First, a Petroff Defense, from Schachzeitung, December 1874
R.W. - H.
Leipzig, 1874
"Curiosum Kurzlich im Leipzig gespielt"
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nxe4 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kg8 6.Qe2 d6 7.Qxe4 dxe5 8.Qc4+ "und Weiss setzt mat"
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ ...and related lines
(risky/nonrisky lines, tactics & psychology for fast, exciting play)
R.W. - H.
Leipzig, 1874
"Curiosum Kurzlich im Leipzig gespielt"
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nxe4 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kg8 6.Qe2 d6 7.Qxe4 dxe5 8.Qc4+ "und Weiss setzt mat"
The result was initially quite surprising: Fritz8 / White / the Jerome Gambit won three games, and lost one.
A closer examination revealed, however, that Games 1, 3 and 4 – White's wins – were identical, with Fritz5 / Black resigning at move 29 each time. Fritz8 had varied at move 13 in the second game and had gone on to lose.
So, it was more like Fritz5 played it's "older brother" even in defending against the Jerome Gambit, winning one unique game and losing one unique game. On the other hand, Fritz8 bettered the 40% - 45% score we've seen White achieve in recent Jerome Gambit thematic tournaments.
Further research is certainly needed!
Fritz 8 - Fritz 5.32, Blitz, 4+2, 2008: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 Qf6 8.Rf1 g6 9.Qh3+ Ke7 10.Nc3 c6 11.fxe5 Qxe5 12.Qf3 Nf6 13.d3 Bb4 14.Bd2 d6 15.d4 Qe6 16.0-0-0 Ng4 17.d5 Qg8 18.Qg3 Ke8 19.dxc6 bxc6 20.Nb5 cxb5 21.Bxb4 Ne5 22.Rxd6 Nc4 23.Qg5 Nxd6 24.Qe5+ Qe6 25.Qxh8+ Kd7 26.Rd1 h5 27.Rxd6+ Qxd6 28.Bxd6 Kxd6 29.Qd8+ 1-0
Fritz 8 - Fritz 5.32, Blitz, 4+2, 2008: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 Qf6 8.Rf1 g6 9.Qh3+ Ke7 10.Nc3 c6 11.fxe5 Qxe5 12.Qf3 Nf6 13.Ne2 Rf8 14.d4 Bxd4 15.Bf4 Qc5 16.0-0-0 Be5 17.b4 Bxf4+ 18.Qxf4 Qxb4 19.Qe5+ Kd8 20.Rxf6 Re8 21.Re6 Rxe6 22.Qxe6 Qf8 23.Qe5 Qe7 24.Qd4 b6 25.e5 Bb7 26.Nc3 c5 27.Qg4 Bc6 28.Qf4 h5 29.Nd5 Bxd5 30.Rxd5 Rc8 31.Qa4 Rc7 32.Qe4 Rc6 33.Qa4 Qe6 34.c4 Rc7 35.Qd1 a6 36.Qe2 Rc6 37.g3 b5 38.h4 bxc4 39.Qxc4 Qf7 40.Qb3 Kc7 41.Qd3 Kc8 42.Rd6 Rxd6 43.Qxd6 Qf1+ 44.Kd2 Qg2+ 45.Kc1 Qc6 46.Qd2 Kc7 47.Qa5+ Kb7 48.Qd2 Qe6 49.Qb2+ Kc6 50.Qg2+ Kb5 51.Qb7+ Ka5 52.Qc7+ Kb4 53.Qb7+ Kc3 54.Qb2+ Kd3 55.Qc2+ Kd4 56.Qb2+ Kd5 57.a3 Qg4 58.Qb7+ Kxe5 59.Qc7+ d6 60.Qe7+ Kd5 61.Qb7+ Ke6 62.Qb3+ Ke5 63.Qb2+ Qd4 64.Qe2+ Kd5 65.Qg2+ Qe4 66.Qd2+ Ke5 67.Qb2+ Kf5 68.Qb8 Qd3 69.Qc8+ Ke5 70.a4 Qc4+ 71.Kd2 Qxa4 72.Qc7 Qd4+ 73.Ke2 Qe4+ 74.Kf2 Qd3 75.Qe7+ Kd5 76.Qe8 Qf5+ 77.Kg1 Kd4 78.Qb8 Ke3 79.Qb3+ Qd3 80.Qf7 Kd2 81.Qa2+ Ke1 82.Qa5+ Qd2 83.Qa1+ Qd1 84.Qc3+ Ke2+ 85.Kh2 Qd4 86.Qa3 Qf2+ 0-1
"Review of Mr. Gossip's Book" Theory of the Chess Openings
(1879)
...The Jerome Gambit
We do not well know why this opening (a branch of the "Giuoco") is styled a gambit, as it consists in White sacrificing a piece on the fourth move, and Staunton in his Handbook defines a gambit as a sacrifice of a Pawn.The Americans recognize the force of this by styling the opening "Jerome's double opening," although we don't quite see the meaning of this. How "double"? We think that the simple and natural definition of Jerome's Attack - as Cochrane's attack in the "Petroff" where a piece is also given up by White on his fourth move - would suffice.Like all presents of a piece early in the opening, the party so venturesome comes to early disaster. Mr. Gossip was right, therefore, in not devoting too much space to a debut which he could not establish as sound...
"Review 6th Edition German Handbook"
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.
...............................
Cincinnati Commercial Gazette
November 29, 1884
"Chess and Checkers"
"The Jerome Gambit"Chess Editor Commercial Gazette
I notice in your chess column of to-day a review (copied from The New Orleans Times Democrat) of some analyses published in the American Supplement to Cook's Synopsis including my own analysis of the Jerome Gambit...The principal portion of the analysis is based on a number of correspondence games played between Mr. Jerome and myself, with some few compilations from other sources, including the above-mentioned. The result led me to regard the sacrifice of the Bishop as unsound, but that Black may easily err in his defense and lose...Very respectfully,
S. A. Charles
...............................
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, Editorial Staff of the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette
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.
...............................
The Pittsburgh Chronicle-Telegraph
October 29, 1884
Our readers will perhaps remember that about two years ago we published an analysis of the Jerome Gambit which was furnished by its author. The following is from the New Orleans Times-Democrat, in an extended review of the American Edition of Cook's Synopsis. The "brilliant but unsound" (why, may we ask, is this antithesis so common that one would almost infer it to be necessary?) Jerome Gambit, invented by Mr. Jerome, of Paxton, Ill., about a decade ago, constitutes the next of the Americana, and concerning the analysis given by Mr. S. A. Charles we can only venture to say that it seems to combine much careful original work with variations compiled from such investigations as have been published upon this hazardous attack...
...............................
Pittsburgh Chronicle-Telegraph
February 27, 1884
In Cincinnati we met a number of players in the Mercantile Library, the chess room of which... We also had the pleasure of contesting several games with Mr. Jerome, of Paxton, Ill. He is well known as the author of the so-called Jerome Gambit, in which white sacrifices the Bishop by taking KBP on the fourth move of the Giuoco Piano game. Neither the gambit nor its author proved strong in the contest.
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.
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.
"Chess"
H. Charlick
"Chess in Adelaide"
The following long and stubbornly-contested game was fought April 4, 1877, on the occasion of the visit to Adelaide, during the Easter holidays, of Mr. A. Holloway, of Williamstown, formerly of the Bristol Chess Club. The other game, between the same pair of players, won, at the Kt odds, by Mr. Holloway, was published a few weeks ago. The present partie was played on equal terms.
Charlick,H - Holloway,A
Australia, 1877
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Bc5 6.Bxf7+ Kxf7 7.Nxe5+ Nxe5 8.Qh5+ Ng6 9.Qd5+ Kf8 10.Qxc5+ d6 11.Qe3 Nf6 12.d4 Kf7 13.0-0 Re8 14.Nd2 c6 15.f4 Kg8 16.Re1 Kh8 17.Ba3 Nd5 18.Qg3 Ndxf4 19.Nc4 c5 20.e5 Qh4 21.Nxd6 Be6 22.Nxe8 Rxe8 23.Bxc5 b6 24.Bd6 Bc4 25.Qxh4 Nxh4 26.Rad1 Nhxg2 27.Re4 Bd5 28.Rde1 Re6 29.c4 Nxe1 30.cxd5 Rg6+ 31.Kf1 Ned3 32.e6 Nxd5 33.e7 Nxe7 34.Rxe7 h6 35.Bg3 a5 36.d5 Nc5 37.d6 Rf6+ 38.Kg1 Kh7 39.Be5 Rg6+ 40.Kf1 Rg5 41.d7 Nxd7 42.Bc7 Rd5 43.Re6 Rf5+ 44.Kg1 Rf6 45.Re7 Nc5 46.Be5 Rg6+ 47.Kf1 Nd3 48.Bc3 a4 49.a3 b5 50.Rb7 Rg5 51.h4 Rg4 52.Ke2 Rg3 53.Rxb5 Nc1+ 54.Kd2 Nb3+ 55.Kc2 Rg2+ 56.Kd1 Rg3 57.Be5 Rg4 58.Rb4 Rxb4 59.axb4 Kg6 60.Kc2 Kf7 61.Bc3 g5 62.hxg5 hxg5 63.Kb2 Ke6 64.Ka3 Kd5 65.Kxa4 Kc4 66.Be5 g4 67.b5 Nc5+ 68.Ka5 Nd7 69.Bg3 Kd5 70.Bf2 Nc5 71.Kb6 Nd7+ 72.Kc7 Ne5 73.b6 Nc6 74.b7 Nb4 75.Bg3 Ke6 76.Bd6 1-0