I keep seeing "Morphy would have beaten Steinitz", which we will never know, but here is some food for thought, from Steinitz' International Chess Magazine of 1886:
(Nov 1886 pp 333-335)
To what I have said on
the subject before, I may only add quite in conformity with the
substance of my previous remarks that I have never quarrelled with
anyone who bonafidely believes that Morphy could have beaten me even, if
he had made progress with the time. But if anyone says that the Morphy
as he was, and not the one who might have been, could give Pawn and move
"What's this piece called?"
"A Bishop. What is it in Spanish, Sophie?"
"And in French, Agathe?"
Therein lies a story...
The old Arab form of chess had a piece called the elephant, which, unlike most elephants I know, could jump two squares at a time, diagonally. And 'al-fil' means the Elephant in Arabic (Pil in Persian).
But if you have a lump of stone, or wood, and you want to show that it is an elephant, you might carve two curving lines on it for tusks, or make two points on it to show the same.
Last week the juniors saw the game of Shogi played. It's the sort of chess
played in Japan, and by our new friends Kaz and Hatzune. How is Shogi
related to the sort of chess that we normally play?
When I first looked at the history of Western Chess, I thought that the
original game was Chaturanga, a game played in India before 600AD.
Chess as played in other countries seems to come from the Arab form of
Chess called Shatranj. And that is what I used to tell people.