Preston Guardian

Here is the first of three Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) games, printed in the Preston Guardian, provided by Tim Harding, from the deep resources of his correspondence chess databases.

The notes are by Harding, and from the Preston Guardian.

Lowe, EB - Parker, J (Grimsby)
Preston Guardian tournament, 1879

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+

Invented by A. W. Jerome of Paxton, Illinois

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8

Parker: My opponent remarked that this was not the best or recognised defence. It may be he was right, but it seems to me to give White less chance of attack than 5... Nxe5

[Readers may want to compare with the "Norton -  Hallock Game," Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4 - RK]

6.Nxc6 dxc6 7.O-O Nf6 8.e5

8...Bg4

9.Qe1 Qd4 10.c3

Referring to this game when printing the later friendly, the Preston Guardian says this was a mistake White did not recover from. Lowe maintained that Parker didn't play the best defence to White's 8th so they played the new game for a 5 shilling book stake.

10...Qd3

11.b4 Bb6 12.a4 a6

13.a5 Ba7 14.Bb2 Ne4

15.Qc1 Be2 16.Ra4 Bxf1 17.b5

17...Bxf2+ 18. Kh1 Qe2 19. Ba3+ Kg8

The paper just says 'K moves', not naming the square, so this may not be right.

20.Rxe4 Bxg2+ 21. Kxg2 Be3+ 22. Kg3 Qf2+ 23. Kg4 h5+ 24. Kh3 Qf3+ 25. Kh4 g5 checkmate

Opening Tale

 It's time to take a short break from Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) history to share a discusion that I recently came across at an online forum. 

The original poster expressed his concern, received suggestions, and then made his responses.

Importance of openings at low level?

I read somewhere that at the low level, you should avoid studying openings, since that time would be better spent studying other things like tactics or combinations (etc.) or playing more games, however I do enjoy studying openings and that's why I do it.

At FICS, I'm rated between 1200 and 1300, sometimes I have winning strikes and sometimes I have losing ones, and today I decided to look over at my games, to discover that I'm really good at the openings I know, and that I can beat higher rated opponents in those openings, just because I know them better.

But the opposite is true, that I'm pretty bad at openings I don't know, and lower rated opponents beat me at these, here's a worst case example:

[Date "2007.09.08"]
[White "My opponent"]
[Black "Me"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1102"]
[BlackElo "1216"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Ng5+ Ke8 6.d3 Bc5 7.O-O h6 8.Nf3 d6 9.h3 Be6 10.Nh4 Qe7 11.Ng6 Qf7 12.Nxh8 Kd7 1-0

It has to be my worst game ever, seeing as I had a won position at move 4, and I just suicided. It made me wonder if all the opening preparation worked, since maybe I'd behave like this on all openings (Since all openings would be unknown if I didn't study them), what do you think?

If you study many master games, you will get a feeling for the general opening principles like developement, center, tempo... and the typical moves, independant from memorized variations. Applying these in practise will get better and easier, the more practise you have...

Important is, to not just recall opening patterns and move too quickly, but concrete calculation if you don't have a theory move available...
 
But, on the game I posted I couldn't think anymore, my concentration went off the drain, I just couldn't keep playing against a weaker opponent with such an advantage, I was still shocked by the unsound sacrifice, and lost focus, I wonder if that was his plan from the beginning?

After Qe7 I guess you noticed your mistake and paniced. There's no reson for that! Just wait 15 minutes and do nothing, walk around, calm down and only start to think if you think that you can think clear without a bad feeling of "oh my god, i just made a blunder". Maybe you would have found the idea of Qd7 followed by g5 and Qg7 to get the knight, then it would be about equal!

Yes, I paniced, but my point is that I paniced when he went 4.Bxf7+! I think it was too much for me, maybe I need to practice those kind of openings?

...Well, I don't have enough time to do so, since my games are at 8 mins +3 secs time control, though I may try to do nothing for 3 minutes when my opponent starts throwing unsound sacrifices at me and I panic.

Thanks, I'll try to find games with unbalanced situations like the one on the first game I posted, I wonder how often does it happen on master games?

Meanwhile, I'll just stop looking at the board and do something else (for a while) when my opponent decides to go bonkers.

After a totally unsound move like 4.Bxf7+, you dont panic. You laugh, because you know your opponent's silly move is refutable, and if you can keep cool and take care for any combinative risks, you will win this game...

Look at Morphy's games and at the world championship games, there will you find more about what to do in sharp positions.

Thanks to everyone for your replies, I've been following your suggestions and I think I can handle things better now, what is discouraging is that today I was accused of using a bot to play, all this effort is worth nothing when your opponent just thinks you're cheating (when you're obviously not doing so).

So: our Original Poster shared his woes, received support and advice, and improved his game enough that at least one opponent mistook him for a computer!

Still...

The opening of the game in question was similar enough to the Jerome Gambit and its kin that I just had to check the FICS database and see if I could find it!

I did.

Of course, the "villain" with White was none other than our Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member, DragonTail.

Keep up the good work!

The Norton - Hallock Game (Part 4)

We continue a look at the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) game Norton - Hallock, correspondence, 1877 (see "The Norton - Hallock Game" Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3), assessing the contemporary evaluations of American Chess Journal editor William Hallock and gambit originator Alonzo Wheeler Jerome; while adding a modern perspective, the insights of Rybka, and various contents of my ChessBase files...

9.Qe1 Kf7

Hallock: Very good again. Brings the KR into the field. Obviously the capture of the Knight would lose the Queen.

10.h3

Hallock: A mere waste of time. Should have played Kh1 or c3

Jerome: Note (e) says "waste of time" not so; on the contrary is much better than 10.c3, for if 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.

White's best move, giving up a pawn to get some breathing room for his Queen, was 10.d4, when either 10...Qxd4 or 10...Bxd4 can be answered by 11.exf6. Black will remain a pawn up, with intense piece pressure and the two Bishops, but that would be better for White than either 10.h3, as played in the game, or 10.Kh1 or 10.c3 as mentioned by Jerome (all of which still favor Black).

The line proposed by Jerome as good for Black, 10.c3 Re8 11.d4 Bxd4 12.cxd4 Qxd4 is advantageous for the second player, but 10...Qd3 would have been even more so.

10...Re8

Hallock: Sound and brilliant.

11.Kh2

Hallock: If White answer 11.hxg4 Nxg4! 12.g3 (12.Qe4 Qh4! 13.Qf3+ Kg8 14.Qh3 Bxf2+ 15.Kh1 Rxe5 wins easily) 12...Rxe5 13.Qd1 Nxf2 etc If 14.Rxf2+ (If 14.c3 Qg5) 14...Qf6.

Jerome: 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.

Clearly 10...Re8 is a good and thematic move for Black.

White's best response seems to be 11.d3, followed by Nb1-d2-f3 and possibly Bc1-f4; although Black would still have the advantage.

Hallock is correct that capturing Black's Bishop with 11.hxg4 is well-answered by 11...Nxg4. This is especially clear after the further 12.d4 Qxd4 13.Nc3 Rxe5 when Black's pieces dominate.

However, in extending his analysis Hallock leaves himself open to Jerome's retort that after 11.hxg4 Nxg4 12.g3 Rxe5 13.Qd1 Nxf2 14.Rxf2 Qf6 Black is bested by 15.d4. Black's last move is a mistake: substitute 14...Bxf2+ for 14...Qf6 and he is winning. In this line 13...Bxf2+ is better than Hallock's suggested 13...Nxf2 – supporting Jerome's assertion that the latter move was "not best" – but 13...Nxf2 is also good, just not best.

It is hard to accept Jerome's argument that after Hallock's 11.hxg4 Nxg4 12.Qe4 Qh4 13.Qf3+ Kg8 14.Qh3 Bxf2+ 15.Kh1 Rxe5 "the attack is with White."  Black's crushing threat of ...Re5-h5 forces White to exchange Queens, after which Black's development and King safety vastly overshadow White's game – over 3 pawns' worth, according to Rybka.

Hallock now wraps the game up nicely.

11...Rxe5 12.Qxe5 Bd6 13.f4 Bxe5 14.fxe5

14...Be2 15.Rf2 Qd4 16.Rxe2 Re8 17.d3 Rxe5 18.c3 Qd5 White resigned

The Norton - Hallock Game (Part 3)

While it can be fun to read contemporary analyses of a chess game (see "The Norton - Hallock Game" Part 1 and Part 2), the personal involvement of the commentators / players can get in the way. 

I sat down with my friend Rybka and my ChessBase files to go over this particular Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) game and evaluate what American Chess Journal editor William Hallock and gambit originator Alonzo Wheeler Jerome had to say about it.

Norton,D.P. - Hallock,W.A.
correspondence, 1877

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8

Hallock: The usual continuation is 5...Nxe5 but this seems equally good.

Jerome: 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 [after 5...Kf8 6.Nxc6] 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.

It is interesting to point out that this "discussion" between Hallock and Jerome about the merits of 5...Kf8 took place in the February and March 1877 issues of the American Chess Journal, two months before Lt. Sorensen published his very influential article on the Jerome Gambit in the May 1877 issue of the Danish chess magazine Nordisk Skaktidende. (For a taste of the article, see "Bashi-Bazouk Attack".)

It is quite possible that the Americans only became aware of Sorensen's work when his article was translated into English and was reprinted in the August 1877 issue of the Chess Player's Chronicle.

Sorensen considered 5...Kf8 the best defense for Black, and he recommended it as "more solid" and "easier to manage" than 5...Nxe5. After 5...Kf8 6.Nxc6 he gave the 6...dxc6 capture as best, continuing 7.0-0 Nf6 8.Qf3, as in Jerome - Brownson, USA 1875 (1/2-1/2, 28)

A modern assessment supports Sorensen's (and thus, Hallock's) point of view – but only marginally. After four moves Black already has enough material to win the game, and therefore he does not need to complicate the game further by grabbing another piece with 5...Nxe5. The Danish author was already being influenced by Steinitz's "positional" style, as opposed to his (and the chess world's) earlier "romantic" (attacking) style.

On the other hand, Rybka shows a clear preference for 5...Nxe5 over 5...Kf8 (by about 3/4 of a pawn) – showing that even with its positional "insights" the computer software still has a materialistic side.

6.Nxc6

Hallock: The continuation adopted by Jerome, 6.Qh5 [instead] looks promising.

Jerome: 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 [5...Kf8 6.Qh5] 6...Qe7 best; I think [5...Kf8 6.Qh5] 6...Nxe5 best; if 7.Qxe5 Qe7.

The variation 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8 6.Qh5, which was mentioned by Brownson in the March 1875 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal, while commenting upon Jerome - Brownson, USA, 1875 (1-0, 28), is currently known as the Banks Variation, after the game Banks - Rees, Wolverhampton, 2003 (1-0, 45).

Jerome's mention of 5...Kf8 6.Qh5 Qf6 7.Ng4 Qe7 is a red herring, as his later suggestion of 7.Nxd7+ Bxd7 8.Qxc5+ – a line which Banks successfully followed against Rees – gives White comparatively better prospects.

Modern theory holds 6...Qe7 to be the best response to 6.Qh5.

6...dxc6 7.0-0 Nf6 8.e5

Jerome: 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.

8...Bg4

Hallock: An excellent move cramping White's game and enabling Black to optimally deploy his forces.

Jerome: 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).

White's 8.e5 was an error – one that Sorenson made note of in his Nordisk Skaktidende article, giving "8.e5 Bg4 9.Qe1 Kf7!", showing that he was likely aware of this Hallock - Norton game.

The above-mentioned Jerome - Brownson, USA, 1875 game continued with 8.Qf3, better than Norton's 8.e5, but not as strong as 8.d3 (which would show up a couple of years later in Lowe - Parker, England, 1879 – one of the games recently supplied by Senior International Master of Correspondence Chess Tim Harding). Nonetheless, even after 8.d3 Black would retain the advantage.

Hallock's response, 8...Bg4, is a good move, as he maintains, with positional strengths; although Rybka sees 8...Ng4 as a bit less than 1/2 a pawn better.

We will tackle Jerome's argument that "8...Bg4 loses [the] Bishop" in tomorrow's post.

[to be continued] 

The Norton - Hallock Game (Part 2)

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.

The Norton - Hallock Game (Part 1)

Responding to the Jerome - Norton games (see "The Jerome - Norton Games" Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4), the editor of the American Chess Journal, William Hallock, conducted a game in which he defended against the Gambit, allowing D.P. Norton the white pieces.

The game was discussed in consecutive issues of the American Chess Journal. Today's post will present what appeared in the February 1877 issue (with notes by Hallock), and tomorrow's post (with comments by Jerome) will cover what appeared in the March 1877 issue.

Third and fourth posts will be necessary to reconcile the two, as will be seen.

Norton,D.P. - Hallock,W.S.
correspondence, 1877

Having in a former number (see Journal for November) expressed a doubt as to the soundness of Jerome's Gambit, the following correspondence game was played "by special request" for the purpose of proving that there was more in the Jerome Gambit than we had been willing to admit.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8

The usual continuation is 5...Nxe5 but this seems equally good.

6.Nxc6

The continuation adopted by Jerome, 6.Qh5 looks promising.

6...dxc6 7.0-0 Nf6 8.e5 Bg4

An excellent move cramping White's game and enabling Black to optimally deploy his forces.

9.Qe1 Kf7

Very good again. Brings the KR into the field. Obviously the capture of the Knight would lose the Queen.

10.h3

A mere waste of time. Should have played Kh1 or c3

10...Re8

Sound and brilliant.

11.Kh2

If White answer 11.hxg4 Nxg4! 12.g3 (12.Qe4 Qh4! 13.Qf3+ Kg8 14.Qh3 Bxf2+ 15.Kh1 Rxe5 wins easily) 12...Rxe5 13.Qd1 Nxf2 etc If 14.Rxf2+ (if 14.c3 Qg5) 14...Qf6

11...Rxe5! 12.Qxe5 Bd6 13.f4 Bxe5 14.fxe5 Be2

15.Rf2 Qd4 16.Rxe2 Re8 17.d3 Rxe5 18.c3 Qd5 White resigns

"Fool me once..."

I love Darby Conley's "Get Fuzzy." I read it daily, and have at least a half-dozen collections of the strips. Check it out.

I'm a lot more like Satchel Pooch than Bucky Katt...

How does this relate to the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+)?

Well, a while back I had a problem playing against a particular "anonymous" opponent at FICS – a 7-move loss (see "A Sneaky Way to Defeat the Jerome Gambit") after he disconnected. 

This was somewhat balanced by my later 8-move win (see "What goes around comes around").

It's hard for me to remember an anonymous name, though, so yesterday I found myself playing "anonymous" again. What lesson had my opponent learned from our previous games?

perrypawnpusher - "anonymous"

blitz FICS, 2010

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6

7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Nh6

This is not a strong defense. There are two prior examples of this move in the updated New Year's Database, both wins for White.

9.Qxe5+ Kc6

Here "anonymous" disconnected. Why not? It had been his more successful response to the Jerome Gambit. (Obviously he does not read this blog, or he would have learned that FICS is now less tolerant of disconnecters – see "Technical Difficulties" Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4.)

I was not able to get "anonymous" to resume the game, or even respond to me. Fool me once...

The game was ajudicated a win for White. It is clear that after 10.Qd5+ Kb6 11.Nc3 White will win at least a piece (threat: 12.Na4+), remaining two pawns up with Black's King still in danger.