Jerome Gambit Article: Followup Followup

I recently did a followup article to my posts on my Jerome Gambit article, lamenting the lack of information about how an author, or authors, came to label the Jerome Gambit player in Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1884 -  referred to as "Mr M" v Blackburne, in the May 10, 1884, Illustrated London News - as "Millner". A Facebook post led to a return post with a couple of links suggesting a couple of possible "Milner" players, and some bibliographical suggestions.

Alas, my InterLibraryLoan sleuthing has returned little.

The book Amos Burn: A Chess Biography, by Richard Forster (McFarland, 2004) does, indeed, list a "J. Milner" as playing (color not given) the 13th board in a 31 board match between Yorkshire and Lancashire, at Hudderfield, on March 11, 1899. He accomplished a draw against A. C. Haines.

That's it. (In a book of almost 1,000 pages.)

Add that to finding no "Millner" or "Milner" in Henry Joseph Blackburne: A Chess Biography (McFarland, 2015), by Tim Harding, and I pretty much have what my father used to call "a whole lot of nothing".

InterLibraryLoan also brought me Idel Becker's Manual de Xadrez, which Brazilian chess master Hindemburg Melão, Jr. in his article for the online chess site, SuperAjedrez, and, most recently, in the Facebook post, suggested might have the information I sought. Alas, I found only the game "Amador - Blackburne", that is Amateur - Blackburne. It could be that I was consulting the 4th edition, from 1969, which may have been changed since Becker's 1st edition, from 1948.

It could also be that the information was in the other book suggested by Hindemburg Melão, Jr., Ajadrez a la ciega, by Benito Lopes Esnaola - which the InterLibraryLoan was not able to provide for me.

I sense an upcoming visit to the White Collection, in Cleveland, to further research the issue. 

Mr. Fletcher's Gambits

I recently stopped by the website of the Bedford Chess Club, where I noted an interesting entry concerning "Mr. Fletcher's gambits", referring to  L. Elliot Fletcher's delightful book, Gambits Accepted, A Survey of Opening Sacrifices (1954).

The Bedford CC site has examples of 84 gambits that Fletcher covered, as well as 11 gambits that he had missed.

Interestingly enough, the site does not give the Jerome Gambit game that Fletcher provided, but includes the significant Sorensen - X, Denmark, 1888 (1-0, 27).

Fletcher quotes a club game for the Jerome; and none of the surviving games by Jerome himself were won by White. But apparently the Danish player and problemist Soren Sorensen showed an interest in the gambit. 

It is relevant to point out to Readers Sorensen's early article on the Jerome Gambit that was translated into a number of languages and was very influential in popularizing the opening.

I quickly emailed the Club secretary 

Dear Mr. Gill, 

I was delighted to come across your post on "Mr. Fletcher's gambits". A pleasant book I recall fondly, and hope your Club members appreciate as well. 

My own interest in gambits focuses on the Jerome Gambit, which I have researched for 15 years and maintain a blog about (jeromegambit.blogspot.com). I was impressed that you substituted the Sorensen game for Mr. Fletcher's anonymous club game. 

As a small, niggling point, I wanted to mention that I have 7 Jerome Gambit wins by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome in my database (which also includes 9 losses, 2 draws and 6 incomplete games). They are out there, they just required some digging. 

By inference I conclude that you did not accept Eric Schiller's erronious contention in his "Unorthodox Chess Openings" (1998) that the famous Blackburne win (London, 1880) was against Jerome himself; just so. 

Best wishes, 

Rick Kennedy

I soon learned that I had contacted the wrong person. Still, it was great to hear back from Bedford 

Good evening. 

I have to own up to being the perpetrator of the games collection on the Bedford club site based on Elliott Fletcher's book. Given that since I discovered the book in my 'teens (half a century ago) I have had a predilection for dodgy gambits, I guess I should share your view of Fletcher's book as "delightful". Revisiting the book I did find his uncritical attitude to a lot of complete trash a bit annoying and at times his analysis is seriously ropey (the irritation only vents itself openly, I think, in the last note to game 21). 

I think I probably found the Sorensen game courtesy of your blog and apologise for the fact that I didn't look hard enough to find the White wins by Jerome. I am asking the webmaster to amend the noted to Sorensen-NN on the website accordingly. 

I didn't know that friend Schiller was claiming that Blackburne's victim was Jerome himself. Had it been, I think Blackburne might have mentioned the fact in his own collection of his best games; and the fact that Tim Harding finds no evidence for it is pretty strong negative evidence as far as I am concerned. I accept that Schiller is a far stronger player than I will ever be, but (like you, I think) I don't rate him as an author. 

Regards,
Neil Hickman

It was easy to finish up with

Dear Mr. Hickman, 

I had a pleasant, good-natured chuckle at your comment that you found Fletcher's "uncritical attitude to a lot of complete trash a bit annoying" and that "at times his analysis is seriously ropey". Well put - and I agree. Nobody is likely to mistake "Gambits Accepted" for, say, Tartakower and Du Mont's "500 Master Games of Chess". Gary Kasparov's comment that "chess is not skittles" holds true for his portion of the chess world... 

Still, I am delighted at an actual, published  look (before the internet!) at amateur games by an amateur player. "Gambits Accepted" reminds me a bit of Rainer Schlenker's "Randspringer" - with weaker analysis, of course. 

I want to apologize for my snarky comment relating to Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's wins with his gambit. Finding them is not so easy, unless you're a bit of a fanatic (with too much time on his hands) like myself. 

I agree, if AWJ had crossed the pond to have his head handed to him by Blackburne in London in that famous Jerome Gambit game, Dr. Harding would have uncovered some trace of it. Certainly, over here, I have found no trace that the gambiteer ever even left the US. 

Thank you for your time. 

Best wishes,Rick 

Jerome Gambit: Puzzles and Mysteries (Part 2)

---

Before I began this blog, much of my investigation into the Jerome Gambit appeared online in the "Puzzles and Mysteries" section of Edward Winter's The Chess History Information and Research Center. Although it highlighted my mis-steps almost as often as my true discoveries, it provided valuable exposure to my quest, and put me in touch with a number of helpful sources, for which I remain expecially thankful to Mr. Winter.

With the help of the online Wayback Machine, I was able to bring much of this information forward. It adds to my earlier series of posts containing my longer Jerome Gambit article.

The October 1881 Brentano's Chess Monthly contains a letter from S. A.Charles on the gambit, as well as analysis taken from correspondence games played between Charles and Jerome. Charles also mentions he had published analysis on the gambit in the Pittsburg Telegraph.

Neil Brennen, 19.12.01

---

A Jerome Gambit Chronology

The March 1876 (No. 71, p.103) issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal (also known at different times as the American Chess Journal and Brownson's Chess Journal) contained a game between Alonzo Jerome and William Shinkman, called "Jerome's Double Opening": 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Bxd4 7.Qxd4 d6 8.0-0 Nf6 9.f4 c5 10.Qc3 Neg4 11.Nd2 b5 12.h3 h5 13.e5 b4 14.Qf3 Ba6 15.exf6 Bxf1 16.Qb7+ Kxf6 17.Ne4+ Kg6 18.f5+ Kxf5 19.hxg4+ Kg6 20.Qd5 Qd7 21.Qg5+ Kf7 22.gxh5 Bc4 23.b3 Be6 24.Bb2 Rag8 25.Rd1 d5 26.Be5 Rf8 27.Rf1+ Kg8 28.Nf6+ Rxf6 29.Bxf6 Rh6 30.Rf4 a5 31.Be5 c4 32.bxc4 dxc4 33.Bd4 a4 34.Re4 b3 35.cxb3 cxb3 36.a3 Qf7 37.g4 Qc7 38.Be5 b2 39.Bxb2 Qg3+ 40.Kf1 Qf3+ 41.Kg1 Qg3+ 42.Kf1 ½-½.

Around 1890, Blackburne won his famous game against an Amateur, at Simpson's Divan in London. It does not seem to have influenced written sources; perhaps it only appeared in print in Mr. Blackburne's Games at Chess, in 1899:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qxh8 Qh4 9.0-0 Nf6 10.c3 Ng4 11.h3 Bxf2+ 12.Kh1 Bf5 13.Qxa8 Qxh3+ 14.gxh3 Bxe4#

The Games section of Brentano's Chess Monthly, October 1881, contained 6 not-completed correspondence games between Jerome and S.A. Charles, with analysis. In an accompanying letter to the editor, Charles said he had "published in the Pittsburg Telegraph a compilation of such analyses of the Jerome Gambit as I could find, with some additions from published games." This is no doubt how Charles got identified in the American Supplement to Cooks' Synopsis as the opening's chief analyst.

Published in 1884, Cook's Synopsis of Chess Openings A Tabular Analysis by William Cook, With American Inventions in the Openings and Fresh Analysis since 1882, by J. W. Miller; had some analysis of the gambit, including the note "This move [4.Bxf7+] constitutes the Jerome Gambit, which, although unsound, affords some highly instructive analysis."

The first edition of Chess Openings Ancient and Modern, 1889, gives the Jerome Gambit its own chapter, calling it "a very risky attack." The second edition of Chess Openings Ancient and Modern, 1893, expands its analysis, but notes "it is very rarely practicised, 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 strengths and weaknesses apart from accidental circumstances, which in actual play may materially affect the result."

By 1906, Cook published The Evolution of the Chess Openings, with no mention of the Jerome Gambit.

Rick Kennedy, 01.01.02

---

Gathering information on the Jerome Gambit, (or "Jerome's Double Opening" asit was referred to in the Dubuque Chess Journal of March 1876), I have run across an article by W. John Lutes, in the 11/28/61 issue of the Ohio State University student chess club newsletter, "Phalanx". Lutes analyzes the opening, and refers to "Mortimer's analysis from MOCO." This appears to be a reference to James Mortimer, editor of The New Century Chess-Book, and Companion to the Chess Player's Pocket-Book; but neither title fits the intials referred to. (For what it's worth, the edition of MCO - Modern Chess Openings - available to Lutes was MCO9, and it has nothing on the Jerome.)

Can anyone supply the name of the reference? Thank you.

Rick Kennedy, 08.01.02

---

A couple of days in the Carnegie Library, Pittsburgh, viewing microfilm of the Pittsburg Telegraph, yields the following pieces to the Jerome Gambit puzzle (placed in temporal perspective around the previously noted article in the October 1881 issue of Brentano's Chess Monthly): 

Pittsburgh Telegraph, January 19, 1881: "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 tournay.... [analysis given]"

Pittsburgh Telegraph, February 2, 1881: "The following game played betwen the author of the 'Jerome Gambit' and another amateur." Jerome,A - Amateur 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ This move constitutes the gambit, and although unsound, as shown by Mr. Charles' analysis in this column, yet leads to some intersting and critical positions. 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 d6 8.f5+ Ke7 9.Nc3 Nf6 10.Qh4 c6 11.d3 Qe8 12.Bg5 b5 13.0-0-0 h5 14.d4 Bxd4 15.Rxd4 c5 16.Bxf6+ gxf6 17.Nd5+ Kf7 18.Qxf6+ Kg8 19.Ne7+ Kh7 20.Rxd6 Ng4 21.Qg5 1-0"

Pittsburgh Telegraph, April 27, 1881: "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 fo 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 correstions 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. Very respectfully, I. [sic] A. Charles... [analysis given]"

Pittsburgh Telegraph, June 8, 1881: "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."

Brentano's Chess Monthly, October 1881: "Some time since I published in the Pittsburg 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 consider the defenses here given to 6.d4 to be the best but he does not suggest any others. Very respectfully S.A. Charles... [analysis given]"

Pittsburgh Telegraph, November 2, 1881: "To the Chess Editor of the Telegraph. The following analysis is a compilation, but is primarily based on games played by me with Mr. Jerome. A part of it has appeared in Bretano's Chess Monthly for October, but as the notation there adopted is not as good, in my opininon, as the tabular form, and as it also comtains some misprints and errors, owing, perhaps to my chirography, I have thought best to rewrite and add to the article and forward to you if you have space for it. Very respectfully,S.A.Charles... [analysis given]"

Pittsburgh Telegraph, November 16, 1881: To and From Correspondents.Mr. Charles writes calling attention to small errors in his analysis of the Jerome Gambit.."

Pittsburgh Chronicle Telegraph, February 27, 1884: "In Cincinnati we met a number of players in the Mercantile Library, the chess room of which... 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."

Pittsburgh Chronicle Telegraph, May 21, 1884: "One feature of the first American Edition of "Cook's Synopsis of the Openings," which will soon be published by Robert Clarke and Co. of Cincinnati, will be a supplement containing the fresh analysis that has come into notice during the last two or three years. It is especially desired to give all American openings, or important American variations in the old openings. The Text of "Cook's Synopsis" will be presented exactly as it stands in the third and last edition, now out of print, but greatly in demand as it deserves to be. It is hoped that the additions will give the book a new value for America."

Please note the last item from the Chronicle Dispatch: both "fresh analysis that has come into notice during the last two or three years" and "it is especially desired to give all American openings" point towards the Jerome Gambit, regardless of its over-the-board merit. Note, too, that publisher Robert Clarke and Co. and the indefatigable S.A. Charles are both of Cincinnati.

Finally, readers who have flown in and out of Cincinnati may recall that its airport, actually, is across the river in Kentucky. Perhaps Joseph Blackburne's labelling of the Jerome Gambit (Mr. Blackburne's Games of Chess) as "the Kentucky Opening" is merely a slight error of geography.

Rick Kennedy, 18.07.02

Of course, Dr. Tim Harding clarified the date of the Jerome Gambit game Amateur - Blackburne, London, as 1884, some time back.

Despite my fanciful "geography lesson" above, the origin of "the Kentucky Opening" has ben pretty well established: see the blog posts "The Kentucky Opening" Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

It is likely that James Mortimer's "MOCO", referenced by Lutes, refers to his Manual of Chess Openings.

Jerome Gambit: Reassessing a Variation (Part 1)

I just completed my 3rd Jerome Gambit game in the first round of the "Italian Battleground" tournament at Chess.com. The win, making me 2 - 0 - 1 with my favorite opening, so far, should be enough to earn me first place in my group, and allow me to eventually move on to the second round.


perrypawnpusher - zmarian
"Italian Battleground" tournament, Chess.com, 2018

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ 

Despite Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's early preference, and that of Bill Wall and others, I have only played 6.d4 once, and that game took a bit of a swindle for me to get a draw. To each one's own.

6...g6 

This move was not a surprise. The best known Jerome Gambit game, Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1884 (see "Nobody expects the Jerome Gambit!" and "Jerome Gambit: Dr. Harding Checks In") features this move, and if my opponent was likely to know anything about the opening, this would be it.

7.Qxe5 Bxf2+ 

A bit of a surprise - but not really.

Instead of offering a Rook with the Blackburne Defense, 7...d6!?, or preparing a wicked counterattack with Whistler's Defense, 7...Qe7!?, my opponent plays what I have elsewhere referred to as an "inoffensive defense" (see "An Inoffensive Defense") and a "calming defense" (see "Nothing Happened").

The Database has a surprising 1,375 games with this position, with White scoring 53%, which compares favorably with ther 46% produced by 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+. (Nine games are mine, with White scoring 89%).

In our first game in this tournament, we quickly moved to an endgame where I was a pawn up - but it took some fancy calculating to win the game. My opponent currently has fashioned a very interesting blockading position in one of his other games (he is a pawn down) and should soon split the point. So, to see our game move quickly to a Queenless middlegame, with the promise of an endgame, was understandable - zmarian likes endgames.

8.Kxf2

ZahariSokolov of FICS has played 8.Ke2?!, but I can't recommend the move: 8...d6? 9.Qxh8? Qf6? 10.Qxh7+Kf8 11.h3 b6 12.Rf1 Ba6+ 13.d3 Re8 14.Rxf2 Rxe4+ 15.Be3 Qxf2+ 16.Kxf2 Black resigned, ZahariSokolov - Posapiano, standard, FICS, 2015. 

8...Qf6+ 

Black did not improve things by playing 8...Qh4+ 9.g3 Qf6+ 10.Qxf6+ Nxf6 11.Nc3 Re8 12.d3 c6 13.Kg2 Kg7 14.Bg5 Ng4 15.h3 Nh6 16.Rhf1 d6 17.Rf2 Be6 18.Raf1 Rf8 19.Bxh6+ Black resigned, perrypawnpusher - Hensel, blitz, FICS, 2014.

9.Qxf6+ Nxf6 

The curious game perrypawnpusher - ronn, blitz, FICS, 2009, continued 9...Kxf6 Black resigned.

10.Nc3

I have played 10.d3 a couple of times, in perrypawnpusher - Edvardinho, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 42) and perrypawnpusher - Dubnobase, blitz, FICS, 2013 (1-0, 49).

10...d6 


Black has a number of replies. I have faced 10...Re8 a couple of times: perrypawnpusher - Conspicuous, blitz, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 22) and perrypawnpusher - BEEB, blitz, FICS, 2011 (1/2-1/2, 63).

(Oddly enough, I don't seem to have posted either of these games on this blog. I will have to remedy that.)

11.d4 

Playable is 11.d3, which I have tried a couple of times: AlonzoJerome - adroit, blitz, ICC, 2011 (1-0, 25) and perrypawnpusher - HelloGoodbye, blitz, FICS, 2012 (1/2-1/2, 34).

(You wouldn't have known it by this blog, though: two more games to find and post. What was going on in 2011 and 2012, I wonder.)

11...Bd7 

Interesting. Understandable was 11...Rf8, which I have also faced in perrypawnpusher - Mences, blitz, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 48).

(Also not posted here. Very odd. My "to do list" is growing.)

[To be continued]

Don't get me started...

About five years ago, someone in the rec.games.chess.misc newsgroup asked about the chess player Isidor Gunsberg, noting

chessmetrics.com, sometimes interesting to check for historical purposes, rates Gunsberg as #3 in the world for 1890 and 1891 based on his performances.

He had some pretty nice tournament results, such as

- 1st place DSB Kongress in 1885, ahead of players like Blackburne, Tarrasch, Mackenzie, and Bird

- 2nd place USA Congress in 1889, behind the tied Miksa Weiss and Tchigorin, and ahead of Burn, Blackburne, Max Judd (probably the best player in the USA at that time), Bird, Showalter

- Tied 2nd place London 1900, and lone 2nd place at London 1904

His match results were also notable, such as:

- Victory over Blackburne in 1887 (7/12 to 5/12)

- Drawing with the peak-form Tchigorin in 1890! (11.5/23) This just after Tchigorin`s World Championship match

- Losing the 3rd FIDE-recognised World Championship match to Steinitz in 1890, by 2 games (8.5/19)

Of course,I had to ask if anyone knew if Gunsberg, an openings explorer in his own right, had ever played the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+).

After receiving the obligatory put-down that the opening was "considered unsound by all reputable theoreticians" I started my typical yammering on my favorite opening in response.

George,

Thank you for your comments and the information on the Jerome Gambit! It's a topic I can really get lost in..

> The Jerome Gambit, considered unsound by all reputable theoreticians,

G.H.D. Gossip, in his "Theory of the Chess Openings," 2nd ed, 1879, wrote "the Gambit, which although unsound, affords some highly instructive analysis for less practised players."

William Cook, in his "Synopsis of the Chess Openings," 3rd ed, 1882, wrote that "the Jerome Gambit, which, although unsound, affords some highly instructive analysis."

The "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" edited by J.W. Miller, noted "The 'Jerome Gambit,' 4.BxPch, involves an unsound sacrifice; but it is not an attack to be trifled with. The defense requires study, and is somewhat difficult."

(One book reviewer suggested that the offense required study, too; and that the game was even more difficult for White than for Black!)

Of course, Raymond Keene had the (almost) last word in his "The Complete Book of Gambits" 1992 - "This is totally unsound and should never be tried!"

> first appeared in the American Chess Journal in 1876, according to The Oxford Companion to Chess.

To the best of my knowledge, the first appearance of the Jerome Gambit was in the Dubuque Chess Journal for April 1874, in a small article titled "New Chess Opening." (Yes, I've shared this information with Mr. Whyld, and he has been quite pleasant and supportive in my Jerome Gambit researches.)

>It was recommended by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome of Paxton,Illinois. Jerome was born on 8 March 1834 in Four Mile Point, New York, and died on 22 March 1902 in Springfield, Illinois. His obituary appeared in the 23 March 1902 edition of the Illinois State Journal - page 6, column 3.

I have a copy of the obituary - it is short, about a half-dozen sentences. In light of such a paltry send-off, I can understand why some people would want to write their own death notices.

> The Jerome Gambit (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. Bxf7+?) cannot be recommended for serious chess since Black gains the advantage after 4...Kxf7 5. > Nxe5+ Nxe5 6. Qh5+ Kf8 7. Qxe5 d6.

There are several refutations of the Jerome Gambit.

The 6...Kf8 line was first given by Jerome, himself, in the July 1874 Dubuque Chess Journal. It has shown up in such fine places as Harding's "Counter Gambits" 1974, ECO "C" 1st ed, 1974, "Batsford Chess Openings," 1st ed, 1982 and "Enciclopedia Dei Gambietti," 1998. Sorensen, in his May 1877 article in Nordisk Skaktidende, "Chess Theory for Beginners," (subsequently translated in Chess Players' Chronicle of August of the same year) recommended 5...Kf8. Of course, 6...Ke3 is also playable.

Jerome, himself, kept things in perspective. The Pittsburg Telegraph, June 8, 1881, wrote "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."

Others joined in the jocularity. The Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, in its May 7, 1879 review of Gossip's "Theory" noted "...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. As this opening is not in any Manual, to our knowledge, we transfer it to our columns, with the exception of a few minor variations, and we believe our readers will thank us for so doing."

In a March 13, 1880 review of the 6th ed of the Handbuch, the same author" complained" again: "We are somewhat disappointed that the 'Thorold Variation' of the 'Allgaier Gambit' should be dismissed with only a casual note in the appendix, and that the "Jerome Gambit" should be utterly (even if deservedly) ignored."

Enough. I'll close with a comment from Lasker, in his Chess Magazine, in reply to a correspondent "Ichabodf: - 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."

Rick Kennedy

Jerome Gambit: Another Day In The Life Of

Here is another (see "Jerome Gambit: Full-Bodied Defense") Jerome Gambit game which should be routine and boring. Black makes a mistake on move 7, turning his clear advantage into a clear disadvantage. In fact, this had happened twice before in Bill Wall games, and they showed "1-0" in 10 moves or less (in a third game, Black struggled on for 10 more moves).

So, Bill takes his advantage and moves on to the win. Things were not that simple, though. Watch.

Wall, Bill - Anonymous
lichess.org, 2019

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ 

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.f4 g6

It is fun, kicking White's Queen. However, this move gives up the Knight at e5 and the Rook at h8. (If you worry about being greedy, you can substitute capturing the Bishop at c5.)

8.Qxe5+ Kf7 9.Qxh8 

Here, Black resigned in Wall, Bill - DGTS, FICS, 2011. 

9...Qh4+ 10.g3

Here, Black resigned, in Wall, Bill - Guest1681797, PlayChess.com, 2013,

10...Qh3

Or 10...Qf6 11.Qxh7+ Qg7 12.Qxg7+ Kxg7 13.Nc3 d6 14.Nd5 Bb6 15.b3 Bg4 16.Bb2+ Kh7 17.Nxb6 axb6 18.Kf2 Re8 19.h3 Be6 20.g4 Black resigned, Wall, Bill - Guest862403, Play.Chess.com 2014.

11.d3 d5 

So, here we go. White is up the exchange and a couple of pawns. His Queen is a bit uncomfortable in the corner, at h8, however, and his King is not altogether safe. What to do?

12.Qe5 

Perfectly reasonable. Anyone who has ever seen Amateur - Blackburne, London, 1884 (see "Nobody expects the Jerome Gambit!" and "Jerome Gambit: Dr. Harding Checks In") would not wait for ...Nf6, locking in White's Queen.

Now, White goes on to win in three dozen more moves.

But - wait. Stockfish 10, recommends, instead, 12.f5!?, with a whole lot of crazy tactics -  12...Bxf5 (not 12...gxf5 because of 13.Nd2 dxe4 14.Nxe4!? fxe4 15.Rf1+ and attack) 13.Qe5 and the f-file will be trouble for Black, especially after ...Qg2 is met by Rf1. Just one example of play is 13...dxe4 14.Qxc5 exd3 15.Qxc7+ Kf8 16.Qc5+ Kg7 17.Nc3 Qg2 18.Rf1 dxc2 19.Be3 Re8 20.g4 Qxg4 21.Kd2 - and you can see why Bill simply chose to remove his Queen!

12...c6

Black supports his d-pawn - but Stockfish 10 will have none of it. To keep only about a three-fourths of a pawn behind, Black should try 12...Qg2 13.Rf1 Bg4!? 14.Qxd5+ Kg7 15.Nc3 b6!? when 16.f5 Nf6!? 17.Qc4 (not 17.Qxa8? Bd4! with a forced mate) Qxh2 18.d4 Qxg3+ 19.Rf2 Qg1+ 20.Qf1 Qxf1+ 21.Rxf1 Bxd4 22.fxg6 hxg6 23.Nb5 Be5 24.Bf4 Bxf4 25.Rxf4 g5 26.Rf1 Nxe4 27.Rg1 Nf6 leaves Black with a pawn for the exchange...

So - Black's choice of a move is understandable, too.

13.f5 gxf5 14.Nd2 Nf6 15.Nf3 Qg2 16.Rf1 Qxc2 

It is humorous to point out that Stockfish 10 sees White as being the equivalent of 4 pieces ahead. I am not sure that Bill's King felt that way!

17.Ng5+ Kg7 18.Bd2 Qxd3 19.exf5 

This will support White's Knight when it comes to e6. For sheer madness, take a look at 19.Rf3 Qc4 20.Rf4 

19...h6 20.Ne6+ Bxe6 

21.fxe6

This is fine, altough Stockfish 10 recommends 21.O-O-O!? Qc4+
22.Bc3 Bd4 23.Qxd4 Qxd4 24.Rxd4 Bg8 when White would still be up the exchange.

21... Bd4 22.Qc7+ Kh8 23.O-O-O Qc4+ 24. Kb1 Ne4 25. Bc1 Qb4 

26.e7 

Cold blooded. Others might have returned the exchange with 26.Rxd4 to deal with one threat to b2, or tried 26.Ka1 to avoid the nasty 26...Nc3+ fork. Instead, Bill enlists the "Jerome pawn" in his checkmate threats.

26... Nc3+ 27.Ka1 Nxd1 28.Qd8+ Rxd8 

Abject surrender, although 28...Kh7 29.Rxd1 Bg7 30.Qxa8 Qxe7 would also leave him a Rook down. 

29.exd8=Q+ Kg7 

30.Qd7+ Kh8 31.Qe8+ Kh7 32.Rf7+ Bg7 33.Qd7 Qd4
34.Qf5+ Kg8 35.Re7 Qf6 36.Re8+ Kf7 37.Qh5+ Qg6 38.Re7+ Black resigned

He will soon be down a Queen for a few pawns.