chessgames.com
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
      Based on games in the database; may be incomplete.

Repertoire Explorer
Most played openings
C33 King's Gambit Accepted (4 games)
B27 Sicilian (4 games)
C51 Evans Gambit (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)
A20 English (2 games)
C50 Giuoco Piano (2 games)

Search Sacrifice Explorer for Frederic Deacon
Search Google for Frederic Deacon


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 Year Event/LocaleOpening
1. De Remouille vs F Deacon 0-122 1849 BruggeC40 King's Knight Opening
2. F Deacon vs A Alexandre  1-036 1850 LondonC24 Bishop's Opening
3. E Lowe vs F Deacon  1-037 1851 London m3B40 Sicilian
4. F Deacon vs E Lowe  1-045 1851 Club TourneyA20 English
5. E Lowe vs F Deacon 1-037 1851 London m3C00 French Defense
6. F Deacon vs E Lowe  1-034 1851 London m3A03 Bird's Opening
7. F Deacon vs Anderssen  0-138 1851 Club TourneyA02 Bird's Opening
8. F Deacon vs E Lowe  1-049 1851 London m3A20 English
9. E Lowe vs F Deacon  0-128 1851 London m3B40 Sicilian
10. F Deacon vs E Lowe  1-025 1851 London m3D10 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
11. E Lowe vs F Deacon  ½-½62 1851 London m3B21 Sicilian, 2.f4 and 2.d4
12. W Gilby vs F Deacon  0-127 1851 London Provincial qual m2C50 Giuoco Piano
13. C E Ranken vs F Deacon 1-061 1851 ProvincialD35 Queen's Gambit Declined
14. E Lowe vs F Deacon  0-135 1851 London m3C00 French Defense
15. F Deacon vs E Lowe  1-031 1851 London m3A30 English, Symmetrical
16. F Deacon vs C E Ranken 0-140 1851 ProvincialA35 English, Symmetrical
17. F Deacon vs E Lowe  1-051 1851 London m3C44 King's Pawn Game
18. F Deacon vs Morphy 1-046 1858 London m/1C38 King's Gambit Accepted
19. Morphy vs F Deacon 1-033 1858 LondonC52 Evans Gambit
20. F Deacon vs F Discart 1-035 1859 Sienna (Italy)C52 Evans Gambit
21. Morphy vs F Deacon 1-038 1859 LondonC52 Evans Gambit
22. F Deacon vs Baumann 1-029 1859 London m/1C36 King's Gambit Accepted, Abbazia Defense
23. F Deacon vs Mayet 1-027 1860 Brussels (Belgium)C51 Evans Gambit
24. F Deacon vs Kolisch 0-124 1860 LondonC58 Two Knights
25. F Deacon vs H Baucher 1-025 1860 Paris m/1C33 King's Gambit Accepted
 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 !
Dec-20-06
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
Apr-03-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  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
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?

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 Mr. Deacon.>><<>>>

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,

FRED. DEACON<<>>>

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.

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 Chessgames.com, 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 2001-2016, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies