'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!

Jerome Gambit Tournament: Chapter I

Thanks to the efforts of my good chessfriend, Pete Banks ("blackburne"), and the kind understanding of ChessWorld's Powers That Be, I was invited to participate in their latest thematic Jerome Gambit tournament.

Something about mentioning the opportunity to include "the World's greatest authority" on the subject, or some such silliness.

It is a 10-player, double round robin tournament, with up to 5 days available per move. (Players often move faster, and sometimes find themselves on the site at the same time, in which case a slice of the game is played move-upon-move.)

My games are completed, others have a handful left to finish up.

I must admit that the challenge of the tournament was irresistible. I've researched the Jerome for years and played it mostly successfully in a dozen or so offhand Internet blitz games, but this opportunity was serious.

The field is a mixture of those familiar with the Jerome Gambit (the third thematic for both blackburne and drewbear, for example) and those new to the opening.

Balanced against my foolishly inflated rating (based on three games at the site – some of my opponents have played thousands) that puts me at the top of the heap, is the tiny little dilemma of standing up for an opening that has a handful of refutations. Gulp!

The whole world's watching!

As if.

Win the tournament, though? I was actually hoping mostly not to embarrass myself. Even that would take everything that I had learned from Alonzo Wheeler Jerome – plus a whole lot of luck.

My first goal for the tournament was therefore, out of necessity, a dark one: I would need to polish up those refutations and go 9-0 with the Black pieces, against Jerome's Double Opening!

(Thanks to Ryan North of Toronto, Canada for his use of his Dinosaur Comic. Cerebral stuff. Funny.)

London Calling... A Month of Blog

This Jerome Gambit blog has been up a month, with daily posts.

Visitors have stopped by from the following countries:

Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, India, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, Uganda, United Kingdom, and United States (32 of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia).

Comments are always welcome, as are history, games or analysis.

A Few Words With... Tim McGrew

Readers interested in the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) and other exciting opening sacrifices are likely familiar – or should become familiar – with Tim McGrew, past author of "The Gambit Cartel" columns for ChessCafe.

Tim has always been supportive of my work with the duck-billed platypus of chess openings, although he maintains an objective attitude:

The Jerome is, of course, completely unsound; it is a kind of miracle, and a tribute to Jerome’s tenacity, that it was analyzed seriously at all.

I was planning to do a short interview with Tim, when I discovered that Michael Goeller, host of The Kenilworthian blog, had already done so, and in great style.

Check it out. Michael said it was fine to make the link.

Pour yourself a cup of coffee first, though. You'll not only find the interview, you'll find links to all of Tim's "Gambit Cartel" columns plus a downloadable zipped file of them. And, as they say in the commercials: But wait! There's more!

I'll wait for you to come back...

Here's some of Tim McGrew's wisdom on adventurism in the opening

When you select an opening, you are not selecting the position that arises at move 20 after best play by both sides. You are selecting the whole opening with all of its traps and twists, its side lines and main lines.

And you are selecting it to play against flesh-and-blood opponents who will very frequently deviate from best play – probably early.

Which raises a very important question, supposing they do deviate from best play, what will happen then?

The answer depends on what I will call the “Caltrop Coefficient,” or CC for short. For readers not familiar with military history, I should explain that caltrops are mid-sized pieces of metal shaped rather like gigantic jacks with sharpened points. Canny soldiers camping just on the other side of a river from their enemies would sow the riverbed liberally with caltrops so that an enemy cavalry charge across the river would be demolished as the horses stepped on the caltrops and went down.

Mutatis mutandis, every wild-eyed gambiteer uses this strategy in chess as well. The more caltrops the better, particularly at blitz or bullet time controls! Let’s agree to say that an opening with a high proportion of moderately well-hidden traps has a high CC.

Of course, if our opponent has studied up on the opening, life will be very hard.

--The Gambit Cartel "Dimensional Analysis" 6/20/2004

graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"

The Man, The Myth, The Legend...

Alonzo Wheeler Jerome was born on March 8, 1834 at Four Mile Point, New York.

Oddly, he is not mentioned at any of the relevant web sites, or even the official one for the nearby town of Coxsackie.

The Coxsackie Historic Preservation Commision and the Green County Historical Society have not heard of him, nor has the librarian at the Vedder Memorial Library.

Go figure.

Jerome moved to Paxton, Illinois in 1868, and it was from there that he launched his assault upon the chess world with his analysis of the bodacious Jerome Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+

A hometown hero?

Not if you check the Paxton home page. Nary a whisper.

I have submitted the following "classified ad" to the paper:

Looking for information on or relatives of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome. Born March 8, 1834 at Four Mile Point, New York; moved to Paxton, Illinois in 1868; March 6, 1873, married Jane "Jennie" A. Ostrom. Known for "The Jerome Gambit" published in the Dubuque Chess Journal, American Chess Journal, and elsewhere; died from the complications of a gastric ulcer March 22, 1902 in Springfield, Illinois. richardfkennedy@hotmail.com

We will see what, if anything, happens.

Jerome died in Springfield, Illinois. Historical information about him has been crowded out by that political upstart, Abraham Lincoln.

However, his obituary was available from The Journal:

March 23, 1902
Mortuary Record
Jerome - Died, at 9 o'clock Saturday night, March 22, 1902, at his home, 812 South Third Street, Capt. A. W. Jerome, aged 67 years. The death of Captain Jerome was not unexpected, as he had been bedfast for two months. He came to Springfield at the beginning of the Tanner administration and since then had held the position of guide at the state house. During is stay in this city Captain Jerome became well known. He was a native of New York and was a veteran of the civil war. A widow is the only survivor. The remains will be sent Monday to Paxton for burial.

What kind of a man...?

What kind of a man dares to play the Jerome Gambit?

For that matter, what kind of a man invents the Jerome Gambit??

We can get an idea of the creativity of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome in this excerpt from The American Chess Journal for June, 1877.

In the January Journal Mr. Lloyd, in noticing a book of problems by Sr. Vazquez, expressed surprise in the idea of a Pawn becoming a King. He says: "The second problem is a mate in two, commencing by P to 8th, claiming a King! As this may conform to the special code of Chess Laws as applicable to problems, which I explained last month I had not seen, I feel incompetent to pass judgement upon it." The following is the position of Sr. Vazquez, referred to above:

About the same we received a note from A. W. Jerome, asking if a Pawn could not claim King on reaching the 8th square. We replied in the negative, referring him to the remark above, and also quoting from "Chess Laws & Practice," by Staunton and Wormald, p.61, as follows: "A Pawn advanced to the 8th rank assumes the name and privileges of any superior piece except a King."

Taking advantage of the careless wording of the rule of the American Chess Association relating to the promotion of a Pawn, Mr. Jerome is disposed to "insist on his right" to "crown" all his pawns, as they do at checkers, and writes as follows:

Editor Journal: You ask if I was satisfied in regard to two kings. I was not; but as Vazquez was ahead of me with the idea, I backed down to let him defend it. Your quotation from Staunton and Wormald (individuals) does not seem to me of as much weight as the Rules of the American Chess Association and the London Chess Club. Should the dictum of a handbook editor weigh against a Club rule? I think not. I do not think, however, that the question of kinging a pawn was ever discussed by any Club while forming their rules, for the reason, probably, that it had never occurred to them that there could be any position in which a second King would be of advantage. My idea is that when a Pawn has safely run the gauntlet and reached the Royal Rank, it is entitled to become the piece that will do the most good. Suppose the position I sent you in the diagram published in January Journal to occur in actual play in a game in which the White had agreed to mate in a certain number of moves, or lose the game, would it not be fair that he should have the privilege of calling the Pawn at Bishop's 8th any piece which would enable him to win? Kinging a Pawn seems to be a logical deduction from the rule, while the prohibition of it is arbitrary and not founded in reason. True, all rules for
all games are, originally, arbitrary, but there are sequences which naturally follow, and kinging a pawn seems naturally to follow the idea that a Pawn can be changed for a piece when it has reached the eighth rank.

I can see that the objection may be made that a position might occur wherein one King was about to be mated, when one of his pawns could "king" on the next move, involving the necessity of capturing the original King – an innovation not likely to be adopted among chess players.

In relation to the position in January No. Mr. Carpenter asks: "Why not 1.R-K8 and 2 mates?" Why, bless his heart, he may, if he wants to; and if he is not afraid of the consequences of running the Rook beyond the confines of space (so far as that diagram is concerned) he may play it to either Knight's 1, 2, 3 or 4. To make the diagram all right, however, and to better illustrate the point I made above in relation to mating in a certain number of moves, we will put a black Pawn at KR3 and a white Pawn at KR5.

Respectfully Yours, A.W. Jerome

Without entering into an argument in detail to refute the points made by Mr. Jerome, we will make issue with him by asserting that there is no rule of the American Chess Association, of of the London Chess Club or any other authoritative chess body or code, which permits a pawn to become a king. Mr. Jerome, in insisting on a strict construction of the rule he quotes does violence to the time-honored laws and usages of the game, and attempts to rule out authorities which have never before been called into question. Here is a plain issue, and it is now in order for Mr. Jerome to call on the bystanders to decide between us as to whether the American Chess Association really intended the rule to convey the meaning our correspondent claims. The term "bystanders" may include the Handbooks, most of which, if not all, explicitly except the King when stating that a Pawn may be promoted, &c. Suppose Mr. J. were playing with us the odds game he mentions in his remarks, and he attempted to King a Pawn; we object and he pleads the rule of the American Chess Association, to which we should demur on the grounds that it is not the law, don't Mr. J. think he would have some trouble to find a judge "learned in the law" of Chess who would decide the games in his favor?

Mr. Jerome gives the following position, remarking "Kinging a Pawn seems natural and right, and when there is no help for the death of the old King, and there is a prince of the line to take his place, why not shoot as follows?"

"The King is dead -- long live the King."

White to play and mate in two moves.

Mr. Jerome has not given us the solution to his position, but it seems to us that the old King is not yet dead – only in a comatose state, (unless it be argued that owing to his forlorn condition he has already committed hari-kari), and that the Knight may kill him, after which the Q can make a rather unpleasant for the new King.

graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"

Pitfall Numero Uno in the Jerome Gambit

It's not often you find that you have a won game – with the black pieces, at move 4.
Defending against the Jerome Gambit has its benefits, that's for sure.
The one thing you shouldn't do – besides panic, that is (see "The Horror! The Horror!!") – is dwadle ((v) : to spend time idly and unfruitfully; to spend time without haste or purpose – ninjawords).
The following game, from the recently completed ChessWorld tournament reviewed in Unorthodox Opening Newsletter #21, which I mentioned in "But is this stuff playable? (Part II)," gives an example of how Black may fall if he lets his game drift.
Nestor250168 - NMTIGER
thematic www.chessworld.net, 12.2007
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 7.Qxc5
Up to this point we have also been following the game "Anonymous vs Anonymous" presented in L. Elliot Fletcher's delightful Gambits Accepted, A Survey of Opening Sacrifices, (1954).

Fletcher's comment about the games he collected are worth recalling

Every inventor must have considered his gambit as a winning one, so in this Part all gambits are won by White and all counter gambits by Black. One game for each of the eighty-four openings is included, being numbered according to the classification tabulated in Part I, and, as far as possible, short games have been selected from master play. This was not as easy as might be imagined, for so often an otherwise suitable tournament or match game was not won by the proper colour required for our purpose. In several cases, therefore, it has been necessary to search for games outside first-class circles, and, in the thirteen selections when this has been done, the names of the players have been suppressed and the contest given as a Club Game. It must be confessed that the collection thereby becomes rather a mixed bag, but at least it can be said that there is an example, and a winning one, for each opening...

7...d6 8.Qc3 Nf6 9.d3 Re8 10.0–0

Here it can be noted that Nestor 250168 had the Black pieces in another game in this tournament, vs AAlekhine, and was successful there as well: 10.Bg5 Re6 11.Nd2 h6 12.Bxf6 Rxf6 13.0–0 Be6 14.Nf3 Kg8 15.h4 c5 16.h5 Nf4 17.Qd2 Nxh5 18.e5 Rf5 19.exd6 Qxd6 20.Rae1 c4 21.d4 Raf8 22.Nh4 R5f6 23.Re2 Ng3 24.Rfe1 Nxe2+ 25.Qxe2 Qxd4 26.c3 Qxf2+ 27.Qxf2 Rxf2 28.Rxe6 Rxb2 29.Ng6 Rf6 30.Ne7+ Kf7 31.Re4 Re6 32.Nf5 Rxe4 33.Nd6+ Kg6 34.Nxe4 Rxa2 35.Nd6 Rc2 36.Nxc4 Rxc3 37.Nd6 a5 38.Nxb7 a4 39.Nd6 a3 40.Nb5 Rc1+ 41.Kf2 a2 42.Nd4 a1Q 43.Nb3 Qb2+ 0–1
10...b6 11.Bg5 Ne5

Too much horsing around will be his downfall.

12.f4 Neg4 13.h3 Ne3 14.Rf3 Nd1

Black must try 14...d5 and be prepared to fight furiously, when the first player can keep an even game with 15.Qb3 Nc4 16.e5 Na5 17.Qa3 Bb7 18.Nd2, or enter the Twilight Zone with 15.Rxe3!? d4 16.Qc6 dxe3 17.Qxa8 Qd4 18.Nc3 e2+ 19.Kh2 Qf2 20.Qxa7 e1Q 21.Rxe1 Qxe1 22.Qxc7+ Kg8 23.Bxf6 gxf6 24.Nd5 Qh4 25.f5 Kh8 26.Qxb6




White has six pawns for a Rook and is a) winning, b) losing, or c) keeping the game in balance.
I chose d) one of the above. (I'm not sure which.)
15.Qb3+ Be6 16.c4 Nxb2 17.Qxb2 h6 18.Bxf6
There is something to be said for 18.Bh4 instead in that it keeps the pressure on his opponent's position. As it is, things soon fall apart for the second player anyhow.
18...Qxf6 19.e5 Qh4 20.Nd2 a5 21.f5 Bd7 22.e6+ Bxe6 23.fxe6+ Kxe6 24.Qxg7 Rg8 25.Qf7+ Ke5 26.Qd5 mate