Maybe, but the stats are certainly skewed. Morphy and Anderssen didn't exactly face the greatest of opposition, and they played the black side of this a combined 47 times, while they played the white side 109 times. Also, La Bourdonnais and MacDonnell seemed to have played each other a lot with this, and I'm sure that skews them in some way as well.

A) 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 and now 3. - Bc5 probably isn't the best move. 3. - Nf6 promises more (e.g. 4.Ng5 Bc5! - Traxler counterattack - or 4.d4 ed 5.0-0 Bc5 6.e5 d5!)

B) Evans Declined (4.b4 Bb6) is considered good for white and white can play similar line without offering a pawn: 4.c3 Nf6 5.b4 , so why Evans?

C) 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Be7 6.d4 Na5 7.Nxe5 Nxc4 8.Nxc4 d5 =. No more of it: black has safely equalized. Side lines (7.Bxf7+, 7.Be2) are good in blitz games or rapid chess, but they are unsound or equal at best (well, Anand was shocked and played horribly: Kasparov vs Anand, 1995).

D) Black can capture and hold a pawn if he really wants to (4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5). White gets huge attack, but if he doesn't play accurately, black can survive and win.

My conclusions: If white is trying to play old Evans, black is the side who chooses:

1) Switch into Two Knights and play aggressively
2) Equalize safely
3) Accept gambit and just hope for defence.

A.) 1.e4 e5 2.f3 c6 3.c4 f6!? 4.g5! c5?! 5.xf7+ e7 6.b3 is hardly a reason for White to give up on Evan's Gambit (or any other 3.c4 line for that matter)! The Two Knights in general is reasonably promising for White IMO, though of course VERY complex. If everyone would play 3...f6 against me I would take up 3.c4 !

B.) Evan's Gambit Declined (1.e4 e5 2.f3 c6 3.c4 c5 4.b4!? b6 5.a4 a6 (5...a5 6.b5 d4 7.xd4 xd4 8.c3 ) 6.a5 a7 7.c3 f6 8.d3 ) is a different (and better!) line than the quiet Italian with b2-b4: 1.e4 e5 2.f3 c6 3.c4 c5 4.c3 f6 5.b4 b6 6.d3 d6 7.a4 a5!=.

C.) I am curious to see your line for Black against 7.e2.

I agree with point D, though I think that a well prepared White player could score quite well below at least, say, 2100 level.

"Evan's Gambit": a gambit that belongs to someone named "Evan". This is wrong.

"Evans Gambit": the gambit invented by Captain Evans. This is correct.

It's both. The use of proper names in chess openings is not consistent; thus we have Lasker's Defense, but the Chigorin System in the Ruy Lopez (not Chigorin's System). I am not sure about this, but I think 1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nc6 generally goes by "the Chigorin Defense" and not "Chigorin's Defense."

So there is no hard and fast rule here. But I think calling the OOTD just "the Evans Gambit" makes sense, because people seem to have such trouble when apostrophes and the letter "s" come together. Every time I see someone write "Evan's Gambit" I die a little inside.

Yes, I play it too. Not to be a smart aleck, but the reason it isn't popular is that it loses a pawn.

Other reasons:

3. Bb5 is a lot more popular than Bc4.

If you do play 3. Bc4 you are going to see a lot of Two Knights Defenses, and a lot of chessplayers would rather not deal with that.

From newsdesk at chesspunctuation.com:

Unusual activity was reported at cemetery located in the churchyard at Nieuwpoortse-Steenweg, lawn number 8, grave 39.

Stone was moved and casket was empty.

Chess forensic experts have linked the disturbance to a posting on chessgames.com and a possible misspelling.

Ask that user <Chigorin> avoid high seas between Wales and Ireland until this matter is resolved.