if 9 Qg4 ... 0-0
and if 10 Bh6?? ... Ng6 (the hanging bishop, knight, and threat of e5 seem difficult to meet) 11 Bg5 ... Qb6 (11 Be3 .. e5)

Anderssen vs Staunton, 1851.
YOU ARE PLAYING THE ROLE OF ANDERSSEN.
Your score: 63 (par = 56)

18. f5 is +2.67 (Stockfish 6, 37 ply). PV is like 18. f5 ♕xe5 19. ♗g2 ♕xb2 20. Bg5 ♖d7 21. fxg6 hxg6 22. ♕h4. This means 17... c5 was a serious error - better 17 ... ♗xe3.

Then it seems the final error is 19... ♕a4 instead of 19... ♕b4.

"Let the reader compare this game, which would be discreditable to two third-rate players of a coffee-house, with any of the match game in which Black has taken part heretofore, and say how far the result of this mere mockery of Chess is a proof of the absolute powers of two men who are called proficients."

I've copied it word for word. I think he is saying in his own sweet way that Black [Staunton] played an awful game of chess.

(adding to the confusion this note actually appears in the middle of the next game but it's marker '*' refers the reader back to the last move of the previous game. - this game.)

page 111 here:

But, I think Staunton is also putting a knock on Anderssen as well as himself, when he uses phraseology like:

<discreditable to two third-rate players of a coffee-house ... mockery ... of two men who are called proficients.>

in reference to the game, and not just Black's play.

in reference to the game, and not just Black's play.>

<zanzibar> Of course that is what Staunton is doing.

I've had the London 1851 tournament book for a long time. Staunton's evaluation heuristic is simple: If he wins, it's a good, probably even great game. If he loses, it's a terrible game.

The <Sun> of Monday, June 16th, p.2: <Messrs. Anderssen and Staunton are to commence their contest to-day.>

The <Sun> of Saturday, June 21st, p.4: <Since our notice of the progress of these matches on Wednesday last, the players have taken a little rest from their labours. On Tuesday the course of victory continued to flow in the same channel, Herr Anderssen winning a game of Mr. Staunton; Mr. Williams a third of Mr. Wyvill. On Wednesday and Thursday, there was no play, but yesterday the contest was resumed with new spirit, and the many admirers of England's champion were confident that Caissa, who has so often crowned his efforts, would once more smile on her favourite son. It was not so, however; chess goddesses, it seems, are not less fickle than mere mortal dames.>

The dates of all the Staunton - Anderssen games can now be established, it would seem.