Jerome Gambit: Velveteen Rabbit (Part 1)

The title of today's post was laid out, previously

Like Pinocchio or the Velveteen Rabbit, the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) longs to become a "real" chess opening, or at least a "normal" one. 

Of course, that is a bit of a stretch for something so often refuted. 

Yet, occasionally, I experience a sense of "normality", as I noted a while back in my post "Still More Errors in Thinking 4.0"

I mean, I play a game, I publish it on this blog, someone takes that information and uses it in another one of my Jerome Gambits. I publish that game in this blog, someone elses uses that information in another of my Jerome Gambits...

Just like a real opening.

perrypawnpusher - warwar
"Italian Battleground", Chess.com, 2018

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6

This variation does not have a name, but it could well be titled the Brownson Defense, after O.A. Brownson, who played it in Jerome - Brownson, Iowa, 1875 (1-0, 28), shortly after the Jerome Gambit's debut. 

The defense was subsequently played by William Carrington in the first game of his second match against the Mexican champion, Andres Clemente Vazquez, in 1876 (1-0, 34).

It should be noted that Vazquez played a match against Steinitz in 1888, and one against Blackburne in 1891. The latter match included two Giuoco Piano openings played by Vazquez, and it would have been fascinating - if downright risky for the first player - if one of the strongest players of the Jerome Gambit at that time had used it against the player whose crush of it against "Amateur" a few years earlier had covered the attack in ignomy. Alas, Vazquez opted for 4.0-0 both times.

7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qe3 Nf6 

There are 186 games with this position in The Database, with White scoring a surprising 71%. This more likely reflects the comfort, knowledge and experience of the player with the White pieces, rather than an "objective" evaluation of the state of affairs. 

10.O-O Kf7

Black will castle-by-hand, bringing his Rook to the e-file.

White will urge his "Jerome pawns forward."

11.f4 Re8 12.f5 Ne5 13.d4 

13...Neg4

After enticing White's pawns forward, Black takes a swipe at his Queen.

14.Qb3+ Kf8 15.h3 Nh6 

16.Bxh6 gxh6 17.Nd2

Here we have a strange looking position, quite possibly even, with White's extra (and healthy) pawns and development balancing Black's extra piece and unsafe King.

[to be continued]

Yes, The Jerome Gambit Is Playable (Part 1)

Is the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) playable?

I have been answering this question for over a decade - for example, see the early "But - Is this stuff Playable?? (Part I)" - and my response looks like this: in friendly games, in blitz games, in games where you are giving "Jerome Gambit odds" to a weaker player, it is playable.

Some adventurous players have not been content to leave it at that.

Years ago, I learned that English player Pete Banks ("Blackburne" online) was willing to attack with the Jerome Gambit in over-the-board games - risking his rating and the chance of teasing by his peers. See "Meet Jerome", "Jerome Gambit, Over-the-Board" and "The Pete Banks Annotated Collection" for examples.

Bill Wall, an unorthodox openings expert and Jerome Gambit afficianado in the U.S., has played some over-the-board games as well (if my records are correct). See "The Jerome Gam'",  and "Jerome Gambit: A Casual Stroll".

Of course, recently this blog has covered the escapades of Australian chess player Kevin Sheldrick (aka "Cliff Hardy"), including his effort at the 2017 Australian Open. See "Jerome Gambit: Cliff Hardy Revealed!"

It is important to not overlook the Jerome Gambit efforts of Louis Morin, of Canada, however. Anyone who has explored The Database knows that he was an early adopter of the opening, has played a truckload of games, appearing online as MrJoker (and, earlier, as a "guest"). Louis also played the Jerome Gambit at the 2015 Quebec Open. See "The Jerome Gam' again".

All of which brings us to a couple of Jerome Gambit games that Louis played at the 2018 Quebec Open.

Okay, so the Jerome Gambit is playable. But - how do you play it?


Morin, Louis (1900) - Guipi Bopala, Prince Eric (1900)
Quebec Open, Quebec, 2018
40 moves / 90 minutes, then 30 minutes

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

Okay, this looks like the ideal time to unleash the Jerome Gambit. Black is an 11 year old - barely older than this blog. What could he know about Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's pet line?

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Kf8

A wise choice. Black avoids the discomfort associated with 6...Ke6, and ducks the tactical edginess of 6...g6 7.Qxe5. He simply wants to give back a piece and take his King out of the action.

On the other hand, White has over 80 games with this position in The Database. He knows what he is doing.

7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qg3 Nf6

According to The Database, Louis is 12 - 4 - 2 against alternatives.

9.d3 

If you have played your share of Jerome Gambits, or explored games presentd on this blog, chances are that this move gave you a chuckle.

Why? Because sometimes White's strategy becomes a bit psychological - instead of racing ahead in some sort of wild attack, he signals that he will slowly and carefully work with his pawns (see "Jerome Gambit: In Pawns We Trust"). Like I wrote a couple of years ago

Steinitz said that the player with the advantage must attack, or risk losing that advantage. White prepares to face that attack, relying on solid "Jerome pawns" instead of planning an attack of his own with f2-f4.

Of course, if Black wants to protect his advantage, he has to take back the move 6...Kf8.

9...Kf7 10.O-O Rf8 11.c3 Kg8 12.d4 Bb6 13.f3 Qe7 14.Bg5 Qf7 15.Nd2 Bd7 

Black has the advantage of a piece vs two pawns, and his two Bishops are not to be discounted. Still, you can almost hear MrJoker saying "Hit me".

16.b3 a6 17.Kh1 Rae8 18.Rfe1 Be6 19.Rad1 Nh5 20.Qf2 Nf4
21.Qe3 c6 22.Bxf4 Qxf4 23.Qxf4 Rxf4

From a purely "objective" point of view, Black has to be smiling: he has escaped a tricky opening, the Queens are off the board, and there is no White attack in sight. On the other hand: what to do, what to do, what to do...

24.g3 Rff8 25.Kg2 a5 26.h3 Rf7 27.f4 g6 28.Rf1 h5 29.Nf3 Bd8 30.c4 b5

All this "doing nothing" is exhausting, even as White's pawns slowly advance like a pack of zombies. Black can hold back no longer.

31.d5 cxd5 32.cxd5 Bxh3+ 33.Kxh3 Rxe4

Argh. Black has returned his piece for a couple of pawns. He should not be too happy about his Bishop, as White's Knight will find outposts that will make it an equal game.

[to be continued]

Jerome Gambit: Balderdash

Not everything that I have discovered in my recent forays into historical research has been of enduring value.

For example, the "CHESS" column ("Conducted by A. G. Johnson") of The Oregon Daily Journal  of Portland, Oregon, for  October 25, 1914 (page 29) has the following

Of the many chess openings in vogue, two are particularly interesting because they are of American origin. The "Jerome Gambit" was first developed in Cincinnati about 40 years ago. S. A. Charles of that city made a thorough analysis of the opening and met with great success in playing the "Jerome" against prominent players. Even Steinitz, then in the zenith of his career as world's champion succumbed in his first attempt to defend the gambit. Although the opening is theoretically unsound, and involves the sacrifice of two pieces for two pawns, the adversary's king is displaced and drawn into the center of the board where all kinds of complications may arise. The following variation of the Jerome, which is rather favorable to white, reveals some of the possibilties of the gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.d4 Bxd4 9.Na3 Ne7 10.Qh3 Qf8 11.Nb5+ Kc5 12.Nxd4 Kxd4 13.Qe3+ Kc4 14.a4 with slight advantage to white.

Where to begin??

Of course, the Jerome Gambit was "first developed" 40 years before the ODJ column was written, by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome of Paxton, Illinois, having published his first analysis of the "New Chess Opening" in the April 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal.

S. A. Charles, of the Cincinnati, Ohio, Chess Club, wrote opening analyses, first for the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, then later for the Pittsburgh Telegraph. It is in the latter newspaper that in 1881 he presented his examination of the Jerome Gambit, which later found itself in different chess magazines (e.g. the October 1881 issue of Brentano's Chess Monthly) and opening books (e.g. Cook's Synopsis of Chess Openings, 3rd edition, 1882).
In 16 years of researching and analyzing the gambit, I have not uncovered any game examples (or references) of Charles meeting "with great success" while playing the Jerome Gambit "against prominent players"- or any games of his with the gambit at all. I have found a half-dozen correspondence games where Charles defended against the Jerome Gambit - played by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome. Of course, it is possible that there is much more to be discovered, and I have missed it all, but, still...
By the way, it can be fairly said that Charles regularly acknowledged his games and exchanges of ideas with Jerome; it was only the passage of time that seems to have stripped the inventor's name from certain analyses of his invention.

I was absolutely gobsmacked by columnist conductor A. G. Johnson's contention that Steinitz, "in the zenith of his career as world's champion" actually "succumbed in his first attempt to defend the gambit." With all due respect to Blackburne, whose Queen sacrifice leading to checkmate is probably the best known repudiation of the Jerome Gambit, and to Emanuel Lasker, who - I recently discovered - summarily dispatched the Jerome Gambit in a simultaneous display, a loss by a reigning world champion (not to mention a defensive genius) to the Jerome would be one of the most amazing (and horrible) master games played to date. (There was a note in the Oregon Daily Journal that Johnson, after two years of work, was going to be stepping down after 100 columns, so there is always the possibility that his Steinitz story was a parting little joke; although it did not read that way.)

The analysis that Johnson presents in his column goes back to Freeborough and Ranken's Chess Openings, Ancient and Modern, 1st edition, (1889), although he is more likely to have had the 3rd edition (1903, reprinted 1905) lying around. The move 11.Nb5+ is an improvement over Jerome's 11.0-0 in his analysis in the January 1875 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal. The concluding evaluation, "slight advantage to white" is too modest - White has a forced checkmate in 6 moves. (It was Black's faulty 10th move that reversed his fortunes.)

When you have the advantage...

According to past World Champion Wilhelm Steinitz, when a player has an advantage, he must attack, or the advantage will fizzle away.

To put this another way, for less-skilled players like myself: When you have the advantage, finish off your opponent quickly, before you blow the game yourself.

Like in the following debacle...

perrypawnpusher  - DrHilarius
blitz, FICS, 2011

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.Bxf7+

The Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Nxe5 7.d4 Bxd4 8.Qxd4 Re8

9.0-0

An alternative was 9.Bg5 followed by 10.0-0-0, as in Wall,B - PLMW, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 24).

9...Nc6 10.Qc4+ Kf8 11.Bg5 Ne5

This move struck me as a bit odd, and certainly provocative, but Rybka 3 did not censure it. My best response was probably 12.Qd4.

12.Qe2 Nf7 13.f4 h6 14.Bh4 g5

Breaking the pin, but loosening the Kingside too much.

15.fxg5 Nh7

He sees that to continue as planned (15...hxg5 16.Bxg5 Nxg5) would be dangerous (after 17.Qh5 Nf7 18.Qg6 Re6 19.Nd5), but his alternate choice should prove disastrous.

16.g6

This move is "okay", but deadly would have been 16.Qh5.

16...Qxh4 17.Rxf7+ Kg8 18.Rxh7

Since White is a couple of pawns up, with an aggressive position, it seems unkind to nag, again, that there was a far stronger move, 18.Qc4.

The problem is that for every "knockout punch" that I miss, my opponent stays on his feet a bit longer, and there is always the chance that he can get lucky.

18...d5 19.Qf3 Rf8 20.Rf7

Stop me if you've heard this one before... The snappy 20.Rh8+ led to mate.

20...Bg4 21.Qf4 Qg5 22.Qxg5

Competent, but 22.Nxd5 mates. 

22...hxg5 23.Rxf8+ Rxf8 24.exd5 Bf5 25.Re1 Bxc2 26.Re7 Bd3

All that fire power, wasted. Still, White has a winning endgame with a strongly placed Rook and a couple of extra pawns.

27.Rxc7 Rf1 checkmate

Ooops...

I am sure that my opponent saw my oversight as hilarious!

(Note to self: tactics, tactics, tactics!)

Like a Needle in a Haystack (Part 1)

Researching the history of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) can be a bit like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Some resources are obvious places to look. Checking the past equivalents of today's Encyclopedia of Chess Opening and Modern Chess Openings is a good start (note: MCO, from its first edition in 1911, has not had coverage).

The Handbuch des Schachspiels, for example, has a Jerome Gambit game reference in its 8th edition (1916) but nothing in its 7th (1891) or 6th (1880) editions.

 Cook's Synopsis of the Chess Openings, 1st and 2nd editions (1874, 1876) have no coverage of the Jerome, while its 3rd edition (1882) does.

The first edition of Chess Openings Ancient and Modern (1889) has analysis. Steinitz' Modern Chess Instructor, Part II (1895), of course, has nothing.

There are many other 19th century chess books touching on the opening – and many, many more, not – and each must be checked for Jerome Gambit material.

Some past authors are apparently ambivalent about the line. G.H.D. Gossip's 1891 Theory of the Chess Openings has nothing on the Jerome Gambit, while his The Chess Player's Vade Mecum and Pocket Guide to the Openings, also published in 1891 does have analysis. Gossip out-does himself in his (with F.J. Lee) 1903 The Complete Chess Guide by writing one place that he has "eliminated obsolete openings" such as the Jerome Gambit, which he mentions by name, and then, later on in the book, he gives analysis of that same opening.

Shillings: One Found, Two Lost (Part 1)

Sometime back I contacted Edward Winter, of "Chess Notes" and Chess History fame, with some questions about the origin and naming of the Blackburne Shilling Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4). He posted my query, and recently presented some relevant information. 

3786. Blackburne Shilling Gambit

From Rick Kennedy (Columbus, OH, USA):

‘The opening 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nd4 has been called the Blackburne Shilling Gambit, in recognition, apparently, of J.H. Blackburne’s use of it to win small stakes from players. However, I have yet to find a single game with it played by Blackburne. In fact, the earliest game uncovered was played in New Zealand in 1911. How did Blackburne’s name become attached to the variation? Indeed, when did it become attached?

Steinitz’s Modern Chess Instructor has a note on the line, but does not refer to Blackburne. Mr Blackburne’s Games at Chess makes no mention of it. Nor does Freeborough and Ranken’s Chess Openings Ancient and Modern attribute the line (given in a footnote) to anyone. E.E. Cunnington’s books (one on traps, one on openings for beginners), which were published in London shortly after the turn of the century, give the moves but do not name Blackburne.

One clue may be that the first edition of Hooper and Whyld’s Oxford Companion to Chess (1984) does not call the line by name, but the second edition (1992) calls it the Blackburne Shilling Gambit. Did the co-authors discover some historical information during that eight-year period?’

6470. Blackburne Shilling Gambit (C.N. 3786)

From page 429 of the December 1897 American Chess Magazine:

"All chess life seems to be with America," writes an esteemed and particularly well-posted English correspondent. "A great change has come over English chess. The 'old masters' are dying out. The new-born strength of amateurs has slaughtered them. They have no prestige. Names once of weight are now spoken of with contempt. No new professionals are coming in – no new Blackburnes or Birds. The 'nimble shilling,' for which the old professionals played at the Divan, is now too hardly earned. The country joskins know the openings and the principles, and instead of Bird's giving a Queen and winning twenty games in an hours, as I have seen ('hoc egomet oculis mei vidi'), he plays on even terms, and of five games wins only the odd one and a shilling. The ancient 'Shilling Gambit' is no longer a thing of dread. Young men from Birmingham walk into the Divan without awe and speak of giving odds. And the late H. Macaulay of this city (now Birmingham) actually conceded the Knight to a master who played and won a prize in the Manchester International, and Macaulay, giving the odds, won a majority of the games." - New Orleans Times-Democrat.

Alas, it was not meant to be...

The March 1891 issue of The International Chess Magazine carried news of a 6-game match in Havana, Cuba between Joseph Henry Blackburne and Andres Clemente Vazquez, from March 5 to March 11.


Vazquez, current Mexican Consul General in Cuba, was an early advocate of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+). The past and future Mexican Chess Champion's handicap game in 1876 against Giraudy was introduced in the November 1876 issue of the American Chess Journal with some fanfare

Odds givers will also find the Jerome Gambit a summary method for disposing of the neophyte. And by the way, we observe that this new opening has found its way to Mexico – An American idea in the halls of the Montezumas. Signor Andres Clemente Vazquez, the Mexican Champion and editor of La Estrategia Mexicane, has been trying the "Double" [Jerome's Double Gambit] on an amateur at the odds of Queen's Rook, and that, too, with brilliant success, as will be seen by the following game, which we copy from La Estrategia.

In 1876 Vazquez was 3-0 with the Jerome Gambit in his second match against William Harrington, games he included in his book of that year, Algunas Partidas de Ajedrez.


Of note is that in his third edition of Analisis del juego de ajedres (1889) Vazquez included (along with the Giraudy game and a Harrington game) analysis of Blackburne's 1885 crushing defeat of the Jerome Gambit played by an amateur (for the game, see "Nobody expects the Jerome Gambit!", "Flaws (Part I)" and "Flaws (Part II)").

After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.0-0 Nf6 in the Blackburne game, Vazquez suggested that instead of 10.c3 White should have played 10.Qd8, and after 10...Bb6 11.e5 dxe5 12.Qd3 White would have had the better game. (This is the earliest incidence of this analysis that I have seen; Munoz and Munoz, in reporting the Anonymous - Blackburne game in the August 1885 Brooklyn Chess Chronicle, had simply suggested 10.Qd8)

So, in the 4th game of the Blackburne - Vazquez match, with The Black Death leading two games to one, Vazquez had the White pieces and played: 1.e4 e5

In the second game of the match Blackburne had dodged with 1...c6, a Caro-Kann.

2.Bc4 Nc6

Best authorites recommend here 2...Nf6 wrote Steinitz.

3.Nf3 Bc5

The Italian Game! And now... and now... the Jerome Gambit???

And now Vazquez moved 4.0-0 and played a delayed Evans Gambit after 4...Nf6 with 5.b4.... He was checkmated in 40 moves.

The position after the third move again arose in the 6th game, with Blackburne leading the match 4-1, and Vazquez transposed to the pacific Four Knights Game with 4.0-0 Nf6 5.Nc3, losing in 33 moves.

Alas, a Jerome Gambit game was not to be.


(It is interesting to note that Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess, published in 1899, has the more straight-forward move order for the 4th match game: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5, etc. On the other hand, P. Anderson Graham, in his summary of "Mr. Blackburne's Successes" in the same book, refers to Vazquez as the champion of Brazil!)