<MissScarlett>

Isn't this the primary source listed?

<Nantwich Chronicle 20 September 1958>

And the photo is the relevant portion of that particular issue?

I do see your point though. The photo would be a lot sounder if it included the name/date of the "Nantwich Chronicle" issue in question. I can see that the late date of the publication is not optimal as well.

<Geoff> can you track down the relevant issue of the "Nantwich Chronicle"?

<MissScarlett> possibly we might find out more about this by offering the information at hand in the Biographer's Bistro, and requesting further assistance?

<According to the Nantwich Chronicle 20 September 1958.>

< I can see that the late date of the publication is not optimal as well.>

<MissScarlett>

You know when I first looked at the pgn for this game, AS USUAL there was no source tag. Over and over and over I have been advocating for years that no upload be published without a source tag.

If the original uploader had bothered to supply a source tag, we would have more information about where the game came from.

But noooooo.

As usual.

"G Chesters (Graham Chesters senior, I think)."

We have a G. Chesters here; Graham Chesters but whether or not it is the same lad, or if indeed he was the correspondent, I do not know.

(Richard is unsure and so am I. It is not the kind of error a regular chess correspondent would make. I've seen lists of World champions going back and beyond Philidor but never seen McDonnell or Evans as one. )

I agree with <sneaky pete>, let's retire it in place of this 1866 source:

<<Marache's Manual of Chess (1866) p74>

The following game has a historical interest, as having occurred between Captain Evans and Mr. McDonnell, on Captain E.'s first showing his (then) new Gambit to that great master. WHITE (CAPT. EVANS).>

https://books.google.com/books?id=S...

Of course, it would be nice to get a bit further upstream, but at least we're in the right century!

What wrong you ask?

I just scrolled back through the 4 pages of comments and there's no mention of a Lewis source till now.

That's what's wrong - the usual cryptic <Missy> leaves the reader hanging.

But I still think you could help the reader with a link without too much trouble.

<Fifty Games (Lewis 1832) G-34 p61>

https://books.google.com/books?id=Q...

(Can anybody make out the handwriting for White?)

* * * * *

<Chess Studies (Walker 1844) G-42 (420) p83>

https://books.google.com/books?id=x...

The 1958 column is either someone copying something from another source or mixing up one or two facts. (or in the case of a World Championship match , a misconception.)

The reference to the first ever Evans in Game One of the first World Championship?

McDonnell used it for the time in a 'World Championship Match' v La Bourdonnais in game one of match 2.

That match was often referred to as a 'World Chess Championship.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Bo...

The game in question is McDonnell vs La Bourdonnais, 1834

And Morphy notes:

"The game before us is the first in which that most beautiful of openings, the "Evans Gambit", occurs between these two distinguished players."

So they used the first ever Evans Gambit, but mixed it up with game one of a 'World Championship Match. Don't laugh, These mix up's are rife in chess history. Edward Winter has three different sources where Kieseritzky wins the Immortal v Anderssen:

https://www.chesshistory.com/winter...

These other two games are <Evans - Brandreth> (G#30 in <Lewis (1832)>), and <Evans - Benjamin Keen>.

<<31> Their time spent in the Caribbean would have provided Evans and McDonnell with a talking point apart from chess. Although possibly not a a slaveowner himself, McDonnell was certainly a propagandist for them, as a quick search in the British Library's online catalog reveals.>

I'm the guy who likes shorthand refs. Cryptic means hidden, or shortened to the point of obscurity.

Just document what you do or use, then shorthands are useful chunks.

In this particular case a link would be just as easy, and more direct:

https://www.ecforum.org.uk/ (definitive, and more helpful than the name really)

Apart from the opening though, the game is yet another example of how unconvincing the playing was back then, the future first unofficial World Championship contender McDonnell plays really badly for today's standards Evans also blunders quite a bit. <9...Nd8?> instead of <9...Nh6> is the first mistake, but after <10.dxe5 dxe5> (D) White plays <11.Ba3?> instead of winning two pawns with <11.Nxf7 Nxf7 12.Bxf7+ Qxf7 13.Qxb7 Rd8 14.Qb5+ Rd7 15.Qxa5 Nf6 16.Qxe5+>.

click for larger view

<13...Bh5??> is a real blunder. The alternative <13...Be6 14.Bxe6 fxe6> still isn't great, but at least wouldn't have made <Rd1> a winning move. But <14...Qc8??> (D) is even worse, losing the queen to <15.Qb5+ Nc6 16.Bd5 Qd7 17.Bxc6 bxc6 18.Qxe5+>. However, White instead plays the flashy but unsound exchange sacrifice <15.Rxd8??>, after which Black could achieve complete equality with <16...Qf6!>. But Black instead plays as aggressively as possible with <16...Qh4??> and gets mated in four, ending his misery and mine.

click for larger view

That's quite a lot of blundering for such a short game. Again, I do not want to sound dismissive or disrespectful; it's very easy for me today to criticize these old games; we've had centuries of experience and we have God-like engines. But this game still was sobering, especially regarding McDonnell who really doesn't play like someone who would, in seven years, play for the title of best chess player of the world.