One of my favorite chess writers is GM Andy Soltis. With over 100 books to his name, and almost 50 years as a chess columnist for the New York Post, he continues to write the longest-running column in the United States Chess Federation's magazine, Chess Life. "Chess to Enjoy" reflects Soltis' ongoing appreciation of both the weird and the wonderful in the Royal Game.
So, it is not surprising to run across "GM Follies", his August, 1997 Chess Life column. After acknowledging that Chess Informant had 57 symbols used in its annotations, he noted
Among them is "N" for "Novelty" - formerly known as "TN" for "Theoretical Novelty" - to designate some new and wonderful addition to opening theory.
However, GM Soltis has a caution, and a suggestion
Of course, not every good move is new - and not every new move is good. In fact, the last few years have seen a remarkable plague of HIs - Horrible Innovations...
After giving a couple of modern HIs, by a National Master and by a Grandmaster, he added
Those innovations are not likely to be repeated. But some really bad, yet not immediately refutable, novelties were tried more than once - and became famous enough to be recognized with their own name...
Why was I not surprised to read
THE JEROME GAMBIT
1. P-K4 P-K4 2. N-KB3 N-QB3 3. B-B4 B-B4 4. BxPch?? KxB 5. NxPch NxN 6. P-Q4 which gets it[sic] name because someone named Alonzo Wheeler Jerome, of Paxton, Illinois, recommended it in the American Chess Journal in 1876. Its only discernable value is showing how to sack two pieces as quickly as possible.
The reference to the American Chess Journal of 1876 is worth noting. As we have seen in earlier posts, Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's first recommendation of his gambit came in the Dubuque Chess Journal, April 1874, Vol. VI, No. 50, p. 358-9.
In pointing out that earlier recommendation by AWJ, I mean no disrespect to GM Soltis; he appears to have relied on The Oxford Companion to Chess (1984, 1992) by Kenneth Whyld and David Hooper as his source - and there were several Jerome Gambit references in the 1876 American Chess Journal. (Add to that a curious series of naming and re-naming of chess magazines reference...)
The Jerome Gambit is often presented as some kind of bashi-bazouk attack, referring to, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "mercenary soldier[s] belonging to the skirmishing or irregular troops of the Ottoman Empire, notorious for their indiscipline, plundering, and brutality."
Yet some Jerome games move along placidly, largely balanced, with White content to develop his pieces and advance his "Jerome pawns" - until. A sudden imbalance brings a sudden end.
Wall, Bill -Guest5296006
PlayChess.com, 2018
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Bxd4 7.Qxd4 Qf6
A move that has the threat of either winning or exchanging the enemy Queen. White notices, but doesn't seem to mind.
8.Be3 Ne7 9.O-O Rf8 10.Nc3 c6 11.Rad1 Kg8
Black has castled-by-hand, and has a piece for a pawn. If this distresses his opponent, it is not apparent.
12.f4 Ng4
13.Qxf6 Nxf6
14.Bc5 Re8 15.Bd6
Black's Bishop is at home, currently blocked in - and it, in turn, blocks his Rook (a dilemma we have seen many times before). His solution is to advance the Queenside pawns, which drains away his advantage.
15...b5 16.f5 a5 17.e5
In the meantime, White moves in the center. The position is about even.
I am reminded of something GM Andy Soltis wrote in Grandmaster Secrets Openings (2000), that at some point a player has to decide if he is going to go for a small advantage, or a large advantage. Black can keep things balanced, here -but he wants more.
17...Nfd5
He should have relied on 17...Ned5 18.exf6 Nxf6.
18.f6
At first, a bit of a surprse, as Black is threatening the Knight fork of two Rooks with 18...Ne3, but White can meet this with 19.f7+ Kf8 20.Ne4!? giving up the exchange, as 20...Nxf1 21.Rxf1 requires that Black return the Rook, with 21...h6 22.fxe8/Q+, because 21...Rd8 22.Ng5 would be even worse.
18...gxf6 19.exf6
Now Black can try to struggle on after returning the Knight with 19...Nxf6 20.Rxf6, possibly reaching a Bishops-of-opposite-colors endgame, but he thinks he can do better. He can't.
19...Nxc3 20.f7+ Kf8 21.bxc3
You know that White's game is powerful when he doesn't have to capture the Rook at e8,
21...Rd8 22.Rde1 Black resigned
Not only does White threaten to win the Knight at e7, with check, then pick up the Rook at d8, he also has a forced checkmate, e.g. 22...Kg7 23.Rxe7 Rf8 (What else?) 24.Re3 h6 25.Bxf8+ Kxf8 26.Re8+ Kf7 27.f8/Q+ Kg6 28.Qf5+ Kg7 29.Qf7#
Often I find myself explaining the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) to people in conversations that go something like this...
So, this Jerome Gambit thing, it must be some kind of great opening that wins all the time?
Well, actually, it's known as the "worst chess opening ever".
Oh... It must make you feel sad, losing all the time with it.
In truth, I win more than 3/4 the time. Maybe, 80 - 85%.
Aha! Beating up on all those weakies, I imagine!
Sometimes I give "Jerome Gambit odds" to players weaker than me, to even things up. Sometimes I play above my head, too. Looking at the strength of my opponents, I should score maybe 60%.
But you score 80% or more? What's THAT all about?
Members of the Jerome Gambit Gemeinde become experienced in the field of "the psychology of error".
Please explain.
The simplest idea is "the ticking time bomb". Willy Hendriks explains something like it in his Move First, Think Later: Sense and Nonsense in Improving Your Chess, only, of course much better than I do. Basically, stronger players err less often than weaker players.
Duh.
Think of each player having a ticking time bomb that goes off whenever he or she makes an error. Grandmaster "booms" are relatively infrequent. Beginning player "booms" are much more frequent, like a series on a snare drum.
Or ticks of a clock?
In some cases, yes. Anyhow, even after the Jerome Gambiteer has presented an opponent with the gift of a "won" position, if White can use an understanding of the tactics and strategy of the opening to delay further "booms" on that side of the board, the opponent will have a chance to chime in.
"Boom" and the game is even?
Yes, and sometimes "boom" again, and White has the advantage. Or, sometimes it's simply "boom" and White wins.
That doesn't seem like "real" chess.
Well, Grandmasters would never play the Jerome Gambit, right, but there is much truth in Andy Soltis's book Catalog of Chess Mistakes when he points out the large number of games (especially at the club level) that are "lost" rather than "won".
Ouch. What else is involved in "the psychology of error"?
There is a whole lot more. For example...
[to be continued]
Catalog of Chess Mistakes
Andy Soltis
David McKay (1979)
softcover, 213 pages
English descriptive notation
Grandmaster Andy Soltis' "Chess to Enjoy" column in the monthly Chess Life magazine has been one of the most popular features with readers for decades. Soltis writes well, and he knows what he readers want to see.
Catalog of Chess Mistakes is one of the author's older titles, written when he was still an International Master. Yet, it is worth a look (or another look) as it fits in well with several titles that I have touched on over the last few weeks: Why You Lose At Chess, Danger in Chess and Surprise in Chess.
Soltis starts right out annoying traditionalists
If you are like me, you have already started giggling.
Chess is a game of bad moves. It it, in fact, the game that most depends on error. No game has a greater variety of ways of going wrong or gives you as many opportunities – dozens on every move. Other games depend heavily on chance or on the mastery of some relatively limited skills. But a chess game is decided by the failings of one of the players.
Yet we refuse to recognize this. We like to think the game is a battle between good moves and better moves. When we win, we tell ourselves – and anyhone who will listen – that the critical difference was our fine maneuvering, our positional cunning, or our tactical ingenuity. When we lose, well, it was a stupid mistake – as if errors were an abberation, an extraordinary accident. Mistakes can only be messy, ugly, and disruptieve, we say.
Soltis is only warming up
The masters know better. They know that a well-played game is not an error-free game. There are errors of varying magnitudes, and each game is sure to hold some small mistakes. "Chess is the struggle against error," said Johanned Zukertort, one of the greatest players of the last century. Victory belongs to the player who struggles best – not just against an opponent, but against himself.
The author lays out his targets in each chapter: Tactical Errors, Mistakes with Pieces, Calculation and Miscalculation, Positioinal Errors, Strategic Errors, Your Attitude Is Your Error, Practical Mistakes and Errors with Material.
He encourages players to examine their own games, asking
1) What kind of error is it?
2) How serious would the error be if punished?
3) When was the error made?
4) What was the status of the game when you comitted the error?
5) How were your errors spaced?
Once you've developed this Error Profile you'll know, in short, what part of your game you need to work on away from the tournament hall and what to watch out for when you are at the board. Self-awareness is the name of the game.
My only concern is that it remains in English Descriptive Notation (e.g. 1.P-K4) which may be annoying to some players and incomprehensible to younger ones. Still, it's worth the effort!
Catalog of Chess Mistakes is an engaging, humorous, enjoyable book; its examples are well-drawn from games and players strong and not-so-strong; read it, and you will begin shedding some of your more memorable mistakes.
Why You Lose at Chess 2nd Ed
Tim Harding
Dover (2001)
softcover, 130 pages
figurine algebraic notation
I suppose that you can sense a pattern in the chess books that I have mentioned lately, the last two being Surprise in Chess and Danger in Chess: How to Avoid Making Blunders.
There are a number of links to be made between these books, Why You Lose at Chess,(*) and the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) – and I suppose I should get around to reviewing the titularly more inclusive Why We Lose at Chess (emphasis mine) by Colin Crouch and the more distanced Catalog of Chess Mistakes by Andy Soltis – but the real hook for me (besides the fact that I have loved every book by Dr. Harding that I have ever read) with Why You Lose at Chess (emphasis mine), which left me laughing out loud, was Harding's main theme of the book
Before you can play well, you must stop playing badly.
Ain't it the truth??
The table of Contents promisess a killer's row of self-induced pain
Why You Lose Material
Why You Lose In The Opening
Why You Lose In The Endgame
Why You Lose In The Middle Game
Why You Lose In Good Positions
Why You Lose In Difficult Positions
Why You Lose On Time
Why You Lose At Correspondence Chess
Why You Lose To Computers
Each chapter not only has examples of chess players behaving badly, and coming to no good ends, but also contains explanations by the author about what is going on, what should be going on, and how things could be corrected.
Of special interest is the chapter "My Most Instructive Loss" where IM Harding, IM Cenek Kottnaur, IM George Botterill and IM Bob Wade all share their insights.
I found his "Acknowledgements & Bibliography" chapter interesting as well, where Harding recommends Gerald Abrahams' The Chess Mind, Kotov's Play Like A Grandmaster and Think Like A Grandmaster and Krogius' Psychology in Chess. (I touched on all of these a while back in "My Chess Psychology Book Shelf".)
Harding maintains an optimistic, at times humorous, but always encouraging outlook
Three results are possible in a game of chess – win, loss and draw. This book is intended to cut down drastically on your rate of losses, by recognising the danger signals in time, and by analysing what went wrong in the games you do lose.
To let a potential win slip into a draw is a disappointment but, for most players, it cannot compare with the blow to one's confidence that comes from losing in a serious game. The occasional loss to an acknowledged superior is no bad thing, as an insurance against overconfidence and for the lesson in technique it may give you. However, most of your losses are probably of a more painful variety.
Most of the games you play are likely to be against opponents of approximately your own standard; yo win some and you lose some, yet you always feel that you could do better. By a little extra study beforehand, and more effort while at the board, you could turn that 50 per cent success rate into 80 or 90 per cent and so raise yourself into a new class of competition...
I've read the book through once and am working on it again. After all, an 80 or 90 per cent success rate in the Jerome Gambit would be awesome!
(*- here's a relevant list of reasons attributed to Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member Bill Wall)
I believe that it was GM Andy Soltis, long ago, who wrote that it can be difficult to decide, when there is a choice of either Rook to move to a square, which one to choose. He even humoursly suggested that, regardless of which one the player chooses, the annotator would be able to to kibitz "Wrong Rook".
That assessment is at the heart of this game (even though, here, it is a matter of choosing which of two Rooks should be moved, each to a different square), but it probably should be written "WRONG ROOK!" and placed against the background of a ticking clock...
perrypawnpusher - pitrisko
blitz, FICS, 2011
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6
7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qe3 Qf6
In a game that we played 3 days earlier (see "Like the Big Boys"), my opponent had tried the very reasonable 9...Nf6.
10.Nc3
I've played a couple of games with 10.0-0; see perrypawnpusher - TJPOT, blitz, FICS, 2009 (1-0, 48) and perrypawnpusher - LeiCar, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 25).
Louis Morin ("mrjoker") has played a couple with 10.d4; see guest2199 - guest401, ICC, 2004 (1-0, 87) and mrjoker - Igor77, ICC, 2008 (1-0, 70).
10...c6 11.0-0 N8e7 12.f4 Rf8
This is Black's idea: with the King Knight on e7, he can double the heavy pieces on the f-file. He will have four pieces trained on the f5 square.
13.f5 Ne5 14.d4 Nc4 15.Qd3 b5
I've seen similar Knight vs Queen face-offs, for example perrypawnpusher - saltos, blitz, FICS, 2009 (1-0, 28).
16.b3 Nb6 17.Bb2
I liked this move, both kicking the enemy Knight and preparing to put my Bishop on the long diagonal.
Yet, Rybka 3, after the game, preferred the same move that I've been wrestling with, in different settings, recently (see "What does the Jerome Gambit deserve?" and "Like the Big Boys"): 17.e5
The main idea is the clearance sacrifice, 17...dxe5 18.Ne4. The secondary idea is that if Black advances his Queen, instead, with 17...Qh4, White will advance his pawn with 18.f6. There is also the ugly 17...Bxf5 18.exf6 Bxf6 19.cxd3 Rxf6 20.Rxf6 gxf6 Ne4 where White will have an edge in the endgame.
I guess when I better understand e4-e5, I'll have a better handle on the Jerome Gambit.
17...Kf7
It's never to late to castle-by-hand.
18.Ne2 Nd7 19.Rae1 a5 20.Nf4 Kg8
Things seem to be going as planned: I have plenty of development as compensation for my sacrifice, I am about to drop a knight into an outpost at e6, and my opponent is running short of time.
21.Ne6 Rf7 22.e5
Give yourself credit if you saw the Bishop-and-Knight-tour: 22.Bc1 h6 23.Nc7 Ra7 24.Ne8 Qh4 25.Nxd6 winning a pawn.
22...dxe5
pitrisko's time was running out, so he overlooked the better 22...Qh4, which left White with only a small edge.
23.dxe5 Qh4 24.Rf4
All together now: WRONG ROOK!
Of course, after 24.Re4, Black's Queen is in danger of being trapped, and his best move, 24...Qh5, allows 25.Nf4 followed by 26.e6.
What a sad way to mess up a relatively well-played game by White!
24...Qxe1+ 25.Rf1 Qh4 26.Nc7 Nxf5 27.Nxa8 Nc5 28.Qc3
Here, much to my relief, Black forfeited on time.
Another example of the equalizing injustice of chess.
I've had fun playing over a number of his games and have decided to present several, starting in his pre-Jerome Gambit era. Even early on, his brand of wild, brash and outrageous play had some Jerome-ish tinges to it.
Watt,B - Wall
Taylorsville, NC, 1975
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Bc5
Having his own ideas, but this was too much for his opponent to sit still and take.
3.Na4
Cue the scary violin music: we have seen this before in "Godfather of the Jerome Gambit? Part I, Part II, Part III", "Godfather of Oz??" and "Hamppe - Meitner Revealed".
3...Bxf2+ 4.Kxf2 Qh4+
5.Ke3 Qf4+ 6.Kd3
6...Nf6
Hampe - Meitner, Vienna, 1870 continued 6...d5 7.Kc3 Qxe4 8.Kb3 Na6 9.a3 Qxa4+ 10.Kxa4 Nc5+ 11.Kb4 a5+ 12.Kxc5 Ne7 13.Bb5+ Kd8 14.Bc6 b6+ 15.Kb5 Nxc6 16.Kxc6 Bb7+ 17.Kb5 Ba6+ draw
7.Nc3
In the September 2002 issue of Chess Life, Grandmaster Andy Soltis suggested 7.Qf3 as an improvement in this line. (I have no idea if he was familiar with Bill's game here.)
7...d5
8.Qe1
Understandably faltering under pressure. Rybka suggests that White could find his way to a balanced game with: 8.Qf3 dxe4+ 9.Nxe4 Bf5 10.Qxf4 exf4 11.Ke2 Nxe4 12.d3 Nf6 13.Bxf4 Nc6 14.Nf3 0-0-0 15.Re1 Nd5 16.Bg3 Ndb4
analysis diagram
8...dxe4+ 9.Kc4 e3+
It's "open season" on Kings...
10.Kb3 Nc6 11.a3 Be6+ White resigned
Chess research is sometimes incomplete or contradictory and often a mystery wanting a solution.
I gave analysis from Wolfgang Heidenfeld's book Draw! (1982) in "Godfather of the Jerome Gambit? (Part III)" because it gave the strongest play for both sides in line with the progress of the game Wind - Winckelman, correspondence 1993.
Draw! was not the most far-reaching or most recent resource available to me.
Consider the following quote from Edmar Mednis in his King Power in Chess (1982)
Strong winning chances are offered by the more active 11.Kb5!. Black still must play 11...a5, after which 12.Qe2 (Heidenfeld) is parried by 12...Ne6!! (Seidman). The threatened 13...Bd7 mate forces 13.Ka4 Nc5+ 14.Kb5 Ne6 etc., with repetition of moves for a draw.Therefore, in order to win, White must try other defensive methods. Two promising ones are 12.b4!? (Kastner) and 12. c4! (Presley).
The move 12.Qe2, which Mednis attributed to Heidenfeld, was not mentioned in Draw! – it was from Heidenfeld's earlier book, Grosse Remispartien (1968). It is not surprising that Mednis relied on the latter, as the former and King Power in Chess were published the same year.
The other references – Seidman, Kastner, and Presley – are unclear.
Note also that in "Godfather of the Jerome Gambit? (Part III)" Heidenfeld is quoted that he had mentioned the move 11.Kb5 in Deutsche Schachzeitung in 1972 – four years after Grosse Remispartien. He also attributed, after 11...a5, the move 12.b4 to Ettner, not Kastner; and overlooked the possibility of 12.c4 – although, after 11...Ne7 he attributed it to Schmedes.
Andrew Soltis, in his Chess Life column "Chess to Enjoy" for September 2002 wrote
Wolfgang Heidenfeld, the German-Irish-South African author of a book about spectacular draws, criticized this one [move] and said that instead of Hamppe's 11.Kb4, there's a win in 12.Kb5 a5 and now 12.Qe2!
Note that Soltis referred to the 1968 book by Heidenfeld, not the 1982 one (which should have been available to him). Soltis continued
But when this was discussed in the pages of Chess Life & Review nearly 25 years ago, senior master Herbert Seidman pointed out that Black had a simple improvement in 11...Ne6!, threatening 12...Bd7 mate. White's only response to 11...Ne6 is – 12. Ka4! allowing 12...Nc5+ 13.Kb5 Ne6! with another repetition...
So it appears that Mednis' "Seidman" referred to a Chess Life & Review article from around 1978.
More Soltis
Is that the end for Hamppe-Meitner? No, because defenders of the game argued that Black's error was 11...a5. The right way is 11...Ne7! with the idea of ...a7-a5.
Soltis then looked at 12.d4 and 12.b4 and 12.Qh5 – but not 12.c4 which was the best line according to Heidenfeld in 1982!
Readers are encouraged to dive in with their own ideas, as well as with clarifications of Ettner, Kastner, Presley, Schmedes and Seidman.
(Chess researchers are reminded of the fantastic 4 DVD set Chess Review & Chess Life Complete Collection 1933-1975, reviewed here, and available here.)
graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"
