I used Chessbase to confirm annotation. It is all right.

Then I used Fritz to confirm result. It is wrong.
25. Bd4 is answered with Ne4 and the position is almost even (after 5 minutes of infinite analysis).

There are 6 better moves. First comes
24. Bb6

Neue Berliner Schachzeiting, v6, 1869, p107>

<The match between Messrs. GR Neumann and S. Rosenthal , which was originally set for four, then five games, is over . After Mr Neumann had won two and Mr Rosenthal had won one game and had become a draw, Mr Rosenthal gave up the match in the 5th game as the attractive player after the moves 1) e2-e4 e7 -e5 2) Ng1 -f3d7-d6, since, in his opinion, this opening would result in a draw, [!?]. A second match was immediately escaped under the following conditions:

The winner must win 4 games; the games are played with the hourglass, each player asked 2 hours for 30 moves; twice a week, Monday and Thursday; the winner receives 100 francs, the victorious 30 francs, but on the condition that he plays the match to the end. Three games have been played so far ( February 17 ): the first was a draw, the second was won by Mr Rosenthal , the third by Mr Neumann. >

https://books.google.com/books?id=Z... (NBS v6 (Feb 1869) p64)

Here are some of the (unsorted?) games <CG> has:

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/che...

<) Each of the two players had to make 30 moves in 2 hours (see February issue 1869 p. 64). Mr. Rosenthal writes the following to Mr. Preti:

1

Editor-in-chief! In your March issue you promise to inform your readers of the circumstances under which my second match with Mr. Neumann ended. Allow me to share with you the main incident of the last game. In the 25th move it became apparent that my hourglass had expired as a result of absent-mindedness, that is, as a result of keeping it upright while it was my opponent's turn; I now asked for a quarter of an hour to end my game

since Mr. Neumann did not respond, I had to give up my game. I am informing you of this so that, after knowing the cause, the situation can be assessed. Approve it

Rosenthal.>

<In April issue d. J. our readers the last game of the second this year matches between Messrs GR Neumann and S. Ro senthal with that known Mr. Rosenthal had to give up because its hourglass had expired before he had made certain number of moves. Comment on the last move we also gave the letter to Mr. Preti, editor of the Stratégie, in which Mr. Rosenthal complained about the proceedings against him. The May issue of the same sheet contains the following reply:

Editor-in-chief! A commission of three members had been appointed to attend the matches between Messrs. Neumann and Rosenthal and to decide on any disagreements that might arise . Two members were present at the last game of the 2nd match, to the end of which a letter from Mr. Rosenthal advertised in the April issue drew the attention of the Stratégie readers. You believe that you have to add the following remarks in order to perfectly clarify the situation:

Since Mr. Rosenthal's hourglass had almost completely run out on move 25 and one of the two signed members of the commission had noticed that it had been going on for two or three minutes during the course of the game without being supposed to, the Proposal made to give Mr. Rosenthal five more minutes. Herr Neumann immediately accepted this delay, Herr Rosenthalhowever, he considered it insufficient to be able to lead the game until move 30 and demanded 15 minutes. Since the members of the commission now considered their role to be over, the controversy awaited the decision of the two fighters - Mr Neumann, referring to the text of the regulations, declared that the game was over. Approve sir, etc.

FV Vialay. E. Wiart.

To many of our readers, Mr. Neumanu's procedure may seem unfair, but if you, like us, had the experience of how sad the fate of a player who is abandoned to the slowness of his opponent at mercy and disgrace, you would only approve of it .

The Red.

>

NSB v6 (1869) p191

Are you sure about that?

Chess Player's Quarterly Chronicle, v1 n6, April 1869, p188: <M. M. Neumann and Rosenthal:— A match between these players is just finished, the result being—Newman [sic], 4 games; Rosenthal, 1 game; drawn, 3 games.>

As I said, from this second match I have the four Neumann wins, the one Rosenthal win. And as of this morning I now have two of the three draws from this second match (so I have seven additional games to the five from the first match).

If I added up the Neumann wins from both these matches it would be six (or seven counting the 2-move Philidor; not four per a CPQC combined the matches theory). Rosenthal would have two wins (and not one per a CPQC combined the matched theory).

But consider this report of the 2nd match:

<Mr. GR Neumann also won this year's second match against Mr. Rosenthal (see February issue 1869 p. 64) by winning 4 games, losing 1 and making 1 draw.>

BNS v6 (1869) p96

"Le second Match entre MM. Rosenthal et Neumann est terminé, le résultat est:

M. Neumann gagne . . 4 parties.
M. Rosenthal gagne . . 1 -
Nulles . . . . . . . . . . . 3 -

<jnpope> found another interesting tidbit from NBS (Neue Berliner Schachzeitung, sometimes wrongly tagged BNS, see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_...).

Biographer Bistro (kibitz #22641)

Though <jn> doesn't explicitly point it out, the footnote comes from Neumann himself, which lends it credit. (Unfortunately the correction (such as it is) involves deconstructing the three matches as <jn> does.)