From chesshistory.com, this is the introduction to Frank Marshall’s Marshall’s Chess “Swindles” (1914),
It may not be obvious to all why I have employed the title of “Marshall’s Swindles.” The title of “swindle” is one of derision, which has been applied to my victories of certain disappointed gentlemen, who did not enjoy seeing their fond pre-conceived notions demolished over the open board. When their theories went to smash in actual play with a man not tied to book chess, the explanation was, that the unexpected move was a “Marshall swindle.” So I have made a collection of “Marshall swindles.”
I am giving this collection to chess-loving public in record form, so that the individual player may see and study the nature of the “swindle” for himself. It seems absurd on the face of it that in the game of all games and contest of all contests where chance and luck and trickery have no entry, a “swindle” should achieve victory. I therefore may be pardoned by the reader, if I ask him when he plays over these games to judge fairly as to this point, namely: Is the succesful move, combination, or line of play, as the case may be, initiated by me, rightly to be called a “swindle”, or rather, on the other hand, is the respective move, combination or line of play demolished by me, entitled to be called “a busted conceit”? I submit the games as a basis for judgement, and leave the verdict to the chess-playing world.
Note: In chess, this is a swindle.