Morphy did read books, which isn't an argument against his talent, I'm just putting it out there to try and put some stupid rumours to death. It should also be noted that Morphy was famous for keeping great track of new opening ideas and variations, another thing that's hard to do with only talent and no study.
how did they study for chess 'back then'?
Sort:
1) Morphy was reputedly the most booked up player of his time when he went to Europe. Of course the books were few and Staunton's Handbook would be the most modern I believe. A Bilguer's Handbook would have been nice but I'm not sure that he had one of those.
2) In the english translations of that Lasker quote the phrase is first class player. Not GM or even master, as he might well have said master if he meant that. I suspect that in Germany there were grades less than master, certainly there were tournament sections where lesser players could play each other*. I also suspect that first class might be an official designation for--expert level?
I also think the idea of reaching master for anyone (of adult age) isn't realistic even with lots of study. Maybe not even expert. Class A seems a reasonable goal except for those with an anti-talent for the game?
*Pillsbury's famous blindfold exhibition in Hanover was against players who were playing in the sub-master section, the winner of which would have earned the master title. Some were drawn from a lower section as well but Wikipedia does not mention this.
I heard recently that Emanuel Lasker was quoted as saying something along the lines of 'anybody can become a player of grand master level if they study properly, with dedication for a number of years'. This must have been the early 20th century, I don't know the exact date. Chess (as we know it) has been around for 400+ years now, but still I can't imagine that they had even close to the amount of books and media that we have today (they certainly didnt have chess.com). However supposedly people like Greco/Lucena have been writing on chess since the early 16th/17th century so it doesn't seem impossible. Did they rely more on 'natural talent' in those days, then? (a la Capablanca, Morphy)
It just occurred to me recently, as I have been doing lots of tactical problems and it makes me think 'how could they have done this before books/tactics trainer, if they did at all??'