The author’s assertion with regard to Morphy is that “He was head and shoulders above the players of his time.”  What precise degree of superiority that may imply in chess is not easy to define, and must be left to the imagination of the reader.  As a matter of fact Mr. Hoffer never saw Morphy; and his statement is based upon his published games and public chess opinion; which, it is true, mostly awards Morphy the highest place in modern chess history; his title, however, is principally based upon his victories over Anderssen and Lowenthal, the former in bad health, and not in his best form at the time!  Staunton and Buckle, the best English players of their day, never encountered Morphy.  Against Harrwitz he won five to three, and fourteen to six against Barnes.  Morphy’s record, though great, is not superior to Staunton’s before, and Steinitz’s after him.  There do not appear sufficient grounds for estimating one more highly than the other.  Foreign critics sometimes as well as English ones have been apt for purposes of inferential comparison to exalt one player and proportionately disparage another; thus chess critics, with whom Staunton does not stand in the highest favour in the past, or Steinitz in the present, too often indulge in the most extravagant statements as to Morphy’s immeasurable superiority, not based on conclusive grounds; when the games and evidence are closely and impartially tested.

The rapidly advancing chess skill of so many young amateurs in the present day is a great stimulus to the rising generation of chess-players, especially to such as aim at a high state of proficiency; and, though this may be regarded as one of the most interesting and popular features in the pursuit the author of the article in question makes no reference to this branch of the subject.  The gradual introduction of the game as a mental recreation into seats of learning and industrial establishments, and the formation of many Working Men’s Chess Clubs are now well known; the result is that for the first time within the recollection of present players several amateurs have come to the front scarcely inferior in force to the new Master, Pollock, whilst some in style may compete with him!  Anger, Donisthorpe, Guest, Hooke, Hunter, Jacobs, and Mills, with the most successful of the past University Chess Teams, Chepmell, Gattie, Gwinner, Locock, Plunkett, and Wainwright, are names scarcely less familiar than those of the half dozen older masters left, who form the remnant of the little band of twenty recognised masters living in 1854.

Chess has become far more general than it formerly was because it is better understood.  Old fashioned notions that it was too serious and necessitated an unreasonable absorption of time, are passing away.  A well-known amateur, whose games please the public much and are greatly admired in Professor Ruskin’s letters has played many of his best specimens within an hour, some in half that time.  This same player