Botvinnik missed 34.Qf7+

[Steven DuCharme]

vs.Capablanca 1938 Avro

[John Upham]

vs.Capablanca 1938 Avro

According to chessgames.com:

Apr-11-23 ketchuplover: 34.Qf7+ !!!!!

[John Upham]

I set Stockfish something other on the position after 33...Kg8

It informs me that

34. e7 is checkmate in 23 moves

34. Qf7+ is checkmate in 25 moves

35. Qg5+ is checkmate in 25 moves

35. Qd8+ is checkmate in 26 moves

All other moves are =

I'm not entirely clear what you are claiming that nobody else has discovered.

GK discusses 34.Qf7+ as do several other commentators including KetchUpLover on chessgames.com who I assume is yourself.

[Matt Mackenzie]

The actual ending to the game is rightly well regarded anyway, so who cares?

[MJMcCready]

No one is except from being prone to error. How can that not be anything other than blatantly obvious?

[Matt Mackenzie]

Agreed, but again does it really matter?

Its been known almost since its inception that Zukertort v Blackburne had a quicker White win than what was actually played.

But does that really detract from the timeless beauty of the original??

[John Clarke]

Agreed, but again does it really matter?

Its been known almost since its inception that Zukertort v Blackburne had a quicker White win than what was actually played.

But does that really detract from the timeless beauty of the original??

Same can be said about Paulsen v Morphy. Once a player sees a certain win, he'll nearly always go for it, and not bother to look for a quicker or more elegant one.

[Nick Ivell]

Along with others, I'm not bothered about speed of win.

Take K + R v K (back to our days as a beginner, which we never truly leave). The 'safe' path to victory is to use the opposition, keeping the rook well away from capture.

Then we learn there is a quicker route, using king and rook close together.

Does it matter, so long as time is not a factor, or the 50-move rule?

Aesthetics may be a factor too. It doesn't matter to me if a computer points out a quicker win.