Does anybody have a way of reading the New  Orleans Times Democrat of 1891? That would be interesting indeed. And does anybody know of recent games in this variation?

By the way, there seems to be a history of reinventing this gambit. It was first brought to my attention by Graw81, who thought of it himself and was unaware of any theory on the line.

In my blog there is the quelle and quotation. And where is the Times Democrat article? I don't see it. If already I saw it than next comment. By my opinion: more interest the game. Si duo facit idem, non est idem!

"Before this had written "1.Nf3 f5 2.e4". "

It's a little confusing. Lane first wrote that he mistakenly thought the line to be analyzed was 1.Nf3 f5 2.e4, but then went on to examine the proper line 1.Nf3 d5 2.e4.

Worth noting:

The Times-Democrat article was written in 1891. Charles Amédée de Maurian moved to Paris in 1890.  The article was probably written by James D. Séguin, who had been the co-editor of the Times-Democrat chess column with de Maurian.

see: http://sbchess.sinfree.net/deMaurian.html 

To Matijs, 

I had read the Chesscafe article. There is: "Otto Tennison who published an article about this line." Which line? Before this had written "1.Nf3 f5 2.e4". This is another cake. Here in my article there is the quelle, and the complete quotation.

If we can read that article, we will knew more. The New Orleans Times Democrat, this is my favourite journal, because edited by Charles Amadée Maurian who was the best friend of Morphy. Proof against this article Abonyi and his friends didn't knew this American article, as we now.

It might be interesting to see what Tennison wrote and see how it compares with what Abonyi wrote. It seems unlikely that Abonyi had access to the Times-Democrat.

That was a good find,  Mathijs.

I'm afraid that there is a good reason to call it the Tenisson Gambit, though. Apparently he played it and published on it in the 1890's. See http://www.chesscafe.com/text/lane61.pdf

Thanks for posting this interesting article. The second game is very interesting indeed, although it isn't very theoretically relevant to the abonyi gambit.

Thanks. I had never heard it called the Abonyi Gambit.

I guess that was the point of the article.

Thank you.