Like a Needle in a Haystack (Part 3)

The March 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal contains a game between "Mr. S" (William A. Shinkman?) and Alonzo Wheeler Jerome – a King's Gambit won by Jerome. This was followed by further contributions by Jerome, in April and July of the same year; and in January, March, June, October and November of the following year.

Consistent with yesterday's post (see "Like a Needle in a Haystack Part 2"), after information from Jerome appeared in the March 1876 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal, new items began to appear in Hallock's American Chess Journal, in June, September, October, November and December of 1876. Alonzo Wheeler Jerome had begun corresponding with the "new" chess journal.

Jerome contributed to the February, March and April 1877 issues of the American Chess Journal, and then seems to have lost contact or interest. Hallock's ACJ ended publication December 1877.

Brownson's Chess Journal had one Jerome item that year, in March of 1877

For the Jerome Opening play a few games by correspondence with A. W. Jerome (the inventor), P.O. address, Paxton, Ford Co., Illinois, and try it over the board when the opportunity offers. It is brilliant.

(Ten years later, the May 1887 issue of Brownson's Chess Journal published an unusual Giuoco Piano with Jerome playing Black.)

What publication did A.W. Jerome correspond with after the American Chess Journal ? The trail grows cold...

Until Jerome appears, mostly in support of S.A. Charles, in the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette and Pittsburgh Telegraph of the early 1880s (a tale for another time); and then over 20 years later, in the pages of the 1900 Literary Digest, offering to play his Gambit against readers in consultation.

Yet, just the other day I was wandering through the Chess Archaeology site (http://www.chessarch.com/) and encountered the "Jack O'Keefe Project Index" which has viewable chess columns from 33 older periodicals. By chance I happened upon some "cuttings" there from "Mackenzie's Chess Chronicle" published in Turf, Field and Farm. The August 30, 1878 column has the following

We are indebted to Mr. A. W. Jerome for some correspondence games illustrative of the new Jerome Gambit, which shall receive early attention.

Aha! The game is afoot!

Sadly, the Chess Archaeology site's collection of "Mackenzie's Chess Chronicle" runs only to December 27, of 1878, and there is no further mention of the Jerome Gambit in that span... Although that last held issue provides some foreshadowing, announcing as it does

We welcome with pleasure a new chess column in the Cincinnati Commercial. It made its first appearance in the issue of Dec. 14, and is to appear every Saturday in the daily; the column is conducted by Mr. J. W. Miller, and, judging from the two specimens we have seen, it promises to be a valuable addition to the chess periodicals.

Like a Needle in a Haystack (Part 2)

Of course, primary historical sources of Jerome Gambit games and analysis are the chess magazine and magazine and newpaper chess columns of the period. Finding a Jerome "needle" in that many "haystacks" without some kind of a clue can be an exhausting task.

An excellent example of such a "clue" is the Jerome Gambit entry from the Oxford Companion to Chess (1984) by David Hooper and Kenneth Whylde

Jerome Gambit in the Italian Opening; an unsound gambit that can lead to much amusement in light hearted play. It first appeared in the American Chess Journal, 1876, recommended by the American player Alonzo Wheeler Jerome (1834-1902) of Paxton, Illinois.

While games and references to Alonzo Wheeler Jerome and his gambit can be found in the June, September, November and December 1876 issues of the American Chess Journal, it turns out that analysis appeared two years earlier, in the April 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal.

Confusing these two journals, by the way, is not difficult. As Tim Harding wrote in his "The Kibitzer" column at ChessCafe.com in 2007

...[T]he Dubuque Chess Journal was started by Professor Brownson in 1870 and he stopped it after number 73 in summer 1876.

He thought he had sold the rights to W. S. Hallock, who produced the first two volumes of The American Chess Journal, beginning with June 1876 and numbered consecutively from Brownson, i.e. he started with number 74... It was published in Hannibal, Missouri, from June 1876 to December 1877...

Hallock apparently did not pay Brownson (or at least that is what Brownson said) so Brownson restarted his magazine as Brownson’s Chess Journal in February 1877, also resuming with number 74. At different times, Brownson varied his titles...

Having re-established his rights, Brownson stopped in 1878, but resumed again many years later... The last three Hallock issues (his incomplete volume 2) were bi-monthly, with the November-December issue very short. Here he announced he had sold his rights to Dr. C. C. Moore in New York...

Because of moving everything to another city, there was a delay and the new series of The American Chess Journal began March 1878... It ended July 1879.

Moore then sold to Barbe, in Chicago, who did his best to continue The American Chess Journal as a quarterly...

Barbe published Vol. 1-Vol. 2, no 3 (Oct 1879-Dec 1881), but actually number 3 was April 1881. To increase the confusion, the issue of October 1880 was headed volume 1 no 5 on the title page, but as this was a quarterly, it should have been vol. 2 no. 1, as Barbe must have realised subsequently. So then comes January 1881, headed Vol. 2 no 2, but the page numbers are continuous from October 1880. Then April 1881 was the last issue...

After the end of Barbe’s series, there were no Journals until Brownson resumed in 1886.

Got it, right?

Like a Needle in a Haystack (Part 1)

Researching the history of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) can be a bit like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Some resources are obvious places to look. Checking the past equivalents of today's Encyclopedia of Chess Opening and Modern Chess Openings is a good start (note: MCO, from its first edition in 1911, has not had coverage).

The Handbuch des Schachspiels, for example, has a Jerome Gambit game reference in its 8th edition (1916) but nothing in its 7th (1891) or 6th (1880) editions.

 Cook's Synopsis of the Chess Openings, 1st and 2nd editions (1874, 1876) have no coverage of the Jerome, while its 3rd edition (1882) does.

The first edition of Chess Openings Ancient and Modern (1889) has analysis. Steinitz' Modern Chess Instructor, Part II (1895), of course, has nothing.

There are many other 19th century chess books touching on the opening – and many, many more, not – and each must be checked for Jerome Gambit material.

Some past authors are apparently ambivalent about the line. G.H.D. Gossip's 1891 Theory of the Chess Openings has nothing on the Jerome Gambit, while his The Chess Player's Vade Mecum and Pocket Guide to the Openings, also published in 1891 does have analysis. Gossip out-does himself in his (with F.J. Lee) 1903 The Complete Chess Guide by writing one place that he has "eliminated obsolete openings" such as the Jerome Gambit, which he mentions by name, and then, later on in the book, he gives analysis of that same opening.

A New Departure

Jerome - Norton, D.P.
correspondence 1876
notes primarily from the American Chess Journal, September 1876 

One of a series of games now being contested by corresondence between A.W. Jerome of Paxton, Ill. and D. P. Norton of DesMoines, Iowa, for the purpose of testing the merits of the Double Opening invented by Mr. Jerome.

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

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

7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Nf3+

A new departure. 8... Qf6 is the usual play. The text move prevents White from castling.

9.Kf1

9.Kd1 seems better. If 9.gxf3 Qh4+ 10.Kd1 Qf2 and Black has the better position. (See "Vortex")

9... c6

If 9... Ne7 10.e5+ Kc6 11.Qe4+ d5 etc. [For example, after 12.Qxf3 Black is better - RK]

10. gxf3 Qe7

10...Bd4 is good. 11.c3 Nh6 [stronger is 11... g6 - RK] 12. e5+ [12. Qg5 leads to an even game - RK] 12...Kc7 13.Qe4 Bc5.

11.b4

A beautiful attacking move.

11...Bb6

Weak and inconsiderate, losing a Pawn and the exchange.

If Black captures the pawn 11...Bxb4 then 12.c3 Bc5 13.d4 Bxd4! 14.Ba3+ c5 15.cxd4 Kc7 16.dxc5 Qf6! and White has the better game.

11...Bd4 was better, followed by 12.c3 Nh6 etc [Better here was 12...g6 - RK]

12.Bb2 Kc7 13.Qe5+ Qxe5 14.Bxe5+ d6 15.Bxg7

15...Bh3+ 16.Ke2 Bg2 17. Rd1 Ne7 18. Bxh8 Ng6

If 18...Rxh8 19.f5 and Black's game is seriously cramped while White's Pawns would be very strong and difficult to stop.

19.d4

Preferring to save his centre pawns.

19...Rxh8 20.Kf2

[20.Ke3 seems stronger. Black's two pieces now slowly out-play White's Rook. - RK]

20...Nxf4 21.c3 Rg8 22.Nd2 Kd7

23.Ke3 Rf8 24.Rg1 Bd8 25.Kf2 Rg8 26.Ke3 Nh3 27.f4

27...Nxg1

[Possibly better was 27...Nxf4 - RK]

28.Rxg1 Rg4 29.Nf1 Bh3 30.Ng3 Rh4 31.Nf5

31...Bxf5 32.exf5 Bf6 33.Rg3 Rxh2 34.a4 Rh1 35.a5 Re1+ 36.Kf3 Re7 37.Rh3 c5!

38.bxc5 dxc5 39.Rh6 cxd4! 40.cxd4 Bxd4 41.f6 Rf7 42.Ke4 Bxf6 and wins

All Rook and Pawn Endings...

If you want to play the Jerome Gambit, you are sometimes going to face the Two Knights Defense. You can try the Italian Four Knights Game, but you have to be prepared for the "fork trick"...

perrypawnpusher - rupsi
blitz, FICS, 2011

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4

Sigh. No Jerome Gambit today.

Still, I have studied the "fork trick"...

5.Nxe4 d5 6.Bd3 dxe4 7.Bxe4 Bd6

8.Bxc6+

Recommended by Y. Bukayev.

8...bxc6 9.d4 Qe7

An interesting idea. After my response, Black could have tried 10...e4.

10.0-0 0-0 11.dxe5 Bxe5 12.Nxe5 Qxe5 13.Re1 Qb5

All-in-all, my opening preparation has done its job, as White has a small advantage (better pawn structure) – as opposed to the Jerome Gambit, where he has a lost game.

Why my opponent guided me away from the shoals and into a safe harbor is an interesting question. For the next few moves he concentrates on exchanging off one of his isolated double pawns.

14.b3 c5 15.Bb2 c4 16.Qd4

White's position doesn't have a lot of "bite", but it you give it some time...

If Black now defends the imperilled g7 square with 16...Qg5, White has 17.Re3, threatening Re3-g3.

16...f6 17.bxc4

A silly move, when 17.Ba3 was available, winning the exchange because of back rank mate threats. 

17...Qc6 18.Qd5+ Qxd5 19.cxd5

White has come out with an extra pawn.

Unfortunately, it was now my turn to play "routinely" (read: carelessly), and my opponent quickly recovered the material.

19...Ba6 20.Re6 Bb7 21.c4 Rab8 22.Rae1 Bxd5 23.cxd5 Rxb2

The position reminds me of the old saying that "all Rook and pawn endings are drawn."

Still, I had made "something" out of the game after the "fork trick" and I wanted to play on a bit longer to see if I could do the same here.

24.R6e2 Rfb8 25.f3 R2b5 26.Rd2 Rd8 27.Red1 Kf7 28.Kf2 Rb6 29.Ke3 Ke7 30.Ke4 Kd6

31.Rc1 Rd7 32.f4 Rb4+ 33.Kf3 Rf7 34.Rc6+ Kd7 35.Rdc2 Rb7 36.g4 g5 37.f5 Ke8 38.Re6+ Kd8 39.d6 cxd6 40.Rxd6+ Rbd7 41.Rcc6 Rxd6 42.Rxd6+ Ke7 43.Ra6 Kd8 44.a4 Rc7

A slip that costs a pawn.

45.Rxf6 Rc3+ 46.Kg2

White's King should go forward with 46.Ke4 to eventually help his advanced pawn. Failing this, Black's active Rook can cause mischief – and eventually score the draw.

46...Ra3 47.Ra6 Ra2+ 48.Kg3

Again, my King's choice to stay "at home" dooms the game to a draw. I needed to see that 48.Kf3 Rxh2 49.Rxa7 was advantageous for White.

48...Ra3+ 49.Kg2 Ra2+ 50.Kg3 Ra3+ 51.Kg2 Ra2+ Game drawn by repetition

Hats off to my opponent, whose active play at the end of the game helped him grab the half-point.

I didn't do anything...

In the following encounter, things were developing like they had in several of our previous games, and then...

Really, I didn't do anything.

 perrypawnpusher - Lark
blitz, FICS, 2011

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

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8

A couple of earlier conflicts continued 5...Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6 (6...Kf8  perrypawnpusher - Lark, blitz FICS, 2009 [1-0, 30])  perrypawnpusher - Lark, blitz, FICS, 2009 (1-0, 59)

6.Nxc6 dxc6 7.d3

Or 7.0-0 (first seen in Jerome - Brownson, Iowa, USA, 1875, [1/2-1/2, 29] 7...Bd6 (7...Be6 8.Qf3+ Qf6 9.Qxf6+ Nxf6 as in perrypawnpusher - CorH, blitz, FICS, 2009 [0-1, 74]) 8.f4 g6 9.d4 Bd7 as in perrypawnpusher - Lark, blitz, FICS, 2009 (1-0, 18)

7...Qf6 8.0-0 Bd7

Or 8...Qg6 9.Kh1 Bg4 10.f3 Be6 11.f4 Bd7 as in perrypawnpusher - fortytwooz, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 29).

9.Be3

I really do not like making this kind of move. For starters, I much prefer lines where Black's dark-squared Bishop gets removed by the Queen, earlier – so that I can play f2-f4 as soon as possible. Also, here, if Bishops are exchanged, my broad pawn center gets compressed a bit.

On the other hand, 9.Be3 superficially looks like it un-defends the b2-square, making the pawn sitting there appear to be vulnerable to Black's Queen on f6...

9...Bxe3

Not such a good idea. The Bishop should retreat to e7 and retain Black's advantage.

10.fxe3

10...Qxf1+ 11.Qxf1+ Nf6 12.e5 Black resigned

Vortex

Not long ago I considered posting on an unusual and infrequently-played defense to the Jerome Gambit that quickly tosses the game into a vortex of unclear play.

Then, the other day, an opponent played it against me.

perrypawnpusher - sjeijk
blitz, FICS, 2011

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

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

In my experience this move is played either by a novice who doesn't know the Jerome Gambit and who thinks only about hanging onto his extra material (something the gambiteer can cheer); or by someone who is familiar with the Jerome Gambit and who has planned a particular defense (something the gambiteer can be wary of).

Which is it in this case?

7.Qf5+

Let's find out!

7...Kd6 8.f4 Nf3+

Wow!

The American Chess Journal of September, 1876 noted "A new departure... 8...Qf6 is the usual play."

It then added laconically "The text move prevents White from castling." Returning a piece is certainly one way to accomplish that goal.

9.gxf3

In what might be the original game for this variation, Alonzo Wheeler Jerome played  the outrageous 9.Kf1!? in an 1876 correspondence game against D.P. Norton and lost in 42 moves. The move, the line, the game all deserve a post or two themselves, especially since the American Chess Journal suggested that the alternative "9.Kd1 seems better".

D.P. Norton, by the way, also in 1876, played what I refer to as "Whistler's Defense" in another game against Jerome: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 Qe7!. White was fortunate to draw the game.

Since Lt. G. N. Whistler played a number of correspondence games with that defense against Jerome in 1876, I have given his name priority for the line. 

9... Qh4+ 10.Kd1

White can capture the offered Knight, on move 9 (in fact, he should) but he is going to be falling down a vortex of unclear play, right along with his opponent...

At this point 10.Kf1 leads to immediate checkmate and 10.Ke2 leads to great torment after 10...Qf2+11.Kd3 Qxf3+ 12.Kc4 b5+ 13.Kxb5

analysis diagram








Here the exciting game gibonacci - jschulte, GameKnot.com, 2007 continued 13...a6+ (Stronger was 13...Rb8+ 14.Ka5 Ne7) 14.Kc4 Nf6 (the tricky 14...Bf2 was necessary to avoid a draw, or, in the case of this game, a loss for Black) 15.Qxc5+ Ke6 16.Re1 Qxf4 and White had consolidated his position, although it took him until move 48 to reel in the win. Bravo!

10... Ne7

The American Chess Journal suggested 10...Qf2 concluding "and Black has the better position." This was proven to be incorrect in the game perrypawnpusher - Sir Osis of the Liver, JG thematic, ChessWorld, 2008 where White demonstrated a draw by repetition, but Black, trying to avoid that, allowed himself to be checkmated.

11.e5+

Tempting, but wrong.

White's best chance is 11.Qe5+ Kc6 12.b4!? when White can probably eke out a draw, whether or not the pawn is captured, but the play is very difficult.

That is a fair assessment of this Norton variation: a very complicated game, but a draw, with a lot of hard work by White.

Is that a better choice than some of the known refutations of the Jerome Gambit? That all depends on the kind of game that the defender is most comfortable with.

11...Kc6 12.Qe4+ Nd5

Here is Black's slip.

Instead, 12...d5 13.exd6+ Kxd6 allows Black's light-squared Bishop to aid in the defense, and gives Black's King an addition route to escape, if he needs it, through the d7 square.

An up-and-down game, eventually won by White, followed 12...Kb6 13.Nc3 d6 14.Na4+ Kb5 15.d4 Bf5 16.Qxb7+ Kxa4 17.Qa6+ Kb4 18.a3 checkmate, CFBBlind - Quandary, FICS, 2001.

13.Nc3 Qxf4

Not best, but the game is lost, anyway, after alternatives.

14.Qxd5+ Kb6 15.Qb3+ Kc6

White now has a mate-in-one, but I was nervous enough to miss it the first time.

16.Qd5+ Kb6 17.Qb3+ Bb4

At this point my opponent saw 17... Kc6 18. Qb5 checkmate, and varied, losing his Queen.

18.Nd5+ Kb5 19.Nxf4 Black resigned

An unfortunate end for an opponent who really seems to have prepared for the Jerome Gambit!

Interestingly enough, I cannot find sjeijk's name in The Database, either with the White pieces or the Black pieces.