According to Peter Wright former assistant director of MI5 in his book Spycatcher (published 1987 by William Heineman Australia) p81-82 "Alexander ran GCHQ's H division, which handled cryptanalysts, ably assisted by the quiet, studious Denham, who eventually succeeded him in the 1960s. Aleaxander joined Bletchley Park, GCHQ's prewar forerunner, at the outbreak of the war and, along with Alan Turing and Gordon Welchman, was primarily responsible for breaking the Enigma codes. After the war Turing went to Manchester University to design computers and tragically died by his own hand after being hounded over his homosexuality. Welchman went to work on advanced computers in the USA. Alexander, alone of the three stayed to pursue a peace time career with GCHQ."

Alexander's influence is still with us today through both Chess and computer cryptanalysis.

< From every point of view therefore the modern player is far better equipped than the older players; he has a wider range of understanding of different types of strategy, he knows far more about the openings, and he is better equipped technically. Can we then say with confidence that Botvinnik, Smyslov, or Tal would beat any former champion?

The best way to try to answer this is not as is usually done, to ask how Morphy would do if he were transplanted to the present, when the issue is confused by the feeling that Morphy would rapidly absorb our present knowledge. It is rather to ask how Tal (or Botvinnik or Smyslov) would do if he were transplanted to the past. I personally can feel no doubt at all that any of these three would in these circumstances have demolished with comparative ease all players before Lasker: their advantage in knowledge and technique would have been decisive. With Lasker, however, I must confess to doubt. This extraordinary genius, with his indomitable fighting spirit, resourcefulness, and psychological insight into his opponents' weaknesses, coped without any apparent difficulty with all the technical innovations in his lifetime - even when he was far past the normal prime of life for a chess-player. The Reti school which he first met when in his middle fifties caused him no trouble at all. I believe his knowledge was near enough to that of the moderns for his genius to carry him through. With somewhat less confidence I belive the same about Capablanca and Alekhine.

To sum up, my views are as follows. The general level of play among the great masters is far higher today than ever before, and no player before Lasker had a combination of knowledge and genius sufficient to enable him to compete on level terms with the moderns. With Lasker, Capablanca, and Alekhine, however, a level was reached which has not yet been surpassed - though it has been equalled by the 1948 Botvinnik and may again be equalled by (or even surpassed?) by Tal or Fischer. If this view is wrong, then it errs in overrating the older players. I rather hope it is wrong; I don't like to think that chess has been played as well as it ever can be. >

<Lasker? He would lose terribly; he would always find himself in types of position he had never seen before--because of course none of us would play a simple Queen's Gambit or a Steinitz Defence to the Lopez against him. It is true that he had no difficulty against the hypermoderns in 1924 theough he expected it [...] But the best theorists were not the best players--Réti, for example, was weak tactically. No, I think he would lose terribly to the ten best players of today. If he could get into positions with which he was familiar--then of course he would be a great player; but I think he would not be able to. Even Alekhine would have had to study for a year first; I am not sure, but I believe the man had never seen an exchange sacrifice on c3 in the Sicilian. Imagine that!>