Excerpts:

<However, another fact was that while the others complained of Staunton’s treatment (such as having only their losses to Staunton published in his widely read "Chess Player’s Chronicle"), Cochrane kept quiet about it, though it disturbed him as well. Thus, according to a letter from the "Hartford Times" that was reprinted in the "American Chess Journal", April 1878, Cochrane is said to have felt (and stated privately) that he was portrayed as a pawn-and-move bumpkin in "The Chess Player’s Companion", while he in fact beat Staunton in their last series of even games. However, instead of disputing this and perhaps bolstering his chess reputation, he swallowed it and came to be viewed as a player a level below the top; strong, a piece of chess history, but perhaps not up to the younger generation of chess talent.>

<How strong was Cochrane? We have a mass of seeming contradictions. In 1821, is it more important that the very young Cochrane was drubbed by Labourdonnais and Deschapelles in the triangular match, or that he reportedly did well against them in games after this match? In 1841-43, do we view the games between Staunton and Cochrane as showing that Staunton was much better (as the "Oxford Companion" claims), or do we take Cochrane’s unhappiness over this portrayal and his wins against Saint-Amant as evidence that he was a world-class talent at this time? Do we give credence to DeVere’s praise of Bannerjee, and thus enhance Cochrane’s status by his having beaten Bannerjee?

<The Cochrane Defense is a drawing method discovered by John Cochrane. The Cochrane Defense is the most popular among grandmasters for this endgame (Nunn 2002:174ff). The basic idea is to pin the bishop to its king when there are at least two ranks or files between it and the defending king.

Accurate play is required for the defense. The defense is most effective near the center of the board, and does not work on the edge (Nunn 2002:174ff). The Cochrane Defense works when:

* the defending rook pins the bishop to the king on one of the four central files (c through f) or ranks (3 through 6), and * there are two or more ranks or files (respectively) between the kings (de la Villa 2008:213-16).>

I think that Steinitz can be forgiven considering that this was an interview and he probably didn't know every birthyear of every chessplayer up to 1894. Cochrane was still 80 years old and Steinitz' enthusiasm justified.

There are a lot of factually wrong or at least strange claims from famous chessplayers (not even counting the more recent ones). Like Marshall calling Johannes Zukertort a former Worldchampion and the story of the "Five First Grandmasters" at St. Petersburg 1914.

It was printed in the St Louis Globe-Democrat of 13/07/1879. Supposedly it was from a private collection and had originally been published in the Glasgow Herald.

The article (Link below) contains annotations allegedly by Cochrane himself, but does not give any dating or location details.

http://www.chessarch.com/excavation...

My transcription of the moves is:

1.P-K4 P-K4
2.KKt-B3 QKt-B3
3.B-QB4 B-QB4
4.P-QKt4 BxP
5.Castles KKt-B3
6.B-Qkt2 Castles
7.KtxP KtxKt
8.BxKt KtxP
9.Q-KKt4 Kt-KKt4
10.BxKBP RxB
11.QxB P-Q3
12.B-QKt2 Kt-R6
13.PxKt Q-KKt4
14.K-Rsq BxP
15.QxKtP BxR
16.QxR R-KBsq
17.Q-K4 RxB
18.Q-K8 R-Bsq
19.Q-K6 K-Rsq
20.Q-K4 P-Q4