The Jerome Gambit Article (Part 8)

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

Alonzo Wheeler Jerome

            Alonzo Wheeler Jerome was born March 8, 1834 at Four Mile Point, New York. Little is known about his life, and nothing of his early years.

At the age of almost 30, with the United States fighting its Civil War, Jerome was drafted into the Union army in September of 1863, where he served as quartermaster until he was transferred, in April 1865, as quartermaster sergeant, to the 26^th infantry regiment of the United States Colored Troops, under the command of Colonel William B. Guernsey, on Long Island, New York.

The 26^th USCT served under the Department of the South (Union Army) in South Carolina and was very active on Johns and James Island, Honey Hill, Beaufort, and a number of other locations. While it is not know when Jerome took up playing chess, it is known that shortly after arriving at their first camp, the soldiers of the 26^th immediately went about building both a chapel and a school; the latter, as many of the soldiers expressed an interest in learning to read and write. Might there have been time for the royal game, as well?

Jerome was mustered out of the army as a 2^nd Lieutenant in August 1865, at Hilton Head, North Carolina. He returned to Mineola, New York, where he worked in a factory that manufactured agricultural machinery. It was here that Jerome first played his gambit, he said, against G.J. Dougherty.

He moved to Paxton, Illinois in 1868, where he took up the position of manager of a hemp and flax company.

On March 6, 1873, Jerome married 21-year old Jane “Jennie” A. Ostrom, of Paxton. Like Jerome, Jenny had been born in New York.

The Jeromes had one child, a boy, born 1874, who apparently died young, as he appears in one census at age 6, but not in future censuses.

Jerome’s public life as a chess player apparently began when a game of his, a King’s Gambit, appeared in the March 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal. The next issue carried the “New Chess Opening” article. The July issue carried the first Jerome Gambit game that he played against William Shinkman.

            In 1875, Jerome and Brownson met and played their games, later printed in the Journal. In one game Brownson offered the McDonnell Double Opening – 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc4 3.b4 Bxb4 4.f4. It is not surprising that he was intrigued by the Jerome Gambit.

            Two 1876 games by Jerome were published by the Dubuque Chess Journal, one, a Jerome Gambit, against Shinkman, and the other, a postal odds game (Queen for Queen’s Rook) against the child chess prodigy (later, chess problemist) Frank Norton.

            When the Dubuque Chess Journal stopped publication in 1876, it was replaced by the American Chess Journal, and Jerome continued his campaign on behalf of “Jerome’s Double Opening” in its pages for two more years.

            News about Jerome then grows scarce. J.W. Miller occasionally mentioned him in his chess column of the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette and by S.A. Charles referred to him in his Jerome Gambit writings.

            In 1884, of course, Jerome was healthy enough to travel to the Cincinnati Mercantile Library and play a few games with his gambit against Miller.

In 1899, citing diabetes and heart problems, Jerome applied for a disability pension. By that time he and Jennie were living in Springfield, Illinois, where he was working as a guide in the state capital building. 

Alonzo Wheeler Jerome died from the complications of a gastric ulcer March 22, 1902 in Springfield, Illinois. He was survived by his wife.

Unanswered Questions

 1) Arguably the most influential Jerome Gambit article was the one by Sorensen, May 1877, in Nordisk Skaktidende – it was translated into English and reprinted in the Chess Player’s Chronicle August, 1877, and in the September & October 1877 issue of the American Chess Journal; and it was translated into Italian and appeared in the December, 1887, Nuova Rivista Degli Scacchi. In what other magazines, in what other languages did it appear?

2) The first player in the Blackburne game has been referred to as "NN" or "Anonymous" or "Stranger." Occasionally (e.g. www.superajedrez.com; or, with the wrong year, at www.chesslab.com ) the player has been given as "Millner." Was it Millner? Who was Millner? Documentation would be helpful.

3) Charlick of Australia was familiar with the Jerome Gambit. The Adelaide Observer (5/28/1881) published a Jerome Gambit correspondence game of his, as well as a game with (AO, 5/12/1877) Charlick’s own “Evans-Jerome Gambit” 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Bc5 6.Bxf7+. Are there other Jerome or Jerome-ish examples from this openings explorer to be found?

4) Abrahams in The Chess Mind (1951) refers to “the once popular Jerome Gambit” – 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Bxf7+. Fletcher’s Gambits Accepted A Survey of Opening Sacrifices (1954) notes “Some authors have called the opening with the moves 1.P-K4, P-K4; 2.B-B4, B-B4; 3.BxPch, by the name Jerome.” Is this a typographical error, or does the Jerome, of the Giuoco Piano have an evil twin brother in the Bishop’s Opening?       5) Half-way between the creativity of Charlick (of 1.d4 e5!? notoriety) and the possible misnomer of Abrahams and Fletcher lie two other Jerome Gambit “variants.”

The Dubuque Chess Journal, November, 1874 carried the game Wright – Hunn, USA, 1874, which began 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4 -– “brilliant but not sound” according to Brownson -– ed 5.Bxf7+. The DCJ said that this was “an unsound variation of Jerome’s double opening” and suggested that after 5…Kxf7, the move 6.Ne5+ “a la Jerome” would have improved upon the game continuation of 6.Ng5+. The Italian Gambit (2004) by Jude Acers and George Laven, the current reference on 4.d4 in the Giuoco Piano, covers 4.d4 ed 5.c3 dc 6.Bxf7+, but does not mention Wright’s rash 5.Bf7+.

James Mason, in the August 1895 British Chess Magazine, gave a game “played recently by correspondence between Brandfort and Bloemfontein, South Africa” which went 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Qe2 d6. Mason suggested the move 4…Nf6, because “there would be plenty of time to play the Pawn -– perhaps two squares instead of one. For, as the Cape Times remarks, if White adopts the ‘Jerome Gambit’ 5.Bxf7+ Black replies 5…Kxf7 6.Qc4+ d5 7.Qxc5 Nxe4 with advantage.” This assessment was confirmed in Albin – Schlechter, Vienna 1914 (0-1,31).

The odd 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5 sometimes received the “Jerome treatment” (without the title) 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ (e.g. Sidran – Vong, Compuserve e-mail 1992, [1-0, 8]) when 4.Nxe5 would have been adequate.

These lines are interesting; but they did not show up in the work of Jerome, Sorensen, Charles, etc. Are there other Jerome gambit off-shoots out there?

6) Traxler, concerning his gambit in the Two Knights Defense, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 wrote in Golden Prague on October 11, 1892 (quoted by Lubomir Kavalek in The Washington Post, April 14, 2003)

 An original combination that is better than it looks. A small

mistake by white can give black a decisive attack. It is not easy to

find the best defense against it in a practical game and it is probably

theoretically correct. It somewhat resembles the Blackmar-Jerome

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

What connection did Blackmar, of Blackmar-Diemer Gambit fame, have with the Jerome Gambit?

            7) Although Alonzo Wheeler Jerome (1834 - 1904) was the "inventor," of the Jerome Gambit, it was extensively analyzed and popularized by S. A. Charles. There are scant clues today as to who Mr. Charles was. Jeremy Gaige's classic book on chess players, for example, lists the name "S. A. Charles," but not a date of birth or death; and Gaige's entry indicates only that Mr. Charles seemed to have been on the chess scene from 1890 to 1910. In the early 1870s he worked for the Covington and Cincinnati Bridge Company, residing in Covington, Kentucky, although a September, 1881 chess column in the New Orleans Times-Democrat referred to Mr. Charles as "formerly of this city." Mr. Charles was identified in a January, 1881 chess column in the Pittsburgh Telegraph as being the President of the Cincinnati Chess Club. Does anyone know more?

8) Finally, was Jerome’s inspiration for his opening the sacrificial attack in the well-known game Hamppe - Meitner, Vienna, 1872:  1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Bc5 3.Na4 Bxf2+ 4.Kxf2 Qh4+ 5.Ke3 Qf4+ 6.Kd3 d5 7.Kc3 Qxe4 8.Kb3 Na6 9.a3 Qxa410.Kxa4 Nc5+ 11.Kb4 a5+ 12.Kxc5 Ne7 13.Bb5+ Kd8 14.Bc6 b6+ 15.Kb5 Nxc6 16.Kxc6 Bb7+ 17.Kb5 Ba6+ 18.Kc6 Bb7+ draw

Afterword

Many people helped me gather the information in this article, and I want to express my heartfelt thanks to each of them: Deanna Austin, Kent Ball, Pete Banks, Martin Bennedik, Eric Bentzen, John Blackstone, Harold Bohn, Neil Brennen, Paul Broekhuyse, Stefan Bucker, J. Gayle Camarda, Franklin Campbell, Geoff Chandler, Adailton Chiaradia, Sarah Cohen, Kristina Daily, Todor Dimitrov, Paul Dunn, Bob Durrett, Wayne Everard, Steve Farmer, Steve Frymer, Sam Fore, Richard Forster, Ken Fraser, Gary Gifford, Michael Goeller, A.B. Hailey, Tim Harding, Keith Hayward, Dan Heisman, Adam Henderson, John Hilbert, Owin Hindle, James F. Holwell, Colin James III, Thomas Johansson, Fyhn Karsten, Ara L. Kaye, Paul Keiser, Libby Ford Kennedy, Rick Kinkaid, Tom Klem, Michael Kramer, Robert Kruszynski, Rosemary Kurtz, Gary Lane, Heather Lang, George Laven, Jeff Martin and the staff of the John G. White Collection at the Cleveland Public Library, Missi Matt, Tim McGrew, Hindemburg Melao, Anna Maria Mihalega, Louis Morin, Mark Morss, Robert Murnan and the staff at the Cleveland Research Center, Clyde Nakamura, Christopher Nelson, Anne Newman, Russ Newman, Reg Nonni, William Paulsen, James Pratt, Tyrin Price, Tom Purser, Marianne Reynolds, Magnus Rosenstielke, Tim Sawyer, Eric Schiller, Daaim Shabazz, Jeremy Spinrad, Peter Stockhausen, Susan Strahan, Jason Stratman, David Surratt, Joseph Tanti, Pat Tavenner, Attila Turzo, Cindy Ulrich, Olimpiu Urcan, Bill Vallicella, Lissa Waite, Andrew Walker, Art Wang, Bill Wall, Brian Wall, Ken Whyld, Jaap van der Kooij, Jeroen van Dorp, Ed Yetman, Bradley Zang, Lev Zilbermints

Please note that in almost all cases concerning source quotes, I have changed descriptive notation to algebraic notation.

Bibliography

Abrahams, Gerald: The Chess Mind, London 1951

Acers, Jude and Laven, George: The Italian Gambit, Canada 2004

Adelaide Observer, May 28, 1881

Adelaide Observer, May 12, 1877

American Chess Journal, June, 1876

American Chess Journal, September, 1876

American Chess Journal, November, 1876

American Chess Journal, December, 1876

American Chess Journal, February, 1877

American Chess Journal, March, 1877

American Chess Journal, September-October, 1877

American Chess Journal, April, 1878

American Chess Magazine, June, 1899

Becker, Idel: Manual de xedrez, Sao Paolo 1974

Brenatano's Chess Monthly, October 1881

Brennan, Neil, “Wanted: Opponents” The Campbell Report, (November 15, 2005)

www.correspondence chess.com

British Chess Magazine, August 1895

Brooklyn Chess Chronicle, August 1885

Buchmann, Patrick, “Traps and Miniatures The Italian,” at

perso.wanadoo.fr/patrick.buchmann/pieges/p4.htm

Chandler, Geoff, “Mars Attack” at Chandler Cornered,

 www.chessedinburgh.fsnet.co.uk/chandler/mars.htm,  2002

Chandler, Geoff, “Jerome Gambit” at Chandler Cornered,

            www.chessedinburgh.fsnet.co.uk/chandler/jeromegambit.htm, 2004

Chernev, Irving and Harkness, Kenneth: An Invitation to Chess A Picture Guide to the

Royal Game, New York 1945

Chess Player's Chronicle, August, 1877

Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, May 7, 1879

Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, March 13, 1880

Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, November 29, 1884Cook, William: The Chess Player's Compendium, Bristol 1902

Cook, William: The Evolution of the Chess Openings, Bristol 1906

Cook, William: Synopsis of the Chess Openings A Tabulated Analysis, 3rd ed,

 London 1882

Cook, William: Synopsis of the Chess Openings A Tabulated Analysis, 4th ed, London

            1888

Deutsches Wochenschach, #48/#49, December, 1889

Druke, Volker, Gambit Revue, November, 1987

Dubuque Chess Journal, April, 1874

Dubuque Chess Journal, May, 1874

Dubuque Chess Journal, July, 1874

Dubuque Chess Journal, November, 1874

Dubuque Chess Journal, January, 1875

Dubuque Chess Journal, March, 1875

Dubuque Chess Journal, June, 1875

Dubuque Chess Journal, July, 1875

Dubuque Chess Journal, March, 1876

Fletcher, L. Elliott: Gambit's Accepted, A Survey of Opening Sacrifices, London 1954

Freeborough, E. and Ranken, C.E.: Chess Openings Ancient and Modern, 1st ed, London

1889

Freeborough, E. and Ranken, C.E.: Chess Openings Ancient and Modern, 2nd ed,

London 1893

Freeborough, E. and Ranken, C.E.: Chess Openings Ancient and Modern, 3rd ed, London

            1896

Freeborough, E. and Ranken, C.E.: Chess Openings Ancient and Modern, 4th ed, London

            1910

Golden Prague, October 11, 1892

Gossip, G.H.D.: The Chess Players' Text Book, New York 1889

Gossip, G.H.D.: The Chess Player's Vade Mecum and Pocket Guide to the Openings with

all the latest theoretical discoveries and traps in the openings revealed, London 1891

Gossip, G.H.D.: Theory of the Chess Openings, 1st ed, London 1879

Gossip, G.H.D.: Theory of the Chess Openings, 2nd ed, London 1891

Gossip, G.H.D.  and Lee, F.J.: The Complete Chess Guide, New York 1903

Graham, P. Anderson: Mr. Blackburne’s Games at Chess, London 1899

Guerrero Sanmarti, Richard, "Black Death" at www.ajedrezenmadrid.com

Harding, Tim: Counter Gambits, Sussex 1974

Harding, Tim, “Swansong of the Giuoco Piano (Part 1)” (September 2001) at

            www.chesscafe.com

Harding, Tim, “The Giuoco Piano (Part 2): The Case for the Defence (October 2001)

at www.chesscafe.com

Harding, Tim, “The Giuoco Piano on Trial (Part 3): The Summing-Up” (February 2002)

            at www.chesscafe.com

 Harding, Tim, “The Giuoco Piano on Trial: White Wins the Case!” (March 2003) at

www.chesscafe.com

Harding, Tim and Botterill, George: The Italian Game, London 1977

Huddersfield College Magazine, July, 1879

Keene, Raymond: The Complete Book of Gambits, London 1992

Keiser, Paul, “Jerome Trees,” personal communication, 2004

Lasker, Emmanuel, Lasker's Chess Magazine, March, 1906

Melao, Hindemburg, “Ajedrez a la Ciega”, at www.superajedrez.com

Miller, James W.: 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,

Cincinnati 1884

Mortimer, James: The Chess Player’s Pocket-Book and Manual of the Openings, London

            1888

New Orleans Times-Democrat, September 28,1881

New Orleans Times-Democrat, October 19, 1884

New Orleans Times-Democrat, October 26, 1884

New York Clipper, November 22, 1878

New York Clipper, November 1, 1879

Nordisk Skaktidende, May, 1877

Nuova Rivista Degli Scacchi, April, 1877

Nuova Rivista Degli Scacchi, December, 1877

Nuova Rivista Degli Scacchi, May, 1878

Pandolfini, Bruce: Chess Openings: Traps & Zaps, 1989

Parr, Larry, quoted in a post on rec.games.chess.politics May 16, 2002

Paulsen, William, “Chess Openings,” at www.csm.astate.edu/~wpaulsen/chess/chess.htm?002137

Pittsburgh Chronicle-Telegraph, February 27, 1884

Pittsburgh Telegraph, January 19, 1881

Pittsburgh Telegraph, February 2, 1881

Pittsburgh Telegraph, April 27, 1881Pittsburgh Telegraph, June 8, 1881

Pittsburgh Telegraph, November 2, 1881

Schiller, Eric: Gambit Chess Openings, New York 2002

Schiller, Eric: Unorthodox Chess Openings, 1st ed, New York 1998

Schiller, Eric: Unorthodox Chess Openings, 2nd ed, New York 2002

Schiller, Eric and Watson, John: Survive and Beat Annoying Chess Openings, New York

            2003

Sloan, Sam, quoted in a post on rec.games.chess.misc September 20, 1999

The Turf, March 26, 1880

Vazquez, Andres Clemente: Algunas Partidas de Ajedrez Jugadas in Mexico por Andres

               Clemente Vazquez, Mexico 1879  

Vazquez, Andres Clemente: Analisis del Juego de Ajedrez, 2nd ed, Mexico 1885

Vazquez, Andres Clemente: Analisis del Juego de Ajedres  3rd ed, Mexico 1889

Young, Jack, "Meet Jerome" in Randspringer #6, 1990-1991

Wall, Brian and Price, Tyrin at

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/BrianWallChess/message/80

Washington Post, April 14, 2003

Wenman, Percy: Master Chess Play, London 1951

Zuckerman, Bernard, “Piano Keys” in Chess Life, June, 1983

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]