Jerome Gambit: Down the Rabbit Hole, Again (Part 4)

[continued from the previous post]

Deacon, Frederic - Steinitz, William
match, London,1862

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 

The Evans Gambit.

4...Bb6

Declined.

5.b5

While not popular in modern play, this move is, nonetheless, quite direct, and leads to a tactical melee.

5...Na5 6.Nxe5 

There is at least a slight similarity to the play after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 (hoping for the Jerome Gambit) Na5 4.Nxe5 (the "serious" recommendation, instead of Jerome-izing the game with 4.Bxf7+).

6...Bd4

This looks like Steinitz's invention. Opening books at the time recommended either 6...Qf6 or 6...Nh6, when Black might (or might not) have an edge. Today, Komodo 10 shows a preference (32 ply deep) for the Blackburne Shilling Gambit-ish 6...Qg5.

7.Bxf7+ 

Stronger was 7.Nxf7. Now Black slowly outplays his opponent.

7...Kf8 8.Ba3+ d6 9.Bxg8 Kxg8 10.c3 Bxe5 11.d4 Bf6

Black has a piece for two pawns, and can continue to pull his game together.

12.Nd2 Be6 13.Qe2 Qe8 14.O-O Qf7 

15.d5 Bd7 16.Rac1 Re8 17.Qd3 b6 18.f4 Nb7 19.Nf3 h6

Komodo doesn't like this last move, suggesting that it can be answered by 20.e5, with advantage to White. It is fine with 19...Qg6 20.Rce1 h6, (advantage Black) which the game transposes into. 

20.Rce1 Qg6 21.f5 Qf7 22.g4 Kh7 23.h4 g5 24.hxg5 Bxg5 

Taking the Bishop off of the a1-h8 diagonal is a mistake, as White immediatly shows. 

25.e5 Qg8

This does not stop the pawns from advancing, "Jerome pawn" style, as part of a mating attack.

26.e6 Bc8 27.f6+ Qg6 28.Nxg5+ hxg5 29.Rf5 Nd8 30.Re2 Nf7 31.Rxg5 Rhg8 32.Rh2+ Nh6 33.Rgh5 Kh8 34.Rxh6+ Qxh6 35.Rxh6 checkmate

Verdict: interesting game, snappy conclusion - but, all told, not likely to be mistaken as a Jerome Gambit game.

[to be continued]

Jerome Gambit: Down the Rabbit Hole, Again (Part 3)

[continued from the previous post]

Foolishly chasing A. G. Johnson's claim, in The Oregon Daily Journal, that Wilhelm Steinitz "in the zenith of his career as world's champion succumbed in his first attempt to defend the [Jerome] gambit", I searched through ChessBase's Big Database for any possibly relevant Steinitz game. I turned up a couple of games that appeared to be distant relations to the Jerome Gambit - and immediately tumbled upon a dissertation by Steinitz on one of his opponents, in, among others, Deacon - Steinitz, match game, London, 1863. Planning, also, to share the other discovery, Robey - Steinitz, London, 1865, I tripped over the following anecdote, concerning both Deacon and Robey, from George Alcock MacDonnell's The Knights and Kings of Chess (Horace Cox, 1894).

The following incident in his game with Mr. F. Deacon (at that time reputed to be one of the strongest players in England) is, I think, not unworthy of record. In the course of the fight, which took place at St. James's Hall, Mr. Deacon left the table, and sought out his friend, the late Mr. Staunton. Finding that gentleman surrounded by a host of admirers— myself included—he invited all of us to come and witness the grand finale with which he was going to crown his victory over James Roby. We at once accepted the invitation, and crowded round his board. "You see," said Deacon, in a whisper, to Staunton, "he must take the pawn or the bishop; if he takes the pawn I sacrifice the exchange and mate in four; and if he takes the bishop I sacrifice the queen, the queen, sir, and mate in seven." "Indeed," muttered the British autocrat. 

Scarce had this little scene been enacted when Roby looked up from the board, on which he had been gazing for a long time, and surveying the increased concourse of spectators, smilingly looked at Deacon, who was standing opposite to him, and exclaimed, "Won't you take your seat, Mr. Deacon?" The polite Deacon at once sat down. 

"It's mate in five," said Roby, still looking at his opponent. "No," replied Deacon; "if you make the best move I cannot mate you in less than seven."  

"It's mate in five," rejoined the hardhearted Roby. "It is I who give the mate, not you." Then followed rapidly a series of brilliant moves, and in two minutes Roby arose from the table triumphant, leaving his opponent to sit on there, utterly amazed and chapfallen.

Another fine chess story! Dr. Tim Harding, in his British Chess Literature to 1914: A Handbook for Historians (McFarland, 2018), dates its first appearance to MacDonnell's chess column in the February 20, 1866 issue of the Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News, and, in considering Deacon - Robey, B.C.A. Grand Tournament, London, 1862, suggested that "the facts somewhat spoil the story". Nonetheless...

Oh? The chess games? The not-quite Jerome Gambit games that A. G. Johnson was probably not referring to? That will have to wait until the next blog post...

[to be continued]

Jerome Gambit: Down the Rabbit Hole, Again (Part 2)

[continued from the previous post]

Wilhelm Steinitz discussed Frederic Deacon in the September 1891 issue of his International Chess Magazine.

The first, and as far as I recollect the only version of the dispute about the Deacon - Morphy games I heard from Deacon himself, and it is in brief as follows. Deacon stated that he played two games with Morphy on even terms of which each won one, but when they were published Morphy declared that he had never played with Deacon, and if he had been asked to play he would have only consented on the terms that Deacon should receive the odds of Pawn and move. Some public controversy arose in consequence, which, however, was practically stopped at least in England by a letter of Colonel Deacon, a brother of Mr. Deacon, to the Illustrated London News, which stated that he had seen Morphy playing with his brother at the latter's own house (if I remember rightly). The two flatly contradictorv statements could not well be reconciled, and perhaps there may be some Englishmen to the present day who believe that Morphy was not up to the truth in the matter, but 1 believe I can throw some light on the subject that will clear the American master from all suspicion with out impugning Colonel Deacon's veracity, though 1 must somewhat doubt his Chess understanding. 

For I judge that Deacon played on Morphy a trick similar to the one which he practised upon myself in the following manner. Shortly after I had played my match with him in 1863 he invited my attention on one occasion when we were both alone in the rooms of the London Chess Club to a new move which he said he had invented in one of the openings. At that time a novelty in the openings was considered quite a revelation, and as I knew little of the books I got interested and consented at his request to examine the variation with him. It was a line of play in the King Knight opening for the defence, [ believe, which 1 have never adopted before or since in actual practice. Writing from recollection I think he assigned to me the defence after 1 P—K4, 1 P—K4: 2 K Kt— B3, 2 P—Q4, [1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 d5] and he claimed that he could improve on the book attack which he showed me first. In the skittle analysis which followed I demolished his suggested novelty in several main lines of play as well as in subvariations which he tried after taking moves back. But at last, probably owing to some thoughtless move which I had adopted in the investigation, he got hold of a better position and then he began to move slowly. But when I wanted to amend my previous play as he had done repeatedlv before he begged of me to go on on the plea that he believed he would construct a fine position from that point for analytical purposes or perhaps for a problem (for he was also a composer). He then deliberated on each move as if it were a match game, and if anyone had came into the room he must have thought we were playing a real hard fight. After some more moves the position resolved itself into an ending in which he had a decisive advantage and I agreed ultimately not to go on further. On another occasion shortly after that another opening was made the subject of one experiment and the same story almost exactly repeated itself. Great was, however, my surprise when about six months later I saw two games published which were alleged to have been played between Deacon and myself in the Dutch Chess journal Sissa. They comprised the opening moves in the two "novelties" which were the subject of our investigation, but almost all the rest (and I am certain about the concluding six or eight moves on each side) was entirely a new and imaginary fabrication Mr. Deacon was at the time when I first saw the games in Belgium, where he regularlv resided for several months during the year. On his return to England I remonstrated with him about the two so-called games, and I gave him a bit of my mind on the subject personally, but I did not proceed further in the matter for Deacon, though a so-called "gentleman" on account of his independent means, was already well known in London as a sort of Chess crank who tried to "correct fortune" as regards his Chess reputation by mean deceptions. But some time afterward it also came out that he had played similiar tricks on Signor Dubois and also to Mr. Blackburne and the Rev. J. Owen, and especially the latter gentleman threatened to take action against Deacon at the St. Georges Chess Club, of which both were members. Deacon then disappeared and retreated to his Belgian refuge. He was never seen in London again, and about a year afterward his death was announced. Judging from that I have no doubt that Morphy was entrapped to answer some analytical questions and to investigate some suggestions of Deacon over the board. What Colonel Deacon saw was nothing more than experimenting, in the course of which Morphy most probably had given back moves, as I did subsequently. Some variations which emanated from those trials may have formed the foundation for the manufacture of the games which Deacon claimed to have played against Morphy, but in all probability part of the middle and the end was entirely imaginary and never occurred at all, even during the experiments, as was the case in the two above described games which Deacon alleged to have played against myself.

[to be continued] 

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.)