Jerome Gambit: Horrible Innovation

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...)

Like a Needle in a Haystack (Part 2)

Of course, primary historical sources of Jerome Gambit games and analysis are the chess magazine and magazine and newpaper chess columns of the period. Finding a Jerome "needle" in that many "haystacks" without some kind of a clue can be an exhausting task.

An excellent example of such a "clue" is the Jerome Gambit entry from the Oxford Companion to Chess (1984) by David Hooper and Kenneth Whylde

Jerome Gambit in the Italian Opening; an unsound gambit that can lead to much amusement in light hearted play. It first appeared in the American Chess Journal, 1876, recommended by the American player Alonzo Wheeler Jerome (1834-1902) of Paxton, Illinois.

While games and references to Alonzo Wheeler Jerome and his gambit can be found in the June, September, November and December 1876 issues of the American Chess Journal, it turns out that analysis appeared two years earlier, in the April 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal.

Confusing these two journals, by the way, is not difficult. As Tim Harding wrote in his "The Kibitzer" column at ChessCafe.com in 2007

...[T]he Dubuque Chess Journal was started by Professor Brownson in 1870 and he stopped it after number 73 in summer 1876.

He thought he had sold the rights to W. S. Hallock, who produced the first two volumes of The American Chess Journal, beginning with June 1876 and numbered consecutively from Brownson, i.e. he started with number 74... It was published in Hannibal, Missouri, from June 1876 to December 1877...

Hallock apparently did not pay Brownson (or at least that is what Brownson said) so Brownson restarted his magazine as Brownson’s Chess Journal in February 1877, also resuming with number 74. At different times, Brownson varied his titles...

Having re-established his rights, Brownson stopped in 1878, but resumed again many years later... The last three Hallock issues (his incomplete volume 2) were bi-monthly, with the November-December issue very short. Here he announced he had sold his rights to Dr. C. C. Moore in New York...

Because of moving everything to another city, there was a delay and the new series of The American Chess Journal began March 1878... It ended July 1879.

Moore then sold to Barbe, in Chicago, who did his best to continue The American Chess Journal as a quarterly...

Barbe published Vol. 1-Vol. 2, no 3 (Oct 1879-Dec 1881), but actually number 3 was April 1881. To increase the confusion, the issue of October 1880 was headed volume 1 no 5 on the title page, but as this was a quarterly, it should have been vol. 2 no. 1, as Barbe must have realised subsequently. So then comes January 1881, headed Vol. 2 no 2, but the page numbers are continuous from October 1880. Then April 1881 was the last issue...

After the end of Barbe’s series, there were no Journals until Brownson resumed in 1886.

Got it, right?

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.

Don't get me started...

About five years ago, someone in the rec.games.chess.misc newsgroup asked about the chess player Isidor Gunsberg, noting

chessmetrics.com, sometimes interesting to check for historical purposes, rates Gunsberg as #3 in the world for 1890 and 1891 based on his performances.

He had some pretty nice tournament results, such as

- 1st place DSB Kongress in 1885, ahead of players like Blackburne, Tarrasch, Mackenzie, and Bird

- 2nd place USA Congress in 1889, behind the tied Miksa Weiss and Tchigorin, and ahead of Burn, Blackburne, Max Judd (probably the best player in the USA at that time), Bird, Showalter

- Tied 2nd place London 1900, and lone 2nd place at London 1904

His match results were also notable, such as:

- Victory over Blackburne in 1887 (7/12 to 5/12)

- Drawing with the peak-form Tchigorin in 1890! (11.5/23) This just after Tchigorin`s World Championship match

- Losing the 3rd FIDE-recognised World Championship match to Steinitz in 1890, by 2 games (8.5/19)

Of course,I had to ask if anyone knew if Gunsberg, an openings explorer in his own right, had ever played the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+).

After receiving the obligatory put-down that the opening was "considered unsound by all reputable theoreticians" I started my typical yammering on my favorite opening in response.

George,

Thank you for your comments and the information on the Jerome Gambit! It's a topic I can really get lost in..

> The Jerome Gambit, considered unsound by all reputable theoreticians,

G.H.D. Gossip, in his "Theory of the Chess Openings," 2nd ed, 1879, wrote "the Gambit, which although unsound, affords some highly instructive analysis for less practised players."

William Cook, in his "Synopsis of the Chess Openings," 3rd ed, 1882, wrote that "the Jerome Gambit, which, although unsound, affords some highly instructive analysis."

The "American Supplement to the 'Synopsis,' containing American Inventions In the Chess Openings Together With Fresh Analysis in the Openings Since 1882; Also A List of Chess Clubs in the United States and Canada" edited by J.W. Miller, noted "The 'Jerome Gambit,' 4.BxPch, involves an unsound sacrifice; but it is not an attack to be trifled with. The defense requires study, and is somewhat difficult."

(One book reviewer suggested that the offense required study, too; and that the game was even more difficult for White than for Black!)

Of course, Raymond Keene had the (almost) last word in his "The Complete Book of Gambits" 1992 - "This is totally unsound and should never be tried!"

> first appeared in the American Chess Journal in 1876, according to The Oxford Companion to Chess.

To the best of my knowledge, the first appearance of the Jerome Gambit was in the Dubuque Chess Journal for April 1874, in a small article titled "New Chess Opening." (Yes, I've shared this information with Mr. Whyld, and he has been quite pleasant and supportive in my Jerome Gambit researches.)

>It was recommended by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome of Paxton,Illinois. Jerome was born on 8 March 1834 in Four Mile Point, New York, and died on 22 March 1902 in Springfield, Illinois. His obituary appeared in the 23 March 1902 edition of the Illinois State Journal - page 6, column 3.

I have a copy of the obituary - it is short, about a half-dozen sentences. In light of such a paltry send-off, I can understand why some people would want to write their own death notices.

> The Jerome Gambit (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. Bxf7+?) cannot be recommended for serious chess since Black gains the advantage after 4...Kxf7 5. > Nxe5+ Nxe5 6. Qh5+ Kf8 7. Qxe5 d6.

There are several refutations of the Jerome Gambit.

The 6...Kf8 line was first given by Jerome, himself, in the July 1874 Dubuque Chess Journal. It has shown up in such fine places as Harding's "Counter Gambits" 1974, ECO "C" 1st ed, 1974, "Batsford Chess Openings," 1st ed, 1982 and "Enciclopedia Dei Gambietti," 1998. Sorensen, in his May 1877 article in Nordisk Skaktidende, "Chess Theory for Beginners," (subsequently translated in Chess Players' Chronicle of August of the same year) recommended 5...Kf8. Of course, 6...Ke3 is also playable.

Jerome, himself, kept things in perspective. The Pittsburg Telegraph, June 8, 1881, wrote "A letter received from Mr. A. W. Jerome calls attention to the fact that he does not claim the Jerome Gambit to be analytically sound, but only that over the board it is sound enough to afford a vast amount of amusement."

Others joined in the jocularity. The Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, in its May 7, 1879 review of Gossip's "Theory" noted "...The Jerome Gambit, which high-toned players sometimes affect to despise because it is radically unsound finds a place, and to this it is certainly entitled. As this opening is not in any Manual, to our knowledge, we transfer it to our columns, with the exception of a few minor variations, and we believe our readers will thank us for so doing."

In a March 13, 1880 review of the 6th ed of the Handbuch, the same author" complained" again: "We are somewhat disappointed that the 'Thorold Variation' of the 'Allgaier Gambit' should be dismissed with only a casual note in the appendix, and that the "Jerome Gambit" should be utterly (even if deservedly) ignored."

Enough. I'll close with a comment from Lasker, in his Chess Magazine, in reply to a correspondent "Ichabodf: - No; the Jerome gambit is not named after St. Jerome. His penances, if he did any, were in atonement of rather minor transgressions compared with the gambit."

Rick Kennedy

Jerome Gambit Blog: Tidying Up

Time to clean up a few things in this blog...

"In The Beginning..." refers to the first appearance in print of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) as being in the Dubuque Chess Journal, April 1874, Vol. VI, No. 50, p. 358-9.

This is a correction to the reference in the Oxford Companion to Chess, Whyld and Hooper, first (1984) and second editions (1992), noting "It appeared first in American Chess Journal, 1876." The authors are correct in that the June, September, November and December issues of the ACJ had Jerome Gambit content -- the Dubuque Chess Journal simply had prior coverage.
I have not been able to find an earlier reference than April 1874.

"To Infinity... And Beyond! (Part II)" and "Breaking News" indicated that at some time in the future Stefan Bücker's quarterly chess magazine, Kaissiber, would carry my article on the Jerome Gambit. Current speculation is there may be a short article in the October 2008 issue.

In "Nobody expects the Jerome Gambit!" I mentioned that Blackburne, in Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess (1899) referred to the Jerome Gambit as "the Kentucky Opening." I have yet to discover how it is that the British master came up with that name.

"Is This Blog About YOU??" and "You, too, can add to Jerome Gambit theory" both have been well-answered by games from ongoing Jerome Gambit thematic tournaments, and the occasional Comment to this blog or email to its Editor (richardfkennedy@hotmail.com). Of course, fresh games and analysis are always appreciated.

In "The Man, The Myth, The Legend..." I mentioned placing a classified ad with the online Paxton, Illinois (home of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome) website, http://www.paxtonil.com/, seeking information about the originator of the Jerome Gambit. While I have received no reply, and the ad has expired (and no longer appears), I can report that if you have an unwanted Paxtonopoly game, please contact the PRIDE office at 379-3388 or email pride@paxtonil.com.
I am no further enlightened on the things that puzzled me in " 'Tis A Puzzlement..."

After some progress on learning about the Jerome Gambit game Harris,W.A. Sgt. - Quayle,Ernest H.Los Angeles, California, USA 1944, as given in "The Joy of Discovery" Parts I, II, and III, the trail has gone cold.

"We are not alone..." heralded HANGING PAWN:: Tip's Chess Blog's coverage of the Jerome Gambit, and the offer therein of not just the computer vs computer Jerome Gambit games where White won (via download), but all of the games (contact the blogmaster). To date I have not received the larger stash.

With Rail2Rail winning his Jerome Gambit thematic tournament at ChessWorld, (see "Rail2Rail by a length" and "Rail2Rail Nails It") I had hoped for an annotated game or two from the winner; but nothing, yet.

"My head is spinning" Truly. Rybka 3.0 – or, in my case, Deep Rybka 3.0 Aquarium – is the real deal. It has got to be the tool for the serious (and very serious) chess player. Like having a "Grandmaster In A Box". A rather intimidating Grandmaster, at times – but: Wow!

After "The Salvio Gambit??" and "The Salvio Gambit?? (More)" I have not heard back from my friends at Chess.com, so I will tentatively suggest that I got my analysis correct.

Having fun with "Jerome Gambit and Vlad Tepes..." and "Jerome Gambit, Vlad Tepes and... Garlic!" I've started a couple of games at GameKnot with he-of-the-garlic, mika76.

As always, I'm "Looking for a few Jerome Gambit games..."
"Hey Wiki, it's me, Ricky!" So far the link to this blog from the Wikipedia article on the Jerome Gambit has been intact - and people are following it. Gotta love that.















Clipart from Clipartheaven.com