Jerome Gambit: Down the Rabbit Hole, Again (Part 1)

I admit that after assembling the latest blog post concerning some chess history (see "Jerome Gambit: History Reset") I tumbled down the rabbit hole, again, concerning A. G. Johnson's claim, in The Oregon Daily Journal of Portland, Oregon, for  October 25, 1914, that Wilhelm Steinitz, while world chess champion, had lost to the Jerome Gambit the first time he had faced it.

Such a claim is outrageous on its face - a master playing the Jerome Gambit successfully, or, even worse, an Amateur doing so against the great Steinitz - and it could hardly have been hidden from the chess world, nor would the victor of such a game have been able to keep from sharing it with every player he knew!

Contrast this, as one example, with the report on Emanuel Lasker's simultanous exhibition, as reported in the October 18, 1906 Pittsburgh Press, where he defeated E. H. Miller's Jerome Gambit. Apparently neither player was interested in sharing the game score; or, if either did, the chess columnist could not be bothered to publish it. Ho-hum...

Still, how hard could it be to do one more check?

I fired up my copy of ChessBase, peered into the Big Database, and Filtered Games, looking for "Steinitz" playing Black, an outcome of "1-0", ECO of C50, and a game Position featuring Black's King on e8 and White's Bishop on f7.

Nothing.

So, I removed the ECO requirement.

Four games appeared, two of which could immediately be discarded: Blackburne - Steinitz, match game, London, 1863, and Chigorin - Steinitz, World Championship match game, 1889  - known games, and, certainly, not Jerome Gambits (they were Evans Gambits). What remained was Deacon - Steinitz, match game, London, 1863, and Robey - Steinitz, London, 1865. 

This immediately provided me with another distraction.

Frederick Deacon is alleged to have published spurious game accounts of wins against Paul Morphy (who claimed never to have played him) and Steinitz. The 1863 Deacon - Steinitz match game from my database seems to be legitimate, and has certain "Jerome-like" qualities, so it might be worth a peek, with the caveat: we think of Jerome Gambits as primarily arising from the move order 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ and often continuing 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+; the Bishop sacrifice and the Queen excursion are markers, although sometimes the label of "Jerome Gambit" has been mis-applied.

First, though, let us have a look at the thoughts of Wilhelm Steinitz, as he considers Mr. Deacon.

[to be continued]

Jerome Gambit: But Will It Matter?

The following Jerome Gambit is the kind of game that players either love or hate - depending on how you feel about the opening.

I suspect that, after the game, White could hardly suppress a bad case of the giggles, while Black was probably left sputtering "But... but... but..."

cndbrn79 - rohit0107 
blitz, 2019 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.c3

An unusual try (41 games in The Database), reminiscent of the Giuoco Piano proper, scoring 37%. White is displaying all the confidence of a world champion, while Black is trying to keep up.

8...Nd3+ 

Delightful. Of course Black is better, but will it matter?

9.Kf1 

White can't even protect his Bishop with 9.Kd1, as it would leave him open to the Knight fork at f2, winning a Rook.

9...Nxc1 10.d4 Bb6 

Hoping to catch his breath, and count all of his extra material. Not to worry, he will bet a break, momentarily.

11.Qe5+ Kc6 12.Qd5 checkmate

Oh, dear.

Jerome Gambit: History Reset

NN - Blackburne, London, 1884

The other day, I stumbled over a remark (from May 22, 2017) by zanzibar, at the Chessgames.com website. He was commenting on the (in)famous Jerome Gambit game,  NN - Blackburne, casual game, London, 1884, and noted

Fine uses a position from this game (p088, d135), after Black's 12th move, but omits the White queen on a8.

zanzibar was referring to Reuben Fine's The Middle Game in Chess (David McKay, 1952), the chapter on "The Mating Attack". After giving the diagram (see above), Fine wrote [descriptive notation changed to algebraic notation]

Blackburne also found the mate in diagram 135 during a blindfold seance. He played 1...Qxh3+!! 2.gxh3 Bxe4 mate

It is likely that, in his diagram, GM Fine left off White's Queen from a8, where it was placed in the game, for instructional purposes, as it arrived on that square after accepting Black's double Rook sacrifice, in the most scruffy of chess openings, where White had sacrificed two pieces - all too much distraction from the case at hand.

GM Fine's contention that the game was played blindfold also raises an eyebrow. The Illustrated London News' May 10,1884 account of the game makes no mention of Blackburne playing blindfold. Indeed, Mr Blackburne's Games at Chess (1899) places the game in the "Games Played Off-Hand, Simultaneously or at Odds" chapter, rather than the "Games Played Blindfold" chapter.

Interestingly, the Blackburne position in The Middle Game in Chess follows one given by Fine as

reached by Pillsbury in a blindfold exhibition 

What is a bit odd about this is that Pillsbury was, according to the diagram, playing the Black pieces - usually the blindfold player is given the White pieces. For example, Jaques N. Pope's Harry Nelson Pillsbury American Chess Champion (Pawn Island Press, 1996), contains almost 250 blindfold games, and Pillsbury has White in all but one of the games. While P.W. Sergeant and W.H. Watts, in their Pillsbury's Chess Career (American Chess Bulletin, 1922) suggest that "he must have played many thousands such games" - only one of their 44 blindfold games had Pillsbury with Black.

Fortunately, Pope comes to the rescue. On the first page of his "Other Games" chapter, he gives the following position, from which follows "a pretty combination he played as black in a knight odds game [emphasis mine] in 1899." Popes's reference is Vol. XIX, no. 22, November 25, 1899, the Literary Digest, which gives the piece placement in a "Pillsbury Brilliancy", describing it as coming from an

offhand game betwen Pillsbury and a strong amateur, the latter securing the odds of a Kt. 

Amateur - Pillsbury, 1899 (Kt odds)

 1...Qf7 2.Bxe4 Reaching the position that Fine started with in his diagram [descriptive notation changed to algebraic notation]. 2...Qf1+ 3.Bg1 Qf3+ 4.Bxf3 Bxf3 checkmate.

(I mean no offense to the memory GM Fine, whose chess set I would have been unworthy to carry. History needed a reset, and I've done it before.) 

Jerome Gambit: Second Worst

• 
  
• Readers, I try to keep better track of these things, I really do, and, when I find them, in the interest of balance, I share them.
• Recently I ran across a forum discussion at Chess.com, from about a year a half ago. The topic was "What is the worst opening?"
• chesster3145 shared his personal top 3 worst chess openings, and, of course, his 2nd worst was

The Jerome Gambit in the Italian (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. Bxf7+??) which is completely refuted by not one, but two brain-dead simple lines. 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ and now both 6...Ke6 and 6...Kf8 refute the gambit, although 6...Ke6 requires some homework.

Certainly, chesster3145's opinion should be respected, and I appreciate his perspective; although I wonder if refuting the Jerome Gambit is all that "brain-dead simple" - at least in the world of the online club player.
I just checked with The Database, and I noticed 1,120 Jerome Gambit games with 6...Ke6, in which White scored 54%; and 674 Jerome Gambit games with 6...Kf8, in which White scored 50%.
(Of course, I challenged chesster3145 to a game. We will see.) 

Jerome Gambit Coverage Recovered

While most modern chess masters, justifiably, have nothing to do with the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+), years ago International Master Gary Lane had a bemused affection for the offbeat opening, and discussed it in his "Opening Lanes" column at ChessCafe.com, and in his book The Greatest Ever Chess Tricks and Traps (Everyman Chess, 2008).

Lane's book is still available, but his two "Opening Lanes" columns - "A Game of Shadows" and "Trash or Treasure?" with Jerome Gambit content are no longer freely accessible in they way they used to be (i.e. direct link via ChessCafe.com), which means that the links supplied previously by this blog (e.g. in "International Master Gary Lane" and "Opening Lanes") no longer work.

ChessCafe is currently maintained by ChessEdu.org, which requires a $25 (or more) "tax deductible donation" in order to access their "thousands of PDFs and hundreds of Ebooks" (including "Opening Lanes") available to members.

However, through the wizardry of the archiving Wayback Machine website, you can still feast (gratis) upon IM Lane's Jerome Gambit creativity: "A Game of Shadows" and "Trash or Treasure?". (These links have also been updated in the Wikipedia article on "Giuoco Piano, Jerome Gambit".)

Jerome Gambit: More Fun On Top Of That

Winning with the Jerome Gambit is fun.

Checkmating your opponent with the Jerome Gambit is even more fun.

Checkmating your opponent with the Jerome Gambit in a 1 0 bullet game is even more fun, on top of that.

Let angelcamina, at lichess.org, show you. 

angelcamina - khoshghadam
1 0 bullet, lichess.org, 2020

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

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

7.f4 g6

A knee-jerk reaction - Kick that Queen! - that surrenders Black's advantage. The defender spent 3 seconds on this move, which is a bit of a luxury in a bullet game, and which illustrates the dangers of facing the Jerome Gambit at high speed: it's a whole lot easier to figure out a defense when you have time enough to think about it.

8.Qxe5+ Kf7 9.Qxc5 

Recently, we saw Bill Wall capture the Rook at h8, instead.

9...d6 10.Qe3 Nf6 11.O-O Re8 12.d3 Bg4 

I am not sure what this move is about. Black could have hit the center with 12...d5, or protected a part of it with 12...c6, instead.

13.h3 Bd7 14.Nc3 Bc6 15.Qg3 d5

Okay, but White's attack rolls on.

16.e5 Nh5 17.Qf3 d4 

Black attacks a Knight while uncovering an attack on the Queen. However, White's natural response is sufficient.

18.Ne4 Ng7

Anticipating action at f5, but he is already too late.

19.g4 Ne6 20.f5 

20...Bxe4 21.dxe4 

If you saw that 21.fxg6+ right away led to an even faster checkmate, good for you.

21...Ng5 22.fxg6+ Kxg6 23.Qf5+ Kg7 24.Bxg5 Qc8 25.Qf7+ Kh8 26.Bf6 checkmate

A fun conclusion.

Modern Guide to Gambits

Wow!

Nikolai Kalinichenko, a correspondence grandmaster, has written The Club Player's Modern Guide To Gambits: Fighting Chess from the Get-go (Russell Enterprises, 2019).

I was excited, and, since his focus was on "club players", and he was looking at "fighting chess from the get-go" I could not wait to see what he had written on the Jerome Gambit.

Checking out the table of contents, I was pleased to see that his list of gambits included some of the offbeat gambits, such as the Cochrane Gambit, the Latvian Gambit, the Sicilian Wing Gambit, the Icelandic Gambit, the von Hennig-Schara Gambit, the Englund Gambit, and even the Blackmar Diemer Gambit.

Alas, no Jerome Gambit.

Even if it had been a chapter on "How to Defeat the Jerome Gambit", it would have been interesting and welcome. (I guess you will have to settle for the blog posts "An International Master Refutes the Jerome Gambit" and "A GM Faces the Jerome Gambit [Part 1 and 2]").

Oh, well, maybe next time.