The Jerome Gambit Article (Part 2)

From the previous post:

Ten years ago I wrote a substantial article on the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) and submitted it to the German language chess magazine, Kaissiber.  The editor, Stefan Buecker, was supportive, and tried, over the years, to somehow make the submission work. His was a serious and well-respected magazine, however, and even a well-written (and revised) piece on a highly suspect chess opening could not find a place in its pages.

My presentation of the article continues. 

This light-hearted approach found full form in the May 1877 issue of the Danish chess magazine Nordisk Skaktidende, where Lieutenant Soren Anton Sorensen, analyzed the Jerome Gambit in his “Chess Theory for Beginners” column:

With this answering move of the Bishop [1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6

3.Bc4 Bc5] we have the fundamental position for that good old game

which the Italians, hundreds of years ago, when they were masters of

the Chessboard, called "Giuoco Piano," even game, but the later age,

for generality of explanation, the "Italian game." On this basis the

usual continuation is 4.c3, whereby the QP at the next move threatens

to advance, and the White middle Pawns to occupy the centre. In the

next articles we will make mention of that regular fight for the

maintenance or destruction of the center, which is the essential point

of the Italian game; in this, on the contrary, we will occupy ourselves

with a Bashi-Bazouk attack, over which the learned Italians would

have crossed themselves had they known it came under the idea of

piano, but which is in reality of very recent date - 1874, and takes it

origin from an American, A.W. Jerome. It consists in the sacrifice of a

piece by 4.Bxf7+. Naturally we immediately remark that it is unsound,

and that Black must obtain the advantage; but the attack is pretty sharp,

and Black must take exact care, if he does not wish to go quickly to the

dogs. A little analysis of it will, therefore, be highly instructive, not to

say necessary, for less practiced players, and will be in its right place

in our Theory, especially since it is not found in any handbook. The

Americans call the game "Jerome's double opening," an allusion,

probably, to the fresh sacrifice of a piece which follows at the next

move, but we shall prefer to use the short and sufficiently clear

designation, Jerome Gambit.

This nomenclature was examined earnestly in the Huddersfield College Magazine of July 1879

            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)

           

The August 1877 issue of the British Chess Player’s Chronicle and the December 1877 issue of the Italian Nuova Rivista Degli Scacchi, reprinted Sorensen’s article (in English and Italian, respectively), introducing the Jerome Gambit to an even wider audience. Almost every Jerome Gambit analyst since has leaned heavily on Sorensen.

Hallock reconciled with Jerome in the September & October 1877 issue of the American Chess Journal

            We are pleased to note that the daring and brilliant debut

invented by our friend Jerome, of Paxton, Ill, is receiving

recognition abroad, both among players and analysts. Sr. Vazquez,

the Mexican Champion, plays it with fine success when yielding

the odds of a Knight, while Mr. Charlick, a strong Australian

player, has been giving us some fine specimens of his chess skill in

the new opening; some time since the Italian Chess Magazine published

a game at this opening with favorable comments on the “new departure,”

and in the May number of the Nordisk Skaktidende, S. A. Sorensen

gives us a sparkling analysis of the “Americanism,” a translation of

which we herewith present. The MSS was submitted to Mr. Jerome,

who expresses himself highly pleased with the thoroughness and ability

with which our Danish contemporary has presented the subject…

            Now that chess players abroad are investigating the merits of

the Jerome we would suggest that our magnates at home give it some

attention…

               Interest in the Jerome Gambit did not remain just among beginning chess players. 

A couple of years later, Andres Clemente Vazquez included three wins with the Gambit, from 

his 1876 match against carrington, in his Algunas Partidas de Ajedrez Jugadas in Mexico por 

Andres Clemente Vazquez.

G. H. D. Gossip’s 1879 book, Theory of the Chess Openings, included an analysis of the Jerome Gambit,
“substantially the same” as that which appeared in the Chess Player’s Chronicle, as the latter noted in a review of the work. At about the same
time, the American daily newspaper, the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, in its chess column, struck the right tone in its review of Theory,
noting gleefully

...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.”

The next year, in 1880, when the 6th edition of the illustrious Handbuch des Schachspiels was published, the Commercial
Gazette’s chess columnist was again ready to “complain” about the state of affairs 

…that the"Jerome Gambit" should be utterly (even if deservedly) ignored.



 [to be continued]

The Jerome Gambit Article (Part 1)

Ten years ago I wrote a substantial article on the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) and submitted it to the German language chess magazine, Kaissiber.  The editor, Stefan Buecker, was supportive, and tried, over the years, to somehow make the submission work. His was a serious and well-respected magazine, however, and even a well-written (and revised) piece on a highly suspect chess opening could not find a place in its pages. 

Kaissiber ceased publication 8 years ago. If you have any interest, at all, in creative chess explorations or chess history - even if German is not your first language - you would do well to track down an issue. I guarantee you will not stop at one.

In the meantime, I thought it might be time to share my Jerome Gambit explorations. (I have occasionally sampled from it, but never shared the whole thing.) The article is a bit long, and will take up a number of blog posts, but, believe it or not, there is a lot of ground to cover.

Jerome Gambit theory has progressed since the article was written, but it is important to learn the opening's history.

The Jerome Gambit

Introduction

If you page through Raymond Keene’s The Complete Book of Gambits (1992) you will find a short entry for the Jerome Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 and a dour assessment “This is totally unsound and should never be tried!”

Keene’s warning notwithstanding, the Jerome Gambit has an interesting history.

History

The April 1874 edition of the Dubuque Chess Journal (also known as the American Chess Journal, or the Journal) contained a small article titled "New Chess Opening.” It began “We have received from A.W. Jerome of Paxton, Ford county, Illinois, some analyses of a new move in the Giuoco Piano, first played by him, which we offer our readers as: Jerome's Double Opening.”

            There followed a brief analysis:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ This is the first move, if

now Black reply 4...Kxf7 he continues 5.Nxe5+ and we have the moves

that constitute Jerome's Double Opening.

Suppose in the first place 5...Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4
Qf6 9.fxe5+ Qxe5 10.Qf3 Nf6 11.d3 compelling either K or Q to move

as White threatens Bf4; or Black can play ...g5. If 11...Ke7 12.Nc3 g5

13.Rf1 c6 14.g3 We have space only for a few of Black's best moves,

leaving our readers to test the opening over the board.

            If 5...Kf8 6.Nxc6 dxc6 (if 6...bxc6 White plays 7.d4 putting

Black's KB out of play) 7.0-0 Nf6 8.Qf3 Qd4 9.d3 Bg4 10.Qe3 Qxe3

11.Bxe3 Bxe3 12.fxe3 Ke7 and White should draw by the judicious use

of his pawns.

             The editor of the Dubuque Chess Journal, O. A. Brownson, found the Double Opening interesting enough, or amusing enough, to run further analyses (and a game) by Jerome in the July 1874 issue and in the January 1875 issue. In the March 1875 issue Brownson published two games he had played against A. W. Jerome, and in July 1875, he published one more game, all involving Jerome’s Gambit. (In all, White won 2, drew 1, lost 1.)

The Jerome Gambit was apparently well received by the average chess player. Some indication of this was reflected the “Our Portfolio” section of the Dubuque Chess Journal for May 1874, which contained a “Chess Challenge” which looked a lot like a chess duel

George J. Dougherty, of Mineola, Queen’s County, New York,

hereby respectfully invites John G. Belden, Esq., of Hartford, Conn.,

to play him two games of chess by Postal Card, at his convenience,

Mr. Belden taking the attack in one game and Mr. Dougherty in the other;

the object being to test the soundness of JEROME’S DOUBLE OPENING,

published in the April No. (50) of this CHESS JOURNAL.

            It is not likely that any of the Journal’s readers were aware that the player issuing the challenge was the first person against whom Jerome had played the Double Opening!

            As early as July 1874 it was clear that Alonzo Wheeler Jerome had no illusions about his gambit, as the Dubuque Chess Journal noted

It should be understood that Mr. Jerome claims in this New

Opening "only a pleasant variation of the Giuoco Piano, which may

win or lose according to the skill of the players, but which is capable

of affording many new positions and opportunities for heavy blows

unexpectedly."

            This modesty did not prevent Jerome from debating for months with William Hallock, who produced the American Chess Journal in the years following the demise of the Dubuque Chess Journal. While testing his invention in over-the-board and correspondence play, Jerome claimed

                        …that the opening has a “reasonable chance of winning,”

            which is sufficient to constitute a “sound opening.” It is not required

            that an Opening shall be sure to win. There is no such opening

            contained in chess; at least none that I know of.

            In the exchanges of games and analysis that appeared in the ACJ in 1876 and 1877, Hallock progressed from referring to “Jerome’s Double Opening” to “Jerome’s Gambit” to “Jerome’s Absurdity.”

[to be continued]

Jerome Gambit: Calculated Risk

Playing the Jerome Gambit is always a calculated risk. How much does your opponent know? How much can he figure out? How quickly can he think his way through the complications?

The following game features bold play by angelcamina, who enters the most dangerous variation of one of the most dangerous defenses to the Jerome Gambit - and lives to tell of it. He knows what he is doing; his opponent, less so. With only 1 minute on the clock, knowledge and experience beat improvisation.

angelcamina - ssez222
1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2018

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

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 Qe7

As in the better-known Blackburne Defense, 7...d6!?, Black offers a Rook. The Queen move, apparently the invention of Lt. G. N. Whistler, who played in a correspondence match against Alonzo Wheeler Jerome, is even stronger.

8.Qxh8

Wow! White takes the Rook and hurls a challenge: can you make me pay?

Analytically, the move leads to a crushing position - for Black. (Komodo 9 says he is almost 6 pawns ahead.) Of course, the defender has to find the follow-up. (Here is a discussion from a previous post.)

Also, as a reflection of the complexity of the position, I have to mention that in the 494 games with the capture of the Rook in The Database, White scores 66%!

8...Qxe4+

This is, of course, Black's point. He should be able to combine attacks on the White King and Queen to wrap things up quickly.

9.Kf1 Bd4

This is an inspired idea, and probably cost Black important seconds of thinking time. It still leads to advantage, but the brutal 9...Qh4!? was the way to seek quick victory.

Maybe. Even after that move, The Database give 4 games: two wins by Black, but two checkmates by White.

10.Qxh7+

Possibly overlooked by Black.

10...Bg7 11.d3 Qg4 12.Nc3 

White is the exchange and a couple of pawns ahead. More importantly, his King and Queen are safe and he can begin to seek aggressive play, himself.

12...d5 

Possibly not best, but the computer recommendation is discouraging: 12...Nf6 13.f3 Qxf3+ 14.gxf3 Nxh7.

13.Qh3 Qb4 

Black, too, has aggressive thoughts, and so retains his Queen - but he would have done better to exchange it, to mess up White's pawns.

Now White moves in for the knockout.

14.Qf3+ Bf5 15.Qxd5+ Kf6 16.g4 Bxg4 17.Bg5 checkmate.

Jerome Gambit: The Creeping Terror

The latest Jerome Gambit game from Cliff Hardy is a doozy. Cliff takes the white pieces and appears to give his opponent "Jerome Gambit odds". His higher-rated opponent, however, returns the favor with "Berserk" odds.

As Mr. Hardy quickly demonstrates, there is much to be said for knowing the basic Jerome strategy and tactics when the time control is "think fast!" The play with the heavy pieces at the end is quite instructive.

Notes are by Cliff Hardy. Diagrams are by me.

The following game was played in a tournament on Lichess. I must say it wasn't a totally fair game though: in Lichess tournaments, you have the option of pressing the "Berserk" button at the start of the game, which shortens your total clock time by 50%. IM Eric Rosen did this so he actually had only 2 and a half minutes for the game, while I had a whole 5 minutes.

Cliff Hardy (2105) - IM Eric Rosen (2297), 
Lichess, 2018

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6?! -+

6...Kf8 -++

7.Qd5+ Kf8 8.Qxc5+ d6 9.Qe3 Nf6 10.0-0 Qe7 11.Nc3 Bd7?! =+

Attempting to artificially castle with the standard 11...Kf7 -+ would have been better.

12.f4 Bc6 13.f5 Ne5 14.Qg3?

Oops! I left the e-pawn unguarded so 14.d3 += instead would have been better!

14...Nf7? =+

14...Bxe4 -++

15.d3 h6?! =

Weakening the pawns in front of the king is not advisable; 15...Re8 =+ would have been a superior move here.

16.Bd2 Qe5 17.Qh3 Re8 18.Rae1 b5

19.Kh1 b4 20.Nd1 Kg8? 

Lol, another oops! Black leaves his b-pawn on but I missed that I could take it. Defending it with 20...a5 would have been best.

21.c3? Qa5 22.cxb4 Qxa2 23.Bc3 Ng5 24.Qh4 Kh7 25.Ne3 Re7 26.Ng4

26...Nxg4? ++-

White's kingside pawns will now savage Black in the usual Jerome style; whereas 26...Rf8 += would have defended much better.

27.Qxg4

Black is in huge trouble, as White intends to play 28.h4 and if Black then were to save the knight with 28...Nf7??, he would wander into 29.Qxg7 mate.

27...Rg8 28.h4 Nf7 29.Qg6+ Kh8

Black has successfully defended against Qxg7 mate, but now White's f-pawn is set to cause trouble by crawling down the board like a creeping terror.

[A while back, Cliff and I discussed so-bad-they're-almost-good movies. I expressed my support for Ed Wood's "Plan 9 from Outer Space" (1959). Cliff mentioned "The Creeping Terror" (1964). Neither is likely to improve one's chess play, but they may explain why we both like the Jerome Gambit. - Rick]

30.f6 Ne5

There was no adequate defence to both of White's threats of fxe7 and fxg7+.

31.Bxe5 Rxe5 32.fxg7+ Rxg7 33.Rf8+ Qg8

Unfortunately, 33...Rg8? would have lost to 34.Qxh6 mate.

34.Qxh6+ Rh7 35.Qf6+ Rg7 36.Re3 Re8 37.Rxg8+ Rxg8

38.g3 Kh7 39.Rf3 Bd7 40.h5 Bg4 41.Rf4 Bxh5 42.Rh4 Rg5 43.Qf7+ Kh6 44.Qf6+

44...R8g6??

Black makes it easy for me. As I was moving back and forth, I clearly couldn't work out how to win this position, even with the overwhelming advantage that I had. The IM perhaps saw that  44...R5g6?? would have lost to 45.Rxh5+! Kxh5 46.Qh4 mate and probably he was still hoping to win and didn't want to let me repeat for a draw with 44...Kh7 45.Qf7+, although there the superior 45.g4! R8g6 46.Qf7+ and then 47.Rxh5+ instead would have been crushing.

45.Qh8 mate

Jerome Gambit: Not Always Crash and Boom

The Jerome Gambit can produce a no-holds-barred attack that decimates the defender. It can also provide an opportunity for the creation of weaknesses in the defender's camp - followed by patient play to take advantage of the minor "destructions".

Wall, Bill - Alfaave
PlayChess.com, 2018

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Ng6 

One of the nice things about defending against the Jerome Gambit is that you have so many ways to return one of the sacrificed pieces.

7.dxc5 Nf6 8.Nc3 Re8 9.O-O Kg8

Black has every reason to be content with his position: he has a piece for a couple of pawns, and his King has castled-by-hand.

His only problem is that his opponent isn't interested in resigning - he wants to play until he wins.

10.Qd4 b6 11.Bg5 bxc5 12.Qxc5 d6 13.Qd4 c5

14.Qa4 Bd7 15.Qa6 Qb6 

I suspect that Bill welcomed the opportunity to exchange Queens here, as he was able to create targets for his remaining pieces. His skill, and his experience with the Jerome Gambit, gave him a better understanding of how to play the game.

16.Qxb6 axb6 17.Bxf6 gxf6 18.Nd5

The game doesn't always have to be *Crash!* and *Boom!*. White's Knight targets weaknesses in Black's position, and the defender does not cover up well.

18...Rf8 19.Nxb6 Ra7 20.Rfd1 Bc6 21.Rxd6 Bxe4 22.Nd7 Rxd7 23.Rxd7 Bxc2 

Black has two pieces for a Rook - and two pawns. The pawns are going to cause problems.

24.a4 Ra8 25.a5 Be4 26.a6 Nf8 27.Rc7 Ne6 28.Re7 Bd5 29.a7 Nd8 

Black's Knight is almost to his defensive position at c6.

30.Rd1 Nc6 31.Rb7 Be6 

A slip. The tireless Knight needed to take one more defensive leap, 31...Nd4, to shield the Bishop.

32.Rd6 Bc8 33.Rc7 Black resigned

Black's Knight is en pris, but cannot move to safety, as it protects against Rd8 checkmate.

Jerome Gambit: In the Style of World Champions

I suppose that chess purists would recoil from me suggesting that the following Jerome Gambit game seems to be influenced by the recent Caruana - Carlsen match for the World Chess Championship. White is comfortable allowing a Queenless middlegame and heads for a quiet endgame. Why not? He has the better game. It almost looks like he turned play over to the automatic pilot in his brain.

Wall, Bill - Guest5649018
PlayChess.com, 2018

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Nf3+

I really like this move. It's no good, of course, and in the 7 games in The Database that contain it, White has 6 wins - and his lone loss was to a tricky checkmate in an endgame where the clock seems to have played a major part in stealing a well-earned "1-0".

Still, if Black has to give back a piece, you have to smile at his creativity - especially if he expected a pawn capture on White's next move.

7.Qxf3+ Qf6 8.dxc5 Qxf3 9.gxf3 Nf6 

Apologies to Guest5649018, but this is the kind of position Bill could play while working on the New York Times crossword puzzle - even the Sunday edition.

10.Nc3 Rf8 11.Bf4 Ne8 12.Nd5 c6 13.Nc7 Nxc7
14.Bxc7 Ke6 

The chances of reaching a drawn Bishops-of-opposite-colors endgame are very small.

15.Ke2 a5 16.a4 Rf6 17.Rag1 g6 18.h4 Black resigned

Perhaps Black has been following the World Championship match, as well. He sees that White is content to grind and grind... (It is also relevant, once again, to point out that Black's d-pawn blocks his Bishop, which blocks his Queen Rook - a fatal illness often found in Jerome Gambit games.)