< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
|Oct-08-07|| ||alexrawlings: Should white not win here? I don't understand why its a drawn game...|
|Oct-09-07|| ||whiteshark: <Nasruddin Hodja> After your suggestested <25...Nf5 26. Bf2> looks like a better move:
click for larger view
It may transpose to the actual game or, if the rook moves on the 2nd rank, may go another way.
|Jan-11-08|| ||hnishy: I want to arm Rybka with this Gambit, if not prohibited as anti-humanitic.|
|Apr-09-08|| ||sallom89: i like how Topalov shock his opponents.|
|Apr-30-08|| ||Poisonpawns: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7 Kxf7 5.d4 Be7 6.Nc3 c6!7.Bc4+ d5 8.exd5 cxd5 9.Nxd5 Be6 10.Ne3 Bxc4 11.Nxc4 Nc6=
Nunns chess openings.This line is the best play for both sides i believe in the cochrane.It is definetly playable for white,but i do think black is slightly better.I will almost go out on a limb and say it is just as good as the other lines in the petroff,but perhaps that is going to far.|
|Apr-30-08|| ||slomarko: Topa loves to shock Kramnik with these Nf7! sacs. sometimes Kramnik even manages to get a draw, like here.|
|May-23-08|| ||andymac: <alexrawlings>: I think it's a draw, because after 32. Rxc5 Ng3+ is a draw bu perpetual as White must move 33. Kh2 hence allowing the perpetual with 33. ... Nf1+.|
If White moves 33. Kf2 Ne4+ forks the Rook and wins.
|Feb-22-09|| ||WhiteRook48: sac, sac, sac, and perpetual|
|May-02-09|| ||WhiteRook48: 4. Nxf7?!|
|May-18-09|| ||Atking: Why not simply 8...cxd 9.Qxd4 Nc6 10.Qc4+ Kd7 (Without light square Bishop on the board isn't queen side more safe (Ka8) than king one?) with Qe7~Re8~Kc8 (Or Qe6!?)? I can't see how White could justify his sacrifice in f7.|
|May-19-09|| ||Poohblah: After 32. Rxc5 it isn't necessarily perpetual check due to 32. Rxc5 Ng3 33. Kf2|
or am I missing something?
|May-22-09|| ||ceebo: <or am I missing something?> Yes, 33...Ne4+ winning the white rook.|
|May-31-09|| ||centercounter: Never mind the Cochrane! I want to see the Halloween Gambit. Failing that (Topalov Black), Albin or the rarely seen Baltic QG.|
|Jul-21-09|| ||whiteshark: <Have you ever (been) sacked on Cochrane, 'Nick?>,
a famous Sharon Stone quote on C42 basics, if I'm not mistaken.|
|Jul-27-09|| ||muwatalli: the cochrane seems to be quite a long term and exciting gambit, this along with the italian variation should give any player who wants excitement in the opening a chance to smile once in awhile.|
|Nov-05-09|| ||The Chess Express: <Atking> You might want to check out the following game. My sense is that white's compensation lies more in his pawns than a direct attack|
L Rodi vs J C De Las Heras, 2000
|Nov-23-09|| ||Atking: Thanks for the game <The Chess Express> But instead of the strange 32...Kb8?! of the game I will probably play 32...Rg8 33.g3 Rg5 or f5 with a fair game for Black.|
|May-20-10|| ||newzild: The Cochrane has been my only line against the Petroff since I started playing club chess in 1995. When I joined the club, another player lent me Bronstein's "200 Open Games", and in the notes to one of his games the great man suggested that the Cochrane was fully viable.|
I think I've scored about 80 per cent with the Cochrane, mostly in blitz games on the internet. I did play the Cochrane in one rated game in Wellington in 1996, and won in about 17 moves against a 1600 player. After the game Jonathan Sarfati told me the Cochrane was dubious and that I shouldn't try it against the club's masters, Anthony Ker and Russell Dive. I should have taken the opportunity to ask what I SHOULD play against a master...
The line that has always given me the most difficulty is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7 Kxf7 5.d4 c5!, immediately chipping away at White's ideal centre.
|May-20-10|| ||HeMateMe: I always play the Petroff against 1. e4, and have had lots of blitz games involving the Cochrane. Some I win, some I lose. I don't really understand the opening; I think you really have to have a number of lines memorized to survive with black.|
|Dec-29-11|| ||tud: Topalov is a man with guts. To play something like that against Kramnik. All my respect.|
|Apr-09-12|| ||plang: Kramnik must have been surprised by 4 Nxf7!?. 5 Nc3 is quite rarely played and Kramnik's 5..c5!? was a completely new idea; was he trying to avoid preparation by Topalov or was he just improvising in an opening that he probably had limited theoretical knowledge?Kramnik cleverly returned material with 8..Kf7!; the alternative 8..cxd 9 Qxd4..Nc6 10 Qc4+..Kd7 11 Bg5..Rc8 12 0-0-0 would have left White with good compensation for the piece. Kramnik thought White's best chance would have been 16 h3..Nxe3 17 Qxe3 followed by Ne4 although Black would have maintained a clear edge. Kramnik lost a lot of his advantage with 21..Rc8?; he thought 21..Qxc2 would have been winning for instance after 22 f5..Nxf5 23 Qf4..Bc5+ 24 Kh2..Rhf8 25 Rd2..Ne3!.|
|Feb-18-13|| ||waustad: Here we get to remember how much fun Topolov games were a few years ago. He and Chepa dreamed up some amazing stuff, like the other famous knight sac on f7.|
|Aug-18-14|| ||posoo: now dis - DIS - is a PERFECT example of one man fighting to fight. LOOK at da topman, going for da gusto! |
And look at all these second-rate kibizzers. "BUT DA COCRAN IS NOT GOOD" they say. WHO CARES? knowing imperfections are FAR superior to pretend perfects like da critiks!
ps just like krumnuk to find a draugh!
|Sep-30-14|| ||tranquilsimplicity: <newzild> Sarfati claims that the Cochrane Gambit is dubious? Bronstein asserts that the gambit is very playable. And to prove it, Topalov, a super GM played it against the World Number 2, Kramnik, and the game was drawn. Your own experience proves that the gambit is very playable! In fact, many a time, one's own experience is the ultimate teacher. I would therefore not pay attention to what Jonathan Sarfati said.#|
|Jan-21-18|| ||Gajaindian: Nice game but hard to defend as black, if defended properly then black has advantage!!!|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·