am no further enlightened on the things that puzzled me in " 'Tis A Puzzlement..."

After some progress on learning about the Jerome Gambit game Harris,W.A. Sgt. - Quayle,Ernest H.Los Angeles, California, USA 1944, as given in "The Joy of Discovery" Parts I, II, and III, the trail has gone cold.

"We are not alone..." heralded HANGING PAWN:: Tip's Chess Blog's coverage of the Jerome Gambit, and the offer therein of not just the computer vs computer Jerome Gambit games where White won (via download), but all of the games (contact the blogmaster). To date I have not received the larger stash.

With Rail2Rail winning his Jerome Gambit thematic tournament at ChessWorld, (see "Rail2Rail by a length" and "Rail2Rail Nails It") I had hoped for an annotated game or two from the winner; but nothing, yet.

"My head is spinning" Truly. Rybka 3.0 – or, in my case, Deep Rybka 3.0 Aquarium – is the real deal. It has got to be the tool for the serious (and very serious) chess player. Like having a "Grandmaster In A Box". A rather intimidating Grandmaster, at times – but: Wow!

After "The Salvio Gambit??" and "The Salvio Gambit?? (More)" I have not heard back from my friends at Chess.com, so I will tentatively suggest that I got my analysis correct.

Having fun with "Jerome Gambit and Vlad Tepes..." and "Jerome Gambit, Vlad Tepes and... Garlic!" I've started a couple of games at GameKnot with he-of-the-garlic, mika76.

As always, I'm "Looking for a few Jerome Gambit games..."
"Hey Wiki, it's me, Ricky!" So far the link to this blog from the Wikipedia article on the Jerome Gambit has been intact - and people are following it. Gotta love that.















Clipart from Clipartheaven.com

The Salvio Gambit?? [more]

Searching for the link between the 17th century Italian chess player Salvio and the Jerome Gambit – 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ – I had come upon J.H. Sarratt's translation of Salvio's works... see "The Salvio Gambit??"

Salvio presented a number of "games" in the Giuoco Piano section of his book, in five of which the first player sacrificed his Bishop for the pawn on his opponent's King Bishop Two square [f7/e7]. For the most part I have translated the descriptive notation to algebraic notation.

In this first game, Black moves first:

1.e5 e4 2.Bc5 Bc4 3.Nf6 Nc3 4.0-0 [Note: this is the early Italian form of castling, where the player has choices of where his King and Rook will go – in this case, the King goes to g8 and the Rook to e8.] Nf3 5.c6 Ng5 6.d5 exd5 7.Bxf2+


7...Kxf2 8.Ng4+ Kg1 9.Qxg5 d3 10.Qh4 Qe2

Wrote Sarratt "There is no advantage on either side, says SALVIO. It appears to me to be slightly in favor of the Black."

In the second game, and all subsequent games presented here, White moves first; and the pattern of play is familiar:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.0-0 [King to g1, Rook to e1] Nf6 5.c3 Ng4 6.d4 exd4 7.cxd4

Salvio's note:

White at the seventh move, instead of taking K.P. with Q. B. P. [7.cxd4], may take K. B. P. with his K.B., giving check [7.Bxf7+];

and if Black take that Bishop [7...Kxf7], White ought to check with his K. Kt. on the adversary's K. Kt. fourth square [8.Ng5+], and afterwards take K. Kt. with his Queen [9.Qxg4]. If Black should decline taking K.B., and, instead of it, should move his K. to his B. square [7...Kf8], White must move his Q. B. to adversary's K. Kt. fourth square [8.Bg5].

In the third game the Bishop sacrifice comes earlier:

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Qe2 Nf6 4.Bxf7+


4...Kxf7 5.Qc4+ d5 6.Qxc5 Nxe4 7.Qe3 Nf6

"The Black has a very good game" notes Salvio.


The fourth game is similar:

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Qe2 Nc6 4.Bxf7+



4...Kxf7 5.Qc4+ Ke8 Qxc5 "and wins a Pawn."

The last game:

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.c3 c6

"This is a highly exceptionable move;" wrote Sarratt, "instead of it the Queen ought to be moved to her K. second square. [3...Qe7]"

4.Qe2

Then another note by Sarratt "Salvio has not directed the White to avail himself of his adversary's error: White may play much better, ex. gr. 4.d4 exd4 5.Bxf7+



5...Kxf7 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxc5

and white has a much better game."

It is clear that Salvio – and Sarratt – liked to sacrifice a Bishop at f7/f2. Perhaps that is what the Chess.com posters or Golombek had in mind when they linked Salvio with the Jerome Gambit.

However, nowhere in Salvio's Trattato does a Bishop sacrifice at f7/f2 occur after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5.

I guess I'd better search for more Golombek books!

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!