[on the topic "Very daring line of the Latvian... The Corkscrew Countergambit"]
An opening or a variation which has a name is one which is recognized as good or having some merit to be worthy of attention. Even the Jerome Gambit, which is probably the worst recognized gambit in all of chess, does offer some reasons for analysis. However, this sequence of moves you give here is simply a blunder with no redeaming social value. Sam Sloan
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)
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
He is referring to Hugh E. Myers, who in his Exploring the Chess Openings (1978) had this to sayThe Hungarian player Kadas has the dubious distinction of being perhaps the greatest living exponent of 1.h4, a move even Myers, a true fan of bizarre openings, considers poor.
If there were an election for the worst possible first move, 1.P-KR4 would have excellent winning chances.
Grandmaster Bent Larsen, in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, Volume A (1979), gave "1.h4? e5 =/+"
So Kadas' Opening would seem to meet the criteria set above for "disreputable" – even if it receives more complete and respectful treatment in Stefan Bücker's Groteske Schacheröffnungen (1990).
Do readers have other suggestions?
7.Qxc5 
White has reached a reasonable Jerome Gambit position where he has two pawns for his sacrificed piece. No doubt Yace Paderborn sees itself as being about a pawn behind in the game. This would hardly trouble a human gambiteer, but when the computer spots an escape from this situation – to a draw – it takes it. 
7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qe3 Qh4 
We saw this move played first, only with Black's King on f8, by Shredder 8 (see "Jerome Gambit: Drilling Down (17)"). 
Again reaching a position that is objectively better for Black, but which is the kind that RevvedUp likes to play against computers. 
Yace Paderborn has effectively castled-by-hand. 
The winner of a chess game is the player that makes fewer wrong moves then his opponent.
In this issue I will present my game played recently on Playchess.com. I didn't play rated game for a long time so I decided to play against weaker opponent. As you'll see I played so badly for my rating but the game was decided by greater number of errors my opponent did.
[Event "Rated game, 30m + 0s"]
[Site "Main Playing Hall"]
[Date "2006.08.18"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Ciprian"]
[Black "Ibarix"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C50"]
[WhiteElo "1478"]
[Annotator "Fritz 9 (60s)"]
[PlyCount "152"]
[EventDate "2006.08.18"]
{C50: Hungarian Defence and Giuoco Pianissimo}
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5
In earlier posts I said I don't quite know openings. I recently started to study ideas for some openings (Giuoco Piano). It's incredible that I'm quite strong player but have no clue about basic ideas in most of the openings. So I took advice from some of the internet sites and began with Giuoco Piano just as junior players start with it in their chess lives. After these moves white developed 2 pieces, took some share of the center with e4 and cleared way for a short castle. White bishop is eyeing the f7 square which is the weakest point at the start of the game just as white's f2. Why? Because at the beginning it's defended only once - by the king. The main point for black's good chances is central break d5 and Nf6. White has several possibilities in this position.
1. b4 - the Evans gambit
2. c3 - preparing for d4 thrust or playing Modern Italian c3, d3 and after that d4 maybe
3. d3 - leading either to Giuoco Pianissimo after white's Nc3, 0-0 and black's d6, Nf6 and 0-0 or Modern Italian
4. d4 immediately, the Italian Gambit
5. 0-0 weak line according to some authors
6. (read misc. instead of six because this is not quite the option for white) Bxf7+ ??????? Jerome gambit, it doesn't work, don't ever play it...
[The emphasis placed on the last line is mine - RK. You have been warned!]
