All else being equal, relative advantage in either branch of Prime Strategetic Means is sufficient to ensure victory in battle, and the proper use of such advantage for securing victory is outlined thus: PRINCIPLE _Utilize advantage in Prime Strategetic Means to obtain the superiority in Numbers at the Point of Contact in an Offensive Battle; and to nullify the adverse superiority in Numbers at the point of contact in a Defensive Battle._ * * * * * Between War and Chess there is a seeming incongruity, which is the basis of that doubt of the utility of Chess-play, so commonly held by laymen, and which fallacy few, even among proficients, are competent to combat. This doubt most frequently is voiced by the query: If Chess and War are analagous, why was not Napoleon a Master Chess-player and Morphy a great military Commander? This query readily is answered in the words of Frederic the Great, viz.: “To be possessed of talent is not sufficient. Opportunity to display such talent and to its full extent is necessary. All depends on the time in which we live.” The Strategetic talent possessed in common by Morphy and Napoleon, in both was brought to perfection by long and expert training. 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. Those able to do this in War have achieved greatness, and the great at Chess-play are those who best have imitated that exactness with which Morphy employed this system on the Chess-board. To those who imagine that Strategetic talent, as exemplified in Warfare, is different from Strategetic talent as exemplified in Chess-play, the following may afford matter for reflection. * * * * *