Double Dutch Game Score

Every now and then I come across a game score that has me completely foxed. The following is an example. It is the game Rudolf Loman v Lucien Serraillier, played on 23 May 1902 at the Kent Congress in Tunbridge Wells. Rudolf Loman (1861-1932) was a master strength player who won a number of unofficial Dutch championships in the 1890s. His opponent, Lucien Serraillier (1866-1919) was a lesser player but still quite strong and good enough not to finish last in this ten-player all-play-all which Loman won with 7/9. (I'll be posting more details of the tournament on BritBase in due course.)

Here's the score, initially frozen at the point where the game seems to veer off into insanity...

I keyed the game in from the source, which was the Western Morning News, 27 June 1902. I don't usually spend much time looking at the game while I'm entering the moves, but when I saw 17 Ne4 it set my chess player's antenna twitching. The instant I entered the move, I saw the whole story flash before my eyes. (And, note, I did not have an engine switched on.) My thoughts could be translated into words, thus: "wow, can he do that? Hang on, take the knight, White plays Bxb5+ and then grabs the queen next move - but surely Black will have more than enough material for the queen? Rook and two minor pieces. What am I missing?"

I stopped entering moves and looked harder. Nope, I still didn't get it. After checking the input moves against the printed score - they seemed correct - I finished entering the moves and saved the game. I looked again at the printed score...

Western Morning News, 27 June 1902

As you can see, the newspaper has printed a diagram of the position after 21 Bxg6, which tallies with the one in the digitised game score. So that would appear to rule out input error. The above clip constitutes the entire report of the game given in the paper. There were no other comments made about it.

So what to make of it? Obviously, like any other game inputter, I sometimes spot errors in games found in newspapers, but they are usually perpetrated by much weaker players than Loman and Serraillier. Of course, strong players make mistakes too but I usually only spot these when going through the game later with an engine. What amazed me here was the fact that something I spotted instantly, which I would expect any self-respecting player rated 2000+ to see quickly, was apparently overlooked by the players.

Of course, it is still possible that the score was wrong. But what? A pair of moves missing somewhere?

There was just one comment made elsewhere which might have a bearing on what happened. Leopold Hoffer, in his column in The Field on 31 May 1902, said this of Loman's performance in the tournament: "Mr Loman's performance is excellent, although (on dit) not entirely unattended by a favourable element of chance." So was it a massive bluff which came off?