< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|Aug-04-09|| ||Dredge Rivers: If the glove does not fit, you must acquit!|
|Aug-04-09|| ||Granny O Doul: If the glove "don't" fit. To get the meter, be a cheater.|
|Aug-04-09|| ||Dredge Rivers: <Granny O Doul> I distinctly remember him saying "does not", but perhaps I am mistaken. I suspect not, because "don't" in this context sounds too crude, and Johnny Cochrane always strove to sound polished.|
|Feb-04-10|| ||muwatalli: happy birthday to the man who invented the awesome cochrane gambit.|
|Aug-04-10|| ||Don Cossacks: Cochrane Defense:
<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).>
|Feb-04-11|| ||Penguincw: R.I.P. <John Cochrane>.|
|Mar-16-11|| ||Penguincw: < His name is associated with a variation of the Petroff Defense, the Cochrane Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7!? >|
Hmm.That knight that began on g1 is exchanging itself for two pawns.How interesting.
|Sep-28-11|| ||Ziggurat: <"The great chess men have generally been long lived and have preserved their faculties to the last. I remember well receiving a note from John Cochrane, a famous player, in London just before the tournament in Paris in 1878. He was then ninety years of age and said that he would like to explain to me some new ideas. He did so, and I was surprised to see a man of his advanced years write out from memory variations sixteen moves deep. The next day I read in the papers a notice of his death. I cannot imagine a happier way to die. It is so with almost all who devote their time to the game of chess. They live long and they retain mental vigor to the end of their days.">|
Steinitz, quoted in the current Urcan column at ChessCafe. (http://www.chesscafe.com/urcan/urca...)
|Sep-28-11|| ||keypusher: <I remember well receiving a note from John Cochrane, a famous player, in London just before the tournament in Paris in 1878. He was then ninety years of age and said that he would like to explain to me some new ideas.>|
Subtraction was not Steinitz's forte.
|Oct-02-11|| ||Karpova: <keypusher: Subtraction was not Steinitz's forte.>|
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.
So let's just correct that mistake and appreciate the fact that a strong and important master like John Cochrane was still in such a good shape shortly before he died at the age of 80 (in the 19th century!).
|Oct-03-11|| ||keypusher: <Karpova> You are absolutely right, of course.|
It is nice to see you posting regularly here again.
|Oct-06-11|| ||tamar: Was Steinitz making the same error confusing John Cochrane b 1878 with James Cochrane b. 1870?|
<ARubinstein> <SBC> and <Calli> debate this on pages 3 and 4 of this page.
|Feb-04-12|| ||Penguincw: R.I.P. John Cochrane.|
|May-09-13|| ||Graham1973: I think I've found a Cochrane-Mohishunder game that does not appear to be in the database.|
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.
My transcription of the moves is:
Assitance in converting to algebraic notation would be greatly appreciated.
|May-09-13|| ||Calli: <Graham1873> See Cochrane vs Mohishunder, 1852|
|May-09-13|| ||Graham1973: <Calli> Thanks for identifying the game. I'm going to incorporate the Cochrane annotations into the existing file and upload as a correction.|
|Jun-17-13|| ||Gottschalk: [Event "Unknown"]
[White "John Cochrane"]
[Black "H W Popert"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Bb4+ 5. c3 dxc3 6. O-O d6 7. a3 Bc5 8. b4 Bb6 9. Nxc3 Nf6 10. Bg5 h6 11. Bh4 g5 12. Nxg5 hxg5 13. Bxg5 Be6 14. Nd5 Bd4 15. b5 Be5 16. f4 Bxa1 17. bxc6 Bxd5 18. Bxd5 Bc3 19. cxb7 Rb8 20. Qd3 Ba5 21. Bxf6 Qxf6 22. Qb5+ Ke7 23. Qxa5 1/2-1/2
Source: Simbase from Netherlands.
|Jun-17-13|| ||thomastonk: <Gottschalk> The game has been published in "The Chess Player's Chronicle", Vol. III, p19. The game score is incomplete, because there it is stated after 23.xa5: "AND BLACK DREW THE GAME, BY GIVING `` PERPETUAL CHECK.´´"|
So, 23.. d4+ has to be added, but then it's ambiguous. The easy solution is 24.f2 d1+ 25.f1 d4+. But also 24.h1 xh2+ 25.xh2 h8+ 26.g3 g8+ should lead to a perpetual, but White's next move can be 27.h2 or 27.f3.
The easy solution is more probably, because otherwise, Staunton would have published the additional moves, I think.
The game has been played in London during Cochrane's visit from 1841 to 1843, and since the CPC appeared some time after April 27, 1842, the year is 1841 or 1842.
I couldn't find the game under the link you gave, because Cochrane's games are unavailable there. However, such collector databases often miss important information for such old games, which you can complete by using primary sources. Many useful links can be found for example here Calli's Game Collections or here http://www.chessarch.com/library/ma..., respectively.
|Sep-06-13|| ||thomastonk: Why do we have January 2, 1878 as his date of death, whereas usually March 2, 1878 is given? |
Ancestry.com has a John Cochrane, who died in London in January 1878, and who was born about 1800, but ... no.
I've checked the CPC of 1878, p.73 and British newspapers (wherein his death is noticed only in March), and hence I change the date.
|Sep-06-13|| ||Tabanus: <thomastonk> Actually Ancestry.com has "Jan-Feb-Mar 1878" which may well be March 1878. I think it's him, the one who died in Marylebone London.|
|Sep-06-13|| ||thomastonk: <Tabanus> Okay and thanks. A guest at Ancestry.com like me cannot see such details.|
|Oct-14-13|| ||jnpope: I believe they were recorded by Cochrane:
I just noticed the Cleveland library put his manuscript online. I just downloaded all four parts, but I haven't had a chance to go through the files.
|Oct-14-13|| ||thomastonk: <jnpope> Great!
I've found the games in the database, which is described and can be downloaded from http://www.kwabc.org/index.php/furt....
The game Cochrane vs Mohishunder, 1854 is transcribed therein with the date January 3, 1854.
|Oct-14-13|| ||thomastonk: <jnope> The game Cochrane vs Mohishunder, 1854 is in volume 1, pdf page 52. Additional comment: "Time 13 minutes".|
|Oct-14-13|| ||jnpope: re: Jay Whitehead database
I met Jay at the John G. White collection when I was finishing up my Pillsbury research and he was starting his research into games not found in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games. I had a 486 laptop at the time with Chess Base 3 and my Pillsbury game collection and I was going through the White collection scrapbooks looking for miscellaneous Pillsbury games. Jay was impressed with the technology and asked if I would be interested in creating a database of games from the hundreds of pages he had already photocopied. I spent that summer doing data-entry and then sent his photocopies back to him along with a print-out of the games and copy of the database. I suspect a large number of the games in his final database are the ones I entered into Chess Base years ago... I never utilized his discoveries (but I may have sent them to John Hilbert as part of a larger historical database when John was doing his Napier research). I'm happy to see Jay kept up on his research and that the games he found eventually made their way into public circulation.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·