The Jerome Gambit Article (Part 4)

Here continues the Jerome Gambit article that I wrote for Kaissiber, a decade ago.

William Cook’s interest in the Jerome Gambit seems to have peaked with his 3^rd edition of Synopsis. Although the 4^th edition, in 1888, announced "The present work is not a mere reprint of the last…” there were no changes in the Jerome Gambit analysis.

 Instead of pursing the Synopsis for a further, 5^th edition, Cook produced The Chess Player’s Compendium, a similarly formatted book, in 1902. There was no mention of the Jerome Gambit within. Likewise, Cook’s The Evolution of the Chess Openings in 1906 had nothing to say about Alonzo Wheeler Jerome’s creation.

It was not yet time for the Gambit’s eclipse. Cook’s earlier collaborators, E. Freeborough and C. E. Rankin, introduced Chess Openings Ancient and Modern in 1889. In their introduction to the Giuoco Piano, they seemed to put the Jerome Gambit in a proper evolutionary perspective.

            Away from the main track there are numerous traps for the

unwary and inexperienced player, but, as a rule, any attempt to hurry

the action will recoil on the attempter. Numerous attempts of this

character have been made at various times. The most interesting of

these are now classified as regular openings, notably the Evans

Gambit, the two Knight’s Defense, and Max Lange’s Attack. The

Jerome Gambit is a modern instance.

 Even if the Jerome Gambit had its own chapter as a regular opening, the tone of the narrative that accompanied the analysis had turned skeptical, and the good humor was generally lacking

The Jerome Gambit is an American invention, and a very risky

attack. It is described in the American Supplement to Cook's Synopsis

as unsound but not to be trifled with. The first player sacrifices two

pieces for two Pawns, and the chances arising from the adversary's

King being displaced and drawn into the centre of the board. "The

defense requires study, and is sometimes difficult." It may be added

that it is equally difficult for the first player to maintain the attack.

After 4…Kxf7; 5.Nxe5 Nxe5; 6.Qh5+, Black may obtain a safe

game by …Kf8 (Col.3), or he may follow out Mr. Steinitz's theory

that "the King is a strong piece which not only possesses great power

for defensive purposes, but can be made use of for the attack early in

the game, with the object of being posted more favourably for the

ending in the center of the board…”

            It is very rarely practiced, but as a similar sacrifice of a minor

Piece for two pawns to stop Black from castling may often occur in

the King’s Knight’s opening, we give the Jerome Gambit as a

representative form of this kind of attack on its merits, showing its

strength and weakness apart from accidental circumstances, which in

actual play may materially affect the result. 

Andres Clemente Vazquez, the Mexican chess champion, who had included one of his Jerome Gambit wins (giving Rook odds) in the second edition of his Analisis del juego de ajedres (1885), offered a much expanded chapter (based largely on the American Supplement) in his 1889 third edition of Analisis.

Moving into the1890s, however, the Jerome Gambit began walking on unsteady ground. Although Gossip included analysis in his new book, The Chess Player’s Vade Mecum (1891), he dropped any mention of the Jerome in the 2nd edition his Theory of the Chess Openings of the same year. (He had ignored it as well in his The Chess Players’ Text Book, written two years earlier.) Chess Openings Ancient and Modern reappeared in 1893 and 1896, but the analysis had nothing new, and was largely repeating itself.

Time suddenly ran out on the Jerome Gambit as the 1890s came to a close, with the publication, in 1899, of Mr. Blackburne’s Games at Chess, which included the game thereafter treated by most sources as the refutation of the attack

Amateur - Blackburne, London,  “about 1880” (notes by

Blackburne) 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ I used to call this

the Kentucky opening. For a while after its introduction it was greatly

favored by certain players, but they soon grew tired of it (Blackburne)

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 d6 Not to be outdone in

generosity 8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.0-0 Nf6 10.c3 Ng4 11.h3 Bxf2+ 12.Kh1 Bf5

13.Qxa8 Qxh3+ 14.gxh3 Bxe4# 0-1

There are a few things wrong with the generally accepted view of Blackburne’s miniature. The game was published at least fourteen years before Mr. Blackburne’s Games at Chess, in the August 1885 issue of the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle. It wasplayed, according to the Chronicle, “some months ago in London” – that is, 5 years later than the “about 1880” that Blackburne recalled. Such an error in memory, from someone who played thousands of games is, of course, quite understandable. 

In addition, the BCC article included suggestions – “he should have attempted to free his pieces by 9.d4 before castling” and “the only hope he had was 10.Qd8,” which would have strengthened White’s game considerably.

This “Blackburne defense” starting with 6…g6 was played by D.P. Norton and Lt. G.N. Whistler, in correspondence games with Jerome back in 1876, and games were published in the June and December issues of the American Chess Journal of that year. Both players offered a Rook, with 7…Qe7 instead of Blackburne’s 7…d6, and developed winning attacks. Three years later, Jerome left the Rook and tried an improvement (8…Qf4+) in a correspondence game with Daniel Jaeger, but he was equally unsuccessful (0-1,45).

Later writers appear to have overlooked or ignored this coverage in the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle and the American Chess Journal.

After the blow of the appearance of the Amateur – Blackburne miniature, it is true that the Jerome Gambit lived on for some years in reprinted editions of previous tomes (for example, fifteen editions of James Mortimer’s The Chess Player’s Pocket-Book and Manual of the Openings, from 1888 through 1906), --although not without embarrassment. Gossip’s analysis in The Chess Player’s Vade Mecum (1891), for example, was re-packaged, unchanged, as a chapter in Gossip and F. J. Lee’s later The Complete Chess Guide (1903, 1905, 1907, 1910) where it appeared after Lee, in one of his own chapters, had asserted

We have therefore eliminated obsolete openings and confined

ourselves merely to a brief examination of a dozen of the leading

debuts...; omitting those openings in which the defense is declared by

the most competent theorists to be weak or inferior, as for example

Philidor's and Petroff's Defenses to the Kings Knight's opening; the

Sicilian; the Greco Counter Gambit; Center Counter Gambit;

Fianchettoes, Blackwar [sic] and Jerome Gambit, etc.

Emmanuel Lasker seems to have had the best, if not the last, word on the gambit, responding to a letter to “Our Question Box” in the March 1906 issue of Lasker’s Chess Magazine

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.

  

[to be continued]

The Jerome Gambit Article (Part 3)

Here continues the Jerome Gambit article that I wrote for Kaissiber, a decade ago.

The Cincinnati connection is an important one in the story of the development of the Jerome Gambit. In the 1870 and 1880s, the chess column of the Commercial Gazette, conducted by J. W. Miller, was considered to be one of the best in the United States. It occasionally ran opening analysis presented by S. A. Charles, a member of the local chess club. By January 1881, Charles had switched to sending his analyses to the Pittsburgh Telegraph (later, the Chronicle-Telegraph), when the January 19, 1881 column noted

The following careful and complete analysis of the Jerome Gambit,

one of the newest attacks in chess, and to be found in but few books, was compiled and condensed for THE TELEGRAPH by Mr. S. A. Charles,

President of the Cincinnati Chess Club, and victor in its recent tourney.

            Charles had met the American Chess Journal challenge, but his analysis did not include all of the lines explored in the Journal.

The February 2, 1881 Pittsburgh Telegraph column ran a game (a win) by Jerome, noting that the gambit

…although unsound, as shown by Mr. Charles' analysis in this

column, yet leads to some interesting and critical positions.

On April 27, 1881, the Telegraph chess column presented more information from Mr. Charles, including the fact that he had been in contact with the Gambit’s originator

To the Chess Editor of the Telegraph

A few weeks ago I sent you a compilation of such analysis as

 I could find of the “Jerome Gambit,” not claiming to present anything

new, but only to furnish in a compact form some information which was

not probably accessible to most of your readers.

Since its publication I have received some letters from Mr. Jerome,

the inventor of the gambit, claiming that his gambit was sound and that

the attack could be improved upon in some of the variations given.

Mr. Jerome's claims as to the corrections, at last, seem to be well founded,

and I give below, as an appendix to my former article, a short tabular

statement covering the principal changes and corrections suggested by him.

It is much to be hoped that Mr. Jerome may himself give to the

public at an early date his own analysis of this, the only opening of any

note of American Invention .

A few weeks later, on June 8, 1881, the Telegraph, having heard from Jerome, ran the following, responding to Charles’ comments. It shows Jerome again trying to keep the value and uniqueness of his Gambit in perspective, despite the excitement, in the American post-Morphy period, for something exciting, new, and homegrown

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.

Mr. J. refers to the so-called "Meadow Hay" opening as being an American
invention. Well, if that is so, the less said about it the better for American

chess reputation.

In October 1881, the Jerome Gambit broke onto the international scene again, in Brentano's Chess Monthly, (edited by H.C. Allen & J.N. Babson), with a letter and analysis from S. A. Charles

Some time since I published in the Pittsburgh Telegraph a

compilation of such analyses of the Jerome Gambit as I could find, with

some additions from published games. Mr. Jerome justly criticized some

            of the moves as not being the best for either party, and we commenced

as series of correspondence games more as a test of the opening than of

individual skill.

Unfortunately Mr. Jerome's business engagements have prevented

him from playing out the full number of games originally started; yet the

situation even in the unfinished games seems to me at least to prove the

gambit unsound, and that while White may win against weak, he cannot

do against strong play.

I should add, perhaps, that Mr. Jerome does not consider the defenses

here given to 6.d4 to be the best but he does not suggest any others.

The November 2, 1881 chess column in the Pittsburgh Telegraph ran Charles’ corrected and slightly updated version of his analysis from Brentano's Chess Monthly.

The year 1882 brought yet more attention, from respectable sources, to the Jerome Gambit. William Cook, with the assistance of E. Freeborough and C. E. Ranken, brought out the third edition of his Modern Chess Openings-style Cook's Synopsis of the Chess Openings A Tabulated Analysis. Cook noted about his work

...Inasmuch as the book does not lay claim to originality, the acknowledgement of the sources from which the variations have been collected is perhaps unnecessary; but it should be mentioned that the last edition of the "Handbuch des Schachspiels," Mr. Gossip's "Theory

of the Openings" and Mr. Wayte's able reviews of these works, together with the excellent Chess column of the Field and other papers, the New Chess Monthly and the well-known Chess Player's Chronicle have been indispensable to the production of this book.

            The 3^rd edition included analysis of the Jerome Gambit for the first time, and noted that the gambit, “although unsound, affords some highly instructive analysis.”

Two year later, Cook’s Synopsis - already out of print and still in great demand - was reprinted in its entirety by J. W. Miller, with an additional section, 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.

This 1884 American Supplement contained two doses of Jerome: Cook’s analysis in the Synopsis portion, and S. A. Charles’ analysis, in the Supplement portion. Miller added the blusterous caution

The "Jerome Gambit," 4.Bxf7+, involves an unsound

sacrifice; but it is not an attack to be trifled with. The defense

requires study, and is somewhat difficult.

By the way, we can get a measure of the still-light-hearted sense of the Gambit at that time, from a note in the Pittsburgh Chronicle-Telegraph chess column for the February 27, 1884

In Cincinnati we met a number of players in the Mercantile

Library… We also had the pleasure of contesting several games with

Mr. Jerome, of Paxton, Ill. He is well known as the author of the

so-called Jerome Gambit, in which white sacrifices the Bishop by

taking KBP on the fourth move of the Giuoco Piano game. Neither

the gambit nor its author proved strong in the contest.

The chess column (Maurian and Seguin) of the New Orleans Times-Democrat, for October 19, 1884, reviewed the American Supplement, and hinted that the Jerome Gambit, among others, might have found its way onto the pages at least in part because of its American heritage

With regard to the "American Inventions," whether certain of

these so-called be worthy of the honor of insertion or not, it is evident

that the editor has done good and useful work, if only in collecting and

recording such in enduring form as monuments along the pathway of

our national chess progress.

The review continued the following week, and had several interesting comments pertaining to the Jerome Gambit coverage

Of course, any extended and minute examination of the various

openings or defenses included among these "American Inventions," is

impossible in the limited space of a chess column, but there are some

salient points in this connection that have specially attracted our notice...

The "brilliant but unsound" (why, may we ask, is this antithesis

so common that one would almost infer it to be necessary?) Jerome

Gambit, invented by Mr. Jerome, of Paxton, Ill., about a decade ago,

constitutes the next of the Americana, and concerning the analysis given

by Mr. S. A. Charles we can only venture to say that it seems to combine

much careful original work with variations compiled from such

investigations as have been published upon this hazardous attack. The

principal basis for most of these has been, we believe, Sorenson's article

in the May, 1877, number of the Nordisk Skaktidende, and which as

translated in Gossip's Theory, pp.37-39, furnishes the only two variations

upon the opening given in the Synopsis proper (ccf. p.49, cols 11 and 12).

We note, however, that Mr. Charles differs from this authority in some

important particulars…

Of course, White should lose eventually, for the gambit is an

admittedly and rather conspicuously unsound one…

[to be continued]

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