JeromeGambit: All Is Not Lost

While I think that the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) is ideal for blitz play - where the defender often does not have enough time to effectively construct a defense - I know a number of players have been successful with the opening at much slower time controls. 

In the following game (time control: one day per move), White faced an opponent who was familiar with the Jerome Gambit, and who did not panic or foolishly over-rate his chances. As the game ground on, the Gambiteer kept alert for his chances, even as the scales begin to tilt against him. Still, he showed faith in the "theory of infinite resistance".

Just at the point where Black reached what the computer, post mortem, mischievously assessed as a "mate in 26" Black slipped - and, with a couple more sacrifices, White reached a drawn endgame.

If you do not laugh out loud (or, at least, chuckle) at White's 47th move, you are taking this whole Jerome Gambit thing too seriously.    

Anonymous - Anonymous
1 d / move, Chess.com, 2020

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

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6

7.f4 d6

Ah, yes, "the annoying defense" or the "silicon defense". The line is the choice of a number of computer programs, with the idea of giving back one of the sacrificed pieces while leaving Black's King relatively safe - White's attacking chances relatively diminished. Annoying.

8.fxe5 dxe5 9.Nc3 

This move is solid, if somewhat rare, according to The Database. Interestingly enough, 4 of the 7 previous games with the move were played by the computer program Comet B48 in a computer vs computer tournament in 2009. White scored 2 - 2, reasonably enough.

9...Nf6 10.Qe2 c6

A novelty, according to The Database.

11.d3 Rf8 12.Rf1 Kd7 13.Be3 Bxe3 14.Qxe3 Qb6 15.Qxb6 axb6 

White's plan for the middle game is a basic one: to develop solidly, create weaknesses in the opponent's position while avoiding over-reaching. Wasn't it Steinitz who said that if you have the advantage, you must attack - or risk losing the advantage. So, White reasons: let Black attack - let him make the mistakes.

16.O-O-O Kc7 17.h3 Be6 18.a3 b5 19.g4 h6 20.Ne2 Nd7 21.Ng3 Rxf1 

One recommendation I learned long ago was "When you are ahead in material, exchange pieces; when you are behind in material, exchange pawns." For a while, Black seems to be aware of this.

22.Rxf1 Rf8 23.Rxf8 Nxf8 24.Nh5 g6 25.Ng3 h5 

Eliminating the Kingside pawns has to be helpful for White.

26.gxh5 gxh5 27.Nxh5 Bxh3

28.Kd2 Ne6 29.c3 Nf4 30.Ng3 Kd6 31.Ke3 c5 32.d4 cxd4+ 33.cxd4 Ng2+ 34.Kd3 Nf4+ 35.Ke3 Ne6 36.dxe5+ Kxe5 

White is hanging on. Black is better, but there are not that many pawns to get rid of now.

37.Ne2 Nc5 38.Nd4 Bg2 39.Nxb5 Bxe4 40.b4 Bc6 41.Nd4 Ne6

42.Ne2 

Swapping the Knight for the Bishop would make things worse, as after 42.Nxc6 bxc6 Black would be able to retreat his Knight to c7 and control White's pawns.

42...Kd5 43.Kd2 Kc4 44.Kc2 

I mean no disrespect for the player of the white pieces, as I quote from the very interesting The Complete Chess Swindler, by David Smerdon

I completely agree that a player should try to play the best moves - but I disagree that "best" always equals the engine's first choice. The computer evaluates a position assuming that our opponent will play perfectly at every turn; it doesn't (and cannot) consider the myriad of important human factors in a contest, such as fatigue, time pressure, risk-aversion complacency, frustration, impulsiveness... the list goes on.

44...Nd4+ 45.Nxd4 Kxd4 46.Kb3 b5 

Nailing down White's a-pawn. But - wait!

47.a4 

The move of the game, surpassing even 4...Bxf7+.

47...bxa4+ 48.Kb2 Kc4 49.b5 Bxb5 50.Ka1 Kb3 51.Kb1 drawn

Yes, indeed. The game has reached the notorious "Rook pawn + wrong Bishop" ending, which is drawn because White's King can control or occupy the pawn's Queening square, and the enemy Bishop is of the wrong color to chase him out.

Very well played!

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 4)

[continued from the previous post]

Deacon, Frederic - Steinitz, William
match, London,1862

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 

The Evans Gambit.

4...Bb6

Declined.

5.b5

While not popular in modern play, this move is, nonetheless, quite direct, and leads to a tactical melee.

5...Na5 6.Nxe5 

There is at least a slight similarity to the play after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 (hoping for the Jerome Gambit) Na5 4.Nxe5 (the "serious" recommendation, instead of Jerome-izing the game with 4.Bxf7+).

6...Bd4

This looks like Steinitz's invention. Opening books at the time recommended either 6...Qf6 or 6...Nh6, when Black might (or might not) have an edge. Today, Komodo 10 shows a preference (32 ply deep) for the Blackburne Shilling Gambit-ish 6...Qg5.

7.Bxf7+ 

Stronger was 7.Nxf7. Now Black slowly outplays his opponent.

7...Kf8 8.Ba3+ d6 9.Bxg8 Kxg8 10.c3 Bxe5 11.d4 Bf6

Black has a piece for two pawns, and can continue to pull his game together.

12.Nd2 Be6 13.Qe2 Qe8 14.O-O Qf7 

15.d5 Bd7 16.Rac1 Re8 17.Qd3 b6 18.f4 Nb7 19.Nf3 h6

Komodo doesn't like this last move, suggesting that it can be answered by 20.e5, with advantage to White. It is fine with 19...Qg6 20.Rce1 h6, (advantage Black) which the game transposes into. 

20.Rce1 Qg6 21.f5 Qf7 22.g4 Kh7 23.h4 g5 24.hxg5 Bxg5 

Taking the Bishop off of the a1-h8 diagonal is a mistake, as White immediatly shows. 

25.e5 Qg8

This does not stop the pawns from advancing, "Jerome pawn" style, as part of a mating attack.

26.e6 Bc8 27.f6+ Qg6 28.Nxg5+ hxg5 29.Rf5 Nd8 30.Re2 Nf7 31.Rxg5 Rhg8 32.Rh2+ Nh6 33.Rgh5 Kh8 34.Rxh6+ Qxh6 35.Rxh6 checkmate

Verdict: interesting game, snappy conclusion - but, all told, not likely to be mistaken as a Jerome Gambit game.

[to be continued]

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]

Jerome Gambit: Down the Rabbit Hole, Again (Part 2)

[continued from the previous post]

Wilhelm Steinitz discussed Frederic Deacon in the September 1891 issue of his International Chess Magazine.

The first, and as far as I recollect the only version of the dispute about the Deacon - Morphy games I heard from Deacon himself, and it is in brief as follows. Deacon stated that he played two games with Morphy on even terms of which each won one, but when they were published Morphy declared that he had never played with Deacon, and if he had been asked to play he would have only consented on the terms that Deacon should receive the odds of Pawn and move. Some public controversy arose in consequence, which, however, was practically stopped at least in England by a letter of Colonel Deacon, a brother of Mr. Deacon, to the Illustrated London News, which stated that he had seen Morphy playing with his brother at the latter's own house (if I remember rightly). The two flatly contradictorv statements could not well be reconciled, and perhaps there may be some Englishmen to the present day who believe that Morphy was not up to the truth in the matter, but 1 believe I can throw some light on the subject that will clear the American master from all suspicion with out impugning Colonel Deacon's veracity, though 1 must somewhat doubt his Chess understanding. 

For I judge that Deacon played on Morphy a trick similar to the one which he practised upon myself in the following manner. Shortly after I had played my match with him in 1863 he invited my attention on one occasion when we were both alone in the rooms of the London Chess Club to a new move which he said he had invented in one of the openings. At that time a novelty in the openings was considered quite a revelation, and as I knew little of the books I got interested and consented at his request to examine the variation with him. It was a line of play in the King Knight opening for the defence, [ believe, which 1 have never adopted before or since in actual practice. Writing from recollection I think he assigned to me the defence after 1 P—K4, 1 P—K4: 2 K Kt— B3, 2 P—Q4, [1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 d5] and he claimed that he could improve on the book attack which he showed me first. In the skittle analysis which followed I demolished his suggested novelty in several main lines of play as well as in subvariations which he tried after taking moves back. But at last, probably owing to some thoughtless move which I had adopted in the investigation, he got hold of a better position and then he began to move slowly. But when I wanted to amend my previous play as he had done repeatedlv before he begged of me to go on on the plea that he believed he would construct a fine position from that point for analytical purposes or perhaps for a problem (for he was also a composer). He then deliberated on each move as if it were a match game, and if anyone had came into the room he must have thought we were playing a real hard fight. After some more moves the position resolved itself into an ending in which he had a decisive advantage and I agreed ultimately not to go on further. On another occasion shortly after that another opening was made the subject of one experiment and the same story almost exactly repeated itself. Great was, however, my surprise when about six months later I saw two games published which were alleged to have been played between Deacon and myself in the Dutch Chess journal Sissa. They comprised the opening moves in the two "novelties" which were the subject of our investigation, but almost all the rest (and I am certain about the concluding six or eight moves on each side) was entirely a new and imaginary fabrication Mr. Deacon was at the time when I first saw the games in Belgium, where he regularlv resided for several months during the year. On his return to England I remonstrated with him about the two so-called games, and I gave him a bit of my mind on the subject personally, but I did not proceed further in the matter for Deacon, though a so-called "gentleman" on account of his independent means, was already well known in London as a sort of Chess crank who tried to "correct fortune" as regards his Chess reputation by mean deceptions. But some time afterward it also came out that he had played similiar tricks on Signor Dubois and also to Mr. Blackburne and the Rev. J. Owen, and especially the latter gentleman threatened to take action against Deacon at the St. Georges Chess Club, of which both were members. Deacon then disappeared and retreated to his Belgian refuge. He was never seen in London again, and about a year afterward his death was announced. Judging from that I have no doubt that Morphy was entrapped to answer some analytical questions and to investigate some suggestions of Deacon over the board. What Colonel Deacon saw was nothing more than experimenting, in the course of which Morphy most probably had given back moves, as I did subsequently. Some variations which emanated from those trials may have formed the foundation for the manufacture of the games which Deacon claimed to have played against Morphy, but in all probability part of the middle and the end was entirely imaginary and never occurred at all, even during the experiments, as was the case in the two above described games which Deacon alleged to have played against myself.

[to be continued] 

Jerome Gambit: Down the Rabbit Hole, Again (Part 1)

I admit that after assembling the latest blog post concerning some chess history (see "Jerome Gambit: History Reset") I tumbled down the rabbit hole, again, concerning A. G. Johnson's claim, in The Oregon Daily Journal of Portland, Oregon, for  October 25, 1914, that Wilhelm Steinitz, while world chess champion, had lost to the Jerome Gambit the first time he had faced it.

Such a claim is outrageous on its face - a master playing the Jerome Gambit successfully, or, even worse, an Amateur doing so against the great Steinitz - and it could hardly have been hidden from the chess world, nor would the victor of such a game have been able to keep from sharing it with every player he knew!

Contrast this, as one example, with the report on Emanuel Lasker's simultanous exhibition, as reported in the October 18, 1906 Pittsburgh Press, where he defeated E. H. Miller's Jerome Gambit. Apparently neither player was interested in sharing the game score; or, if either did, the chess columnist could not be bothered to publish it. Ho-hum...

Still, how hard could it be to do one more check?

I fired up my copy of ChessBase, peered into the Big Database, and Filtered Games, looking for "Steinitz" playing Black, an outcome of "1-0", ECO of C50, and a game Position featuring Black's King on e8 and White's Bishop on f7.

Nothing.

So, I removed the ECO requirement.

Four games appeared, two of which could immediately be discarded: Blackburne - Steinitz, match game, London, 1863, and Chigorin - Steinitz, World Championship match game, 1889  - known games, and, certainly, not Jerome Gambits (they were Evans Gambits). What remained was Deacon - Steinitz, match game, London, 1863, and Robey - Steinitz, London, 1865. 

This immediately provided me with another distraction.

Frederick Deacon is alleged to have published spurious game accounts of wins against Paul Morphy (who claimed never to have played him) and Steinitz. The 1863 Deacon - Steinitz match game from my database seems to be legitimate, and has certain "Jerome-like" qualities, so it might be worth a peek, with the caveat: we think of Jerome Gambits as primarily arising from the move order 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ and often continuing 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+; the Bishop sacrifice and the Queen excursion are markers, although sometimes the label of "Jerome Gambit" has been mis-applied.

First, though, let us have a look at the thoughts of Wilhelm Steinitz, as he considers Mr. Deacon.

[to be continued]

Jerome Gambit: Worst vs Best (Part 4)

So far: no confirmation of a Steinitz loss to the Jerome Gambit; very likely a win by Lasker against the Jerome, but the game is unfindable - and, what about Alekhine facing the Jerome Gambit?

I turned to my trusty Big Database, did a position search with a White pawn on e4, a Black King on e8, and a White Bishop on f7. This turned up a number of games, only one of which comes near to what we are looking for.

Alekhine, Alexander
NN2 - Alekhine, Alezander, Kislovodsk, 1907

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Ng5 Ne5 6.Bxf7+ Nxf7 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxc5 d6 10.Qxd4 Nf6 11.Nc3 h6 12.Nb5 Nxe4 13.Bxh6 Rxh6 14.Qxe4 Qg5 15.Qc4+ Be6 16.Qxc7+ Kg8 17.Qxd6 Bc4 18.Nc7 Rd8 19.Ne6 Qa5+ 20.b4 Rxd6 21.bxa5 Rxe6+ White resigned

Alas, this is an example of  the Sarratt Attack or the Vitzthum Attack, which has a lot of action going on at f7, and whichI have looked into in this blog as a possible precursor or inspriation to the Jerome Gambit.

Of course, The Database does have a couple dozen Jerome Gambit games by "AAlekhine", but those are from 2007 and 2008, by an online player playing in Jerome Gambit thematic tournaments at ChessWorld.net. 

Jerome Gambit: Can He Do That? (Part 2)

?????

Like I wrote, last post:

I just received the latest batch of Jerome Gambit games from Bill Wall, and I found myself scratching my head over the moves in some of them, asking myself "Can he do that?"

Here's another example.

Wall, Bill - Uli
PlayChess.com, 2018

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.a4 

Golly...

This is clearly an un-gambit-style move, as White makes a pawn move - instead of sacrificing another piece. Logic is twisted in the Jerome Gambit.

Black should be able to survive - if he doesn't lose his way. Famous last words in the Jerome Gambit.

5...Bd6

Bill has also faced:

5...Nf6 6.O-O Rf8 7.Nxe5+ Nxe5 8.d4 Ng6 9.dxc5 d6 10.cxd6 Qxd6 11.Qxd6 cxd6 12.Nc3 Be6 13.f4 Bc4 14.Rd1 Nxf4 15.Bxf4 Kg8 16.Bxd6 Rf7 17.e5 Ng4 18.b3 Be6 19.Nb5 Rc8 20.Rd2 Ne3 21.c4 a6 22.Nd4 Black resigned, Wall,B - Guest3303570, PlayChess.com 2018; and

5...h6 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.d4 Bxd4 8.Qxd4 d6 9.Nc3 Nf6 10.f3 Re8 11.Bf4 Nc6 12.Qd2 d5 13.O-O-O dxe4 14.Qf2 Qe7 15.Rhe1 Qb4 16.Bxc7 Kg8 17.h3 Na5 18.Bd6 Qc4 19.fxe4 Be6 20.Kb1 Rad8 21.Qxa7 Ra8 22.Qb6 Ra6 23.Qb4 Qxb4 24.Bxb4 Nc6 25.Bd6 Rd8 26.b3 Na5 27.e5 Ne8 28.Bc5 Rxd1+ 29.Rxd1 Nc6 30.Bd6 Nxd6 31.exd6 Nb4 32.d7 Bxd7 33.Rxd7 Rb6 34.a5 Ra6 35.Rxb7 Black resigned, Wall,B - Guest2021465, PlayChess.com, 2018. 

6.Nc3 Nf6 7.O-O Re8

8.Qe2 Kf8 9.Qc4 Nd4 10.Nxd4 exd4 11.Qxd4 Be5 12.Qb4+ Qe7 13.Qc4 Bxc3 14.bxc3 

Black has the typical Jerome Gambit piece for two pawns. It can be argued that it is his game to lose; and, so, he does. It is interesting to see how White helps him along this path.

14...c6 15.Ba3 d6 16.f3 Be6 17.Qe2 Kg8 18.c4 Qd7 19.d3 

Steinitz said that the player with the advantage was required to attack, lest the opportunity slip away. Black should try something like 19...d5 now, to open the position. Instead, he works to close it, and then maneuver with his Queen.

19...c5 20.Bb2 Qc6 21.f4 Qb6 22.Bc3 Qc6 23.f5 

White fights for the initiative with a typical Jerome Gambit move.

23...Bf7 24.Qd2 a6

Mis-reading the intent of White's last move.

25.Bxf6 gxf6 26.Qh6

White has a winning attack.

Black has much less time than he thinks.

26...b5 27.Rf3 Bxc4 28.Rg3+ Kf7 29.Qg7 checkmate