I have indeed played it myself, though nearly always as a "self-handicapping" system: an opening played against a weaker player. (Unlike many Chessplayers, my primary goal is not always to win. Often my goal is to win, but I also like exciting new situations! So, instead of giving a weaker player a Pawn or Knight, I'll sometimes just play a dubious opening :)

My results have actually been very good, though I really would need to play this lightning bolt gambit against stronger players to have a better sense of my skill (or lack thereof) with it.

I note that our Opening Explorer shows that White wins 62.7% of the games opened with Cochrane Gambit (!!), draws 13.4%, and loses 23.9%. (Lest one read too much into these lopsided results, however, it is not uncommon to see unorthodox openings with large winning percentages, though the strongest players are rarely found within those games sets. (I suspect many of these wins are against players who are too dependent on narrow sets of familiar openings, and these "strange sequences" are meant to bounce them into unfamiliar situations, much to their detriment.))

If I play it any time soon against a solid club player, I'll report my results!

(: Bishop Berkeley :)

Short vs Shirov, 2002 is another interesting example.

Alvis Vitolinsh apparently has the self-handicapping idea upside-down: you do this against a *weaker* player, not a *stronger* one!

A Vitolinsh vs Khalifman, 1984

(: Bishop Berkeley :)

What's the source for this?

http://www.ballo.de/Partien/zettel_...
http://www.musagetes.de/as/schachte...

"John Cochrane (1798-1878) .... Er besuchte im Jahre 1821 gemeinsam mit William Lewis Paris und nahm dort am Vierer-Treffen mit Deschapelles und Labourdonnais teil."

I'm more than a bit confused. I went to the two pages you posted here. I don't read German, so I used Google translator which did a good job, but not a perfect one. One was Harold Balló's excellent site and the other site, I'm not familiar with but I found a critical error in reading through his section on Morphy (he wrote: "After his match against Anderssen Morphy played no more tournament chess." First, I must assume by "tournament chess" he meant competitive chess; second, Morphy's match with Anderssen wasn't his last match - he played two more after that) That error gave me an uneasy feeling about the rest of the page.

Maybe it was because of the machine translator or because of some inate shortcoming of mine, but I didn't see a single thing about James Cochrane having played Deschapelles. They both mention James Cochrane's name, but that's about it. In fact, both sites mention, correctly, that John Cochrane was in Paris (with William Lewis) in 1821. Equally, I can't understand the idea that Deschapelles would even play James Cochrane, let alone play him even. Regardless of whether Jame Cochrane is listed as having played this game in the Chessbase Big Database, I just don't see any evidence.

Using the Google Translation of the first page:

<Anton Schmid (literature of the game of chess, Vienna 1847) gives a James Cochrane (WAD-race civil Servant) as an author together with Ghulam Kassim for this work. It uses however two different feature years (1829 and 1839). It points out explicitly that this James Cochrane is not identical with the famous chess player (who it calls then however again incorrectly James [instead of John])... [John Cochrane] belonged to England strongest chess players and is not not to confound with „WAD-races civil Servant James Cochrane (1770-1830).>

And the Google translation of the second page:

<The opening of this portion is the Ghulam Kassim Gambit, variants of the Königsgambits. Ghulam Kassim however is a CO author that probably first Eröffnungsmonographie at all, which to 1829 in WAD-race one published. The second CO author is a James Cochrane, which is confounded more frequently with John Cochrane then living in Calcutta.>

He then goes on to give a link to Ballo's page, so regardless of the error about Morphy, these two pages are in agreement about the confusion regarding the two players James Cochrane and John Cochrane.

There should be a separate page for the games of James Cochrane. It is clear that there was another player named "James Cochrane," and all of the games that are listed under his name in ChessBase are given here as being played by John Cochrane.

<SBC: Equally, I can't understand the idea that Deschapelles would even play James Cochrane, let alone play him even.>

What makes you so sure that James Cochrane was such a weak player? If he co-wrote a monograph on a chess opening, it is clear that he had at least some interest in studying the game.

Visited ChessBase's online database and its true that they have mistakenly and, I must say, very carelessly listed James C as a player in many games. Its easy to see what happened. Someone there looked at the large gap in years between the games they had - the last of first group in 1826 and the other group beginning in 1842 - and then without a shred of evidence decided that James C must have played all of the earlier games and since he died in 1830, that John played all the rest. Very sloppy, but I've had similar experiences with Chessbase.

Just like the story of the man who supposedly challenged Capablanca to a game and Capa declined. When the man pressed him for a reason, Capa told him he wasn't good enough. The man, a bit indignant, said something like, "you don't even know me, how do you know I can't beat you" and Capa replied "If you were capable of beating me, I'd know you."

If James Cochrane was good enough to play Deschapelles even, we'd all know him.

Your assumption about what ChessBase did is just that -- an assumption. In general, there are fewer errors on Chessbase than here on Chessgames, and their Big Databases are more complete. I'm not talking about their online database. My source was not there online database, which is not as accurate as their purchased databases. If you have any of their Big Databases (2004 to present), then look for the games of James Cochrane there. You will see that he is *not* listed as a <player in many games>, which you indicate. He is listed in very few games, but he is listed. And, in this sense anyway, ChessBase is more accurate than Chessgames. ChessBase recognizes him as a separate player. Chessgames has no record of him even existing.

<Both websites recount John C. visiting Paris and playing Dechappelles and LaBourdonnais, so there is no question that John Cochrane played all of the games here on ChessGames.>

This is very sloppy "history" indeed. Based on one game, you state that there is "no question" that John Cochrane played "all" of the games here. How can you be so sure? That is only one game. Chessgames.com doesn't list ANY games of James Cochrane. But the ones listed under his name according to ChessBase (and there are others besides the Deschappelles game) are all listed here under John Cochrane's name. You cannot, based on the evidence of one game, make an assumption about <all> the other games in question.

Some people *do* know about the existence of James Cochrane; the fact that you weren't aware of him doesn't prove anything. He co-wrote one of the early monographs on a chess opening. Just to do such a thing in the early 19th century shows that he was not a stranger to the game. I find it strange that you can speak so definitively about his strength, and yet you haven't played over a single one of his games.

What are you and <Calli> suggesting? That there should be no page for James Cochrane because he wasn't "good enough"? There are more than a few not-so-good players who get listed here on Chessgames, especially from the 19th century and before. Why shouldn't he be included?

About the Deschappelles game, I have already agreed that ChessBase might be in the wrong on that particular game. I think it deserves investigation But this says nothing of the other games which are attributed to James Cochrane.

I am asking that a page be put up for James Cochrane so that the games which he *did* play can be properly attributed to him, and so that this lesser-known player can be investigated.

There are no recorded games attributed to James Cochrane. Period. None. How do I know this? The Oxford Encyclopedia lists every known game of this period. All of the games here are John Cochrane. Recorded games 1800-1830 are extremely rare. Oxford lists less than 75 games total for the peiod. If James C had any recorded games they would be well known.

The Oxford Encyclopedia may be incomplete. It is not exactly the only historical chess source. New games are popping up all the time; just today ChessBase posted an article about a new game of Capablanca's (although it's authenticity is still in question). Are you speaking of an online Oxford Encyclopedia or one that you purchased in some previous year?

There is obviously at least one source that disagree with you. If a page is put up for James Cochrane, this issue can be better investigated on his page.