English Chess Forum

vs.Capablanca 1938 Avro

Steven DuCharme wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 11, 2023 7:04 am

vs.Capablanca 1938 Avro

According to chessgames.com:

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

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.

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

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

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??

Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 11, 2023 2:07 pm

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.

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.