|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-02-04 | | RisingChamp: Well you are probably right in that white has no serious winning chances as a result of the opening if both sides play perfectly.I myself said"i dont think its a great winning attempt.And clocked u r also right but the presentation of two separate concepts together like that certainly gave the impression( at least to me) that they were being equated. |
|
Jul-15-05
 | | Joshka: Is 5...c5 so much better than c6? For white, what would be the best way to continue against 5...c6? |
|
| Jul-30-05 | | patzer2: A detailed analysis of this game can be found at http://www.chessbaseusa.com/T-NOTES.... |
|
| Jul-30-05 | | Montreal1666: <patzer2:> The main points from that link is that 5...Qe7 is probably better for black. And that white could have had winning chances with
28)Rc6.
This combined with the fact that in this database there is a big plus score for white after 4)Nxf7 is somehow strange and scary! This is not supposed to be a sound gambit. |
|
| Jul-30-05 | | patzer2: <Montreal1666> Take a look at some of the detailed analysis of the cochrane gambit at http://www.schach.gmxhome.de/boofre... and tell me what you think. My old Batsford Chess Openings by Kasparov and Keene indicates it's somewhat equal (with compensation). I can tell you from personal experience that with White having two pawns for the piece, an initiative and a space advantage, Black's defensive task is not easy. Maybe the Cochrane gambit in the Petrov will someday be refuted, but it hasn't happened yet. Certainly over the board, and even in correspondence play, it is a difficult opening for Black to counter. For example in the ChessGames.com Opening Explorer White wins 61.5% to only 24.6% for Black in a current sample of 65 games. |
|
| Jul-30-05 | | Montreal1666: <patzer2:> Thanks for the link. It covers a lot of variations that I will have to look at. But my immidiate question is: If this is not bad for white then why don't they play it often in the high levels? My understanding is that the majority of the games related to Cochrane in cg.com are not in the GM level. Therefore the black sides are not strong enough to handle the complications due to the exposure of the king. |
|
| Jul-30-05 | | patzer2: Black's <31...Bc5+!> is an instructive defensive move. After 32. Rxc5 Nd2+ 33. Kh2 (Not 33. Kf2?? Ne4+  , when Black wins.) 34...Nf1+ 34. Kg1 Nd2+ =, Black forces a draw by threefold repetition of moves. |
|
| Jul-30-05 | | patzer2: <But my immidiate question is: If this is not bad for white then why don't they play it often in the high levels?> I suspect that super GMs avoid gambits in general because it is too easy for their opponents to book up and prepare for them. I suspect most GMs who enjoy sacrificial play and tactics, prefer to find sacrifices as novelties or complications in known openings that their opponents are not prepared to meet over the board. |
|
| Jul-30-05 | | Montreal1666: <patzer2:> Ok. So then as amatures we have to first learn how to beat the Cochrane gambit before ever start playing the Petrov. It seems a difficult task if it is left for over the board play. I will have a look at that link soon. Thanks again. |
|
| Jul-30-05 | | euripides: The way Kramnik has been playing of late it might be worth trying this again and seeing if he improves with 9 ... dxc5. |
|
| Jul-30-05 | | patzer2: <Montreal1666> <Ok. So then as amatures we have to first learn how to beat the Cochrane gambit before ever start playing the Petrov.> Well, since Kramnik couldn't beat an "inferior" variation of the Cochrane, maybe just knowing enough to equalize against it would be sufficient. |
|
| Jul-30-05 | | acirce: <If this is not bad for white then why don't they play it often in the high levels?> Because, while it may be playable, it's not good enough. Black equalizes too easily. On club level, say below 2000, I have no doubt that it can be a great practical choice if you're booked up on it. |
|
| Jul-30-05 | | Montreal1666: <acirce:> Yes. After looking at the <patzer2:>'s source, I have reached to the same conculsion. |
|
| Jul-30-05 | | Montreal1666: <patzer2:> The link you gave: http://www.schach.gmxhome.de/boofre...
is quite good enough for us. Anyone who is interested in knowing how to play against the Cochrane gambit should read it in detail. I will try to summerize the main points. As it has been mentioned in the earlier posts, the best move for white is 5)d4.
Even with this move, with the accurate play by black, white cannot obtain any advantage. The two other alternatives: 5)Bc4+ (which is the most likely move in the club level!) and 5)Nc3 (as in the present game) are inferior and black can cease the initiative. <5)Bc4+ ?!> is best answered by <5)...d5!>, offering white one more pawn. But white cannot accept it (6.exd5?! Bd6 7.o-o Rf8 8.d4 Kg8  where Black completes his artificial castling and has a good play). Even the
better <6.Bb3 Bg4!7.f3 Be6! 8.e5 Nh5 > still ends up in an advantage for black. <5)Nc3?!> is best answered by: <5... Qe8!> and continues: <6.Bc4+ Be6 7.Bxe6+ Qxe6 8.o-o c5!? >. Now going back to <5)d4> the best idea
for black is g6 with Kg7 and a later return of the material (a knight for two pawns). The line is: <5.d4 g6 6.Nc3 Kg7 7.f4 Qe8 8.e5 dxe5 9.fxe5 Bb4 10.a3 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Nc6 12.Be2 Nxe5 13.dxe5 Qxe5 14.o-o Bf5 15.Bf4 Qxc3 16.Bd3 Rhd8 17.Qf3 => 5)... g6 is considered better than 5)...c5 that was suggested in some of the earlier posts. |
|
| Jul-30-05 | | patzer2: <Montreal1966> Good summary of a lot of difficult material. Looks like you'll be ready if someone plays the Cochrane gambit against you. You're smart in settling for equality against the best (5. d4) line. Once it's equal the best player can win. |
|
| Jul-30-05 | | Montreal1666: <patzer2:> Ok! Thanks for the link again. |
|
| Aug-05-05 | | who: <Montreal1666> You meant sieze the intitiative. <Ceasing the initiative> implies the opposite. Funny how the two words sound almost the same and mean exactly opposite things. |
|
| Aug-05-05 | | Montreal1666: <who> Yes thanks for the correction. I typed too fast! |
|
| Oct-21-05 | | lopium: ahaha! That scared me when I saw the Knight sacrifice, I think I will play that now! |
|
Nov-03-05
| | Joshka: Would be interesting if these guys played a match in 2006, and had a few games discussing the merits or lack there of, of this Cockrane Gambit. |
|
| Nov-09-05 | | gazzawhite: <Joshka> Yeah, that's what I was thinking, play the Cochrane Gambit in the reunification match! |
|
| Mar-02-06 | | WayneCramp: I dont understand why this isnt played more often, given the petrovs reputation for tranquility in the main lines. Topalov drew very comfortably here and had a good initiative - even fritz doesnt think Nxf7 is that bad. What is more, accurate play is certainly required by black or white can gain a strong centre and a big attack. |
|
| Apr-12-06 | | AdrianP: Kramnik annotates "4 Nxf7?" in Informator 75. |
|
| Apr-18-06 | | babakova: Most players want more than a comfortable draw with white. |
|
| Aug-16-06 | | cuendillar: Yes, if white wants a safe draw against the Petrov, the Lasker variation (5.Qe2) is certainly easier, especially since it gives black almost no chances to win at all. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 