Edward Winter
According to Jeremy Gaige’s Chess Personalia (Jefferson, 1987), Frederic H. Deacon was born in Bruges in about 1829 and died, possibly in Brussels, circa October 1875. However, the privately-circulated 1994 edition gave his full name as Frederick Horace Deacon and stated that he was born in Bruges in about 1830 and died in Brixton, London on 20 November 1875. The additional sources specified by Gaige were the death certificate (reporting that Deacon died at the age of 45) and the probate record.
(7854)
John Townsend (Wokingham, England) writes:
‘In the 1851 census, Deacon’s description as “Writer of Chess” may well be the earliest reference to that occupation to be found in any census return. He was living in South Lambeth (aged 20), a British subject born in Belgium. (Source: the 1851 census, National Archives, HO 107/1573, f. 347.)
By the time of the 1861 census, “Frederick H. Deacon” had the more orthodox occupation of “clerk in Manchester Ho.”, unmarried, age given as 27, living at 3 Hale’s Place, Langley Lane, Lambeth, described as a son of the head of the household, who was Sarah S. Rogers, a 66-year-old widow, a “fundholder” who had been born in Chelsea. Also in the household were two elder brothers of Frederick, i.e. George L. Deacon and Edward E. Deacon. (Source: 1861 census, National Archives, RG9/357, ff. 126-127.)
As Jeremy Gaige pointed out, the calendar of probate records shows that “Frederick Horace Deacon” died on 20 November 1875, at 37 Vaughan Road, Coldharbour Lane, Brixton. He was “formerly of 3 Hale’s Place, Lambeth”, but “late of 7 Hardiss Road, Cold Harbour Lane, Camberwell”. His will was proved by Edward Erasmus Deacon, a brother, the effects being “under Ł450”.
The burial register of the South Metropolitan Cemetery (Norwood Road, Lambeth) shows that he was buried there on 26 November 1875, his age being given as 45. The entry specifies the same address as in the calendar of probate records, 37 Vaughan Road, Coldharbour Lane, except that it says Camberwell, and not Brixton.’
(7859)
The most detailed account of the case is in Paul Morphy The Pride and Sorrow of Chess by David Lawson (New York, 1976 and Lafayette, 2010) on, respectively, pages 244-257 and pages 253-268, as well as in the Appendix. We summarize briefly Lawson’s narrative.
In his Illustrated London News chess column of 17 December 1859 Howard Staunton gave two games between Morphy and Deacon (one win each) that would be appearing in his book Chess Praxis. On 19 January 1860 Morphy wrote to W.J.A. Fuller that he had never played any games against Deacon; one of the two games published, the Evans Gambit, had been shown to Morphy in London by de Rivičre, as having been played between Deacon and de Rivičre himself. Morphy knew nothing of the other game, and his conclusion was that ‘some one has been guilty of deliberate falsehood in both instances’. Page 90 of the March 1860 issue of D.W. Fiske’s Chess Monthly stated that both games were forgeries. However, in the Illustrated London News Deacon strongly insisted that the two games were genuine; he gave a precise date and location and named a witness, his cousin Colonel Charles Deacon. Staunton strongly supported F.H. Deacon and criticized Morphy and his supporters.
Lawson also quoted Steinitz’s view, on pages 267-268 of the International Chess Magazine, September 1891, that Morphy was ‘entrapped’ by Deacon to answer some analytical questions over the board, and that the material was later presented as games actually played. Lawson’s chapter in Paul Morphy The Pride and Sorrow of Chess also mentioned the coverage of the case by P.W. Sergeant and B. Goulding Brown in the former’s book Morphy Gleanings (London, 1932). Lawson’s conclusion was that the two Morphy v Deacon games seemed to be spurious.
On page 19 of the Illustrated London News, 17 December 1859 Howard Staunton published two games purportedly played between Morphy and Frederick Deacon:
Morphy vigorously denied having played the games, and Staunton vigorously supported Deacon.
David Lawson’s monograph on Morphy (pages 244-257 of the 1976 hardback and pages 253-268 of the 2010 paperback) discussed the Morphy v Deacon controversy at length, concluding, as had P.W. Sergeant, that the games were spurious. See also Lawson’s brief comments in ‘A Morphy Sidelight’ by Manfred Zitzman on pages 266-268 of the September 1969 Chess Review.
Fifty years after the first appearance of Lawson’s book, is there no new documentation or argumentation?
(12303)
Regarding the Morphy-Deacon controversy, which began in 1859-60, C.N. 12303 asked:
Fifty years after the first appearance of Lawson’s book, is there no new documentation or argumentation?
That question can be answered already now in at least one respect: Paul Morphy The Pride and Sorrow of Chess by David Lawson goes awry over what P.W. Sergeant wrote.
Lawson’s chapter 18, ‘The Deacon Games’ (pages 244-257 in the 1976 hardback and pages 253-268 in the 2010 paperback), quoted much (valuable) material from primary nineteenth-century sources but had the following on page 255/page 265:
‘We now come to the final stage of the Morphy-Deacon affair. As Sergeant says in the Preface to his Morphy Gleanings on the question of the genuineness of the “Evans” game given on page 65 as a Morphy game, it has been “for very many years relegated to the category of spurious”.’
The final paragraph, on page 257/page 268:
‘In light of the new evidence and information that we now have on the so-called Morphy-Deacon games, it would seem that they should remain, in the words of Philip W. Sergeant, “in the category of the spurious”.’
Those two observations are inconsistent, but Lawson’s last paragraph seems to have been accepted at face value by chess historians, whose interest in Staunton-Morphy was focussed on the absence of a match between them in 1858 and not on Frederick Deacon. In the C.N. debate, Deacon’s name appeared once only, and in passing: in C.N. 1932 Louis Blair wrote, ‘The Morphy-Deacon controversy makes it clear that Morphy was capable of speaking up for himself publicly without prodding from Edge.’
Lawson’s view that the two Morphy-Deacon games (a King’s Gambit and an Evans’ Gambit) were spurious was reflected in the chapter on Morphy contributed by him to a book that we edited, World Chess Champions (Oxford, 1981). From page 26:
Not long afterwards, the entry on ‘Spurious games’ on page 320 of the first (1984) edition of D. Hooper and K. Whyld’s Oxford Companion to Chess referred in categorical terms to ...
‘... the claims made by Deacon and Gossip in the 19th century. They would analyse with great masters testing various lines of play, would select one of these, doctor it, and present it as a game won against a famous player. In this manner Frederick Deacon (fl. 1860) claimed victories against Morphy and Steinitz thus becoming both notorious and unpopular.’
The ‘Spurious games’ entry on page 385 of the second (1992) edition of the Companion was no less certain:
‘A few players have published games they falsely claim to have won against a leading master. Such fraudsters may have analysed with masters and selected variations which they claim were victories. Thus Frederick Horace Deacon (1830-75) claimed wins against both Morphy and Steinitz.’
Although in some areas the Oxford Companion to Chess may be regarded as pro-Staunton and anti-Morphy, in the Deacon case Staunton’s strong words in the Illustrated London News in defence of Deacon were implicitly rejected out of hand. Deacon was written off as a ‘fraudster’.
Now to the penultimate paragraph of C.N. 12303:
David Lawson’s monograph on Morphy (pages 244-257 of the 1976 hardback and pages 253-268 of the 2010 paperback) discussed the Morphy v Deacon controversy at length, concluding, as had P.W. Sergeant, that the games were spurious.
That, we now note, is incorrect because, remarkably, Lawson misrepresented Sergeant.
On pages 64-65 of his book Morphy Gleanings (London, 1932) Sergeant published a two-page contribution on the Morphy v Deacon case from B. Goulding Brown:
Some points of detail will require comment and discussion in due course, but for now we are merely placing Goulding Brown’s full contribution on record. Below are the book’s only remarks about Deacon by Sergeant himself, in a footnote to his Preface (page v):
Thus Sergeant, confining himself to the one alleged Morphy v Deacon game that Goulding Brown showed, wrote that the text had been ...
‘... kindly contributed by Mr B. Goulding Brown, who has, to my mind, made out a good case for the genuineness of the game, for very many years relegated to the category of spurious.’
That is very different from Lawson’s version of what Sergeant wrote. The Englishman did not state, or even suggest, that the two games were spurious. He referred to only one of the games and said that although it had been regarded as spurious, on the basis of Goulding Brown’s analysis it might be genuine.
A critical review of the complex Morphy-Deacon case is needed, and for ease of reference a skeleton feature has already been put online.
(12308)
We show many further texts, expanding, where possible, on the already lengthy material quoted by David Lawson in Paul Morphy The Pride and Sorrow of Chess.
The score of the first alleged Deacon v Morphy game as published by Staunton in the Illustrated London News (see C.N. 12303):
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4 Bg7 5 d4 d6 6 O-O h6 7 g3 g4 8 Ne1 f3 9 c3 f5 10 Qb3 Ne7 11 Bf7+ Kf8 12 Bh5 d5 13 exf5 Bxf5 14 Nxf3 gxf3 15 Rxf3 Kg8 16 Qxb7 Bxb1 17 Rxb1 Nbc6 18 Bf4 Rc8 19 Bf7+ Kh7 20 Be6 Rb8 21 Qa6 Rf8 22 Qd3+ Kh8 23 Rbf1 Rb6 24 Bxh6 Bxh6 25 Rxf8+ Bxf8 26 Rf7 Bg7 27 Qf3 Ne5 28 Qh5+ Kg8 29 Rxe7+ Rxe6 30 Rxe6 Nf7 31 h4 Qd7 32 Qg6 Nd6 33 h5 Kh8 34 h6 Bf8 35 Rf6 Qe7 36 b3 Qe3+ 37 Kg2 Qe2+ 38 Kh3 Qe7 39 c4 c6 40 c5 Ne4 41 Rf5 Qd7 42 Kg2 Qd8 43 Rf7 Ng5 44 Rg7 Be7 45 Rh7+ Nxh7 46 Qg7 mate.
Both games were reprinted by Staunton on pages 594-597 of Chess Praxis (London, 1860).
Concerning the excerpts from Morphy Gleanings shown in C.N. 12308 above, we now give the full archive material referred to by Goulding Brown, following his order. (In David Lawson’s monograph the texts appear mostly chronologically, in Chapter 18 and in the Appendix.)
A response in the March (not February, as stated by Goulding Brown) 1860 Chess Monthly, page 90:
Deacon’s letter on page 315 of the Illustrated London News, 31 March 1860, preceded by the column’s answer to a ‘correspondent’:
Illustrated London News, 30 March 1861, page 297:
Chess Player’s Chronicle, 1860, pages 106-107:
Illustrated London News, 18 February 1860, page 166:
BCM, May 1888, page 222 (by Augustus Mongredien):
The footnote in Sergeant’s Preface to Morphy Gleanings, shown above, refers to ‘the American Chess Magazine of May 1860’, by which he meant the May 1860 Chess Monthly. From pages 159-160:
Sergeant also mentioned the New Orleans Times Democrat of 16 September 1911. The correct reference is 17 September 1911, Part Third, page 6:
We add the following from page 203 of the September 1911 American Chess Bulletin:
From page 8 of the New Orleans Sunday Delta, 22 January 1860:
David Lawson’s book (pages 248-249/257-258) also quoted from page 6 of the New Orleans Sunday Delta of 22 April 1860. Since the only copy available to us is unclear, we show it followed by a text which uses Lawson’s transcription (with some spelling corrections) as a guide:
‘A delay has occurred lately in the forwarding of Mr Morphy’s copy to the Ledger, owing to a painful indisposition of that gentleman from the effects of which he is, we are happy to say, almost entirely recovered ...
Mr Deacon’s reply to Mr Morphy’s letter, published in this paper, appears in the News of the World of 31 March, and in the [Illustrated] London News of the same date. It is evident that the clever English amateur did not anticipate so prompt and forcible a denunciation of his trick when he forwarded these spurious games to Mr Staunton, for his reply to Mr Morphy’s card is weak in the extreme; he does not even attempt to prove his assertion, but merely insists that Mr Morphy is mistaken, and has forgotten, etc. The public would certainly be very glad to learn when these games were played, where they were played, in presence of whom, and why. Mr Morphy’s score with Mr Deacon was not published, whilst that with every other player of note was regularly made known to the public by the weekly chess columns. It is to be hoped that in some future communication Mr Deacon will throw some light on the subject; indeed he will be required to do so by Mr Morphy. We have gathered the following facts from Mr Morphy himself. 1. That he made Mr Deacon’s acquaintance only two weeks before his departure from England. 2. That he did not play with Mr Deacon in any of the Chess Clubs of London, as their respective members will testify. 3. That he once visited Mr Mongredien in company with Messrs Deacon, Sybrandt, de Riviere and Maude, but did not play there, except with Mr Maude at P and 2, as the gentlemen who were present will prove. 4. That he did not meet Mr Deacon at chess at the British Hotel, where he (Mr Morphy) resided during his sojourn in England, as Messrs Sybrandt and de Riviere, who were constantly with him, will say. Where then were the games played? How comes it, too, that one of the games purporting to have been played with Mr Morphy is claimed by Mr de Rivičre as his own?’
Another addition is page 224 of the July 1860 Chess Monthly:
Now, Steinitz’s text (mentioned in our Overview above), from pages 267-268 of the International Chess Magazine, September 1891:
The text was not mentioned by Sergeant or Goulding Brown, whereas Lawson stated (in World Chess Champions, shown in C.N. 10308 above) that it ‘cleared the matter up for the public’.
The Steinitz-Deacon material in the Dutch magazine Sissa, referred to by Steinitz, is available online.
Finally, the conclusion of an item about the British Chess Association on pages 183-186 of Chess World, 1868:
Lawson’s book (page 255/page 266) took textual liberties when quoting a small part of the text, and referred to what Chess World ‘points out’, whereas it was an anonymous letter to the Editors.
John Townsend writes:
‘I should like to consider some uncertainties in the published evidence against Frederick Deacon.
David Lawson in his book Paul Morphy The Pride and Sorrow of Chess achieved a high standard of scholarship, and his detailed coverage of the subject of “The Deacon games” is no exception (pages 244-257/pages 253-274). Nevertheless, in the matter of the two Evans’ Gambits, Lawson omitted to make any mention of Staunton’s Illustrated London News column of 7 January 1860 and the revealing information it contained:
“M. De R., Paris, is mistaken. The game he played with Mr D., which we have, is not that mentioned, although the opening on both sides is similar.”
This reply is important because it establishes that Staunton warned Arnous de Rivičre at an early date that the latter had confused the two Evans’ Gambit games. Staunton was already in possession of the score of the game played between de Rivičre and Deacon and he could see that it was not the same Evans’ Gambit as the one purported to have been played between Morphy and Deacon, which had been published on 17 December 1859.
The insertion is written in the third person. That was normal for replies or notices to correspondents, although the second person was also sometimes used. The sequence of exchanges between Staunton and de Rivičre seems to have been as follows:
1. Illustrated London News column on 17 December 1859. 2. Letter from de Rivičre to Staunton (assumed to be commenting on 1). 3) Illustrated London News column on 7 January 1860 (with short reply to letter). 4) Illustrated London News column on 18 February 1860, noting de Rivičre’s “opinion”. 5) Illustrated London News column on 10 March 1860, acknowledging receipt of something.
Staunton’s column on 7 January 1860 indicates that de Rivičre was the one who was in error at that stage, although various uncertainties remain. Staunton did not publish the letter – why would he? – but his reply quoted above, although confined to a brief item among the notes “To Correspondents”, could hardly have been more prompt or more public.
It is not clear what action, if any, de Rivičre took on receipt of this alert. Staunton does not refer specifically to any second letter from him. It is even possible that de Rivičre overlooked the Illustrated London News column of 7 January 1860 and was subsequently unable to admit it without losing face, but that seems unlikely. Later, the Illustrated London News column of 10 March 1860 did contain a short note to de Rivičre, “A. De R. Paris – Received with thanks”, but it is not known what had been received.
Transcriptions of the scores of the two Evans’ Gambit games shown in your feature article:
P. Morphy v F. Deacon. 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 b4 Bxb4 5 c3 Ba5 6 d4 exd4 7 O-O Nf6 8 Ba3 d6 9 e5 Ng4 10 exd6 cxd6 11 Re1+ Ne7 12 Qxd4 Bb6 13 Qxg7 Bxf2+ 14 Kf1 Rf8 15 Nbd2 Bxe1 16 Rxe1 Qb6 17 Ne4 Bf5 18 Nf6+ Nxf6 19 Qxf6 Be6 20 Bxe6 fxe6 21 Qxe6 Qb5+ 22 Kg1 Qd7 23 Qxd6 Qxd6 24 Bxd6 Rf7 25 Ng5 Rg7 26 Ne6 Kd7 27 Nxg7 Kxd6 28 Re6+ Kd7 29 Rh6 Rc8 30 Rxh7 Rxc3 31 Nf5 Ke6 32 Nxe7 Rc7 33 Ng6 Resigns. (Source: Illustrated London News, 17 December 1859.)
Staunton commented on 29...Rc8:
“Played under the misconception that he could give up the Kt and regain the piece by bringing the rook to QB 2nd.”
This annotation suggests that Staunton had access to comments by the loser. That would tend to support the impression that this was a real game, as opposed to mere analysis (of the kind Steinitz later maintained that Deacon was capable of indulging in as part of a deception).
A. de Rivičre v F. Deacon. 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 b4 Bxb4 5 c3 Ba5 6 d4 exd4 7 O-O Nf6 8 Ba3 d6 9 e5 d5 10 Bb5 Ne4 11 cxd4 Bd7 12 Qa4 Bb6 13 Rc1 Ne7 14 Nc3 c6 15 Bd3 Nxc3 16 Rxc3 O-O 17 Re1 Re8 18 Ng5 h6 19 Bh7+ Kf8 20 Nxf7 Kxf7 21 e6+ Bxe6 22 Rf3+ Nf5 23 Qc2 Qf6 24 g4 g6 25 Rxe6 Rxe6 26 gxf5 Re1+ 27 Kg2 Kg7 28 Bxg6 Bxd4 29 Rg3 Be5 30 Rg4 Rg8 31 Qd2 Bc3 32 Qf4 Qd8 33 Qg3 Bf6 34 Be8+ Bg5 35 Qc3+ d4 36 Rxd4 Bf6 37 Rg4+ Kh7 38 Bg6+ Resigns. (Source: Illustrated London News, 18 February 1860.)
A note to 9 e5 reads:
“Up to this point the moves are identical with a game between Mr Morphy and Mr Deacon printed in our Journal of 17 December; and, indeed, M. de Rivičre writes to us expressing an opinion that this identity in the opening has led Mr Deacon into the error of confounding the games. M. de Rivičre believes that the ‘Evans’ Gambit’ in question, published on 17 December, was really played betwixt him and Mr Deacon, while the present game was that won by Mr Morphy.”
Thus Staunton presented de Rivičre’s “opinion”, but without adding his own view. He did not support de Rivičre’s “opinion” and, indeed, he did not change the players’ names contained in the score. Having already stated in the 7 January 1860 column that de Rivičre was “mistaken”, perhaps he felt no need to repeat himself by contradicting de Rivičre’s “opinion” a second time. He may have wished to spare de Rivičre the embarrassment, or felt that there was already enough acrimony. The possibilities are various.
Despite Staunton’s timely warning, Lawson’s account gives the impression that the Evans’ Gambit played by de Rivičre was the one submitted for publication by Deacon. In view of the 7 January 1860 column, that appears to be incorrect.
B. Goulding Brown made the point that, even if de Rivičre’s “opinion” were correct and the two Evans’ Gambits had been transposed in the manner suggested by de Rivičre, it still meant that Deacon had lost a game against Morphy. It is not clear whether de Rivičre, who was a close friend of Morphy, was aware that Morphy had stated publicly that he had never played Deacon. Morphy’s statement, therefore, looks questionable, to put it mildly.
Deacon’s credibility was undermined by the suggestion that one of his two games was against someone other than Paul Morphy. Deacon maintained throughout that the two games played with Morphy (the Evans’ Gambit and a King’s Gambit) were correct as published on 17 December 1859.
At the height of the controversy, Anglo-American relations became very strained. It was Morphy who first inflamed the situation by declaring on 19 January 1860 that someone had been “guilty of deliberate falsehood”. The fiercest language subsequently, however, came from Staunton in the Illustrated London News column of 31 March 1860. This saw him at his most angry as he launched a ferocious attack, denouncing Morphy and the American press; he showed firm support for Deacon, and the column included a note from Deacon himself; both Englishmen stressed the veracity of the games. However, these exchanges on both sides contained more heat than light and little evidence on the status of the Deacon games.
Even more influential and unfavourable comment about Deacon appeared under the name of, or attributed to, Wilhelm Steinitz. It is worth noting that Steinitz was openly hostile to Howard Staunton, but was on friendlier terms with Paul Morphy, whom he had met. The two sources quoted by Lawson appeared during the years 1891, over 30 years after publication of the two games, and 1911, over 50 years later. The latter item appeared after Steinitz had been dead for a number of years, and was published in New Orleans – not the most logical place to look for impartial comment on the subject of Paul Morphy.
Steinitz’s speculation that Morphy was only analyzing with Deacon requires the two men to have met at the chessboard. Steinitz does not name any such occasion, whereas Deacon gave full details for his two games. If Morphy had merely been analyzing with Deacon, there is no reason why Morphy could not have acknowledged the meeting and named the occasion. What could he have to fear from doing so? However, Morphy did not mention any such occasion, either when they analyzed together or played chess. As he did not, it seems safe to conclude that analysis is not what took place.
In short, what Steinitz suggested conflicts with what Morphy said. It is therefore hard to recognize circumstances in which Steinitz’s speculation could ever be true. Nevertheless, his contribution to the debate will have influenced countless interested parties. If his evidence can be removed from the equation, is there really much left?
David Lawson’s chapter on Deacon contained other accusations against Deacon of inventing games, some of which were very vague, but I know of no instances where concrete facts, e.g. names, times and places, were given such as might allow an impartial examination of evidence.
The most striking aspect of the Morphy-Deacon affair is its odd nature, with two players presenting conflicting statements about the existence of games claimed to have been contested between them. It is difficult to account fully for this oddness. Had the incident occurred 15 years later, one would have immediately called to mind Paul Morphy’s obsessive ramblings and complaints of persecution. In fact, Morphy’s mental instability was considered in the twentieth century by the Cambridge scholar Bertram Goulding Brown, who staunchly defended Frederick Deacon (C.N. 12308). Before 1875, history reports no signs of insanity in Morphy, although any earlier symptoms could have been kept private and would not necessarily have reached our ears. Goulding Brown seems to have overstated the case for mental illness in Morphy as early as 1860; there is no evidence for it, although the possibility cannot be ruled out.
Frederick Deacon stated in a letter the exact time and place where he had played against Morphy and named a witness, but this failed to ignite any spark of recognition of the occasion in Morphy. Deacon himself expressed his opinion that the explanation lay in Morphy’s “forgetfulness”, but he did not build on this. Instead, the finger of suspicion was pointed at a softer target, Deacon himself, who could hardly have been expected to win a popularity contest against the illustrious Paul Morphy.
In summary, the Deacon affair contains significant uncertainties, some of which were not considered in David Lawson’s account. More evidence would be needed before any conclusions could be drawn.
I would like to express my acknowledgement and thanks to the excellent Chess Archaeology website for access to the Illustrated London News articles referred to in the text.’
Below, from newspapers.com, is the start of the Illustrated London News column (7 January 1860, page 19) referred to by Mr Townsend:
Also courtesy of newspapers.com in particular, on 23 May 2026 we added many newspaper and magazine texts (1860-1911) to The Morphy v Deacon Case.
(12312)
The richest contemporary source of games published under Deacon’s name appears to be the Dutch periodical Sissa, mentioned by Steinitz in an article on pages 267-268 of the International Chess Magazine, September 1891 and available online via Google Books.
Regarding another Deacon case, his 1851 match against Edward Löwe/Lowe, see the account by G.H. Diggle in C.N. 7854, as well as his lengthier article, ‘A Crisis of 1851’, on pages 42-44 of the February 1940 BCM. Diggle had been allowed by J.H. Blake and the City of London Chess Club to examine Deacon’s papers. They included ‘a manuscript copy in Deacon’s writing of a tremendous letter written by him to the Committee of the Chess Tournament of 1851’ about being denied a match prize (unconnected to the international tournament) after his opponent withdrew on account of Deacon’s slow play. Diggle wrote of Deacon:
‘Whether he really did “win one and lose one” against Morphy or not, he was in the 50’s and 60’s an amateur of genuine brilliance.’
In the concluding paragraph Deacon was described by Diggle as ‘young, ambitious, desperately serious, gouging his eyes out over the board and sparing neither himself nor his opponent during his endless excavations’.
(12313)
Addition on 25 May 2026:
The conclusion of the Illustrated London News chess column, 4 December 1875, page 566:
Addition on 28 May 2026:
When Deacon received a line and a half on page 186 of the June 1876 Deutsche Schachzeitung his place of death was wrongly given as Brussels and he was referred to only as a composer:
To the
Archives for other feature
articles.
Copyright Edward Winter. All rights reserved.