Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Topic Tools
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) C42: Cochrane Gambit (Read 25664 times)
chk
God Member
*****
Offline


a pawn is a pawn

Posts: 1063
Location: Athens
Joined: 10/26/06
Gender: Male
Re: C42: Cochrane Gambit
Reply #23 - 08/21/12 at 12:31:41
Post Tools
I prefer 6. Bc4+ and think the resulting position is equal, but has life in it..
  

"I play honestly and I play to win. If I lose, I take my medicine." - Bobby
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
STEFANOS
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 71
Joined: 03/27/08
Re: C42: Cochrane Gambit
Reply #22 - 08/12/12 at 05:48:05
Post Tools
On OTB games the gambit is fully acceptable, the better prepared wins. Playing the gambit on the Net is another story, the most trouble line to meet as white is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7 Kxf7 5.d4 c5 6.dxc5 d5 , when my best result as white is draw. Against this linw I cannot find anything good to mess the things and create complications.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
YaBB Moderator
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: C42: Cochrane Gambit
Reply #21 - 08/11/12 at 04:41:43
Post Tools
Kramnik's response was to transpose into the main line of the modern variation. Topalov's 5.Nc3 was merely a transposition of moves.

So, if we use that game as a model for 5.Nc3, perhaps the best that can be said for it is that it transposes into the main lines that are probably slightly inferior to white anyway.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 900
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: C42: Cochrane Gambit
Reply #20 - 08/11/12 at 00:53:15
Post Tools
That definition of "refuted" is pretty contentious- I remember the authors of Danish Dynamite claiming that the Danish Gambit is not refuted, despite acknowledging that Black has various ways to equalise, and a few ways to try for more if White meets 3...dxc3 with 4.Bc4 rather than 4.Nxc3.

I suppose whether a line is "refuted", if it is not clearly worse for White, depends on one's level of play.  I remember agreeing with Watson that Black seemed to be at least equal, objectively speaking, against Topalov's 5.Nc3 with best play, though I may re-check that if I get time.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
YaBB Moderator
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: C42: Cochrane Gambit
Reply #19 - 08/10/12 at 22:46:54
Post Tools
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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10515
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: C42: Cochrane Gambit
Reply #18 - 08/10/12 at 20:44:06
Post Tools
So 5.Nc3, as played by Topalov against Kramnik in Linares 1999, might be somewhat more precise.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jupp53
God Member
*****
Offline


be

Posts: 952
Location: Frankfurt/Main
Joined: 01/04/09
Gender: Male
Re: C42: Cochrane Gambit
Reply #17 - 08/10/12 at 10:42:03
Post Tools
There is at least one other serious alternative to 6. .. Nc6.



Nothing for 5 minute games, but in correspondence chess white has to find something.
  

Medical textbooks say I should be dead since April 2002.
Dum spiro spero. Smiley
Narcissm is the humans primary disease.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: C42: Cochrane Gambit
Reply #16 - 08/10/12 at 10:17:41
Post Tools
Smyslov_Fan wrote on 08/10/12 at 08:55:03:
....
So, is the Cochrane still dead?

Here's part of the correspondence game that made me question whether 5...c5 is enough for Black to gain at least equality. ...

Yes, I think it is!  Wink
But in fact, nobody knows..  Grin
Anyway, 5...c5 is still the best way to bust the Cochrane. And I do prefer this setup for black, but with 6...d5!:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nxf7 Kxf7 5. d4 c5! 6. dxc5 d5! (my marks)
Let's see my notes about it - compiled from various resources - although I admit I never really worked seriously on this:



I hope it will help your researches..  Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
YaBB Moderator
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: C42: Cochrane Gambit
Reply #15 - 08/10/12 at 08:55:03
Post Tools
Hi,

I'm revisiting the Cochrane Gambit. I have absolutely no interest in playing it, but I'm trying to find what the latest theoretical and practical opinions on it are.

I've read Watson's comments where he considers it refuted. I've taken a look at Short-Shirov, 2007, a rapid game where Shirov played the "modern" 5...c5 and won as Black.

But I've also seen this correspondence game that was played in 2008. Black lost because of terrible exchange sacrifice that just didn't work, but even before then it seemed that White had compensation for the sac.

So, is the Cochrane still dead?

Here's part of the correspondence game that made me question whether 5...c5 is enough for Black to gain at least equality.

I am not sure, but I think the standard move for Black after 10.Qe2 is 10...Qd7. But I don't know what the theoretical evaluation of that line is.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10515
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Cochrane Gambit
Reply #14 - 09/28/07 at 23:45:15
Post Tools
That bust is not entirely clear, see Hoogendoorn-Van den Bersselaar, Dieren 2000.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dragonslayer
Full Member
***
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 244
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: 06/13/04
Re: Cochrane Gambit
Reply #13 - 09/28/07 at 21:32:29
Post Tools
Kylemeister.
You're right. Bronstein mentions the gambit in his book 200 Open Games, he even gives it an '!'.
Reindermann busted the Cochrane with 5.d4 Qe8. I don't remember which Yearbook, though.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4648
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Cochrane Gambit
Reply #12 - 09/26/07 at 21:28:58
Post Tools
I remember David Bronstein being quoted as saying that 4. Nxf7 is just as good as 4. Nf3 (maybe he wrote it in that "Open Games" book?).  But it seems that he always played 4. Nf3 himself, though (when he wasn't playing 3. d4 or 3. Nc3).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10515
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Cochrane Gambit
Reply #11 - 09/26/07 at 21:10:28
Post Tools
See Short-Sjirov, Dubai 2002. The site

http://www.schach.gmxhome.de/boofreng.htm

recommends the Cochrane Gambit, but does not give an improvement for White in this game. Topalov played 5.Nc3 though. After 5...Qe8 6.d4 he would have avoided 5.d4 c5. Watson's suggestion 5.Nc3 Qe7 6.d4 c5 has never been tried.
Let me say, that theory thinks it dubious. I certainly would not play it in a corr game.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
chk
God Member
*****
Offline


a pawn is a pawn

Posts: 1063
Location: Athens
Joined: 10/26/06
Gender: Male
Re: Cochrane Gambit
Reply #10 - 09/26/07 at 20:24:19
Post Tools
Maybe you are all right, but don't underestimate the central pawn phalanx! Black usually needs to return a pawn in order to break the phalanx (this I think defines 'best play' by Black here). If Black succeeds he may win; if not the 1 pawn deficit for White doesn't really matter as he essentialy has 15 units (pieces & pawns) vs. 14 units.
  

"I play honestly and I play to win. If I lose, I take my medicine." - Bobby
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
katar
Senior Member
****
Offline


look another year went
by

Posts: 433
Location: LA
Joined: 09/21/05
Gender: Male
Re: Cochrane Gambit
Reply #9 - 09/26/07 at 18:25:02
Post Tools
chk wrote on 09/26/07 at 06:59:24:
Note: I don't know if you like the usual gambit play (i.e. play for open lines, quick development, etc.), but this is a quite different one as you prepare a slow build-up like a boa strangling..

a very observant point.  this is an unusual "gambit" where white moves the same piece 3 times in the first 4 moves and then that piece leaves the board leaving white with zero pieces developed.  very odd.

Shirov said in his Chessbase dvd on Petroff that he cannot find a way for WHITE to attain equality, meaning black is simply better with best play.
  

2078 uscf
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo