< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 5 ·
|Jan-20-07|| ||SBC: <vonKrolock>
If Kuprin's story, supposedly based on the Warsaw Cafe in Kiev, interests you, a little bit more about "Marabou" can also be found here - http://sbchess.sinfree.net/Invented...
|Jan-20-07|| ||vonKrolock: <SBC> Thanks :) - I answered Your post in L R Eisenberg page (maybe a good place for 'Chess in Ukraine'...)|
|May-12-08|| ||deadlysin: this guy beat the unbeatable
|Oct-06-08|| ||Karpova: IM Nikolay Minev's article "The Legacy of John Cochrane": http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skitt...|
Minev annotates games from Cochrane but also played in later years to show the connection between Cochrane's chess and modern concepts. He concludes that <The general theoretical question of the nature of the relationship between material and compensation, hinted at a long time ago by Cochrane, is a trend in modern chess, but we have only scraped the surface and the exact answer, if it exists at all, is still far away.>
This excerpt shall only serve as an appetizer. The article is worth reading and the annotations are surely helpful for chessplayers.
|Oct-06-08|| ||Whitehat1963: Is this O.J.'s former (now deceased) defense attorney??|
|Oct-24-08|| ||amadeus: Thanks for the link, <Karpova>.|
|Nov-27-08|| ||OhioChessFan: I have way too much time on my hands, having read all 4 pages of kibitzing. :)|
|Jan-31-09|| ||Karpova: Jeremy P. Spinrad's new article "John Cochrane" - Part One from January 31, 2009: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/spinr...|
George Walker: <“Mr. Cochrane’s banner bears for its device ‘Attack, attack’. Attack at all risk — attack at every cost. Mr. Cochrane is the most brilliant player I have ever had the honor to look over or confront, not even excepting De la Bourdonnais; and pity it is that his very brilliancy so often mars success. Mr. C.’s game can be compared to the very dashing charges made by the Mamelukes at the Battle of the Pyramids; when they impaled themselves, horse and man, upon the bayonets of France.”>
(From "Chess Studies" (1844))
Spinrad: <I know little of Cochrane’s personal life, though it is said to have been very exciting. He was born in 1798 to a prominent Scottish family. In his youth he joined the Royal Navy, serving for a time aboard the Bellerophon, the warship to which Napoleon, fleeing from his defeat at Waterloo, surrendered in 1815, and which transported the fallen French emperor to England, preparatory to his final exile on Saint Helena. After leaving the navy, Cochrane studied law and was admitted to the bar in 1822, becoming a barrister in London. He spent a large part of his life in India, where he must have been quite successful, as we will see later.>
|Feb-04-09|| ||laskereshevsky: He lived in India until 1869...
mmmmmhhhhhh.... Maybe he gived same chess-lessons to the Sultan Khan"s family?!....
|Feb-04-09|| ||drkodos: Whitehat; No, but he may be the great, great, great (etc) grandfather of Zefram Cochrane, inventor of the Warp coil.|
|Feb-04-09|| ||laskereshevsky: or maybe is the great, great, great, great,great (etc, etc, etc..) father of the first human who'd travel at warp speed...|
|Feb-04-09|| ||WhiteRook48: wow! Awesome and I would like to thank CG for posting him as player of the day|
|Feb-28-09|| ||Karpova: The second part of Jeremy P. Spinrad's article on John Cochrane: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/spinr...|
<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?
My opinions on this are quite arbitrary, but I see no way to avoid arbitrariness. Taking into account Cochrane’s youth and his loss to Mouret, I feel that he was not quite ready for Labourdonnais and Deschapelles in 1821, and that the triangular match does show the Frenchmen were better at this time, though perhaps not by as much as the scores indicate. However, given the number of disputes Staunton had over match results and presentation, I am reminded of children who are always involved in disputes about cheating at school chess clubs; even though you can’t say out loud that they are cheaters, you don’t believe them any more. I think Cochrane was quite comparable to Staunton in 1843, and he beat Saint-Amant by a score quite comparable to Staunton’s. Given the praise heaped on Cochrane’s brilliance by players of the time, I believe that in the early 1840s he was a candidate for best player of the time; he certainly would have been a worthy match opponent for anyone. Thus, he fits my view of underappreciated masters. I could not pin down exactly when Cochrane’s peak would be, but at some point, perhaps around 1841, he may have been as good as anyone in the world.>
|Mar-21-09|| ||Dredge Rivers: The only man ever to beat the Turk, and I'd never even heard of him! Why is that?|
|Mar-21-09|| ||DCP23: <Dredge Rivers: The only man ever to beat the Turk, and I'd never even heard of him! Why is that?>|
Because you don't know openings? Ever heard of Cochrane Gambit in the Petroff?
|Mar-21-09|| ||Dredge Rivers: <DCP23>
No, I didn't. Hey, I ain't no Billy Fischer! :)
|Apr-20-09|| ||Raisin Death Ray: <Dredge Rivers> Yeah, and I'll bet you're no Jerry Kasparov either!|
|Aug-04-09|| ||vizboy: I'm sure I've read somewhere that during one of Fischer's absences from competitive chess (64-65?) he studied a lot of Cochrane's games. I know he looked up a lot of Staunton's stuff, Bilguer's Manual and other old boys. Anyone else pick that one up or am I talking through my hat?|
|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.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 5 ·