But I haven't seen an original quote.>

Anderssen vs Steinitz, 1866 (kibitz #8)

The book:

Well, after a fashion....and I believe the source for this was Steinitz himself. But one can appreciate that Steinitz was pissed at the cult of Morphy.

<In a sense, all of Steinitz work was an attempt to answer the question "How did Morphy do it?">

Steinitz started off in the romantic mould, so in that sense he knew exactly how Morphy did it - i)prodigious memory ii)dazzling speed of thought iii)near-total sight of board. Of course, Steinitz had these attributes, too, just Morphy had them more.

<Dr. Max Lange has published a second edition of Morphy's games, omitting the two end games with Deacon, which are said to be apochryphal [sic]. The author, wishing to test this statement, offers three prizes of 100, 50, and 25 marks for the best essays upon the subject, which shall demonstrate, by the character of the games themselves, whether they were played or not. The essays may be written in English, French, or German, and must be addressed, with motto and sealed envelope, containing the writer’s name and address, to Dr. Max Lange, Gellerstrasse, Leipsic, before June 30th, 1881. If any of our readers can inform where the two games in question can be obtained we shall feel obliged to them.>

Yeah except Tal didn't dominate anything like Morphy did. If you bother to compile every opponent that Morphy and Steinitz have in common you would see Morphy will score significantly better than Steinitz. Many of those that played them both felt that Morphy was the better player.

The thing is, chess theory was so different back then it's almost like comparing different games.

Staunton vs Bristol, 1839

E Williams vs Staunton, 1839

Morphy - Mongredien (1859)

Many of the concepts held back then were completely wrong.>

Perhaps many were but Morphy was already playing what would be aspects of the modern game long before they were in vogue. Other players did as well to a lesser degree.

The notion that they didn't understand positional play or endgames is simply a gross overstatement. It maybe the prime focus was the tactical middle game but it wasn't exclusive. Morphy vs Harrwitz match bore that out in particular.

<Page 185 of La Stratégie, June 1879 reported that a number of other Parisian publications had mistakenly announced the death of Morphy. On page 345 of its 15 November 1882 issue La Stratégie noted another report involving Morphy, and the consequence was a stinging attack on the press by Alphonse Delannoy on page 8 of La Stratégie, 15 January 1883.>>

Paul Morphy (kibitz #7247)

1882...1879...

Here's one from 1876:

<Death is making great inroads in the ranks of the chess-players. To the obituary, which has lately included the names of Howard Staunton, De Vere and Paul Morphy, must now be added the name of Mr. J. J. Lowenthal, who conquered every competitor of his day Morphy alone excepted.> (Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News, July 29th 1876, p.435)

Nothing like it in chess history.

God was on the other line: