"The Worst Chess Opening Ever" – Warning or Menace??

 A number of months ago (see "The Worst Chess Opening Ever") I mentioned to readers that I had submitted an article on the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+), titled "The Worst Chess Opening Ever", to the United States Chess Federation's magazine Chess Life for Kids, which runs my regular "Arabian Knights" stories.

If the editor doesn't die laughing, I'll let you know if he accepts it for publication.

Let me assure you that Chess Life for Kids Editor Glenn Petersen is very much alive, and he has a great sense of humor.

So – the June 2010 issue of the magazine is out, and within its pages is the first part of my article.

Oh, yes, as it says

In Part 2 we will take a closer look and analyze the Jerome Gambit

Is exposing young chess-playing minds to such folly a good idea? Will it teach them bad habits and steer them away from studying the Catalan Opening? Or will they learn to crush such outrageous violations of chessic common sense?

Only time will tell...

My Turn Again

Publishing my wins with the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) on this blog only seems fair if I also include my losses. That means not just the ones where I get out-played, but the ones where I am doing just fine – and then blunder.

I've shared this lament before ("My Turn to Blunder") and surely will do so again. At least I can be sure that my opponents mostly understand.

After all, as we say in the Jerome Gambit Gemeinde, "Black wins by force; White wins by farce."

Here, the disaster comes against the Blackburne Shilling Gambit.
perrypawnpusher - vlas
blitz, FICS, 2009
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd44.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ 5...Ke7

Mentioned by Tim McGrew in 2004 in his "Gambit Cartel" article on the Blackburne Shilling Gambit, and by Dennis Monokroussos on his "Chess Mind" website in 2005. I have a dozen games in my database, and White has scored 8-4.

6.Qh5

Not the right follow-up. White should play 6.c3 d6 7.cxd4 dxe5 with about an even game.

6...g6

What Black misses is the defensive 6...Qe8, driving White's Queen back to d1. After that, White would have the Jerome-style two pawns compensation for his piece, but Black's counterplay after 7...Kd8 would be annoying.

7.Nxg6+ hxg6 8.Qxh8 Nxc2+

Black had better chances for equality by playing to trap the White Queen and then playing against it: 8...Nf6 9.Kd1 Kf7 10.Nc3 Qe7 11.Nd5 Nxd5 12.Qxd4 Nb6 13.d3 Bg7 14.Qe3 d5 15.exd5 Bg4+ 16.f3 Qxe3 17.Bxe3 Nxd5 18.fxg4 Nxe3+ 19.Kd2 Nxg4. White has a Rook and two pawns against two pieces.

9.Kd1 Nxa1 10.Qxg8 Qe8 11.b3 Kd8 12.Bb2 Be7

13.Qxe8+ Kxe8 14.Bxa1 d6 Things have settled down, and White is ahead two pawns. It's not a very complicated position.

15.d4 Bd7 16.Nd2 Rd8 17.h4 Kf7 18.h5

Looking for – or overlooking – trouble. Simpler was 18.d5

18...gxh5 19.Rxh5 Bg4+


Ouch.

Just drops a Rook.

The rest of the game was unnecessary.
20.f3 Bxh5 21.Ke2 c5 22.g3 cxd4 23.Bxd4 Bf6 24.Bxa7 Re8 25.Kd3 Bg6 26.f4 d5 White resigned

The Abrahams Jerome Gambit (Part I)

As mentioned in "'Tis A Puzzlement..." the line 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Bxf7+ has sometimes been referred to as the Jerome Gambit, most notably in a couple of passages by Gerald Abrahams.

The Chess Mind (1951)
Gerald Abrahams

...Objectively regarded, every winning position, and every losing position, is an unbalanced position; a position in which a player has a great advantage in tempo, or in space, or in the capacity to bring great force to bear effectively on a given point. But these characteristics are not easy to assess while the game is in progress. An undeveloped position should not yield a winning attack. Yet it often does. In point is any one of a thousand Muzio Gambits at odds. In these violent openings it is always the case that White is undeveloped. So is Black. But the relative merits of what development there is can only be found by seeing all the more important lines of play. Chess opinion has convincingly condemned many extravagant unbalancing attacks, such as the once popular Jerome Gambit, (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Bxf7+), which yield the unbalancer nothing but loss against good defense.


The Pan Book of Chess (1965)
Gerald Abrahams

The Pianissimo form [of the Giuoco Piano] is 1.e4 e5... (But 2.Bc4 Bc5 can be played first and nobody in their right senses plays 3.Bxf7+ 3.BxPch, Jerome's Gambit.)...

It is fun to see if there are parallels between the "Abrahams Jerome Gambit" and the actual Jerome Gambit -- some knowledge might have proven helpful to the BlueEyedRook a few years back, for example.We'll leave hard core analysis for another time, and just look at some games.

magilla - seamus
net-chess.com 2003

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Bxf7+ Kxf7 4.Qh5+ g6 5.Qxe5 d6

A Rook sacrifice similar to NN - Blackburne, 1885 (see "Nobody expects the Jerome Gambit!", "Flaws (Part I)", "Flaws (Part II)", "The Joy of Discovery (Part I)" and others) – but does it work??

In this game White arrives at an overwhelming position, only to fritter it away, move-by-move, until he is losing – and then lost.

6.Qxh8 Qh4

6...Qe8 7.Qxh7+ Kf8 8.Nc3 ( 8.d3 Qf7 9.Qxf7+ Kxf7 10.Nf3 Nf6 11.0-0 Nc6 12.c3 Ne5 13.Ng5+ Kg8 14.d4 Nxe4 15.Nxe4 Nf3+ 16.gxf3 Bb6 17.Na3 Bh3 18.Nc4 d5 19.Nf6+ Kg7 20.Nxd5 Be6 21.Nde3 Rf8 22.Nxb6 axb6 23.Kg2 Rh8 24.Ng4 1-0 viejoasquerosos - Andrewtomlinson, redhotpawn.com 2006) 8...Qe6 9.d4 Bxd4 10.Bh6+ Ke8 11.Nd5 c6 12.Nc7+ Kd8 13.Nxe6+ Bxe6 14.Qxb7 Nxh6 15.Qxa8 Bxb2 16.Qxb8+ Bc8 17.Qxb2 Ng4 18.0-0-0 Nxf2 19.Rxd6+ Bd7 20.Qb8+ Ke7 21.Nf3 Nxh1 22.e5 a5 23.e6 Bxe6 24.Qd8+ Kf7 25.Ng5+ Kg7 26.Rxe6 Nf2 27.Qf6+ Kh6 28.Qxg6 checkmate, magilla - mduerr, net-chess.com 2002

6...Qf6 7.Qxh7+ Kf8 8.Nf3 Bg4 9.0-0 Qg7 10.Qh4 Bxf3 11.gxf3 Qf6 0-1 viejoasquerosos - Jeman, redhotpawn.com 2004

7.d4 Be6

7...Qxe4+ 8.Ne2 Bg4 9.Qxh7+ Kf6 10.f3 Qxc2 11.fxg4 Nd7 12.0-0+ Ke6 13.Qf7 checkmate, magilla-seamus, net-chess.com 2003

8.dxc5 Qxe4+ 9.Be3 Qxg2 10.cxd6 Qxh1 11.Qxh7+ Kf6

12.Bd4+ Kg5 13.f4+ Kxf4 14.Qh4+ Bg4 15.Nd2 Nd7 16.Qg3+

16...Kf5 17.Qf2+ Ke6 18.Qe3+ Kf7 19.Qf2+

19...Ngf6 20.Bxf6 Nxf6 21.dxc7

21...Re8+ 22.Kf1 Bh3+ 23.Qg2 Qxg2 checkmate

'Tis A Puzzlement...

I love all-day sessions poring over century-old books and magazines as much as the next person – especially when I'm in the White Collection of the Cleveland Public Library, the world's largest publicly-accessible chess collection.

Getting informative emails from chessfriends around the world puts a big smile on my face; but sometimes no matter what I (we) do, mysteries remain.

Here are a few that have kept me puzzled.

Puzzlement #1:

In the November 1876 issue of the American Chess Journal, editor William Hallock, writing on the Jerome Gambit, noted:

We consider it stronger than the Harvey-Evans and not much inferior to the Cochrane attack, but like most openings where a piece is sacrificed to obtain a violent attack, the first player will generally find himself the loser when met by a careful and steady defence.

Does anyone know what the "Harvey-Evans" attack is? Certainly Hallock cannot be referring to Captain Evans' gambit. Who was Harvey, anyhow?

Puzzlement #2:

In his The Chess Mind (1951) Gerald Abrahams admonishes:

Chess opinion has convincingly condemned many extravagant unbalancing attacks, such as the once popular Jerome gambit, (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Bxf7+), which yield the unbalancer nothing but loss against good defense.

He repeats his guidance in The Pan Book of Chess (1965):

[1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5] ... and nobody in their right senses plays 3.Bxf7+, Jerome's Gambit.

Fair enough – but as far as I can tell Alonzo Wheeler Jerome always played his gambit as a variation of the Giuoco Piano: 2.Nf3 first, then 3.Bc4, and then 4.Bxf7+.

Where did Abrahams get the idea that the Jerome was a variant of the Bishop's Opening?

Puzzlement #3:

Lubomir Kavalek, in his Washington Post chess column of Monday, April 14, 2003, addresses Karl Traxler and his Traxler Counter-Attack: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5!?

Traxler introduced his idea in the game against J. Reinisch, played on March 20, 1890, in Hustoun.

The game was first published with his notes and analysis on Oct. 11, 1892, in the chess column of Golden Prague. I have included some of his notes. They show how he was ahead of his time. The first serious analysis by others appeared only some 40 years later.

Reinisch-Traxler 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5!? ("An original combination that is better than it looks. A small mistake by white can give black a decisive attack. It is not easy to find the best defense against it in a practical game and it is probably theoretically correct," wrote Traxler. "It somewhat resembles the Blackmar-Jerome gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+?! Kxf7 5.Nxe5+?!," he added.)

Say what?? "The Blackmar-Jerome gambit?"

Anyone who can shed any light on any of this is encouraged to make contact!

Junk Openings

Thinking chess players everywhere (even those of us in the Jerome Gambit Gemeinde) should stop by (although perhaps many have, being thinking chess players, after all) National and FIDE Master Dennis Monokroussos' thoughtful website, The Chess Mind.

Dennis produces the instructive and entertaining ChessBase shows and ChessVideos shows, which I can highly recommend.

Dennis' thoughts on the Jerome Gambit are rather dismissive -- although he has been more than polite in his exchanges with me at his site.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+??... leaves White a piece down for no compensation whatsoever. Is there even a single trap for Black to fall into in the Jerome Gambit?

Interested readers might want to take a look at some of my earlier posts: this one on junk openings, and see here and here on the Jerome Gambit with the follow-up 5.Nxe5+, as in a well-known Blackburne game.

Of course, I certainly wasn't going to argue with a philosopher at the University of Notre Dame (where, by the way, "Kennedy Kid" Jon attends, although he and Dennis have neither crossed paths nor pawns).

Ah, yes, Dennis, you are of course completely correct: on a good day the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+??) aspires to be known as a "junk opening," but likely still over-reaches!

It's value, such as it is, can be found in the enjoyment (mixed with horror) that some players have experienced while employing the Jerome in blitz, or using it as a way of giving odds to a weaker player.

It is in the latter case that the "justification" of the opening is found: no traps, just the acute discomfort the second player feels (until he reaches a certain level of skill, of course; then he is brimming with confidence and a desire to pocket the gifted full point) with a King out of place and that Big, Bad Queen on the prowl...

The position after 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ is no more "objectively" lost than the starting position in a game where White gives Knight, Rook or Queen odds.

My interest in the JG over the last few years has been of a historical nature — where did such a thing come from and in what manner did it survive?