What kind of a man dares to play the Jerome Gambit?
For that matter, what kind of a man invents the Jerome Gambit??
We can get an idea of the creativity of Alonzo Wheeler Jerome in this excerpt from The American Chess Journal for June, 1877.
In the January Journal Mr. Lloyd, in noticing a book of problems by Sr. Vazquez, expressed surprise in the idea of a Pawn becoming a King. He says: "The second problem is a mate in two, commencing by P to 8th, claiming a King! As this may conform to the special code of Chess Laws as applicable to problems, which I explained last month I had not seen, I feel incompetent to pass judgement upon it." The following is the position of Sr. Vazquez, referred to above:
About the same we received a note from A. W. Jerome, asking if a Pawn could not claim King on reaching the 8th square. We replied in the negative, referring him to the remark above, and also quoting from "Chess Laws & Practice," by Staunton and Wormald, p.61, as follows: "A Pawn advanced to the 8th rank assumes the name and privileges of any superior piece except a King."
Taking advantage of the careless wording of the rule of the American Chess Association relating to the promotion of a Pawn, Mr. Jerome is disposed to "insist on his right" to "crown" all his pawns, as they do at checkers, and writes as follows:
Editor Journal: You ask if I was satisfied in regard to two kings. I was not; but as Vazquez was ahead of me with the idea, I backed down to let him defend it. Your quotation from Staunton and Wormald (individuals) does not seem to me of as much weight as the Rules of the American Chess Association and the London Chess Club. Should the dictum of a handbook editor weigh against a Club rule? I think not. I do not think, however, that the question of kinging a pawn was ever discussed by any Club while forming their rules, for the reason, probably, that it had never occurred to them that there could be any position in which a second King would be of advantage. My idea is that when a Pawn has safely run the gauntlet and reached the Royal Rank, it is entitled to become the piece that will do the most good. Suppose the position I sent you in the diagram published in January Journal to occur in actual play in a game in which the White had agreed to mate in a certain number of moves, or lose the game, would it not be fair that he should have the privilege of calling the Pawn at Bishop's 8th any piece which would enable him to win? Kinging a Pawn seems to be a logical deduction from the rule, while the prohibition of it is arbitrary and not founded in reason. True, all rules for
all games are, originally, arbitrary, but there are sequences which naturally follow, and kinging a pawn seems naturally to follow the idea that a Pawn can be changed for a piece when it has reached the eighth rank.I can see that the objection may be made that a position might occur wherein one King was about to be mated, when one of his pawns could "king" on the next move, involving the necessity of capturing the original King – an innovation not likely to be adopted among chess players.
In relation to the position in January No. Mr. Carpenter asks: "Why not 1.R-K8 and 2 mates?" Why, bless his heart, he may, if he wants to; and if he is not afraid of the consequences of running the Rook beyond the confines of space (so far as that diagram is concerned) he may play it to either Knight's 1, 2, 3 or 4. To make the diagram all right, however, and to better illustrate the point I made above in relation to mating in a certain number of moves, we will put a black Pawn at KR3 and a white Pawn at KR5.
Respectfully Yours, A.W. Jerome
Without entering into an argument in detail to refute the points made by Mr. Jerome, we will make issue with him by asserting that there is no rule of the American Chess Association, of of the London Chess Club or any other authoritative chess body or code, which permits a pawn to become a king. Mr. Jerome, in insisting on a strict construction of the rule he quotes does violence to the time-honored laws and usages of the game, and attempts to rule out authorities which have never before been called into question. Here is a plain issue, and it is now in order for Mr. Jerome to call on the bystanders to decide between us as to whether the American Chess Association really intended the rule to convey the meaning our correspondent claims. The term "bystanders" may include the Handbooks, most of which, if not all, explicitly except the King when stating that a Pawn may be promoted, &c. Suppose Mr. J. were playing with us the odds game he mentions in his remarks, and he attempted to King a Pawn; we object and he pleads the rule of the American Chess Association, to which we should demur on the grounds that it is not the law, don't Mr. J. think he would have some trouble to find a judge "learned in the law" of Chess who would decide the games in his favor?
Mr. Jerome gives the following position, remarking "Kinging a Pawn seems natural and right, and when there is no help for the death of the old King, and there is a prince of the line to take his place, why not shoot as follows?"
"The King is dead -- long live the King."
White to play and mate in two moves.
Mr. Jerome has not given us the solution to his position, but it seems to us that the old King is not yet dead – only in a comatose state, (unless it be argued that owing to his forlorn condition he has already committed hari-kari), and that the Knight may kill him, after which the Q can make a rather unpleasant for the new King.
graphic by Jeff Bucchino, "The Wizard of Draws"
