MNb wrote on 08/10/12 at 20:44:06:
So 5.Nc3, as played by Topalov against Kramnik in Linares 1999, might be somewhat more precise.
This is what Watson had to say, as mentioned in a previous link in this thread:
Quote:[T]here are a few points to make about that game:
(a) Topalov played this after a loss as White to Kasparov, in which the latter's superior theoretical preparation (extending past move 20 in a main line) must have depressed Topalov. So a crazy experimental response may have been just the therapy he needed in the next round;
(b) More importantly, after 4...Kxf7, Topalov played not 5.d4 (the only move considered in most sources), nor even 5.Bc4, Cochrane's original idea (discredited by 5...d5!), but 5.Nc3!?, a move probably designed to avoid the known drawbacks of the other two moves. Now Kramnik responded with 5...c5 6.Bc4+ Be6 7.Bxe6+ Kxe6 8.d4 Kf7 9.dxc5 Nc6, a completely safe method which appears to me to be at least equal. We'll have to see what the players' notes say.
The only theoretical comment I can find on 5.Nc3 gives it a '?!' and suggests 5...Qe8! 6.Bc4+ Be6, when Black is clearly better (Osnos and Kalinchenko in NIC Yearbook 19). I'm sure that Topalov would have played 6.d4! instead, with the idea 6...Nxe4? 7.Qh5+ g6 8.Qd5+. However, Black can play 5...Qe8 6.d4 d5 7.e5 Bb4, transposing to a normal Cochrane (if there is any such thing), and the move 5...Qe7!? also deserves strong consideration, intending 6.d4 c5.>
(emphasizes and paragraph breaks added by SF.)
Using Watson's definition of refuted from the same article,
Quote: [I]f White loses any potential advantage and can at best claim equality after only 7 or 8 moves of a gambit opening, then the gambit is often referred to as 'refuted'.
Topalov's 5.Nc3 is probably refuted.
When I was casting about, I think I ran across a recent correspondence game where Black reached a very comfortable position very quickly. I didn't save it, but I can find it again.
Pages: [1] 
C42: Cochrane Gambit (Read 33611 times)
