The Jerome Gambit Article (Part 7)

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

The defenses 6…Kf8 and 6…Ng6 have had their supporters and detractors, depending on how each evaluated the alternatives – was it better to hold onto a little material and avoid complications, or to enter them confidently, knowing that they would turn the game even more in your favor?

Jerome (DCJ 7/1874) first suggested 6…Kf8. He followed it with 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qf4+ Nf6 9.c3 Kf7 10.d4 Bb6 11.e5 dxe5 12.dxe5 Re8 13.0-0 Kg8 14.exf6 Qxf6 15.Qxf6 gxf6 16.Bh6 “and White has a pawn ahead.” (Actually, the game is even; but Jerome missed that earlier his 11.e5 was premature, as after the pawn exchange 12…Qd3 would be crushing – Paul Keiser, personal communication. The alternative 8…Ke8 was seen in 5 games in the Yetman – Farmer 2008 match.)

As Sorensen (NS 5/1877) did not mention 6…Kf8, it was not touched upon by other writers until Freeborough and Rankin (COAM, 1889) suggested that it led to a safe game for Black, giving the line 7.Qxe5 Qe7 8.Qf5+ Ke8 9.Nc3 d6 10.Qf3 Qf7 (or 10...Nf6!) 11.Qe2 Nh6 (or 11...Ne7 or 11...Nf6) with “a superior position or game” to Black.

A hundred years after Jerome, Harding, in his Counter Gambits (1974), varied, after 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qf4+ Nf6 with 9.d3 Kg8 10.Nc3 Qe8 11.Be3 Bb4 12.0-0 Be6 13.Ne2 Qh5 14.Nd4 Bd7 15.c3 Bc5, advantage to Black. His comment in The Italian Game (1977) was that after 7…d6, White was left “without genuine compensation for his piece.” He sagely recommended the 6…Kf8 line as “other lines would allow White to attack the exposed black king or to win back the sacrificed material.”

The first mention of the 6…Ng6 defense can be found in Jerome – Brownson 1875 (DCJ 3/1875) where Jerome won in 28 moves: 7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qc3 Nf6 10.d3 c6 11.0-0 Kd7 12.f4 Qb6+ 13.Kh1 Kc7 14.Qe1 Re8 15.b3 Nd5 16.Qg3 Nb4 17.Na3 Bd7 18.c3 Nxa2 19.f5 Ne5 20.d4 Qxb3 21.dxe5 dxe5 22.Rb1 Qxc3 23.Be3 a6 24.Qxg7 b5 25.Rf3 Kc8 26.Rd1 Rd8 27.Bb6 Kb7 28.Bxd8 and wins.

The second mention of 6…Ng6 was by Sorensen (NS 5/1877) who gave Jerome’s 7.Qd5+ a "!"

After Jerome’s 10.d3, Gossip (Theory, 1879), evaluated the position, “…White has still some attack to compensate him for his lost piece; besides which, Black has lost the privilege of castling, and is moreover a pawn minus…” This was echoed by Charles (Brentano, 10/1881) - “White still has some attack” - and by Cook (Synopsis, 1882) –“White has some attack to compensate for his lost piece" - but this seems optimistic. (Lanning – Zim, Utah 1879 saw 10…Rf8 11.Bg5 Nd5 12.ed?! Qxg5 13.0-0 Nh4 14.g3 and Black announced mate in 8.)

Gossip said Brownson’s 10…c6 11.0-0 Kd7 was

a line of play which we venture to think objectionable for

Black, to say the least, inasmuch as it blocks the Queen's Bishop,

and unnecessarily retards the development of Black's game. We

should prefer the sortie of the Bishop to King's third at once.”

Later, he evaluated the position after 10.d3 c6 11.0-0 Be6 as equal (Vade 

Mecum, 1891).

Freeborough and Rankin’s (COAM, 1889) alternative 10…Kf7, seems simple and good for Black.

It is clear that after 6…Kf8 or 6…Ng6, if White is going to have any chance for success, he is again going to have to rely on what use he can get out of his extra pawns, against Black’s extra piece. Jerome – Brownson 1874 is one (flawed) example. In the match game Vazquez – Carrington, 1876, and the correspondence game Charlick- Mann, Australia, 1881 the White Queen retreated to e3 instead of c3, on move nine, and the first players able to do that, winning in 34 and 72 moves, respectively.

7.Qf5+

This was Jerome’s first suggestion (DCJ, 4/1874) in this position. He also played 7.f4 and 7.O-O, and suggested 7.b4 “for analysis” (Brentano, 10/1881).

After 7.f4 d6 Jerome lost an 1881correspondence game to Charles with 8.f5 Kd7 (8…Ke7 was likewise better for Black in Jerome –Zimmerman, correspondence 1880, but 1-0, 21 when Black blundered); 9.d3 Nf6 10.Qd1 Nxe4, and another with 8.Qh3+ Ke7 9.f5 (although Charles returned a piece prematurely with 9…Bxf5) (Brentano, 10/1881).

Winning back one of White’s two sacrificed pieces after 7.f4 d6 with 8.fe de seems more logical for the first player, but he remains too undeveloped to claim an attack. The optimistic 7.f4 d6 8.d4 was played in an 1878 game in Italy, and led to an amusing miniature:  8…Bxd4 (8…Nf6! Turns the tables, from blackburne – Wilmy, a Banks internet game, 2004) 9.c3 Bb6 10.fxe5 dxe5 11.Na3 Nf6 12.Qf5+ Kd6? 13.Nc4+! Kc5 14.Qxe5+ Kxc4 15.b3+ Kd3 16.Bf4 Kc2 17.Rc1+ Kb2 18.c4+ Ka3 19.Rc2 Re8 and White announced mate (Nuova Rivista, 1878).

A recent suggestion by Schiller (UCO, 1998) after 7.f4 is 7…Qf6, which looks good for Black as well. His assessment of the position after 7.f4 is worth noting

            White will win back one of the sacrificed pieces. Black

should react calmly be developing and protecting the king. It is

useful to keep in mind that for an attack to succeed the attacker

usually requires greater force than that which defends the king.

Here the Black king is surrounded by pieces, and White has only

 the queen and a pair of pawns. The Black king can retreat to e7,

but this would confine the black queen. Therefore the correct

move [7…Qf6] suggests itself.

After 7.O-O Charles (Brentano, 10/1881) gave 7...d6 as best (7…g6 8.Qh3+ followed by 9.Qc3; or 7…Qf6 8.b4 Qg6 9.Qh3+ Kd6 10.bc+ Kc6 11.d4) noting that after 8.Nc3 Nf6 9.Qd1 the move 9…Nc6 could be safely played. He gave the alternative 9…Kf7 10.d4 Bg4 11.f3 (or 11.Qd2 Bb6 12.de de) Nxf3 12.gf Bh3 with a better game. The correspondence game Jerome – Charles 1881 continued with Black returning pieces for pawns and positional advantage: 9…Nd3 10.cd Kf7 11.Ne2 Bb6 12.Kh1 Ng4 13.d4 Nxh2 14.Kxh2 Qh4+ 15.Kg1 Qxe4 16.d3 Qg4 17.Be3 d5 18.f3 Qe6 19.Bf2 c6.

No one else except the Gambit’s originator seems to have hazarded 7.O-O, and, as it simply leaves White two pieces down, there is no reason for anyone to follow closely in his footsteps.

7…Kd6 8.f4

Again, this is Jerome’s first suggestion (DCJ, 4/1874).

Jerome (DCJ, 1/1875) also looked at 8.d4, a move about which Sorensen (NS, 1877) said breezily, “It is impossible to decide whether this attacking move is stronger than a multitude of others which offer themselves in this interesting position, and of which we especially like 8.f4 and 8.Na3, but it seems clear every case into what abysses Black is plunging.” 

After 8.d4 Bxd4 9.Na3 two of the three defenses that Jerome (DCJ, 1/1875) presented (9…Ne7, 9...Ke7) were sufficient for Black’s advantage, as they left the second player two pieces up. The third (9…Qf6) led to White’s advantage.

Sorensen (NS, 5/1877) repaired for White the line 9…Ne7 10.Qh3 Qf8 by replacing Jerome’s 11.O-O with the consistent 11.Nb5+ which brings danger to Black’s King.

He copied Jerome’s line 9…Qf6 10.Nb5+ Kc5 11.Nxd4 Qxf5 12.Nxf5 g6 13.Be3+ Kc6 14.Nd4+ Kd6 15.O-O-O Ke7 16.Nb5 and said “White has the best position” – but this would not be the case after the correct 13…Kb5.

Finally, Sorensen replaced Jerome’s 9…Ke7 10.Qh3 (10.Nb5 is better, but it comes to naught) d6 11.Qh4+ Ke8 with 9…c6 noting “with this move Black escapes.” The recommended 9.c6 showed up in 4 of the Yetman – Farmer games, which finished 1-2-1.

Sorensen also suggested the direct 8.Na3 which “appears to offer favorable chances for White” according to Gossip (Theory, 1879), although it is hard to see anything but misery for White after the straightforward 8…Bxa3.

8…Qf6

Jack Young, in a Randspringer article (#6, 1990-1991), reported facing 8…Nf3+ (“Foreseeing the loss of a piece, Black gives one back for some ferocious counterplay”) 8…Qe7 and 8…Qh4+ 9.g3 Qf6 in this position, in games against dedicated chess computers (e.g. Chess Challenger 10, Super Constellation). His successes were more due to the weaknesses of the play of the machines, not the strengths of his positions with the white pieces.

The active 8…Nf3+ had actually occurred over 100 years earlier in an 1876 correspondence game between Jerome and D.P. Norton (0-1, 42). Then 9.gf seems best, leading to an unclear position with mutually-unsafe Kings after 9…Qh4+ 10.Kd1. Jerome played 9.Kf1, escaped danger with some tactical tricks and Norton oversights, but was out-played in the ending.

Also, 8…Qh4+ 9.g3 Nf3+ had appeared in a silly game, “R.F.” vs “Nibs” in the June 1899 issue of the American Chess Magazine, which had made fun of the new craze – chess by telephone! The game ended 10.Kd1 Ne7 11.e5+ Kd5 12.Qd3, but of course 11…Kc6 was better for Black, e.g. 12.Qe4+ d5 13.exd6+ Nd5 14.gh Bg4 as in the internet game abhailey –peonconorejas, 2008 (0-1,20).

9.fe+ Qxe5 10.Qf3 Nf6

10…Ne7 was seen in Jerome – Jaeger, Correspondence, 1878, when Black quickly returned a piece for a balanced game with 11.c3 Ng6 12.d4 Bxd4 13.cd Qxd4 14.Nc3 c6. He then proceeded to outplay his opponent in 68 moves 0-1.

11.d3 Kc6

This King move (attributed to B.K. Neufville) “gives Black an opportunity for a counter attack and makes an exciting contest” according to Jerome (ACJ, 4/1878).

In Jerome- Shinkman, 1874, Black instead retreated his King to e7, played …g5, …c6 and …d5, developed his pieces and at the 21^st move “Mr. Shinkman announced loss of the Queen or mate in six moves.” (DCJ, 7/1874). In Jerome – Brownson, 1875, Black retreated his King in the same manner, played …d6, and focused on exchanging pieces, although he blundered on move 40 and resigned a few moves later (DCJ, 6/1875). (Jerome hung on doggedly in an 1878 correspondence game against Pane after 11…Ke7 12.Nc3 d5, until his opponent likewise put together too many weak moves, and the gambiteer prevailed in 41 moves)

In an 1876 off-hand game against Jerome, an Amateur borrowed the King retreat and c-pawn push from Shinkman, the weak play from Pane, and the blunders from Brownson, and was checkmated in 20 moves!

12.Nc3 c6

Equally solid was 12…d6 13.Bf4 Qh5 14.Qf1 Re8 15.Ne2 Bg4 16.Ng3 Qf7 17.h3Bh5 18.Kd2 Bd4, when Jerome self-destructed and lost horribly in 34 moves, Jerome – Colburn, correspondence 1879. Modern alternatives 13.Bd2 and 14…Bb4, from two Yetman – Farmer games, did nothing to change White’s prospects.

13.h3 Qh5 14.Qg3 Be6 15.Ne2 Raf8

Black is developed, and his extra piece puts White’s King in more danger than his own, in one of the Jerome – Charles correspondence games (Brentano, 10/1881).

It is at this point that James Mortimer (Pocket-Book, 1888) suggested for Black to play instead 15…Ng4 16.Rf1 Bf2+ 17.Rxf2 Nxf2 18.Qxf2, giving up two pieces for a Rook and ending up with a lead in development, as well as the exchange for a pawn. This is not as strong as Charles’ move, and is better met by 16.d4, in any event, although Black still has the advantage. 

[to be continued]

The Jerome Gambit Article (Part 6)

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

Analysis

            The analysis presented below is largely to give a historical context, as the commentators throughout the life of the Jerome Gambit – whether with a wink and a nod, or with a scowl and a grimace – have been accurate in their assessment that the attack is unsound and objectively places the gambiteer at a disadvantage.

The Jerome Gambit may best be employed in casual or blitz games, or as a way for the first player to offer odds to a weaker opponent. The game Charlick – Holloway, Adelaide 1877, mentioned below in the “Unanswered Questions” section, was the second of two match games; in the first, Charlick had given knight’s odds to his opponent, and lost.

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

As early as his first article with analysis (DCJ 4/1874), Alonzo Jerome considered the possibility that Black might refuse to capture the second piece, and play for King safety instead with 5...Kf8. This was, in fact, the defense that Hallock used in an 1876 correspondence game played “by special request” to test the gambit (ACJ 2/1877), that Carrington tried in his match vs Vazquez (Algunas Partidas 1879), and which Sorensen recommended as “more solid and easier to manage” (NS 5/1877). After 6.Nxc6 dc (Jerome gave 6…bc 7.d4 “putting Black’s KB out of play”) analysis has generally followed Jerome – Brownson, 1875, with 7.O-O Nf6 8.Qf3 (Sorensen said 8.e5 would be met by 8…Bg4 9.Qe1 Kf7! which was how Norton – Hallock had continued ) Qd4 9.d3 Bg4 10.Qg3At this point, Brownson played 10…Bb6. Jerome responded with 11.e5, and drew the game, with help from his opponent, in 29 moves. Brownson (DCJ 3/1875) suggested 11.Kh1 and 12.f4 as an improvement for White.

Sorensen (NS, 5/1877) gave the alternative line 10…Bd6, attacking White’s Queen, and followed this up with 11.Bf4 g5 12.Bxd6+ cd 13.h3 Be6 14.Qxg5 Rg8 15.Qh6+ Ke7 16.Nc3 Rg6 17.Qh4 Rag8 with a better game for Black. However, Charles (PT 4/27/81) offered 11.c3 as an improvement, suggested to him by Jerome, which they believed reversed the valuation of the line. (As an historical aside, later sources, relying on Sorensen’s analysis, miss 11.c3; those that follow Charles’ work, based on his Brentano article or on the American Supplement, include it.)

As a response to Jerome’s/Charles’ 11.c3, Paul Keiser (personal communication) has recommended that Black vary earlier, swapping the placement of his Queen and Bishop, assessing that after 8…Qd6 9.d3 Bg4 10.Qf4 Bd4 11.Qxd6+ cd 12.c3 Bb6 13.d4 Be6 Black is winning.

After 5…Kf8, White has the option of playing 6.Qh5 (Banks – Wess, Great Britain, 2003) when Black should transpose with 6…Nxe5 (ACJ 3/1877).

Dr. William Paulsen, on his chess openings website (www.csm.astate.edu/~wpaulsen/chess/chess.htm?002137) gives 5…Ke7 as the “Giuoco Piano  - Jerome Gambit Variation II,” noting “By moving the king instead of taking the knight, White cannot attack the king with his queen. Black ends up with more material.” However, White has the advantage after 6.Qh5.

None of the analysts appear to have looked at 5…Ke8, which showed up in Blackstone - Dommeyer, skittles game, USA 1960, continuing: 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Nxg6 Bxf2+ 8.Kxf2 Qf6+ 9.Nf4+ Kd8 10.d3 d6 11.Rf1 Qd4+ 12.Be3 Qf6 13.c3 1-0 An improvement for White might be 6.Nxc6, leading to a roughly even game; while Black improves over the text with 8…Nf6, holding the advantage.

With two pawns, Black’s displaced King, and the doubled black c-pawns as compensation for the piece, White’s best play of this line would seem to be to follow Jerome’s original advice for “the judicious use of his pawns.”

6.Qh5+

The alternative 6.d4, has been seen several times. A couple of Jerome’s games continued 6…Bxd4 7.Qxd4 d6. Against Shinkman in 1876, Jerome played 8.O-O and 9.f4, with a draw in 42, after Black attacked with pawns on the Queenside, defended poorly on the Kingside, and allowed a central breakthrough.

An uncompleted correspondence game against Charles in 1881 continued, instead, 8.Nc3 (best, according to Charles, in Brentano, 10/1881) Nf6 9.Bg5 h6 10.Bxf6 Qxf6 11.O-O-O Be6 12.Kb1 Nc4 where the latter suggested a win for Black after 13.Qd3 b5 14.f4 Nxb2 15.Kxb2 b4. A second unfinished game against Charles varied with 9…Bh3 10.O-O-O Bxg2 11.f4 h6 12.Bxf6 gf 13.Rhg1 Bh3 14.fe with what Charles considered a better game for White. (Charles missed that 11…Nf3 would have kept Black on top.)

Charles had suggested (Telegraph, 1/19/1881) after 6.d4 Bxd4 7.Qxd4 the defense 7…Qf6 8.Qd1 d6  (Jerome –Norton, unfinished correspondence game 1876, continued 8…Ne7) 9.O-O (following Jerome – Jaeger, corr 1878, 1-0, 35) and later expanded the line (Brentano, 10/1881) 9…g6 10.f4 Nc6 (10…Nc4 in Telegraph, 11/2/1881). It looks adequate but second best to the straight forward 7…d6.

Sorensen – X, Denmark 1888, saw a dashing counterattack: 6.d4 Qh4 that Black sadly misplayed, then lost: 7.0-0 Ng4 8.h3 Bd6 (better 8…Bb6) 9.e5 Bxe5 (sacrificing the Knight, or retreating the Bishop are better) 10.dxe5 Nxe5 11.Qd5+ Kf6 12.f4 Ng6 (better 12…Nc6 moving out of the way of the advancing pawn) 13.Nc3 d6 14.Be3 (14.f5 is crushing) Ke7 15.Rae1 Kd8 16.Nb5 Nf6 17.Qc4 Ne8 18.Bf2 Qf6 19.Bd4 Qh4 20.Rxe8+ Kxe8 21.Nxc7+ Kf8 22.f5 Ne5 23.f6 gxf6 24.Qd5 Kg7 25.Qxd6 Rg8 (last chance for a swindle: 25…Bxh3 26.hg?? Qg3+ wins) 26.Rxf6 Qxf6 27.Bxe5 and White won.

The Sorensen game was given at length here to encourage those who love a coffee house-style King hunt, and to serve as a warning for defenders who believe that returning sacrificed material automatically creates a safe game.

Finally: Jerome (DCJ, 7/1874) offered, “The following is a possibility of the game” and gave the amusing 6.d4 Bb6 7.Qh5+ Ke6 8.Qf5+ Kd6 9.Qxe5+ Kc6 10.Qd5 mate.

6…Ke6

It was at this point that Blackburne played 6…g6 in his game versus an unknown amateur - not A.W. Jerome, as mistakenly reported by Schiller (UCO, 1998, 2002) - at Simpson’s Divan, returning material after 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qxh8 for a strong counter-attack: 8…Qh4 9.0-0 Nf6 10.c3 Ng4 11.h3 Bxf2+ 12.Kh1 Bf5 13.Qxa8 Qxh3+ 14.gxh3 Bxe4 mate. Thereafter, most of the Jerome Gambit “analyses” that appeared in books was represented by the moves of this miniature, with scant or no further investigation.

It is important for those who defend against the Jerome Gambit to remember all of Blackburne’s idea. (Carrington’s earlier 7…Nf6 against Vazquez left Black down material after 8.Qxc5.) Peter Banks, who plays the Gambit both on the Internet and over-the-board; Louis Morin, who has extensive online Jerome experience; and predator Brian Wall all have reported blitz games where their opponents quickly played the first 6 moves, puzzled over the next one, and wound up forcing a Queenless middle game, a pawn down (7…Bxf2+ 8.Kxf2 Qf6+ 9.Qxf6+ Nxf6). White won all.

It is not clear exactly when the idea 9.d4 Qxe4+ 10.Be3, which may reverse the assessment of the Blackburne game and give White chances, was discovered - Fletcher’s Gambit’s Accepted (1954) is an early source – but 9.d4 by itself was a suggestion of Munoz and Munoz, in 1885 (BCC 8/1885). . Hindemburg Melao, in a recent internet article (not currently available), where he identified the player of the white pieces against Blackburne as “Millner,” gave 9.d4 Nf6 10.Nd2 Bxd4 11.O-O as good for White. (It should be noted that Bruce Pandolfini, in his 1989 Chess Openings: Traps & Zaps gives the line 9.d4 Nf6 10.dc, and after the further moves 10...Qxe4+ 11.Be3 Qxg2 12.Rf1 reflects: “Don't be misled by White's extra Rook. It's a meaningless ornament. White is in serious trouble. His King is exposed and his cornered Queen is in danger of being trapped. The cruncher is …12...Bh3 which wins White's Queen by discovery from the a8-Rook. If White tries to save the Queen by capturing the Rook, 13.Qxa8 then 13...Qxf1+ 14.Kd2 Ne4#” Of course 10…Qxe4+ deserves a “?”)

After the Blackburne game’s 9.O-O Nf6, Melao mentioned that Idel Becker, in his Manual de xadrez, attributed 10.d4 to Euwe (source not mentioned). Melao was skeptical about the move, giving Black’s counter-attack 10…Bh3 11.gh Rxh8 12.dc Qxh3 13.f3 g5 14.Rf2 g4 15. Bf4 gf 16.Bg3 h5 17.Nd2 h4 18.Nf3 Qg4 with advantage for Black. He preferred 10.Qd8 for White and said after 10…Bb6 11.e5 de 12.Qd3 he could not see how Black could be successful. Patrick Buchmann likewise showed how 10…Be6, 10…Qxe4+ and 10…Bd7 fared no better against 10.Qd8.

While the suggested move 10.Qd8 appears as early as 1885 (BCC 8/1885), it is important to note that recent analysis by Chandler and Dimitrov (2004) shows that Black is not worse, and can in fact draw with 10…Bh3 11.Qxc7+ Kf8 12.gh Qxh3 13.Qxb7 Qg4+ and 14…Qf3+

However, all is still not said and done with this 125 year old masterpiece: recall that Jerome, himself, faced severe treatment in 1876 at the hands of Norton and Whistler, who played 7…Qe7 8.Qxh8 Qxe4+ and had strong attacks. This idea has recently re-appeared in a 2002 internet article by Catalan Master Richard Guerrero Sanmarti and one in 2004 by Brian Wall and Tyrin Price. All is new that has been forgotten!

[to be continued]

The Jerome Gambit Article (Part 5)

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

Mention of the Jerome Gambit in chess books, thereafter, is sporadic, usually simply as the name of the opening played in a Blackburne miniature (perhaps with a suggested move or two); but sometimes serving as part of a dire warning, as in Chernev and Harkness’s An Invitation to Chess (1945) “Mistakes in the Opening” chapter, or Gerald Abrahams’ The Chess Mind (1951)

...Objectively regarded, every winning position, and every

losing position, is an unbalanced position; a position in which a

player has a great advantage in tempo, or in space, or in the capacity

to bring great force to bear effectively on a given point…

Chess opinion has convincingly condemned many extravagant

unbalancing attacks, such as the once popular Jerome gambit…which

yield the unbalancer nothing but loss against good defense.

Still, there were exceptions. Fletcher’s wonderful Gambit’s Accepted, A Survey of Opening Sacrifices (1954) included the Jerome Gambit, and his selection of the example Club Game “Anonymous – Anonymous” impishly suggested a need to shelter from public scrutiny those who would play such openings

Every inventor must have considered his gambit as a winning

one, so in this Part all gambits are won by White, and all counter

gambits by Black. One game for each of the eighty-four openings is

included, being numbered according to the classification tabulated in

Part I, and, as far as possible, short games have been selected from

master play. This was not as easy as might be imagined, for so often

an otherwise suitable tournament or match game was not won by the

proper colour required for our purpose. In several cases, therefore, it

has been necessary to search for games outside first-class circles, and,

in the thirteen selections when this has been done, the names of the

players have been suppressed and the contest given as a Club Game.

            Fletcher also tossed out 9.d4 as a possible counter to Blackburne’s refutation of the Jerome Gambit, and even included the over-familiar

The opening is frankly unsound but Black's task is by no

means easy and he can quite likely go wrong

Harding dismissed the Jerome Gambit in the 1970s, Zuckerman touched briefly on the Jerome in a column in Chess Life in the early 1980s, Gambit Revue had an article on it in the late 1980s, and Randspringer had one in the early 1990s. Tim Harding again made a passing reference in 2001 to “the manic Jerome Gambit” in his 4-part series on the Giuoco Piano in his “The Kibitzer” column at the on-line ChessCafe (www.chesscafe.com).

That the Jerome Gambit’s status had descended of late to being the representation of bad form is illustrated by a couple of Internet newsgroup postings

Even the Jerome Gambit, which is probably the worst

recognized gambit in all of chess, does offer some reasons for

analysis. However, this sequence of moves you give here is

simply a blunder with no redeeming social value...

  Even if the raison d'etre for the committee is deader than the Jerome Gambit...

In the last few years, however the Jerome Gambit has been rescued from obscurity by Eric Schiller, who covered it in his Unorthodox Chess Openings (1998, 2002), Gambit Chess Openings (2002), and Survive and Beat Annoying Chess Openings (2003). He gave a little of what is rare - new analysis in the last 50 years - but his attitude was less tongue-in-cheek than thumb-in-eye.

This is another cyberspace gambit. Virtually no attention

was paid to this reckless move [4.Bxf7+] until its supporters started

talking about it on the Internet. It can't be found in recent tournament

games, and there is a good reason: It stinks. White whips up a brief

attack, easily parried, and then spends a long time trying to justify the

sacrifice. A popular gambit in cyberspace, but in the real world, it

only succeeds in games where Black is a very weak player.

Schiller noted, quite accurately, that the Jerome Gambit is “awaiting a hero!”

No more respectful, but infinitely more entertaining, is IM Geoff Chandler’s 2004 Internet send-up of the Blackburne game as being played by Mars vs. Earth, “annotated” with pictures from the infamous 1962 bubble-gum card series, “Mars Attacks!” In that same year, openings iconoclast 

Brian Wall, and his protégé Tyrin Price, published a definitive analysis of Whistler’s defense to the Jerome Gambit (http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/BrianWallChess/message/80 ) In passing it can be noted that Price’s opinion of the Jerome returns the proper humorous perspective

The Jerome Gambit ... now *that* is coffee house ... fully caffeinated - extra strength (use only as directed for prompt temporary relief of quiet games [if conditions persist seek professional guidance]). :-)

Most recently, International Master Gary Lane has been entertaining Jerome Gambit

questions from readers of his “Opening Lanes” ChessCafe column (http://www.chesscafe.com/lane/lane.htm), and went so far as to annotate an amateur’s game. The discovery of the serious Yettman-Farmer, Arizonza, USA 2006 Jerome Gambit match (see box) shows that, however feeble, the Jerome Gambit still lives!

[to be continued]  

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]