Using the original literature, I've only seen his name given as <A. Alexander>.

https://books.google.com/books?id=K...

<Alexander, Alexander, lived in Hamburg, 28.11.1885 45 J. old, EM was the Altona chess clubs; H 78 II Altona, Hamburg 68 I, in the next few years was therefore Drop participant. Of the 1st Head T (Nat-M).>

<Alexander, Alexander, lebte in Hamburg, 28.11.1885 etwa 45 J. alt, war EM des Altonaer Schachklubs; H Altona 78 II, Hamburg 68 I, war im nächsten Jahre daher Teiln. des 1. Hauptt (Nat.-M).>

Not sure what "Teiln." abbrev means... or the reliability of the last part of the google translation.

This stuff would be trivial for a German speaker.

<More often, however, we see occur in the event that large practical chess champion kept away from theory or is it just contributed Excellent therein. So is the biggest chess genius of all time, Paul Morphy, known as a theorist neither happy nor been significant - it is based, for example, be eight rapid chess problem (see M. Lange, Morphy Book 1881 p 312.) Even on an impossible line-up. is therefore a very misguided. Both benefits combined are found so rarely -- whether it be that lust and hobby at the good practitioner of the theory were missing, or also the case that the theorists had about no favorable opportunity to train in a practical game. Ph. Velcro and S. Loyd Problemcomponisten as such could perhaps not surprising, since the problems to compose and play good games, much different things. But even famous theorists who have the teaching of openings or endings were significantly enriched, sometimes no strong chess player, so u. A. (among others) in earlier times especially Damiano (1512) Carrera (1617), E. Stein (1789), Allgaier (1795). Rare examples of this kind in our century have been, but it produces at least some mention how especially <A. Alexander>, O. v. Oppen, Centurini & c. (And others)>

And the original:

<Häufiger dagegen sehen wir den Fall eintreten, dass grosse praktische Schachmeister sich von der Theorie fernhielten oder doch in derselben nicht gerade Hervorragendes leisteten. So ist das grösste Schachgenie aller Zeiten, Paul Morphy, bekanntlich als Theoretiker weder glücklich, noch bedeutend gewesen — es beruht z. B. sein achtzügiges Schachproblem (siehe M. Lange, Morphybuch 1881, p. 312) sogar auf einer unmöglichen Aufstellung, ist also ein ganz verfehltes. Beide Vorzüge vereinigt finden sich also nur sehr selten -— sei es nun, dass Lust und Liebhaberei bei dem guten Praktiker für die Theorie fehlten, oder auch der Fall, dass der Theoretiker etwa keine günstige Gelegenheit hatte, sich im praktischen Spiel auszubilden. Bei Ph. Klett und S. Loyd als Problemcomponisten könnte solches vielleicht nicht Wunder nehmen, da Probleme zu componiren und gute Partien zu spielen, wesentlich verschiedene Dinge sind. Aber selbst berühmte Theoretiker, welche die Lehre der Eröffnungen oder Endspiele wesentlich bereichert haben, waren mitunter gar keine starken Schachspieler, so u. A. in älterer Zeit namentlich Damiano (1512), Carrera (1617), E. Stein (1789), Allgaier (1795). Seltener sind Beispiele dieser Art in unserem Jahrhundert gewesen, doch lassen sich immerhin einige nennen, wie namentlich <A. Alexander>, O. v. Oppen, Centurini u. A.>

If anybody could comment/improve on the google translation I'd be obliged.

Is this basically saying Alexander was much stronger as a theorist than as a player?

'Teiln.' = Teilnehmer (participant)

'componiren' is wrong for 'komponieren'

About Morphy: '(Now I come to the opposite case of what I just said and which was not part of the copied text so fill in the blanks) Most of the time great OTB chess players don't study theory (in the sense that they do not value it) that much. As example the biggest chess genius of our time Morphy, is in fact a pretty lousy theoretician - just look at how he bottled his 8 move chess problem he even failed to set up correctly in that book. So it is really hard to find both a tremendous practical player who at the same time is a chess theoretician of the highest order. ..'

The context given for Alexander is not clear to me, but yes it seems like he is roasting Alexander as a 'modern' example of a strong opening and endgame expert unable to make two correct consecutive moves in an unfamiliar position.

And no do not take that as a par for par transcript.