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 3)

[continued from the previous post]

Foolishly chasing A. G. Johnson's claim, in The Oregon Daily Journal, that Wilhelm Steinitz "in the zenith of his career as world's champion succumbed in his first attempt to defend the [Jerome] gambit", I searched through ChessBase's Big Database for any possibly relevant Steinitz game. I turned up a couple of games that appeared to be distant relations to the Jerome Gambit - and immediately tumbled upon a dissertation by Steinitz on one of his opponents, in, among others, Deacon - Steinitz, match game, London, 1863. Planning, also, to share the other discovery, Robey - Steinitz, London, 1865, I tripped over the following anecdote, concerning both Deacon and Robey, from George Alcock MacDonnell's The Knights and Kings of Chess (Horace Cox, 1894).

The following incident in his game with Mr. F. Deacon (at that time reputed to be one of the strongest players in England) is, I think, not unworthy of record. In the course of the fight, which took place at St. James's Hall, Mr. Deacon left the table, and sought out his friend, the late Mr. Staunton. Finding that gentleman surrounded by a host of admirers— myself included—he invited all of us to come and witness the grand finale with which he was going to crown his victory over James Roby. We at once accepted the invitation, and crowded round his board. "You see," said Deacon, in a whisper, to Staunton, "he must take the pawn or the bishop; if he takes the pawn I sacrifice the exchange and mate in four; and if he takes the bishop I sacrifice the queen, the queen, sir, and mate in seven." "Indeed," muttered the British autocrat. 

Scarce had this little scene been enacted when Roby looked up from the board, on which he had been gazing for a long time, and surveying the increased concourse of spectators, smilingly looked at Deacon, who was standing opposite to him, and exclaimed, "Won't you take your seat, Mr. Deacon?" The polite Deacon at once sat down. 

"It's mate in five," said Roby, still looking at his opponent. "No," replied Deacon; "if you make the best move I cannot mate you in less than seven."  

"It's mate in five," rejoined the hardhearted Roby. "It is I who give the mate, not you." Then followed rapidly a series of brilliant moves, and in two minutes Roby arose from the table triumphant, leaving his opponent to sit on there, utterly amazed and chapfallen.

Another fine chess story! Dr. Tim Harding, in his British Chess Literature to 1914: A Handbook for Historians (McFarland, 2018), dates its first appearance to MacDonnell's chess column in the February 20, 1866 issue of the Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News, and, in considering Deacon - Robey, B.C.A. Grand Tournament, London, 1862, suggested that "the facts somewhat spoil the story". Nonetheless...

Oh? The chess games? The not-quite Jerome Gambit games that A. G. Johnson was probably not referring to? That will have to wait until the next blog post...

[to be continued]

No Way A GM Plays the Jerome Gambit! (Part 2)

[continued from previous post]

It's true: Sad to say, you are not going to see a Grandmaster play the Jerome Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+, in a serious, competitive game, any time soon.

However - what about a couple of 2700 players contesting a line of play that might have inspired Alonzo Wheeler Jerome to create his fantastical gambit?

It is quite reasonable to suspect that American chess players back in the mid- to late-1800s were familiar with the Sarratt Attack, if only because of the games Meek - Morphy, Alabama, 1855 (0-1, 21) and Kennicott - Morphy, New York, 1857 (0-1, 24). They also had access to Staunton's The Chess-Player's Handbook (1847) and Chess Praxis (1860), along with various chess magazines and newspaper chess columns.

But - modern Grandmasters?

Grischuk, A. - Karjakin, Sergey
St. Louis Blitz, St. Louis, 2018

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 

The Scotch Opening.

3...exd4 4.Bc4 

The Scotch Gambit.

4...Bc5 5.Ng5 

The Sarratt Attack. It has received a number of posts on this blog. For coverage, check out "Capt. Evans Faces the Sarratt Attack".

Grischuk plays it against the previous challenger in the world chess championship!

5...Nh6 6.Nxf7 

Of course, 6.Bxf7+ was also possible.

6...Nxf7 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qh5+ 

Look familiar?

8...g6 9.Qxc5 d5 

The proper, "scientific" response, going back to at least Mongredien, Augustus - Williams, Elijah, London Chess Club, 1853 (0-1, 23). The game is about even, but, surely, White has the element of surprise on his side.

10.O-O dxe4 11.c3 Be6 12.Bf4 Qd5 13.cxd4 Qxd4 14.Qc1

Grischuk does not want to exchange Queens. The difference in King safety is probably compensation enough for Karjakin's extra pawn.

14...Bc4 15.Re1 Bd3 16.Nc3 Rhe8 17.Bxc7 Rac8 18.Bg3 Kg8 

19.Qg5 Rf8 20.Rad1 Rf5 21.Qg4 Re8 22.Kh1 Re6 23.f3 Ne5

Quite a complicated position - and at blitz speed, too.

Instead of the text, the computer suggests exchanging pieces with 23...exf3 24.Qxd4 Nxd4 25.Rxd3 Rxe1+ 26.Bxe1 f2 27.Bxf2 Rxf2 28.Kg1 Rf4 and an even game.

Now, White gains a pawn - temporarily.

24.Bxe5 Rfxe5 25.Nxe4 Kg7 26.b3 Qb4 27.h3 Bxe4 28.Rxe4 Rxe4 29.fxe4 Rxe4 

The game is less than 1/2 over, move-wise, but it is effectively "over" - barring a blunder, which 2700s don't do very often, even at blitz.

30.Qg3 Qe7 31.Kh2 Kh6 32.Rd5 a6 33.Qd3 Qc7+ 34.Qg3 Qxg3+ 35.Kxg3 

35...Re2 36.Rd7 b5 37.a4 Re3+ 38.Kf4 Rxb3 39.axb5 Rb4+ 40.Kf3 axb5 41.Rb7 Rb1 42.Kf4 g5+ 43.Kg4 b4 44.Rb6+ Kg7 45.Kxg5 Rc1 46.Rb7+ Kg8 47.Rxb4 

The Rook + 2 pawns vs Rook + 1 pawn, pawns on the same side of the board, is a known draw. Twenty or so more moves, perhaps with a nod to the clock, do not change things.

47...Rc5+ 48.Kf6 Rc6+ 49.Ke5 Rc5+ 50.Kd6 Rc2 51.Rg4+ Kf7 52.Ke5 Rc5+ 53.Kd4 Ra5 54.Ke3 Ra3+ 55.Kf4 Ra5 56.Rg5 Ra3 57.Rg3 Ra5 58.Rf3 Kg6 59.Rb3 Ra4+ 60.Kf3 Rc4 61.g4 Ra4 62.Kg3 h6 63.Kh4 Ra5 64.Rb6+ Kg7 65.Rc6 Rb5 66.Rc3 Ra5 67.Kg3 h5 68.Rc7+ Kg6 69.Rc6+ Kg7 drawn

Wow. That was fun. White uncorked an ancient opening and managed to "lose" only half a point.

Now that the element of surprise has evaporated, Grischuk wouldn't play the Sarratt Attack again, would he??

[to be continued]

Proto-Jerome Gambits? (Part 4)

Of course, as Alonzo Wheeler Jerome was putting together his ideas on the Jerome Gambit, he might well have been influenced by the games of Joseph Henry Blackburne, whose aggression often showed up in sharp attacks like the one after 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ as we have seen before; or, a move later, here.

(A correspondence game played after Jerome passed on is still worth passing along again.)

Coming out of the move order that we have been looking at, 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.d4 exd4 the Lewis Gambit, reaches the same position after 4.Bxf7+, and, as the earliest example was Staunton - Cochrane, match, 1841, the line was likely available to Jerome as well. 

It is also available to Readers who would like to check out Secrets of Opening Surprises, Volume 10, edited by Jeroen Bosch, where the Lewis Gambit is examined. 

A Bridge To... Somewhere?

Yesterday's game, Byrne [Bryne] - Farwell, San Francisco, 1859, serves as a curious bridge between two pieces of Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) history. On the one hand, as we have seen, the opening moves transpose to what later will become known as the Semi-Italian Jerome Gambit. On the other hand, it introduces to this blog a player, Willard B. Farwell, who has a couple of other games in the historical California chess database — one of which approaches the question of what games might have influenced Alonzo Wheeler Jerome in the creation of his gambit (see "A Distant Relative?").


Farwell,W - Jones,E
San Francisco, 1859


1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 

This is the Scotch Gambit, but, hold on.


4...Bc5 5.Ng5 Nh6


And now, a relatively familiar set of moves...*


6.Nxf7 Nxf7 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxc5 

The game is about even, although White went on to lose in a miniature (9...d5 10.e5 Re8 11.f4 Nxe5 12.fxe5 Rxe5+ 13.Kd2 Qg5+ 14.Kd3 Re3+ 0-1).


I checked the position after White's 7th move in the ChessLab online database, and discovered a line of games with a whole host of familiar names, on both sides of the board, including:


Labourdonnais - Haxo, Gilvoisin, 1837 (1/2-1/2, 33)
Shumov - Jaenisch, St. Petersburg, 1850 (1-0, 20)
NN - Harrwitz, Paris, 1852 (0-1, 13)
Meek - Morphy, Alabama, 1855 (0-1, 21)
Montgomery - Allison, New York, 1857 (0-1, 59)
Kennicott - Morphy, New York, 1857 (0-1, 24)
Steinkuhler - Blackburne, Manchester, 1861 (0-1, 24)
Ranken - Staunton, London, 1866 (0-1, 24)


Could this be the trail of another "godfather" of the Jerome Gambit? I will be digging deeper...




*-Opening analysis of the time warned against 5...Ne5, because of 6.Nxf7 Nxf7 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxc5, going back at least as far as Sarratt - NN, 1818.. Familiar?

Professional driver. Closed course. Do not attempt.

I am thrilled that so many players are trying out the Jerome Gambit and using various Jerome-ish themes in their opening play. That is one way to learn about development, open lines, tempos and an attack on the King. It also can be a lot of fun.

On the other hand, while Bxf7+ can have an unsettling psychological effect upon a defender who is both surprised and unprepared, if the move is not backed up by further, planned action, the sacrifice can prove very dangerous – for the gambiteer.  Thus, the warning in the title of today's  post, which often shows up in small print on television commercials that show cars being driven wildly and with great excitement...

NN - perrypawnpusher
blitz 3 0, FICS, 2011

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Qxd4 Nc6

This position can be reached via the Center Game: 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Qxd4 Nf6 4.Bc4 Nc6. Cochrane - Staunton, London 1842, continued 5.Qd1 (5.Qe3 is also possible) Bc5 6.Nf3 0-0 7.0-0 Nxe4 8.Qd5 Qe7 9.Bg5 Nxg5 10.Nxg5 Ne5 11.Re1 d6 12.h4 h6 13.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 14.Kxf2 Qxh4+ 15.g3 Qh2+ 16.Ke3 Qxg3+ White resigned.

(For a Cochrane - Staunton - Jerome Gambit intersection, check here.)

My opponent now played a move, then asked to take it back (which I agreed to) and tried something completely different.

5.Bxf7+

Wow!

5...Kxf7 6.Qc4+

This move illustrates White's problem – how to continue the attack?

6...d5 7.exd5 Qxd5 8.Qxd5+ Nxd5

What is the object of playing a gambit opening?...To acquire a reputation of being a dashing player at the cost of losing a game
Siegbert Tarrasch

9.Nf3 Bc5 10.0-0 Bg4 11.Ne1 Rhe8
 

Here I could have taken advantage of the blocked White Rook by playing 11...Be2, winning the exchange; but I was focusing on getting all my pieces active.

12.Be3 Nxe3 13.fxe3+ Kg8

Castled (by hand) and everything...

14.Rf4 Bxe3+ 15.Rf2 Rf8 White resigned

S.O.S.

It was fun to see that one of the articles in S.O.S. #10 – Secrets of Opening Surprises, Volume 10 – by Jeroen Bosch, was on the Lewis Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.d4. It is an old line (the earliest examples I have are from an 1841 Staunton - Cochrane match) and, of course, a piece of it is reminiscent of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+).

While the critical response for Black has to be 3...Bxd4 (Bosch recommends 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.0-0 with compensation) after 3...exd4, the recommendation – by the author (and Rybka 3, for that matter) is 4.Bxf7+.

We've seen this before, in the blindfold game Blackburne -Evelyn, London 1862 (1-0, 32), starting out 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Bc4 Bc5.

After 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.d4 exd4 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Qxc5 Nc6 Bosch sees

...an interesting position. The material is equal, White's queen has been developed rather early and black's king is not entirely safe. Play could continue 7.Nf3 (7.Ne2). Well, at least this is a fun position to play.

Bosch's ultimate assessment is

Black certainly has chances to equalize after 3..exd4, but there are more than enough practical chances for white, and this is clearly not the refuataion of 3.d4