< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 15 OF 15 ·
|Sep-26-09|| ||Open Defence: http://www.chessbase.com/cbm/cbm131...|
|Oct-02-09|| ||zoren: Alright, since my last post I have Yusupovs book, the latest C42 games, and I've come to the conclusion that this defense is really hard to play, and the complications usually are very very subtle and too minute to notice until its too late. |
I played a series of internet games using the defense and usually the games are usually very interesting, contrary to its reputation.
Its quite amazing how guys like Kramnik, Gelfand, Yue hold perfectly using the Petroff.
|Apr-05-10|| ||FiveofSwords: Im fairly good at accurate calculation, so I actually win a lot as black in the petroff. Im not playing kasparov, of course, but I have beaten many masters. Its true that black has to play accurately, but all those open lines can potentially cut both ways, white can't be flippant himself. And its nice to know that when you see trouble coming in a few moves, as black, you almost always have the option of bailing out and liquidating to an endgame.|
|Jan-15-11|| ||GrahamClayton: |
click for larger view
In the final edition of the "Handbuch" (1916) Schlechter recommends 9...d7, but adds the remark "it prevents 10.b5, but 9...c6 is better."
|Feb-12-11|| ||Penguincw: The <Opening of the Day> today goes to : The <Petrov Defense>!.1.e4 e5 2.f3 f6|
|Apr-13-11|| ||Maatalkko: Thoughts on the Cochrane Gambit:
The more I look at it,
The more I like it.
I do think it's good.
The fact is
No matter how much I study it,
No matter how I take it apart,
No matter how I break it down,
It remains consistent.
I wish you were here to see it!
|Apr-13-11|| ||Maatalkko: Funny you say that you don't want to face the Cochrane, <acirce>. I was thinking the same thing myself. I can't think of any example of an opening choice being rejected that's more extreme than the Cochrane. |
The thing is, it's a slow gambit. The pawns do the work, not the pieces, and if you develop too quickly and exchange a piece or two the opening is dead.
I've been looking to see if there's a knock-down theoretical refutation, and I don't see one. I can't find a model game where Black wins smoothly and White had no improvements. It's remarkably underplayed.
Old as the opening is, the 5. d4 variation only existed beginning in the 1980's. The old method with 5. Bc4+ is looks less strong, but I don't think it's been refuted either.
Everyone assumes it's an unsound gambit without even looking at it, which is probably why it's so underexplored. I think it's a dual conspiracy. White players don't want it to be sound because they don't have the stones to play it. Black players don't want it to be sound because it would ruin the Petrov if people started playing it all the time.
Wouldn't it be funny if the theoretical "perfect tablebase" showed the Cochrane as a refutation of the Petrov?
|Apr-13-11|| ||Maatalkko: Gambits produce a strange psychology.
Player A thinks an opening is sound, Player B disagrees. They play it out and Player A wins. Player A says, "See? I told you it works." Player B says, "No, you just beat me with an unsound gambit."
|Apr-13-11|| ||Maatalkko: My friend and I used to keep playing this same line in the Dragon, where I would play Bh6 at some point. My friend mistakenly believed it to be an unsound variation because there's a trap in it, but if you play it properly it's actually a recognized line. I beat him in that line five or six times in a row, and then told him it had been sound all along. He still didn't believe me.|
|Apr-13-11|| ||MaxxLange: <Maatalkko> what does "unsound" mean, anyway? a gambit loses by force?, OK, that's unsound. It gives you worse chances of winning or drawing and better chances to lose, than if you had played a solid line? That's also unsound, OK.|
But, I have known amateurs, my fellow class players, who are far too materialistic. If they work up their nerve to play a gambit, they then try as hard as they can to win back the gambit pawn by force! If they can't get back the pawn with equality, they say the gambit is "unsound".
That seems to miss the point, the idea is supposed to be that you get compensation in the form of development, initiative, attack, or positional features, in exchange for giving up some wood.If your attack looks like it is starting to peter out, you should look for a way to sac MORE material, not look for a way to make a draw.
The kind of stubborn duel among friends you describe reminds me of the titanic fight that the strongest and third-strongest guy at my old club had, in the KGA Fischer defense. The stronger guy, who had White, won more of them, of course
|Apr-13-11|| ||MaxxLange: I can;t think of too many other gambits that involve giving up a Knight as early as White does in the Cochrane.....|
I'd suspect that the reason we don't see it in GM play is that White simply has better winning chances in the main lines. Strong players are going to make a draw
|Apr-13-11|| ||Maatalkko: <MaxxLange> Obviously you're a player in some courage to choose that handle. I am learning that opening right now, from "A Startling Chess Opening Repertoire", which also contains good analysis of the Cochrane. Funnily most on Amazon criticize it for recommending the Cochrane, but I don't see why. Petrov is somewhat rare at my strength (Class B) but i'm still pumped to learn it.|
I'd say "sound" = white has move sequences that at least draw against all variations and "unsound" = black has move sequences that win against all variations. Of course, that's strictly theoretical, because nobody has or can make a complete tablebase for the opening. We can take a guess at sound or unsound though. Most openings are sound i would guess, even maybe stuff like the Borg or the Albin.
Cochrane: sound or unsound? IDK but if it's unsound that's hard to prove. Cochrane has crushing stats, yet people are too scared to try it.
|Apr-13-11|| ||Maatalkko: The Cochrane looks like so much fun, though, that I might scrap the Max Lange and try the Halloween instead. That's the only other early Knight sac opening, besides Muzio KGA, but everyone plays something else vs King's Gambit. Just being like "F it" and going for it immediately has a strong psychological effect, because most opponents are like "dang, I would never dare to do that", especially in a tournament.|
|Apr-13-11|| ||Shams: Kramnik was on the ropes against Topalov's Cochrane attack a few years ago, which to me means it's sound enough for the purposes of anyone on this forum, ever.|
|Apr-13-11|| ||HeMateMe: someone post the game. I've been murdered by the Cochrane in Blitz. I'd like to see a GM suffer through it.|
|Apr-13-11|| ||chancho: Maybe <Shams> is referring to this game where a Knight is sacked, but this is not a Cochrane's Gambit.|
Topalov vs Kramnik, 2008
|Apr-13-11|| ||HeMateMe: <Topalov vs Kramnik, 1999;|
No, it was this one, with "Cochrane Gambit" in the header. And, Topa did have a lot of threats.
|Apr-13-11|| ||chancho: <HeMateMe> Oh, alright...|
I was just checking this one out of curiousity as soon as Cochrane was mentioned:
Cochrane vs B Mohishunder, 1848
|Apr-13-11|| ||Shams: Ok, I overstated things quite a bit when I used the phrase "on the ropes". But my point stands, play the sucker.|
|Apr-14-11|| ||HeMateMe: Apparently the right move is play Bishop to e6, even though your King gets dragged out into the open board.|
I'm guessing Topa had winning lines worked out at home, but ultimately was surprised by Kramnik giving up material to establish a perpetual check, along the first rank and g3 square.
|Apr-14-11|| ||Shams: <Maatalkko> <The Cochrane looks like so much fun, though, that I might scrap the Max Lange and try the Halloween instead.>|
The problem with the Halloween Attack is that black can play 5...Nc6 and 6...Bb4 just giving back the piece with a better game.
|Dec-29-11|| ||Penguincw: Opening of the Day
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7
click for larger view
Looks like it has evolved from a Petrov.
|Mar-01-12|| ||Penguincw: Opening of the Day
1.e4 e5 2.f3 f6
click for larger view
|Jan-01-13|| ||Ron: Here's an interesting game I played against the Petroff:|
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 Nxe4 4. Bd3 d5 5. Nxe5 Nbd7 6. 0-0 Nxe5 7. dxe5 Nc5
This position has occurred before.
8. Be2 c6 9. Be3 Be7 10. f4 Ne4
11. Nc3 Nxc3 12. bxc3 Qa5 13. c4 Bf5 14. cxd5 Bc5 15. Bxc5 Qxc5+ 16 Kh1 cxd5 17. Bd3 Bd7 18. f5 0-0
Perhaps Black is castling into the attack, but would Black really be better off keeping the king in the center?
19. f6 g6 20. Qd2 Re8 21. Qh6 Qf8 22. Qe3 Rec8
Here I conceived of an attacking plan. Also, I felt that Black had no real attacking prospects against my king.
23. h4! b6 24. h5 Be6 25. hxg6 hxg6
26. Qg5 Qa3 27. Bxg6! Kf8 28. Bxf7 Bxf7 29. e6 Ke8 30. Qxd5 Bxe6 31. Qxe6+ Kf8 32. Rf3 Rc6 33. Qxc6 Qxf3 34. gxf3 Kf7 35. Qxa8
|Feb-18-13|| ||FiveofSwords: about this cochrane knight loss stuff...its actually a knight for two pawns...so in term of material you are only one pawn behind. It is not so extreme as you say.|
I dont recommend playing it if you are trying to 'refute' the petroff. Its not a refutation. But if you jsut want the sort of position you tend to get from it then fine, its playable.
The petroff without the cochrane gambit is already quite often tactically complicated...but somewhat symettrical and balanced. the cochrane forces more asymmetry.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 15 OF 15 ·