< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Oct-06-07|| ||Benzol: <SBC> <This game is the first recorded instance of the Cochrane Gambit.
Cecil de Vere (in The Field in the early 1870s) claimed that Bannerjee had been stronger than any European player at that time. In 1852, Cochrane beat Moheschunder Bannerjee +13-3=3.>|
Am I wrong in assuming that this is Brahmin Moheshunder Bonnerjee ( not Bannerjee ) that Cecil de Vere was refering to?
|Oct-06-07|| ||Calli: Oxford Companion gives the name as "Moheschunder, Bonnerjee". With Indian names, there is often confusion as to which is the surname. Brahmin would indicate his Hindu caste and not really a name. Cochrane's score in 1852 is given as 13+ 9- 3= over Moheschunder instead of only 3 wins given by <SBC>. Finally, OC attributes the assessment of Moheschunder's strength to Valentine Green (not Devere) who played him about 1860.|
|Oct-06-07|| ||Calli: Mohishunder and Moheschunder , therefore, should be combined as Bannerjee Moheschunder although which is the first and last name seems to be a matter of opinion. A second look at OC and I now note that they actually give the entry as "Moheschunder Bannerjee" without a comma between the names. So even they hedge a bit.|
|Oct-07-07|| ||Benzol: <Calli> Thanks for the research. I agree that Brahmin is most likely his caste. I still don't know if it's Bonnerjee or Bannerjee and it's also possible that Mahescandra is the same player.|
|Oct-07-07|| ||Calli: In all the old publications that I could find, its Bonnerjee. Here is the oldest online reference form Chess Players Chronicle in 1852. http://books.google.com/books?id=BS...|
I don't know about the other name. It sounds like someone else. Cochrane and Moheschunder Bonnerjee played over a hundred games. Cochrane left a manuscript with the scores of a lot of them, but I don't where they would be today. Oxford Encyclopedia of games only has one Bonnerjee game, for instance.
|Oct-07-07|| ||WilhelmThe2nd: <Calli> The Cleveland Public Library's John G. White Chess Collection has the Cochrane game-scores. You can order microfilm of them from there too. Here is the catalogue entry:|
Author: Cochrane, John.
Title: Transcript of Mr. John Cochrane's materiel for his intended work to be entitled 'Loose Indian chess leaves'. Vol. I.
Other Title Variation: Indian chess leaves MS
Year Published: 186
Item Type: Reference book, No Holds
Description:  p. : ill. ; 21 cm.
# Notes: Holograph?
# Bookplate affixed to p. 2 of cover: Ex libris John Ruskin, Brantwood.
# Each page divided into three columns.
# Dark green cloth binding with "Exercise book" stamped in blind on cover. # CPL Collection Development B703H2
# Dealer's description inserted.
|Oct-08-07|| ||Calli: Tried to search CPL tonight and am getting an error. Will try tomorrow.|
microfilm - They will loan it out via the inter-library system?
|Oct-08-07|| ||WilhelmThe2nd: <Calli> If you go here http://search.clevnet.org/ & search 'Loose Indian chess leaves' the two entries for the Cochrane scores come up. I suppose if you live in the US they'll lend it through inter-library loan. You can purchase copies of the microfilms but it takes a couple of months for them to make the copies & ship them.|
|Oct-09-07|| ||Calli: I got that far earlier, but soon began getting errors. Anyway, I am not quite that interested- paying for film for which I have no viewer and then entering a lot of games from old notation. This is something you would do if writing a commercial book.|
|Oct-11-07|| ||nimh: Correction, new threshold 0.33.
Cochrane 6 mistakes:
11.Nd5 -0.54 (11.d3 -0.10)
12.d4 -0.71 (12.c3 -0.22)
13.e5 -1.90 (13.Re1 -0.41)
15.Bxc6+ -1.34 (15.Qh5+ -0.65)
20.Bg5 -1.46 (20.e7 -1.03)
22.b4 -1.67 (22.Bf4 8.94)
Mohishunder 6 mistakes:
5...Ke8 -0.53 (5...d5 -1.18)
13...Nxd5 -1.01 (13...dxe5 -1.90)
21...Qc5 8.94 (21...Qb4 -1.78)
22...Qe5 2.25 (22...Qd5 -1.67)
23...Qxe6 15.60 (23...Qxf4 2.09)
24...Qxf7 317.67 (24...Bd7 14.11)
|Dec-05-07|| ||sheaf: <24...Qxf7 317.67 (24...Bd7 14.11> lol you call that a mistake pal ;-).|
|Apr-09-08|| ||sallom89: <Cochrane was a stupid attacking player.>|
LOL! but he gets credit for this nice game.
|May-07-08|| ||kannmann: Look for my new book on this "stupid attacking player" (who could play several games blindfold simultaneously and who was a regular sparring partner for Howard Staunton)|
|May-07-08|| ||PhilFeeley: I never knew Alekhine's opening had been played this early.|
|Nov-09-08|| ||thebribri8: <PhilFeeley> This isn't Alekhine's opening. This is the Petroff.|
|May-13-09|| ||offramp: <24...Qxf7 317.67>
I am puzzled as to how you can be ahead by 317 pawns. There isn't that much material on the chesboard even of every pawn promotes.
|May-13-09|| ||blacksburg: yeah, why do a lot of engines evaluate forced mate as around +320? is that just an arbitrary number?|
|Jul-12-09|| ||Honza Cervenka: 22.Bf4! Qb4 23.c3 would be quite pretty finish. Mohishunder was undoubtedly very strong chess player but modern "European" chess probably was not his main domain. Still he was capable to play with chess masters like Cochrane or Green very good games though this one is not the best example.|
|Jul-12-09|| ||Steven87: <blacksburg>
All programs work by assigning numeric values to various scenarios and evaluating. Typically, engines choose the line associated with the highest number (or lowest if evaluating for the opponent), known as the Min-Max algorithm.
320 is far greater than the sum of all piece values (which is usually around 40-45), ensuring forced mate is chosen over piece captures. It is also likely greater than the numeric values assigned to any other position, ensuring that if the computer finds a forced mate, it will follow that line no matter what. This principle is also applicable if the computer finds it assesses a situation which would put itself in a mating net.
|Aug-10-09|| ||WhiteRook48: these are prearranged|
|Feb-01-11|| ||scormus: What wonderful name for the sub-variation "bishop check line." Reminds me of a line for B in the Italian game that is very natural for beginners (and even some experienced players) to play, that the guys in our club called "book mistake variation."|
|Oct-22-12|| ||ICE2012: <Calli> <Oxford Companion gives the name as "Moheschunder, Bonnerjee". With Indian names, there is often confusion as to which is the surname.>|
I can clarify as I come from Calcutta. There is no confusion here - Bonnerjee or Banerjee, however is spell it, is the surname and also the last name. Anyone in this part of the world, will tell you that it is a very common surname and one of the several surnames for people with caste Brahmin.
<Calli> <Benzol> <Moheschunder , therefore, should be combined as Bannerjee Moheschunder although which is the first and last name seems to be a matter of opinion.>
Here Banerjee is the last name there is no confusion. His full name (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohesc...) is Mahesh Chandra Banerjee and in the modern day, he would be simply be called Mahesh, with Chandra a middle name.
|Dec-07-13|| ||Billy Pilgrim: Why 7...Qc7?|
|Dec-09-13|| ||Billy Pilgrim: And why is it over? Plenty of moves left|
|Dec-09-13|| ||jnpope: <<Billy Pilgrim:> And why is it over? Plenty of moves left>|
Because it is mate in three...
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·