<"The Household Chess Magazine" was a British chess magazine published in 1865. It was a quarterly publication that included chess riddles, charades, and other chess-related content. The magazine was published for only three issues, from January to March 1865.

Here's a more detailed look:

Confirmed, it shows up as analysis in an article on the Evans Gambit by B. v. Guretsky-Cornitz, in the <Neue Berliner Schachzeitung>, v1 n1, January 1864, p2, after White's 16.Qd2.

<Confirmed, it shows up as analysis in an article on the Evans Gambit by B. v. Guretsky-Cornitz, in the <Neue Berliner Schachzeitung>, v1 n1, January 1864, p2, after White's 16.Qd2.>

https://books.google.com/books?id=P...

In case one is having trouble finding a link to a source a quick perusal here might prove useful:

So the <Chess Household Magazine> isn't contradicted to be a fake, necessarily.

* * * * *

[Detailed commentary]

On White's move 7 of the ML (main line) he says this:

7.d2-d4

<In the handbook by vd Lasa, see third edition, Book I, Opening 1, Section VII, § 9,>

On Black's move 9 of the ML:

9...d7-d5

<The following analysis is intended to demonstrate that even after the often applied>

Which obviously implies he's following practice.

On Black's move 11 he gives:

<In most games the attack continues with 11) f6-g7:, but the move suggested above by J. Löwenthal is decidedly stronger.>

11...Ke8-f8

Again, he's following practice, though point out the most common line isn't the one identified as originating with Lowenthal (or should that be popularized?).

Then on Black's move 16 we diverge from the ML with the game's 16...Qg4 vs the ML's 16...h7-h6.

The text comments on Black's 16th move:

<Black doesn't have a wide choice of moves.>

And he presents the finish of this game as one of the bad alternatives.

But note, after 16...Qg4 17.Qc3+, the game continuation isn't exactly an analysis line, as Black can avoid the mate with 17...Bd4.

A proper analysis would note this, because, though Black is clearly lost, he isn't mated.

So I think the analysis (which is really the ML discussion) used a flashy real game and glossed over the details of a side continuation (which could have been taken from practice).

This thread's game does not appear in the Lewis book despite Lewis saying the games and analysis came from his good friend W..D. Evans of Milford. However this game does W D Evans vs McDonnell, 1827 game 34 (page 377)

I've put links on my last post, they all appear to work.

I always add links, I love linking, linking is my game, I'm the Link King of Linkers in Linkland.

Friendly fellow, ain't he?!?

<jn> and I have an understanding about many things, but not this.

I will offer <jn> some "constructive" advice.

Let's start here - adding links, though I would personally appreciate them, would be of benefit to all your readers, and not just me.

Secondly, I understand that you don't want (or are too lazy?) to do the extra step of adding a link when working from your local sources.

But consider this - you do put in the effort to laboriously type out the ref, e.g.

<<The Household Chess Magazine>, 31 March 1865, p40 (undoubtedly Warner's source) gives the game as Evans-McDonnell and states:>

I'll just say that sometimes it's quicker to just use the online link - which also allows others to quickly consult the original material (which, in turn, I think is the idea of citing the original material in the first place).

* * * *
<<Sally> We Brits are more of a polite nature. The phrase you want, and I'm sure your mini-rant does not apply to me is; 'Please Sod Off!'>

I once had a close British friend, a member of the Royal Society today, who repeatedly informed me that

<"The British are a war-like people">

I guess I'll have to amend that to the following:

<"The British are a polite, war-like people">

Meanwhile, over on <Quora>...

<No. We're not warlike. War is just something we're good at. Have been for many years and still are now.>

And on <Reddit>...

War. I'll paraphrase Einstein on this one. 'WW3 will be over quite quick. WW4 will be fought with bows and arrows.'

Though I think he may be wrong. Global Warming!
WW4 will be fought with underwater spear guns and trained dolphins with nukes strapped to their backs.

Back on track. What are they going to do with this one. Make it NN v NN following analysis by NN from a game by Evans.
It's OK as it is but some slack-eyed weary hack will not notice the ' (probably analysis) bit and the thing will be unleashed in some future publication and I'm afraid to say here will be to blame.

It definitely shows up in analysis - but as a sideline, which means it was clearly marked off as original analysis.

As we know, analysis blends old and new, often citing real games.

The <Household Chess Magazine> dated it to 1833, in Brugge, and gives Evans-McDonnell. That's a lot of specifics to conjure up out of thin air (if not an April Fools prank), so perhaps some of the info is accurate. Evans could have been in Brugge in 1833 and played his gambit against someone, probably not McDonnell, but perhaps a "Mr. M" that was conflated into McDonnell; and is most definitely not the first Evans Gambit if played in 1833.

Being that we do have a source from 1865 that gives Evans-McDonnell I'm hesitant to delete or alter this game (other than adding an updated source-tag).

In <Eminent Victorian Chess Players: Ten Biographies>, p331, Harding states: "This game is in Chessbase's Mega Database 2011 as an Evans-A. McDonnell encounter from 1829 but that cannot be right. Many years ago it was seen in a German monograph on the gambit, supposedly played by Evans against G. A. MacDonnell. No primary source for the score has been found. However, at least one game with the gambit was definitely played between Captain Evans and the Rev. George MacDonnell, apparently in the mid-1850s and probably at Kling's Chess Rooms. MacDonnell was White; he mentions their meeting in his <Knights and Kings> book on page 131 but without giving the moves."

For <z>'s benefit (as I didn't have <Knights and Kings> in my digital archives):
https://books.google.com/books?id=_...

Which seems to imply this monograph attributed it to Evans vs G. A. MacDonnell and as the B. v. Guretsky-Cornitz article makes no mention of them I'm thinking the monograph is some other document.

In an analysis of this opening, which Mr. Löwenthal is preparing, the following continuation of the attack is proposed, and, as will be seen, gives White a fine attack.

[1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Bc5 6.O-O Nf6 7.d4 exd4 8.cxd4 Bb6 9.e5 d5 10.exf6 dxc4] 11.Re1+ Kf8 12.Ba3+ Kg8 13.d5, and White's game is preferable.

---

<Again, he's following practice, though point out the most common line isn't the one identified as originating with Lowenthal (or should that be popularized?).>

Don't forget the <popularized> option.

Of course, if memory serves me, shouldn't the <Household Chess Magazine> item note that it attributed the <Evan's Gambit> debut as in 1833?

And there should always be a final question asking whether all the proper questions have been asked.

E.g. I found a second, even earlier source indicating the <Evan's Gambit> was debuted in (about) 1833. This source is from Sept 21, 1844, almost within a decade of the claim:

<EASY LESSONS IN CHESS.

XXIV.

THE EVANS GAMBIT.

THIS highly ingenious variation of the King's Knight's Game was introduced to the chess world about the year 1833, by Captain W. D. Evans of Milford, and soon became celebrated for the novelty of its situations, and the opportunities afforded for bold and brilliant play.>