Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Frederic Deacon
Number of games in database: 55
Years covered: 1849 to 1863
Overall record: +28 -22 =5 (55.5%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games.

Repertoire Explorer
Most played openings
B27 Sicilian (4 games)
C51 Evans Gambit (4 games)
C33 King's Gambit Accepted (4 games)
C39 King's Gambit Accepted (3 games)
B21 Sicilian, 2.f4 and 2.d4 (3 games)
B40 Sicilian (3 games)
C52 Evans Gambit (3 games)
C40 King's Knight Opening (3 games)
C25 Vienna (2 games)
A20 English (2 games)

Search Sacrifice Explorer for Frederic Deacon
Search Google for Frederic Deacon

(born 1829, died Nov-20-1875, 46 years old) United Kingdom (federation/nationality Belgium)

[what is this?]
Wikipedia article: Frederick Deacon

 page 1 of 3; games 1-25 of 55  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. De Remouille vs F Deacon 0-1221849BruggeC40 King's Knight Opening
2. F Deacon vs A Alexandre  1-0361850LondonC24 Bishop's Opening
3. E Lowe vs F Deacon  0-1281851London m3B40 Sicilian
4. F Deacon vs E Lowe  1-0491851London m3A20 English
5. F Deacon vs Anderssen  0-1381851Club TourneyA02 Bird's Opening
6. C E Ranken vs F Deacon 1-0611851ProvincialD35 Queen's Gambit Declined
7. E Lowe vs F Deacon  ½-½621851London m3B21 Sicilian, 2.f4 and 2.d4
8. F Deacon vs E Lowe  1-0251851London m3D10 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
9. F Deacon vs E Lowe  1-0311851London m3A30 English, Symmetrical
10. E Lowe vs F Deacon  0-1351851London m3C00 French Defense
11. W Gilby vs F Deacon  0-1271851London Provincial qual m2C50 Giuoco Piano
12. E Lowe vs F Deacon  1-0371851London m3B40 Sicilian
13. F Deacon vs E Lowe  1-0511851London m3C44 King's Pawn Game
14. F Deacon vs C E Ranken 0-1401851ProvincialA35 English, Symmetrical
15. F Deacon vs E Lowe  1-0341851London m3A03 Bird's Opening
16. E Lowe vs F Deacon 1-0371851London m3C00 French Defense
17. F Deacon vs E Lowe  1-0451851Club TourneyA20 English
18. F Deacon vs Morphy 1-0461858London m/1C38 King's Gambit Accepted
19. Morphy vs F Deacon 1-0331858LondonC52 Evans Gambit
20. F Deacon vs F Discart 1-0351859Sienna (Italy)C52 Evans Gambit
21. F Deacon vs Baumann 1-0291859London m/1C36 King's Gambit Accepted, Abbazia Defense
22. Morphy vs F Deacon 1-0381859LondonC52 Evans Gambit
23. F Deacon vs NN 1-0251860LondonC25 Vienna
24. F Deacon vs H Baucher 1-0251860Paris m/1C33 King's Gambit Accepted
25. de Riviere vs F Deacon ½-½331860Great BritainC23 Bishop's Opening
 page 1 of 3; games 1-25 of 55  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Deacon wins | Deacon loses  

Kibitzer's Corner
Dec-20-06  jaime gallegos: this man defeated Steinitz, Blackburne, and Morphy ! he deserve a biography on this place !
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <jaime gallegos> This man made up most of his famous "wins." <SBC> could probably write an interesting bio, though.
Jan-02-09  YJGYJ: I agree that Deacon needs a Bio but even a search on the internet has very few answers as to who he was.
Jul-23-09  myschkin: . . .

Frederic Deacon (1829-1875) from Belgium.

May-02-14  Gottschalk: He was the first master to gain success with the Elephant gambit 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d5
Premium Chessgames Member
  MissScarlett: An account of the Deacon-Morphy controversy:

But if everything's so clear, why are there three Morphy-Deacon games here?

Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: From <SBC> link:

<Staunton, who published the games, at worst knowing they were forgeries or at least accepting them without question, whereas they should have raised a red flag>

I have a problem with this claim. Is <SBC> a historical mind reader? How does she know Stauntion accepted them without question? What, exactly, is required of a person to do before publishing a game before they can be accused of doing so without question? Why, exactly, should those games have raised a red flag? Who pursued the cousin and the waiter to see if they'd verify the account? Is <SB> dismissing those claimed witnesses "without question"? Why does Mr. Deacon provide so much detail when almost all fraudulent claims are made in the most vague terms?

Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: <<OCF> How does she know Stauntion accepted them without question?>

He published them.

<What, exactly, is required of a person to do before publishing a game before they can be accused of doing so without question? Why, exactly, should those games have raised a red flag?>

Well, compare Deacon's rating against Morphy's:

Morphy ~2780

Deacon ~2450

So, a 300 points rating difference, and a 1-1 game split. I would say that's a red flag.

Plus, the match-up wasn't publicized, only Deacon's word for both the validity *and* existence of the games.

Moreover, Deacon admits reconstructing the games from memory, and to only putting Morphy's name on one of the games.

This seems to indicate a caution flag, if not a red flag, to me.

How hard would it have been for Staunton to correspond with Morphy about the games? Why the rush to publish them after all, without due diligence and common courtesy?

If you have a private game between two players and one disavows the game, it shouldn't be published. You wouldn't disagree with that would you?

< Why does Mr. Deacon provide so much detail when almost all fraudulent claims are made in the most vague terms?>

Most fraudulent claims have too much detail in general, by a practiced practitioner.

Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: The reason I popped over here in the first place...

On p23 of the <Westminster Papers v9 (1st June 1876)>

<The most noticeable feature of the foregoing regulations is the extraordinary slow play for which they provide. <An average five minutes to each player for every move has not, we believe, been adopted in any tourney since the London Congress of 1862, when it was found to be more than enough for every one except, perhaps, <the late Mr. Deacon.>><<>>>

Interesting that they would put that in, especially given it a British publication, and Deacon being deceased.

Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: By the way, <batgirl> edited out Deacon's challenge to Morphy, made in his denial...


Col. Deacon is now in Westmoreland, but I will write to him, by to-day's post, and he will give you his corroboration of these circumstances.

<Regarding the affair, however, as in truth, only a question of memory, I do hope and trust that Mr. Morphy will be able and will soon make amends for the forgetfulness by a manly and honorable acknowledgment.>

May I add, dear sir, these details are to be used as you may think best, for I feel and know full well how unnecessary any information would be to satisfy your mind upon the subject.

Believe me, sincerely yours,


Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: As for the cousin's testimony, well, ILN v38 p237 is this letter:

<We have at length overcome this most natural repugnance in some measure, and have just received the following letter from Lieutenant-Colonel Charles C. Deacon, C.B., which speaks for itself:- -

“‘4, Edwards-square, Kensington, London, Jan. 14, 1861.

“Dear Sirs, -In reply to your note of December 17, accept my sincere acknowledgments for your fair and manly defence of my cousin, which we warmly appreciate; but the controversy to which you refer has been conducted by a portion of the American press in a manner which really precludes my entering into it—indeed, in the whole course of my life I have never known an g so outrageous and dastardly as the manner in which we have been attacked. Under different circumstances, however, I should have been
happy to have given you my testimony, which would have fully borne out the statement sent to you some time ago by Mr. Fred. Deacon; and I must add, from the gentlemanly way in which you have put the case, I regret that, for the reason I have mentioned, I cannot give you a more complete answer.

“‘I am, dear Sirs, yours truly, CHAS. DEACON.

“‘Chess Editors of the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin.'” >

Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: Of course, once Morphy set the record straight from his end, that was basically it for him as well. There was nothing further to say.

So... it would be interesting to see if someone could dig up Riviere's comments on this. Or find the Steinitz comments.

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific player and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!

home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC