The full score, as given by <paulmorphy1969>, is a combination of Whiteheads G-2412 & G-12605.

The story behind that I don't know.

But I think, fairly credibly, while Black was indeed <Morphy, Ernest>, White was probably <Roussea, Eugene>, or perhaps <Ford, A.P>.

The first original source, which I haven't accessed yet, had White as unidentified -

<SBC discovery this> in her 'MyMorphy games collection':

The Drawn / Win and Questionable Year - Shibut has this game (37 moves 1-0) as being played 1854 and it is the same game as Goossen's file shows as played in 1850. The Goossen's game also has Ernest playing the black pieces rather than the white. The Goossen's file also has a second (1854) version, consisting of the first 29 moves of the Goossen's 1850 game, as a draw with Ernest on the white pieces. With good reason I believe it to be the correct score as presented in Maroczy's work as Game #11 1954, Ernest as white.

Shibut's errata in the 2004 reprint of 1993 printing (citing Lawson) states: "Paul was white, Ernest was black and the year is 1850" however, with the 37 move mate it is not a draw.

<ckr: I looked in Sergeant's book... and he only had the later, 1854 game, with the shorter draw and a notation: "The game, which was recorded no further, ended in a draw, Ernest Morphy apparently missing 30.P-K6 by which he had a win, as he afterwards rightly claimed."

Maroczy comments: (vom 15.zuge an spielt Weiß die Partie meisterhaft und widerlegt den ungesunden Angriff seines Gegners aufs kräftigste. Im nächsten Zuge übersieht er das Gewinn bringende 30. e6! und infolgedessen endet die partie remis.)

Translated: From 15. move white played the game masterfully and refuted the unsound assault from his opponent "after heftiest invigorations ??". In following moves overlooks the winning combination 30.e6! and consequently ended the game in a draw.) So it would appear that the 37 move scores of this game are incorrect.

Also Shibut statements (citing Lawson) and reversing colours of Game #90, dating the game 1850 and a win for white is, in it's entirety, not an accurate correction. To date, I can find no reference in Laswon's book about this game that would support the corrections in the Shibut errata.

This continuation to move 37 that may have been possible, but not likely played, which both Goossens and Shibut both score is:> 30.e6 dxe6 31.Qxg4+ Kh8 32.Qxf4 Qc6 33.Qf6+ Kh7 34.Ne4 Rxf7 35.Ng5+ Kg8 36.Qxf7+ Kh8 37.Qf8# 1-0

Max Lange in 'Paul Morphy - Sein Leben und Schaffen' (1894), p. 18/19 #9, (Paul v Ernest Morphy, New-Orleans, 1850) writes <after move 29...Rf8>:

'Die nicht weiter aufgezeichnete Partie, in welcher Weiß jetzt durch den im Spiel unterlassenen Zug 30. e5-e6 hätte den Gewinn erzwingen können, endete in der Tat schließlich mit Remis.'

<''The game, which has not been recorded any further, in which White could now have forced the win by 30. e5-e6, did in fact end in a draw.'>

I suspect Jay's 02412 was the game as published in the <Cincinnati Daily Gazette>, 1859.11.12, p1 (not the "Cincinnati Gazette - 1859-10-12").

The game as given states "Between two strong players of New Orleans, played a few years ago." In the annotations is also given "For this fine unpublished game and notes, we are indebted to the courtesy of E. Morphy, Esq."

So basically NN-NN up to that point.

*******

click for larger view

You can, but I don't think I will.

<Paul Morphy>, Lawson, New York 1976, pp362-363

<British Chess Magazine>, v98 n8, August 1978, p364