These are obvious blunders even to beginners ... to his defense, this was not a serious game.

In 1856, when Löwenthal had settled in London and was editing a chess column in the Era, Morphy's uncle, Ernest, dug up a score of this game and submitted it to the New York Clipper and to Staunton's column in the Illustrated London News. (But not to Löwenthal's column.) The version Ernest submitted featured Morphy playing 55. a6 and winning.

That was, of course, before Morphy's chess career had really started (he was still in law school at the time). In 1860, after Morphy had won the U.S. Championship, visited London and Paris, and beaten the leading players of Europe, and returned home, everybody was publishing collections of his games. Löwenthal published a collection that included this game, but his version went 55. Kc4 Kc6 56. Rh5? Bg1 57. Rh6+?? Kb7 and "After a few moves the game was declared drawn."

That game collection, which by now is in the public domain, can be viewed here: https://www.google.com/books/editio... The game in question starts on page 352 and goes to page 355.

Possibly. I've always been curious about this game. I'm sure the game as printed in the Bohn edition was shown or mentioned to Morphy at some point who never voiced any disagreement with the finish as printed. Based on Morphy's vehement denial of having played either of the Deacon games one would expect him to "correct the record" if Lowenthal had botched the moves/result to that game.

Lawson gives part of the Maurian letter, but seems to have omitted an earlier section where Maurian makes a good case for the color sequence.

Portion of a letter from Chas. A. Maurian dated 6 January 1892, refuting the "discovery" of a game allegedly played between Lowenthal and Morphy in 1850 where Morphy received the odds of Pawn and two moves from Lowenthal:

<We know, therefore, of a certainty, that two of the three games played in 1850 in New Orleans were on even terms. Let us now see what we can garner in regard to the third game that was never published, and which, also, was lost by Lowenthal.

It is singular that Lowenthal did not remember exactly how many games he played in 1850 with Paul Morphy. In the very interesting account of his visit to America (Book of the Chess Congress, p. 394) he says: "I do not remember wether we played in all two or three games; one was drawn, the other or others I lost." In the London edition of Morphy's games (p. 349) he says: "It is right to mention that, at this time (1850), only two games were played between Messrs. Morphy and Lowenthal. Of the two games in question, Mr. Morphy won the first and the second was drawn." Although Lowenthal's memory seems deficient here, we feel convinced that he would not have forgotten the third game if he had contested it at odds. There is no doubt, however, that three games were really played. Mr. Lowenthal is again mistaken when he says that Morphy won the first and drew the second game. Although I cannot say positively that I have it from Morphy's own lips, I have always been given the impression that the drawn game was the first in the order of playing, and I find, on referring to the record while preparing his paper that Fiske in his biography (Book Am. Chess Cong., p. 507) corroborates me. He says: "The first game was drawn, and the second and third were won by the invincible young Philidor." Let me observe, as further proof, that Morphy is first player in both games, which could not have been the case had Morphy won the first game, because then Lowenthal would have been entitled to the move, whereas we have a satisfactory explanation of the fact that Morphy moved twice consecutively, if we admit that the first game was drawn, as by the then existing rules of chess the first player in a drawn game was entitled to the first move in the next.

Lowenthal's introduction: <The latter game we have by us, accompanied by notes, in the M.S. of Mr. Ernest Morphy, who recorded it at the time it was played.> It is further explained: <The foot notes to this game are by Lowenthal : those in the text by Mr. Ernest Morphy.>

What M.S.? Is this an original document to which Loewenthal had access or was he simply referring to the game's prior publication? In some respects, Ernest's notes echo those given in the <New York Clipper>, June 28th 1856 (the game's first publication), but they're by no means identical, especially the ending. It's the text, supposedly by Ernest, which ends with <After a few moves the game was declared drawn.>

But what about the other game Loewenthal published? : Morphy vs Loewenthal, 1850

In 1856, Ernest Morphy claimed only the present game was recorded. So how did Loewenthal get this other score if not from Morphy himself?

When Staunton printed Ernest's letter and game in the <ILN> on November 22nd 1856, the following week's <Era> carried the following reply by Loewenthal to a (presumably real) correspondent:

Ernest sent the game in to the <New York Clipper> and Marache mistakenly publishes the 55.a6 analysis as the last move.

Ernest then corrects the record by sending the game to Löwenthal with the 55.a6 line being part of Ernest's commentary in that 1860 Bohn edition of Morphy's Games.

This would make Maurian's observations about the colors correct: the Petroff was the first game and drawn, Morphy retained the privilege of first move and they play game 2, the Sicilian, which Paul wins. Game 3 is played with Löwenthal then having the attack, and through some oversight early in the game blunders and Morphy wins material, Löwenthal immediately resigning. Paul offers to Löwenthal the option to retract the bad move, Löwenthal properly refuses and accepts the loss and due to this "bad move blemish" neither party ever prints that third game.

In principle, one would prefer to go to "primary sources" to resolve a dispute about a game score; that is, one would like to look at the game score as it was written down at the time. Second-best would be to ask one of the players; but this is only second best, because memory is fallible, etc. Lacking the original game score, we are left with only circumstantial evidence. I myself am persuaded that Ernest Morphy is whodunit, but I can't require anyone to agree with me about that.

Löwenthal writes, "The latter game the Petroff, we have by us accompanied by notes, in the M.S. of Mr. Ernest Morphy, who recorded it at the time it was played". First, "M.S." really should be "MS.", which is a common abbreviation for "manuscript", meaning that it wasn't, say, printed or published. So I assume that neither Löwenthal nor Morphy actually kept score, but that Ernest Morphy did keep score, and, if we are to believe Löwenthal, E. Morphy made a copy of that score and gave it to L. before L. left New Orleans. I'm somewhat reading between the lines here, but I hope that my version is plausible.

Lawson writes (p. 27 of the 2010 edition), "Löwenthal did not denounce the game score at the time [1856], nor did he suggest that the game had ended in a draw." He infers from this that Löwenthal was OK with Ernest Morphy's version of the score. Instead, I infer that Löwenthal was trying his best to avoid picking a quarrel that would involve his former client, Alonzo Morphy, and the rest of the family, especially Ernest and Paul. It wasn't worth antagonizing the Morphy family, by implying that Ernest had been careless or downright deceitful, over the score of a game that wasn't even important when it was played, let alone six years later.

Think of where everyone was and what they were doing in 1856. Paul Morphy's chess career hadn't started yet -- he was still in law school. A year later, he ventured out to the First American Chess Congress, somewhat reluctantly, and history was made. What if he and/or his family had been bothered in 1856 by some jerk from London claiming that Ernest had embellished the score of Paul's game? Maybe his career would have ended before it even started. Perhaps we owe a lot to Löwenthal's forbearance. But no good deed goes unpunished.

Löwenthal's trying to avoid naming the guilty party also explains his weird answer to "Americanus". He is trying not to lie outright, but he is also trying not to embarrass Ernest Morphy. He is tiptoeing around the truth. No wonder it reads so strangely.

Lawson also says, "... it is obvious that if he [Löwenthal] had some manuscript, it was not Ernest Morphy's." It's astonishing that he could say this. He is willing to accuse Löwenthal of either lying or committing a "gross error", but he is unwilling to even consider the possibility that Ernest Morphy lied or committed a gross error. What was Lawson thinking? But I don't want to dwell on Lawson, this isn't about him.

1860 rolled around, and Löwenthal was publishing his book, and he could no longer tiptoe around the problem. He couldn't publish the correct score of the game without encountering questions about it. So he prefaced it by that note about the "manuscript", but this still doesn't accuse Ernest Morphy point blank of an error or a fudge. The reader is sort of left to infer that. And I assume that Löwenthal got away with that -- that is, there wasn't a firestorm of complaints about how badly he was treating Ernest Morphy.

Lawson writes, "It is probable that neither Sergeant nor other chess authors before him were aware of the early publication of the game as given by Ernest Morphy." But why is it probable? First, Sergeant might well have been tipped off by Löwenthal's note about the provenance of the game score. Second, Sergeant would have had easy access to back issues of the Illustrated London News, even easier access than Lawson himself had, since it was only about 60 years since the original publication. Why would Sergeant have cut corners on his research? Lawson lists four other publications in which Ernest Morphy's version of the game score appeared; yet he blithely assumes that Sergeant missed all five. OK, so mistakes happen, but unlike Lawson, I would give Sergeant the benefit of the doubt.

I wasn't aware that Marache (or anyone) ran the chess column before Hazeltine (who took over in August 1856). Do you know when it began? The online <Clipper> archives aren't complete for 1856 and are missing for 1855: