A Jerome Discovery (Part 2)

As compared to its Composite Game, The Literary Digest's Consulation Game with its readers – see "A Jerome Discovery (Part 1)" – a test of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) got off to a slow start.

A couple weeks after its introduction, on June 23, 1900, the following notice appeared in the chess column.

The Consultation Game

We are sorry that so far only nine persons have shown an interest in this game, by sending Black's 7th move; and five of them, so it seems to us, did not make the best move for black. The strength or weakness of the Jerome Gambit depends on black's 7th move; but a weak move here does not prove anything. the benefit of a Consultation Game is the opportunity it gives for analysis of some opening, thus showing the best continuations. It is, in a certain sense, a problem for the time being. We shall give Black's 7th move in our next issue. We think it best not to give the move sent by the majority, but, after giving the several moves sent, select as the move the one which, in our opinion, is the best.

A Jerome Discovery (Part 1)

In early 1900, the chess columnist for the weekly magazine The Literary Digest received a suggestion to play a "composite game." The idea was "to have 30 or 40 players on a side; each player having a number, representing the number of the move he is to make."

"While" [the correspondent] says, "the game would not prove anything as to the merits of the respective sides, it would be a curiosity of Chess."

The suggestion was mentioned on March 10. A rallying cry was given two weeks later, as only 20 players had so far signed up.

By April 21, however, "about seventy" players, "from California to New York; from Louisiana to Vermont; from Texas to Wisconsin" had offered to take part.

On May 5 the teams were announced, and the following week the curious game began, a Ruy Lopez, Berlin variation.

This experiment may have inspired Alonzo Wheeler Jerome, as the June 9 issue of The Literary Digest contained the following [notation changed from descriptive to algebraic]

A Consultation Game

We begin a series of games to-day which ought to be interesting and instructive. The special features are these:

(1) The move to be made will be that of the majority; (2) Notes or comments by the players and others. As the first of these games we give the opening moves of the Jerome Gambit. The author of this Opening, Mr. A. W. Jerome, Springfield, Ill., writes that in offering this Opening he has an interested motive, i.e., to test the soundness of the Gambit, and to furnish a bushel, perhaps five pecks, of fun.

The Jerome Gambit

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4

As Mr. J. says, "Here is where the fun begins." We will give the first of the comments:

(a) This is a very risky opening and can not win against a player of equal strength. At the same time, Black must make the proper defense. In all games of this kind, White, in a sense, presupposes that black will make a false move.

Send Black's 6th move, with reasons for making it.

Fool me once...

Here I am again, playing a 3 0 blitz quickie with Black. No way my opponent – rated higher than me – is going to play the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+), right? Right?? Sigh. Having forgotten the lesson of "I don't have time for this stuff..." I get to learn it all over again. Serves me right.

madmadmal - perrypawnpusher blitz 3 0, FICS, 2009 

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.d3 Nf6 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 Transposing to a modern variation of the Jerome Gambit. I have 77 examples of this position in my database, including bushytail - perrypawnpusher, blitz FICS 2008 (1/2-1/2, 50); drewbear - perrypawnpusher, chessworld 2008 (0-1, 22); and Mika76 - perrypawnpusher, GameKnot.com 2008 (1-0, 32). 

 6.Ng5+ Ke8 7.Nc3 d6 8.Nd5 A bit unusual, but it's shown up four times before, including NMTIGER - blackburne, Chessworld 2007: 8...Nxd5 9.exd5 Ne7 10.c4 Ng6 11.Qf3 Qf6 12.Ne6 Bxe6 13.dxe6 Rf8 14.0-0 Qxf3 15.gxf3 Rxf3 16.Be3 Bxe3 17.fxe3 Rf6 18.Rxf6 gxf6 19.Rf1 Ke7 20.d4 Kxe6 21.d5+ Ke7 22.e4 Rg8 23.b4 Nf4+ 24.Kh1 Rg2 25.Rxf4 Rxa2 26.Rh4 Re2 27.Rxh7+ Kd8 28.Rf7 b6 29.Rxf6 Kc8 30.Rf8+ Kb7 31.b5 Rxe4 32.Kg2 Rxc4 33.Kg3 Rc1 34.h4 Rh1 35.Rh8 e4 36.Kg2 Rd1 37.Re8 Rxd5 38.Rxe4 Rxb5 39.Rg4 Rh5 40.Kg3 b5 41.Rg5 Rh8 42.Rxb5+ Kc6 43.Rb1 a5 44.Rc1+ Kb6 45.Rb1+ Ka6 46.Kg4 a4 47.h5 Ka5 48.Kg5 a3 49.h6 Ka4 50.Kg6 a2 51.Ra1 Ka3 52.Kg7 Rxh6 53.Kxh6 Kb2 54.Rh1 a1Q 55.Rxa1 Kxa1 56.Kg5 c5 57.Kf4 c4 58.Ke3 c3 59.Kd3 Kb2 60.Kd4 c2 61.Kd5 c1R 62.Kxd6 Rc4 63.Kd5 Kc3 64.Ke5 Rd4 65.Kf5 Kc4 66.Ke5 Kc5 67.Kf5 Kd6 White resigned 

  8...h6 9.Nf3 Kf7 10.0-0 Rf8 Black is up a piece for a pawn, and is soon to castle-by-hand. What's the problem?

Tick, tick, tick... 

11.Nh4 Kg8 12.Ng6 Rf7 13.a3

My opponent begins to feel the clock, too. 

13...Be6 14.c4 Bxd5 

Chopping wood, a good idea when a piece up – but this game is going to end with either a flag or a mate, so perhaps not the best. 

15.cxd5 Ne7 16.Nh4 Qd7 17.b4 Bd4 18.Rb1 Qg4 See the above note. 

19.Qxg4 Nxg4 20.Kh1 Simply returning the Knight to f3 was best. Now Black can win the exchange with 20...Nxf2+ 21.Rxf2 ( if 21.Kg1 Nh3+ 22.Kh1 Rxf1#) 21...Rxf2 and then go for more, as in 22.g4 Rf1+ 23.Kg2 Rg1+ 24.Kh3 Be3 winning a piece. 

20...Rxf2 21.Rxf2 Nxf2+ 22.Kg1 Nxd3+ 23.Kf1 Nxc1 24.Rxc1 Rf8+ It's all clickin', but the clock's still tickin'. 

25.Ke2 g5 26.Nf3 Bb6 27.a4 a6 28.a5 Ba7 29.h4 We're pretty much just throwing moves at each other now. 

29...Bb8 30.hxg5 hxg5 31.g4 Kg7 32.Nxg5 Kg6 33.Ne6 Rh8 34.Kd3 Rh3+ 35.Kc2 Rg3 36.Kb2 Rxg4 37.Nxc7 Rxe4 38.Ne6 Rxb4+ 39.Ka3 Rb5 40.Nf8+ Kf7 41.Nh7 Rxa5+ 42.Kb3 Rxd5 43.Ng5+ Kf6 44.Ne4+ Ke6 45.Ng5+ Kf5 46.Nf3 Kf4 47.Rf1 Ke3 48.Ng5 Rb5+ 49.Kc2 d5 50.Rf3+ Kd4 51.Ne6+ Kc4 52.Rc3+ Kb4 53.Rb3+ Black forfeits on time

Oh, well.

Three cheers for madmadmal and the Jerome Gambit!!!

London Calling... Eleven Months of Blog

Dear Jerome Gemeinde,

As we move into the final month before this blog's first birthday (admittedly, a small step in the land of blogs), we can mark 336 consecutive daily posts on the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) and related topics.

The blog has hosted visitors from 80 countries (including Cape Verde Islands, Saint Lucia and Malta; while North Korea is still a hold-out). For the record, the Top Ten Visitor sources were: United States, United Kingdom, Denmark, France, Italy, Germany, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Brazil.

There is still much more to discover and explore.

Best wishes,

Rick Kennedy ("perrypawnpusher")

Jerome Gambit Blog: Still More Tidying Up

Time to review, update, and clarify a few more things in this Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 Bxf7+) blog. For earlier efforts, see "Jerome Gambit Blog: Tidying Up" and "Jerome Gambit Blog: More Tidying Up"

First on my mind is a quote from the second " Tidying Up"

By the way, as for the Kaissiber saga, see

"To Infinity... And Beyond! (Part II)", "Breaking News..." and "Jerome Gambit Blog: Tidying Up ". I'm still hopeful.

I'm not hopeful any more. It's unlikely that my history of the Jerome Gambit will appear in the pages of Stefan Bücker's amazing chess magazine, Kaissiber. While the audacity of such an opening appealed to the editor, the story of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's creation is a history of questionable analysis and even more questionable play. Although Kaissiber does not shy away from creative chess notions, its focus on an accurate assessment of things would require massive corrections and/or footnoting – to start.

For more 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, there was a little update in "I love a great used book store". And then the trail went cold, again. (On another hunt, "History Mystery" was fun, though; and I look forward to more discoveries about A F Reed, as first set forth in "A Small Clue to Follow..." and "The Game is Afoot!" )


Unusual as it's supposed to be, the Wikipedia article on the Jerome Gambit continues to contain its link to this blog (see "Hey Wiki, it's me, Ricky!").


While the following remains accurate:

"Is it September already

" requires a number of updates. To date there has been no Jerome Gambit tournament in Jerome, Arizona, as far as I know. I still have an observer near the scene, though I'll have my say about it. One of the main figures in the possible Jerome, Arizona "Jerome Gambit Tournament" is the creator of "The Jerome Gambit is Viable - NOT!" video, which I recomment. (Too, my son Matt, of "Driving Distance" has permanently relocated to Scottsdale, Arizona, and will be able to drive up and keep an eye on anything that might occur.)


An update to "The Jerome Gambit Gemeinde (modern)" would have to include chessfriend Geoff Chandler (of Chandler Cornered) whose contributions here (see "Queened! and Rooked!" "Whodunnit??" and "Blunder Table" ) have been hilarious.

I would also like to add the name of Dr. Paulsen

In light of this it certainly seems reasonable (at least until historical precedents are uncovered) to give 5...Ke7 the title of "Paulsen variation" and award the good doctor (PhD) membership in the Jerome Gambit Gemeinde (see "The Jerome Gambit Gemeinde (early)" and "The Jerome Gambit Gemeinde (modern)") – even though there is one earlier example of the line in my database (presented in an earlier post, as well: see "An Odd Line in an Odd Line")."Jerome Gambit, Paulsen Variation"

and that of Francesco Recchia, who contributed the very forward-looking "A Kind of Jerome Gambit that Wins".


The possible connection betwen Winston Churchill and Alonzo Wheeler Jerome (see "From the Email Bag...") has been traced a bit further, to the U.S. northeast; but has not yet been tied together..


Connections betwen IM Gary Lane and the Jerome Gambit continue. Not only is it true that "A check of the Everyman Chess website shows that Gary Lane's The Greatest Ever Chess Tricks and Traps is available" further information exists in "Firsts" and "An International Master Refutes the Jerome Gambit".

The "Jerome Gambit and the Perfesser series" Part I, Part II, Part III and PartIV, was, of course, followed by another instructive, exploratory "human vs computers" match involving, "RevvedUp" and a handful of silicon monsters, starting with "Jerome Gambit: Drilling Down (1)"

"Doesn't anybody read this blog?", regarding perrypawnpusher - Sgrunterundt, blitz 2 18, FICS, 2008 was a needless lament, being followed by a host of responses: "Back at me", "Hoist by my own petard...", "Where are all these Jeromes coming from?", "Perhaps not every opening should be Jerome-ized...", "Be careful what you wish for...", "If I write all this, and someone reads it...", and "I don't have time for this stuff..."

Readers who were interested in "Hip' Kat" should check out a couple of other hippo sources: hippo_chess@abv.bg and hippo_chess@abv.bg.


Another Pandora's box was opened with "London Calling...Seven Months of Blog"

I also got wondering the other day: is there another totally obscure and disreputable tactical opening line or gambit that I could go digging for information about, while I'm researching the Jerome Gambit??

from which came forth "The next best thing...", "The next worse thing...", "Worth a Second Look (Part 1)", "Worth a Second Look (Part 2)", "Worth a Second Look (Part 3)", "Wild!", "Wilder!", "Wildest!", "And Yet Wilder Still...", "More of The Next Best Thing...", "Busch-Gass Gambit" and "Obscure and Disreputable Enough?"


Alas, I have not yet uncovered "The rest of the story...?" concerning the game Wall - Guest4395, Microsoft Internet Gaming Zone, 2001.


For that matter, in "The Westminster Papers" the refererence to the chess player "H.W.P" of Vermont is also still a mystery to me.

Further chapters of "Jerome Gambit for Dummies (1)" "(2)" "(3)" are being prepared.

I have switched from one version of "Chess Publisher" to another to present the games in posts. The earlier one is responsible for the annoying account messages.

What does it profit a man...?

From An Invitation to Chess A Picture Guide to the Royal Game, Irving Chernev and Kenneth Harkness, New York, Simon and Schuster (1945) (descriptive notation changed to algebraic notation)

Mistakes in the Opening

Much can be learned from a clear understanding of the things one should NOT do. Therefore, let us examine some of the common mistakes made in the opening and demonstrate how and why they lose.

We are not referring now to blunders which cost material or expose you to checkmate. At all stages of the game you must anticipate and answer your opponent's material-winning or mating thrests.

The mistakes we are now considering are strategical errors. They can be defined in one sentence: Any opening moves which give your opponent an opportunity to gain an advantage in development are strategical mistakes. Specifically, mistakes of this nature may be classified as follows: Premature attacks: Some players are too aggressive for their own good. They start out with the idea of annihilating their opponents in the first ten moves.

If an attack is pursued with good developing moves, there can be no criticism of such tactics. Too often, however, these early attacks are made at the expense of development. Premature attacks with two or three pieces are doomed against good defense. The opponent can defend with developing moves and gain an advantage in mobilization which will enable him to counter-attack successfully...

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5

White has played

4.Bxf7+

Without waiting to complete his development he begins an entirely unsound attck. Black has played his defense well and there is no justification for making an attack of this nature. White has sacrificed a piece and to justify this there must be a forced continuation which wins material or checkmates.

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+

Black has captured the Bishop with his King and White has played Nxe5. This is the second move in White's unsound "combination." Now he is sacrificing his Knight for a Pawn. Note that Black was not afraid to accept the original Bishop sacrifice. Always accept sacrifices if you see no reason for not doing so.

5...Nxe5 6.Qh5+

Black has captured ...Nxe5 and White has played 6.Q-R5ch. Now we see the "idea" behind White's attack. He has given up two pieces for two Pawns, but now he must win back one piece. However, this is not sufficient. Black can now play ...Ng6, allowing White to capture Qxc5, and Black will be ahead in material with a winning game.

6...g6

But instead of ...Ng6, Black has played ...g6 to get out of check. White has continued

7.Qxe5

Now the Queen is attacking Black's Bishop and Rook simultaneously. One of these pieces must be lost. Has Black blundered? Has he overlooked this? No, he is deliberately tempting White, leading him on to his destruction.

7...d6

Black has played ...d6, protecting the attacked Bishop with a Pawn and releasing his other Bishop. White has played

8.Qxh8

Now count the material and note that White's premature attack has apparently succeeded. He has gained two Pawns and won the exchange (Rook for minor piece).

Why did Black allow this? What is his plan?

8.Qxh8 Qh4

Black has played ...Qh4 and now we see why he allowed White to capture his Rook. White's Queen has been deflected from the scene of forthcoming action. His premature attack has left his home front undeveloped and undefended. Black is now launching his counter-attack. He is threatening to play ...Qxf2+, followed by ...Bg4 mate!

9.0-0 Nf6

To defend this threat, White has castled (9 0-0). Black has played ...Nf6, thereby developing a piece and at the same time closing the lid on White's Queen which now cannot retreat to aid in the defense of the home front. Note that Black has a Queen, Bishop and Knight in active play and that his other Bishop is free to jump into action.

10.c3

White has no pieces in action and his King is inadequately defended. He has played 10.c3, trying to shut off Black's Bishop with d4.

10...Ng4

Black has played ...Ng4 ,threatening ...Qxh2 mate. (The N move leads to a pleasing finish but Black could have won with [ 10...Bh3 11.Qxa8 ( if 11.gxh3 Rxh8) 11...Qg4 12.g3 Qf3 and mate next move]

11.h3 Bxf2+

White has played his only defense to the threatened mate, 11.h3, and Black has forced the issue with ...Bxf2+. The White King is in a "mating net," as it is called, and canot escape. If White now plays Rxf2, Black will recapture ...Qxf2ch. The White King must then move to h1 (h2 is attacked by the N) and Black mates with ...Qf1.

12.Kh1 Bf5

White has played 12.Kh1, his only move, and black has played ...Bf5, bringing out another piece. Note that this piece can be put "en prise" to a Pawn because the Black Rook now attacks the White Queen. Note also that the Queen cannot escape from the Rook's attack. Every square on the diagonal is attacked by a Black piece.

13.Qxa8 Qxh3+

White was forced to play 13.Qxa8 or lose his Queen.

Black has played Qh3+! Black is sacrificing his Queen and demonstrating the helplessness of White's position. White's QR, QKt and QB cannot aid him now because they were never developed. His adventurous Queen is far away - and quite useless.

14.gxh3 Bxe4#

White has played 14.gxh3, his only means of getting out of check, and Black has delivered the final thrust with ...Bxe4 mate. A delightful, "pure" mate with two Bishops and a Knight. Moral: What is a man profited if he gains a Queen and two Rooks and loses by checkmate?

Premature attacks don't pay.

Obscure and Disreputable Enough?

Although this blog is mostly about the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) it sometimes wanders a bit further afield.

For example, a while back, in the post "London Calling...Seven Months of Blog", I mused

I also got wondering the other day: is there another totally obscure and disreputable tactical opening line or gambit that I could go digging for information about, while I'm researching the Jerome Gambit??

This exercise led to a whole slew of new posts and opening ideas: "The next best thing...", "The next worse thing...", "Worth a Second Look (Part 1)", "Worth a Second Look (Part 2)", "Worth a Second Look (Part 3)", "Wild!", "Wilder!", "Wildest!", "And Yet Wilder Still...", "More of The Next Best Thing..." and "Busch-Gass Gambit".

I was reading Bob Long's new Chess DVD catalog the other day, and noticed that Volume 2 of his "The Busy Man's Chess Openings" series by IM Andrew Martin is coming out. Sub-titled "Black Shockers" it focuses on winning from the Black side, and includes analysis of the following defense: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5.

The line is as old as Greco, and seen today about as often as the Yeti, but in the past it was tried by Marshall, Schlechter, Rubinstein, Grunfeld, Euwe and Heidenfeld. O'Kelley de Galway, Bisguier and Westerinen played it a number of times. There's even an online Opening Report on it.

Might be worth checking out, at that.