But circumstances placed the twelve year old Napoleon in the midst of soldiers and in an era of war, while circumstances placed the twelve year old Morphy in the midst of Chess-players and in an era of Peace.
Napoleon was educated a General; Morphy was educated a lawyer.
To develop his self-evident and superlative Strategetic talent, Napoleon’s education was of the best; to develop his self-evident and superlative Strategetic talent, Morphy’s education was of the worst.
Napoleon succeeded as a General; Morphy failed as a lawyer.
The innate capability of Napoleon for Strategetics was developed in the direction of Warfare; the innate capability of Morphy for Strategetics was developed in the direction of Chess-play.
In War, Napoleon is superlative; in Chess, Morphy is superlative.
Educated in the law, Napoleon might have proved like Morphy a non-entity; educated in Chess, Napoleon might have proved like Morphy a phenomenon.
Educated in War, Morphy might have rivalled Napoleon.
For the Chess-play of Morphy displays that perfect comprehension of Strategetics, to which none but the great Captains in warfare have attained.
Perfection in Strategetics consists in exactly interpreting in battle and campaign, the System of Warfare invented by Epaminondas.