|Nov-28-04|| ||Poisonpawns: Interseting line against the petroff, I must admit i have never seen it before. Is there a known refutation to this Knight sac or was black just unprepared? |
|Nov-28-04|| ||PinkPanther: Topalov played it against Kramnik once, so it can't be THAT bad. |
|Nov-28-04|| ||DanielBryant: This is the Cochrane gambit, it's at least 150 years old. |
|Nov-28-04|| ||azaris: <Poisonpawns> 5...c5 is as close to the refutation you can get, but White will still have annoying central pawns to cram down Black's throat. |
|Nov-30-04|| ||acirce: <Poisonpawns> It is refuted and Black plays the refutation. It is later on that he is outplayed. "Annotating by result" is a common error that even Kasparov does in the OMGP series.|
This is of course not to say that it can never have practical value, let's say you're playing someone who uses the Petrov to avoid the kind of unbalanced positions he desperately hates. The trade-off of playing an objectively dubious line for getting your opponent into positions he doesn't like and understand may well be worth it.
|Nov-30-04|| ||AdrianP: http://www.schach.gmxhome.de/boofre...
is an extraordinarily detailed online analysis of the Cochrane Gambit (<patzer2> gave the link on another page).
|Nov-30-04|| ||acirce: <by Uwe Bekemann>
Funny seeing his name again; I played two correspondence games against him in a friendly match Sweden-Germany recently. If I'd known I'd have let him play it!
|Nov-30-04|| ||azaris: <http://www.schach.gmxhome.de/boofre...; That's an interesting resource, but I wouldn't necessarily agree with his choice for the "mainline" variation. |
|Nov-30-04|| ||AdrianP: <azaris> Maybe, but I wouldn't argue with him either - it might take a while! |
|Nov-30-04|| ||azaris: <AdrianP> Of course, the tried and true method of solving differences of opinion about lines between correspondes players is to play a game in that line. The loser then shuts up.|
Hey, it worked for Estrin and Berliner (Estrin vs Berliner, 1965)!
|Nov-30-04|| ||AdrianP: By coincidence, I just played a blitz game which went as follows:|
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nxf7 Kxf7 5. d4 Nxe4? 6. Qh5+ Kg8?? 7. Qd5+ (with mate in 1) 1-0
I was White, fortunately...
|Dec-01-04|| ||Poisonpawns: <Azaris>: Great link for the cochrane gambit in the petroff i will definately try this out over the board. |
|Dec-01-04|| ||offramp: That link shows how perfect html is for openings manuals. |
|Dec-01-04|| ||azaris: <offramp> I still prefer going through opening variations in a tree-like fashion à la Scid or the Opening Explorer. |
|Jun-24-05|| ||bomb the bishop: <AdrianP> thanks for the link, however the main line is not 5..g6 as stated on the webpage but rather
5...c5 so If anyone knows another link where 5..c5 is discussed I would appreciate it if you could post the adress|
|Nov-24-07|| ||newzild: I've been playing Cochrane's 3.Nxf7 Gambit against the Petroff for years, after seeing an analysis by Bronstein. He considered it playable, and tried it a few times in casual/blitz games. My own results are somewhat mixed. An interesting trick pointed out by Bronstein is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7 Kxf7 5.d4 Nxe4?! 6.Qh5 ch Ke7 (instead of Kg8?? as AdrianP points out below) 7.Qe2! and white recovers the knight with an extra pawn.|
|Dec-09-10|| ||Everett: <acirce> Refuted? Where exactly did black go wrong then?|