After the correspondence game Norton - Hallock – a Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) – appeared in the February issue of the American Chess Journal – see "The Norton - Hallock Game (Part 1)" – the Gambit's creator was quick to respond.
Jerome's letter to editor William Hallock, below, is from the February 1877 American Chess Journal.
The Jerome Gambit
A.W. Jerome Defends His Opening as tested in game 79.
Paxton, ILL March 7, 1877
Editor, American Chess Journal,
Your card received this morning, and I thank you for your kind offer of room in The Journal for an article on the "Jerome Double Opening," alias "Jerome's Absurdity."
I have neither the time nor the ability to prepare such an article, for it would require analyses without number almost, and I have satisfied myself that my head is not level enough for such work. Of this I need not be very much ashamed when even Mr. Carpenter oversights occasionally.
Besides I believe "the proof of the pudding" is in the eating therov and not in "chewing the string." Norton, Shinkman and Kinnier have beaten me in "eating the pudding" more in consequence of dexterity in handling the "chess sticks" than in any superiority of their pudding over mine. In most of their tests they have made dough of my pastry, by reason of the lack of one essential ingredient in my part, viz foresight.
But in game 7 with Norton, and in the variation of that game from 22nd move, I think my side has been played as well as it could be, and the outcome will probably justify your opinion expressed in the November Journal, that "against careful, steady play the opening cannot win." A master might make a draw from the present position in each game. I probably cannot do that against Norton.
To those who like a lively, exciting game, I would say, try an "absurdity." If the first player gets no fun out of it, the second will.
But all joking aside, I maintain that the loss of the King's and Kings' Bishop's pawns, and privilege of castling comes very close in value to the one piece which has been sacrificed, and the second player must be on the alert or he will be quickly defeated.
Your game with Mr. Norton would seem to show the reverse to be truth but Norton's first mistake was in playing 5.e5 instead of 5.Qf3 as in game 472, Dubuque Chess Journal where the defense was the same. That game was drawn, but should have been won. Note (a) to your game with Norton says 5...Kf8 "seems equally good with 5...Nxe5" which is a mistake in fact and theory. 5...Nxe5 if properly followed up wins White's KBP, wheras 5...Kf8 leaves White's pawns intact while Black has lost two strong pawns and doubled another. This defense was adopted by G.J. Dougherty of Mineola, NY, a strong amateur, against whom I first played the opening, and I think he will agree that 5...Kf8 is not a good defense. He generally played 6.bc and that was the play of Mr. J. C. Young of Danville, KY, who subsequently abandoned the game. Why, I do not know, as it was not necessarily lost to either of us. It is a question with which Pawn it is best to take.
The move suggested in note (b) 6.Qh5, is not my idea, but belongs to Mr. Norton himself, and I have to acknowledge that I thought it unsound when he suggested it to me, during the process of the game, because 6...Qf6 gets up a counter attack at once; but 7.Ng4 compels Black to "crawfish" and permits White to castle with a good game. However if Black play 7...Qe7 it makes White 's game uncomfortable. But White may play 7.Nxd7+ Bxd7 8.Qxc5+ with 3 Pawns for his Knight which the books hold to be an equivalent. And I would not hesitate to exchange Queens if offered. Norton thinks 6...Qe7 best; I think 6...Nxe5 best; if 7.Qxe5 Qe7
Ending notes (c) and (d) at the first glance, seems as safe as endorsing U.S. Treasury notes, but closer examination will show that 8...Bg4 loses Bishop as I think I will prove in the correction of note (f).Note (e) says "waste of time" not so; on the contrary is much better than 10.c3, for it 10...Re8 11.d4 Bxd4 12.cd Qxd4 and the KP is lost and Black has the best position. 10.Kh1 is good and safe. In note (f) there seems to me to be quite an oversight for if 13...Nxf2 14.Rxf2 and then if 14...Qf6 as suggested in the note, 15.d4 and it is Black's goose which is immediately done brown. Of course 13...Nxf2 is not best. Again I cannot see the easy win after 15...Rxe5 the attack is with White.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8 6.Nxc6 [6.Qh5 Qf6 (6...Nxe5 7.Qxe5 Qe7) 7.Ng4 (7.Nxd7+ Bxd7 8.Qxc5+) 7...Qe7] 6...dxc6 7.0-0 Nf6 8.e5 Bg4 9.Qe1 Kf7 10.h3 Re8 11.Kh2 Rxe5! 12.Qxe5 Bd6 13.f4 Bxe5 14.fxe5 Be2 15.Rf2 Qd4 16.Rxe2 Re8 17.d3 Rxe5 18.c3 Qd5 White resigned
Never fear, good readers: tomorrow's post will apply Hallock's and Jerome's comments to the Norton - Hallock game in a much more understandable fashion.
Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member Bill Wall has been working on an orderly way of naming the various Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) variations.
Sometimes a move or line is given a generic label (e.g. "5.a3 Variation"), but when possible it is given the name of the person known to have played it first.
(This is based upon my 9 years of research into the Jerome Gambit. Of course, further discoveries may change things.)
There are a few exceptions (e.g. 5...Kf8, the "Sorensen Variation"), where the name given refers to someone who did significant analysis of the line, or greatly popularized it (e.g. 7...d6, the "Blackburne Variation").
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.a3
5.a3 Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.b3
5.b3 Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.c3
5.c3 Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.c4
5.c4 Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.d3
5.d3 Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.d4
5.d4 Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.g3
5.g3 Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.h3
5.h3 Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.h4
5.h4 Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nc3
5.Nc3 Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Ng5
5.Ng5 Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+
5.Nxe5 Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8
Sorensen Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8 6.Qh5
Banks Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Bxd4
Shinkman Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Qh4
6…Qh4 Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6
6…g6 Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 d6
Blackburne Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 Nf6
Carrington Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 Qe7
Whistler Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6
6…Ke6 Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7 Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Nf3 9.gxf3
Young Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7 Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Qf6 9.fxe5+ Qxe5 10.Qf3 c6
Cubitt Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7 Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Qf6 9.fxe5+ Qxe5 10.Qf3 Ne7
Jaeger Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7 Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Qf6 9.fxe5+ Qxe5 10.Qf3 Nf6
Colburn Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7 Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Qf6 9.fxe5+ Qxe5 10.Qf3 Nf6 11.d3 Nc6
Neufville Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7 Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Qh4+
Nibs Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4
D'Aumiller Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 Qf6
Schiller Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.O-O d6
Charles Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.d4
Tonetti Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Kf8
Jerome Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6
6…Ng6 Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qc3 Nf6 10.d3 Rf8
Zim Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qc3 Nf6 10.d4
Charlick Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 7.Qxc5
Sidran Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.O-O
Brookshire Variation, Jerome Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Qe2
5.Qe2 Variation, Jerome Gambit
The next step in repairing a variation, after you have defined the problem (Part 1) and reviewed some game history (Part 2), is to see what has been written about the line.
Unfortunately, when you are dealing with a variation of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+), reading up on the "His Nibs" Variation (4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Ke6 8.f4 Qh4) can be done during a coffee break.
There are only two sources in print that I have been able to find in about 8 years of study of the Jerome Gambit.
The first, in Randspringer #6 1990-1991, was in an article by Jack Young, author of many hysterical "Bozo's Chess Emporium" articles for Chess Horizons.
"Meet Jerome"
The Jerome Gambit (also known as the "Kentucky Opening" according to Blackburne), like the Reynolds Gambit, like the Chicago Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nxe5!! Nxe5 4.d4), like the Fred (1.e4 f5!!) desrves to be in the arsenal of every serious tournament player. Don't know the Jerome? That's OK but if you play through the following game I would not be surprised if it convinced you to venture the Jerome in your next serious tournament game. This important theoretical battle featured some real "high caliber" opposition and makes a good case for the playability of the Jerome Gambit...
...Young - Computer, 1991: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+! Kxf7 5.Nxe5+! Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4?! Another computer defused the attack after 8...Qh4+ 9.g3 Qf6
I admit that this is only a snippet of a mention, but I include it for a couple of reasons. First, it is also the first game (even if a partial) after "R.F" - "Nibs", 1899, that I have in my database. Secondly, it shows that the Black Queen check-and-return was primarily to disrupt White's kingside, not the beginning of a complicated Queen sacrifice.
The second reference I reviewed is from the unusual chess book Unorthodox Chess (2005), by the even more unusually-named author, Some Loser. (I reviewed the book for Chessville here.)
...the Jerome Gambit - an old favorite of mine, back in the good old days when I used to imagine I could get away with anything. It goes like so: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+!! Kxf7 5.Nxe5+! Nxe5 6.Qh5+ White will be able to recover one of the sacrificed pieces, after which Black's exposed King position plus the two Pawns, not to mention the fabulous shock value, almost compensate for the other piece. Ah, those were the days... and hard to swallow as it may seem, it has actually been known to work from time to time.
For instance 6...Ke6?! 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Qh4+?! 9.g3 Nf3+ 10.Kf1 Nxh2+?! 11.Kg2 Qd8 [11...Qg4 12.Qd5+ Ke7 13.Qxc5+ d6 14.Qf2 Nf6 15.Rxh2 Nxe4 16.Qe3 Qe6] 12.Qd5+ Ke7 13.Qxc5+ d6 14.Qg5+ Ke8 15.Qxd8+ Kxd8 16.Rxh2 Nf6 17.d3 Ng4? 18.Rh4 Nf6 19.Be3 Bg4?! 20.Bd4 Bd1? 21.Na3 Be2 22.Kf2 Bxd3 23.cxd3 c5 24.Bxf6+ gxf6 25.Nc4 Ke7 26.Ne3 Kf7 27.Rah1 Kg6 28.Rh6+ Kg7 29.Nf5+ Kg8 30.Rxf6 d5 31.Nh6+ Kg7 32.Rf7+ Kg6 33.e5 Rhg8 [33...Rab8 34.f5+ Kg5 35.Rg7#; 33...Rag8 34.Rf6+ Kg7 35.Nf5#] 34.Rf6+ Kg7 35.Nf5+ Kh8 36.Rxh7+ Kxh7 37.Rh6#
The lesson from Some Loser's game (or analysis, it is not clear from the text) is that the White King move 10.Kf1 is not an improvement over abhailey's and R.F.'s 10.Kd1. This was confirmed in both perrypawnpusher - james042665, Chess.com, 2008 (0-1, 18) and perrypawnpusher - Temmo, chessworld.com, 2008 (0-1, 43), even though both defenders did not follow the best line of play.
Black's 10...Nxh2+ vs Some Loser was a mistake which surrendered the second player's advantage. As in abhailey - peonconorejas, net-chess, 2008, the best move was 10...Ne7 with similar powerful play against White's Queen and King. Also, 10...Qd8 gave White the advantage, whereas 10...Qg4 would have led to an equal game.
Further looking into Blackburne's quote – "1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Note - I used to call this the Kentucky opening..." – (see "The Kentucky Opening (Part 1)") I found another reference in the September 1875 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal.
GAME NO. 513 (Kentucky Opening.)
Contested lately in Danville, Kentucky.
Fields - J. K. Young
1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nf6
In case the adversary takes the pawn, thus left exposed, his defeat is both swift and sure; and if he refuses to take it, he loses a whole move, and transfers the attack to his opponent.
3.Qxe5+ Be7 4.Bc4 0-0 5.d3 Re8 6.Qg3 d5 7.Bh6 Nh5 8.Qf3 g6
The game was already won, and the move was made to tempt the adversary to capture the pawn, thereby permitting a very neat and pretty ending.
9.Bxd5 Qxd5 10.exd5 Bb4+ 11.K moves R mates
Later in the same issue of the Journal, was this news story:
...A lively Chess Column has also just been inaugurated in the Lebanon (Tenn.) Herald. As an exponent of Southern and South-Western Chess doings, its influence will be great. The Lebanon Chess Club is at present conducting several telegraphic games with Ohio, Tennessee and Mississippi Clubs, and will soon be heard from, having already won a fine "Kentucky Opening" from Nashville...
I start the "modern" era of the Jerome Gambit Gemeinde somewhat arbitrarily, taking note of the contribution of L. Elliott Fletcher, whose quite enjoyable Gambits Accepted, a survey of opening sacrifices (1954) contains an interesting Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) game. Alas, the players are listed as anonymous, and the location and date are not given.
Invented by an American named Jerome in the latter part of the nineteenth century much of the analysis given below was originated by another American, S. A. Charles, and subsequently revised by Freeborough and Ranken. The opening is frankly unsound but Black's task is by no means easy and he can quite likely go wrong...
Micah Fisher-Kirshner (see"A Few Words With... Micah Fisher-Kirshner") certainly deserves membership, for defending the honor of the Jerome Gambit against an early chess program, Knight Stalker (aka Fritz1) in a 1993 match.Certainly Master Jack Young ("Bozo" of "Bozo's Chess Emporium") should have his enthusiasm for the Jerome Gambit in his "Meet Jerome" article in Randspringer #6, 1990-1991 rewarded with membership.
Although FIDE Master Eric Schiller might shrug off the honor, he deserves a place in the Gemeinde for writing about the Jerome Gambit during a time when few even thought or knew about it, let alone analyzed it or shared their assessments. Unorthodox Chess Openings (1998, 2002), Gambit Chess Openings (2002), and Survive and Beat Annoying Chess Openings (2003) have new analysis, although the author's attitude was less tongue-in-cheek than thumb-in-eye
This is another cyberspace gambit. Virtually no attention was paid to this reckless move [4.Bxf7+] until its supporters started talking about it on the Internet. It can't be found in recent tournament games, and there is a good reason: It stinks. White whips up a brief attack, easily parried, and then spends a long time trying to justify the sacrifice. A popular gambit in cyberspace, but in the real world, it only succeeds in games where Black is a very weak player.
It is important to include Tim McGrew (see "A Few Words With... Tim McGrew") author of "The Gambit Cartel" series of articles at ChessCafe, and explorer of some of the vicissitudes of the Jerome Gambit.
The Gemeinde likewise has membership for Life Master Brian Wall, who has a 100% record with the Jerome Gambit (at least after one game) and who has presented devestating analysis of the Whistler Defense (see "Jerome Gambit Tournament: Chapter VIII") – one of the best refutations of the Jerome Gambit to date.
It's not every day (month, year, decade, century...) that an International Master mentions or makes a suggestion concerning the play of the Jerome Gambit, and because he has, IM Gary Lane (see "International Master Gary Lane") has a place in the Gemeinde; although this is not likely to be mentioned on the FIDE website.
There also are a number of players who deserve mention for their brave commitment to playing the Jerome Gambit, starting with Pete Banks ("blackburne"), whose game GM Lane analyzed in one of his "Opening Lanes" columns at ChessCafe.
Of note also are Louis Morin, whose name should have been mentioned here much earlier for his Jerome Gambit swash-buckling, and A.B. Hailey, who has produced his share of theoretical games.
Gary Gifford, current editor and publisher of the Unorthodox Openings Newsletter (and co-author of the brand new and exciting Winning with the Krazy Kat and Old Hippo) – see "But - Is this stuff playable??" – has been supportive of Jerome Gambit discoveries.
Finally, there are the many players who have ventured Jerome's Double Opening. It is not possible to mention all, but certainly those who have played in the five thematic Jerome Gambit tournaments mentioned on this blog should be welcomed into the Gemeinde: bobbob78, brain50, braken, breaker, calchess10, Capt.Mandrake, Carlos Azcarate, casker, dandoo, delboy138, drewbear, eddie43, Gary_Seven, gobo, hogmaster, HPotter, jelgava, jemasc, Kevin the fruitbat, koloman, mediax, mika76, panga74, Piratepaul, queen st, Rail2Rail, Sir Osis of the Liver, splott, Temmo, TJay2465, tonik, TWODOGS, vlad-tepes, willitfw and yorkypuddn.
