|Dec-20-06|| ||jaime gallegos: this man defeated Steinitz, Blackburne, and Morphy ! he deserve a biography on this place !|
|Dec-20-06|| ||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|
|Apr-03-15|| ||MissScarlett: An account of the Deacon-Morphy controversy: http://www.edochess.ca/batgirl/morp...|
But if everything's so clear, why are there three Morphy-Deacon games here?
|Apr-03-15|| ||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?
|Mar-09-16|| ||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 http://www.edochess.ca/players/p23....
Deacon ~2450 http://www.edochess.ca/players/p40....
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.
|Mar-09-16|| ||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
Interesting that they would put that in, especially given it a British publication, and Deacon being deceased.
|Mar-10-16|| ||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,
|Mar-10-16|| ||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.'” >
|Mar-10-16|| ||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.