Another Example of the Vitzthum Attack

Earlier on this blog, I have looked at the Sarratt or Vitzthum Attack as a possible fore-runner to the Jerome Gambit. (See "A Bridge To... Somewhere?", "Another Distant Relative?", "The Sarratt Attack" and "Another look at the Sarratt Attack").

Recently I discovered a game published in the "Chess" column of the April 23, 1876 issue of  the St. Louis Globe - Democrat. I have changed the notation from descriptive to algebraic and added some diagrams. The comments remain those of the newpaper's chess editor.


Chess in St. Louis
A Rapid Skirmish, Recently Played At St. Louis Chess Club

Mr. H - Mr. M 
St. Louis Chess Club, 1876

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4

This was long the accepted move at this point, but now 4.Nxd4 is now more common.

4...Bc5 5.Ng5 Nh6 6.Nxf7 Nxf7 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxc5

All "book" so far.

9...Rf8

9...d5 is the only correct move here, giving black the better game.

10.Bh6 Re8 11.Nd2 Kg8 12.Qd5+ Kh8 13.Qf7

White now wins by force, let black play as he will.

13...Rg8 14.Nf3 Qe8 15.Ng5 and wins 

Another look at the Sarratt Attack

A propos the "Sarratt Attack" which I have looked at in a few posts on this blog, I should have mentioned the three-part series of articles at chess.com by "mikrohaus2014" which gives excellent historical and analytical coverage: Parts 1, 2, and 3.

The Sarratt Attack

Of the Sarrat / Vitzthum Attack (see the recent "Another Distant Relative" as well as "A Bridge To... Somewhere" and "Abridged"), The City of London Chess Magazine wrote in 1875

This attack, invented by Count Vitzthum, was very much practised about twenty years ago. [Here, Readers may recall Meek - Morphy, Mobile, Alabama, 1855; Meek - Morphy, New Orleans, 1855; and Kennicott - Morphy, New York, 1857 as examples; although Lowenthal, in Morphy's Games (1860), had already opined "This {5.Ng5}is far from an effective mode of proceeding with the attack, and is decidedly inferior to castling" and "This mode of proceeding with the attack is comparatively obsolete, as with the correct play the defense is perfectly satisfactory." ] It is now abandoned in contests of strong players, as the analysis proved that Black can maintain his Pawn with a good position.

Cook's Synopsis of the Chess Openings (1874) had been equally dismissive

This attack is now seldom played; with correct play it results in an even game.

Wait a minute!

What if White is happy with "an even game" and is interested in tricky play? 

I am surprised that the opening is not played more often!

As it turns out, a recent game of mine, with the Black pieces, at Chess.com (3 days / move) started with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Bc5 (I was thinking about a reversed Jerome Gambit) 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.d4 exd4 5.Ng5 Nh6 6.Nxf7 Nxf7 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxc5.

In fact, after 9...d5 10.Nd2 Re8 11.0-0 12.Re1 Bf5 13.c3 Kg7 14.cxd4 Nxd4 (instead of ...Qxd4!) Blacks game fell apart quickly.

Another Distant Relative?

As promised, I have done more research on an opening variation that I previously looked at (see "A Bridge To... Somewhere" and "Abridged") as a possible inspiration to Alonzo Wheeler Jerome in his creation of the Jerome Gambit.

A variation of the Scotch Gambit - called either the Sarratt Attack or the Vitzthum Attack - has similar sacrifical fireworks on f7: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Ng5!? with the possible followup of 5...Nh6 6.Nxf7+ Nxf7 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxc5.

The earliest example I have seen is 

Sarratt,J - NN
casual game, 1818
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4 exd4 5.Ng5 Ne5 6.Nxf7 Nxf7 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxc5 Black resigned

Two other relevant examples are

Conrad Waldemar Vitzthum von Eckstaedt - Baron Tassilo von Heydebrand under Laso
Leipzig, 1853
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Ng5 Nh6 6.Qh5 Qe7 7.f4 d6 8.0-0 Na5 9.Bd3 Ng4 10.h3 Nf6 11.Qf3 h6 12.Bd2 Nc6 13.b4 Bb6 14.b5 Nd8 15.e5 dxe5 16.fxe5 Nd7 17.Nxf7 Nxf7 18.e6 Qxe6 19.Bf4 Nf6 20.Nd2 0-0 21.Bc4 Qf5 22.Qb3 Qh5 23.Rae1 Kh8 24.Ne4 Nxe4 25.Rxe4 Nd6 26.Re5 d3+ 27.Kh2 Qh4 28.Bg3 Bg1+ 29.Kh1 Rxf1 30.Bxh4 Bd4+ 31.Kh2 Bxe5+ 32.Bg3 Bxg3+ 33.Kxg3 d2 White resigned


Conrad Waldemar Vitzthum von Eckstaedt - Adolf Anderssen
Leipzig, 1855
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Ng5 Nh6 6.Qh5 Qe7 7.f4 d6 8.h3 Na5 9.Bd3 Nf5 10.Nxf7 g6 11.Qe2 Ng3 12.Qf3 Nxh1 13.Nxh8 Qh4+ 14.Kd1 Nf2+ 15.Ke2 Nxd3 16.Qxd3 Be6 17.Qb5+ Nc6 18.Qxb7 d3+ 19.cxd3 Nd4+ 20.Kd1 Bg4+ 21.hxg4 Qh1+ White resigned


I have also found several more Blackburne games

Charles H. Stanley - Joseph Henry Blackburne 
Manchester, 1862
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Ng5 Nh6 6.Nxf7 Nxf7 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qd5+ Kg7 10.Qxc5 d5 11.b4 dxe4 12.Bb2 Re8 13.b5 Re5 14.Qc4 Be6 15.Qa4 e3 16.0-0 Rg5 17.f4 e2 18.fxg5 exf1Q+ 19.Kxf1 Qd5 20.Nd2 Rf8+ 21.Kg1 Bh3 22.Nf3 Rxf3 23.gxf3 Qxg5+ 24.Kf2 Black announced mate in 6 moves


Joseph Henry Blackburne - Alexander Steinkuehler
Manchester, 1872
1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Ng5 Nh6 6.Qh5 0-0 7.0-0 d6 8.h3 Qe7 9.f4 Be6 10.Bd3 f5 11.Nd2 Kh8 12.Ndf3 fxe4 13.Bxe4 Bf5 14.Re1 Bxe4 15.Rxe4 Qd7 16.Bd2 d3+ 17.Kh2 dxc2 18.Rae1 a5 19.Bc3 Kg8 20.Nxh7 Bf2 21.Qg6 Bxe1 22.Nhg5 Rf6 23.Qh7+ Kf8 24.Qh8+ Ng8 25.Nh7+ Kf7 26.Nfg5+ Kg6 27.Nf8+ Raxf8 28.Qh7 checkmate


Joseph Henry Blackburne - William R. Ballard
blindfold simul 1 of 5 London, 1872
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Ng5 Nh6 6.Qh5 Qe7 7.0-0 Ne5 8.Bb3 d6 9.h3 Ng8 10.f4 d3+ 11.Kh2 Nf6 12.Qd1 Neg4+ 13.hxg4 Nxg4+ 14.Kg3 h5 15.f5 Be3 16.Bxf7+ Kf8 17.Qxg4 hxg4 18.Bxe3 Qe5+ 19.Bf4 Qxb2 20.Nd2 dxc2 21.Nc4 Qc3+ 22.Ne3 Bd7 23.Kxg4 Ba4 24.Nd5 Qd3 25.Bg6 Rh6 26.Ne6+ Kg8 27.Ne7+ Kh8 28.Rh1 Qd1+ 29.Raxd1 cxd1Q+ 30.Rxd1 Bxd1+ 31.Kg3 Rh1 32.Bd2 Bh5 33.Bc3 Rg8 34.f6 Bxg6 35.Nxg6+ Kh7 36.f7 Black resigned


Joseph Henry Blackburne - Henry William Birkm Gifford
The Hague, 1874
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Ng5 Nh6 6.Qh5 Qe7 7.f4 0-0 8.0-0 d6 9.f5 d3+ 10.Kh1 dxc2 11.Nc3 Ne5 12.Nd5 Qd8 13.f6 Ng6 14.fxg7 Kxg7 15.Qxh6+ Kxh6 16.Ne6+ Kh5 17.Be2+ Kh4 18.Rf4+ Nxf4 19.g3+ Kh3 20.Nexf4 checkmate


Joseph Henry Blackburne - Arthur Davy
blindfold simul 1 of 10 Sheffield, 1874
1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.Ng5 Nh6 6.Qh5 Qe7 7.0-0 d6 8.h3 Ne5 9.Bb3 Bd7 10.f4 Qf6 11.Nd2 Qg6 12.Qh4 f6 13.Ne6 Bxe6 14.Bxe6 Nef7 15.Nf3 Qxe4 16.Re1 d3+ 17.Kh1 Qb4 18.c3 Qb6 19.Bxf7+ Kxf7 20.Qh5+ Kf8 21.f5 Nf7 22.Re6 Bf2 23.Bd2 Qxb2 24.Rf1 Bg3 25.Qg4 Be5 26.Qc4 c5 27.Qxd3 Qxa2 28.Nxe5 fxe5 29.Rxd6 e4 30.Qg3 Qc4 31.Rd1 Nxd6 32.Qxd6+ Kf7 33.Qd7+ Kf6 34.Bf4 Black resigned

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...

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!