Morphy 3 mistakes:
15.Be2 -0.56 (15.Bb3 -0.18)
18.Bb2 1.24 (18.e5 1.98)
23.Qxg7+ 5.41 (23.Qxe7 9.86)

8.Ba3 seems weak. 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.Bg5 Qg6 10.Nxc3 Nf6 is attractive.

As to the above game, Réti comments on Whites 8. move (Ba3):

'The move recommende by theory is 8. Qb3; but the text move corresponds with Morphy's mode of play. The intention is, after Black's ... d6, to effect a breakthrough by e4-e5, and to drive home his start in development by a complete opening up of the game.'

Réti's comment on Black's 12th move (Ng4):

'Already e5 was threatened.'

On move 15 (Be2):

'And now f4 to be followed by e5. Of little use would 15. Bb3 have been by reason of the reply 15. ... Be6.'

On Black's move 15. ... f5:

'The opening of the game with a defective development is the principle error by which Black loses. 15. ... f6 was right. One observes that by reason of the move that was made, namely ... f5, both the e-file as well as the diagonals a1-h8 and a2-g8 were opened and to White's advantage, as the latter, thanks to his better development, is able to occupy them first.'

<Sceptic - In Mr Morphy's second game in last <Bell>, the game was given up at the point indicated, as we were personally informed by Mr Morphy. Sceptic denies Mr Morphy's power to win, suggesting that on [f6] the reply would be [Qf7]; then on Bishop's taking Queen the cramped-up King would move KRP, with an equal game. Our readers must judge for themselves. Sceptic thinks Morphy must answer [h6] with [Bg6]; but how about [Bd5] in preference?>

The following then appeared in ACB, February 1917, p. 39:

<Reproduction of a Morphy Game

"Our attention has been drawn to the fact that the Evans Gambit between E. B. de la Campa and S R Farinas, of Havana, printed in the January [sic] number, is identical, move for move, with a blindfold game contested by Paul Morphy, in New Orleans, the score of which is to be found on page 204 of Lowenthal's collection. Mr. de la Campa, who furnished the score of that game, was duly apprised of the state of affairs and since then we have received from him two letters , in neither of which he admits any intention to perpetrate a fraud upon the chess public. Evidently the matter created quite a stir in Havana, as he refers to the machinations of persons hostile to him. He also states that he had requested Senor Farinas, an architect and a busy man, to write and substantiate him, but so far we have not heard fron the latter. We make this statement of the case, believing we owe it to our readers.

"It may be pointed out here that genuine coincidences of this sort are on record, and it is interesting to quote from Edward Lasker's "Chess Strategy", which, in connection with to the famous blindfold game Morphy played against the Duke of Brunswick and Count Isouard at the Paris Opera House, the author refers to 'the curious coincidence that I once had the opportunity of playing a game in exactly the same sequence of moves against a player to whom Morphy's "brilliancy" was unknown.">

Yes, coincidences do occur. Monkeys and typewriters and Shakespeare and all that, you know. And it's not hard to reproduce a Morphy brilliancy if you have a decent memory. The only hard part is getting your opponent to play all the losing moves.

If De La Campa had simply admitted that, yes, he remember the mrophy game during play, I think that could be accepted. But his actual attitude seems defenseive and truculent to me, and I can't help thinking he's hiding something.

The real issue will come when I start submitting games from ACB 1916, and have to decide whether to include this one .

Actual monkeys

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infin...

Actual monkeys (unabridged)

https://vid.pr0gramm.com/2022/02/14...