Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/20/11 at 12:15:16:

There are at least half a dozen hints in the magazines that these Indian games lasted 20 or 25 minutes, that they were "skittles" or "skittled". It would be a bit early for chess clocks (their use in tournaments began in the 1880ies, I believe). So probably they were played without a time limit, although Cochrane seems to have noted the time which was spent for the whole game (a practice quite common in old chess magazines). Maybe the (few) games in the Chessbase database with an "m" (for "match") are different, I don't know. Both players were known as fast....

The following game is one of the last in the database, it was published in the year after Cochrane's death by The Chess Player's Chronicle 1879, with the following remark:
 
Quote:

Played January 15, 1860. - Below the game the Chess Player's Chronicle adds: "Time 28 minutes. Notes by J. Cochrane."

Five years later he played a little more sophisticated. It is speed chess, but not patzer speed chess...

TalJechin wrote on 07/19/11 at 17:24:17:

Even if there existed a kind of Native Chess Theory, Moheschunder played 1.e4 e5 in the majority of his earliest games with Cochrane. Also due to social pressure, I guess: as an employee of the chess club, he simply had to allow a certain amount of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7, Cochrane's pet line. In the occasional experiments I see an experimental mind, not really interested in imitating others or "theory". Later he found the regular Nimzo-Indian, but look at this:



Edit: In an imaginary "Native Chess Theory", a system involving an early g6 and Bg7 would be unpopular: this chess didn't know castling, but the king was able to move, once in a game, like a knight. A bishop on g7 would not make much sense. BUT the empty square g7 in the game above does indeed look like a relic from these rules!

MNb wrote on 07/18/11 at 16:20:01:

Yes, background information is scarce. The games by Saumchurn (Guttack, or Gutrack or Guhach, or ... I have seen many spellings) a k a Somacarana in the Chessbase database give a hint, however. Why should an Indian player, when he is invited to play according to European rules, not actually move the pawns 2 squares? Saumchurn mainly played 1.d4 d5, and 1.e4 c5, and (with White) 1.d4 d5 2.g3. He varied, too, but basically his 199 games with Cochrane look more European than Moheschunder's (btw: Cochrane scored 66% against Saumchurn, worse than against Moheschunder). Further 30 games have survived in that manuscript, without involvement of Cochrane, that's all. 

In his review "Persisting Mysteries" ( http://www.chesscafe.com/urcan/urcan.htm ), Olimpiu G. Urcan has reviewed a new book: Western Chess in British India by Vijay D. Pandit (The Chess Player, Nottingham 2011, 168 pp., 19£). And which sources did the author use? Urcan writes:

Quote:
 

The point which I am trying to make: If we don't have the evidence that Brahmins played European chess against each other, outside the Calcutta club, I'd just assume that they were following their Indian rules. It is probable that these games contained many fianchettoes, but that doesn't mean much. Since 1848 Moheschunder was employed at the newly founded chess club (1847) which started with 13 members (source: Allen's Indian Mail 1847, p. 546). His first games showed the set-up g6, Bg7, e6. In the Chronicle he was criticized for playing un-European, err, meant to say: uneducated. 

But then he practiced a lot with Cochrane, who was familiar with opening theory, but at the same time an extremely experimental player (once against Saumchurn. C. played 1.d4 Nc6 2.d5 Ne5 and won), and faced "modern" openings. They played the Evans, the Muzio, etc. 

Saumchurn must have gone through essentially the same experience. Like Moheschunder, he combined European chess with "Indian" elements. So he played 1.d4 d5 2.g3, and with Black he sometimes used a set-up g6, Bg7, e6, Ne7, c6, d7-d5. His style was more solid than Moheschunder's, maybe a good idea against the aggressive Cochrane. But what is more important: both found their own personal way to fight against the European players. They didn't simply (and stupidly) repeat strategies that they were used from the Indian version of the game. There was a lot of creativity. In his later games, Moheschunder also used the Caro-Kann. 

It wouldn't be fair to re-name all the openings. We shouldn't forget that these were often "light" games. And there is a difference between a CK game slumbering in a manuscript for 150 years, not influencing other players, and the much better known KI game by Moheschunder published in three chess sources (three countries) and commented favourably by Steinitz. 

We can speculate how many Brahmins played European chess (not many, I believe) and whether some of them were almost as strong as Moheschunder. But even then I believe that chess is rich enough to allow dozens or more versions to combine fianchetto ideas with European ideas. (Owen and Blackburne fianchettoed quite often, but their chess looks different.) It is said that Moheschunder was about 50 years old in 1848, playing fast and self-conscious. He learned the European openings, but still insisted that it made sense to hold back the pawns with Black and hit hard with e7-e5 just at the right moment against the broad white center. Cochrane was a creative mind, he must have discussed the strategy with his opponent. He even began to play the KI himself. - You can imagine that elsewhere in India someone invented a new opening, independently. But that might just as well have been the QI, not the KI. Using Occam's razor, I come to the conclusion: The "discussion" on the chess board between Cochrane and Moheschunder, two of the strongest players of their "nations", led to the invention of the King's Indian. 

Today we have seen so much Indian stuff that it is hard to think that this invention was something special. But Steinitz commented (reply #56) that c2-c4 was weakening pawn d4. I guess it would be difficult to find a similar comment in any earlier source. In later writings, Steinitz often mentions the options c2-c3 and f2-f3 against fianchetto sytems. It is impossible to prove, but this game won by Moheschunder probably had a big influence on the development of chess.

Special role of Steinitz

In the next posts I'll focus on Indisch and the changes it caused in opening nomenclature. Looking back, the main results regarding the pre-Tartakowerian period seem well established: 

(a) Cochrane's collected Indian games (664, I believe) in the CB database are strong evidence that Moheschunder Banerjee deserves to be recognized as the inventor of the King's Indian. He also tried the Grünfeld and other systems, yet his 68 King's Indians represent a systematical test of this opening. He returned to it again and again and even played something similar with the white colours. 

(b) There are hints that most of these games were played as skittles games, taking perhaps 20-25 minutes per game. Still, Cochrane was one of the strongest players of this era. He scored 75% overall, but only 57% against the KI. They were played between 1848 and 1860 [so it's probably too optimistic to hope for more surviving games] and the colours are distributed about evenly (Cochrane White in 53%). Maybe I am reading too much in to this fact, but it seems that Cochrane didn't select much. 

(c) Some later works (1930ies and later) wrote that the chess-playing Brahmins taught European players how to play fianchetto structures: not to combine g6 with e6, but with d6, and combine b6 only with e6. But Steinitz found this out by himself. Secondly, in India it was Moheschunder alone who had developed this "KI understanding". 

(d) Louis Paulsen knew only few games by Moheschunder, if any. Yes, he introduced the Indian D. into tournament play on the highest level. Nevertheless Tartakower got the name "Indian" basically right (to an extent he wasn't aware of).

(e) John Cochrane invested much energy into collecting the games, but editors of chess magazines, because of lack of space, published only few - and not many Indian Defences. William Steinitz recognized that Moheschunder's ideas were both original and valuable. 

Steinitz played a special role in the acceptance of the Indian Defence. His comments on the "Indian Opening" 1.e4 e5 2.d3 show his respect for "the Brahmins", but they also demonstrate that he was unsure about the value of 2.d3:  

The International Chess Magazine 1891, p. 237: "The opening derives its name from its having been first brought to notice in the games played by the late Mr. Cochrane, one of the most brilliant players of the old school, against some Indian Brahmins who generallv favored the text move when first players. Mr. Hanham often adopts this opening, which is by no means a weak one."

The Book of the Sixth American Chess Congress, 1891, p. 140: "Though this opening has been in favor with strong players of East India, whence it also derives its name, it cannot be recommended. By steady development on the part of the opponent, White ought ultimately to be inconvenienced by the restricted action of his KB."

The Book of the Sixth American Chess Congress, 1891, p. 393: "This move is much in favor with some strong players among the Brahmins in India, and the opening has been named, accordingly, the Indian Opening."

Games by Moheschunder, published in various sources (mainly 1869-1875). The list is not nearly complete, but may be sufficient to demonstrate the low interest in the Indian Defence by most editors, with the exception of Steinitz and Potter. Usually no dates are given: "played many years ago"; I add in [] brackets the date from the ChessBase database.

Cochrane - Moheschunder, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7!? (Cochrane's Gambit); 8 games with this system appeared in Staunton's Chess Praxis (1860), but no game with the Indian Defence. 

Cochrane - Moheschunder, 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Nf3 Bd6 (0-1, 19); Ill. London News Sept. 11, 1869 [database: October 2, 1855]

Cochrane - Moheschunder, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 exd4 4.Qxd4 (1-0, 25); Taylor: Chess Brilliants, 1869 [database: 1854]

Moheschunder - Cochrane, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 (1-0, 20); The Westminster Papers 1870, p. 173. [database: July 19, 1855]

Moheschunder - Cochrane, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.0-0 d6 5.h3 (1-0, 29); Neue Berliner Schachzeitung 1870, p. 116 [database: 1854]

Cochrane - Moheschunder The Westminster Papers 1873, p. 156. "The following partie was contested, many years ago, between the veteran Mr. Cochrane and the Brahmin Moheschunder Bonnerjee. It formed one of a series, which extended to some hundred Games, a performance which reflected equal credit upon the skill of Mr. Cochrane and the patience of the Brahmin, for the latter generally came off second-best in these battles." 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Bc5 6.0-0 d6 7.d4 exd4 8.exd4 Bb6 9.Bb2 Nf6 10.Nbd2 0-0 11.e5 dxe5. "It reflects great credit upon the Brahmin's knowledge of European analysis that up to this point he should have conducted the defence, as Mr. Cochrane conducts the attack, strictly in accordance with the established rules of the time. The line of play adopted in this game has, however, fallen completely into disuse. At this eleventh move Moheschunder Bonnerjee commits an error common enough amongst Western players. The exchange of Pawns allows White's pieces to come to the front, and the second player loses time and position, if not material. The Knight should, instead, be simply retreated to King's square. Black then threatens Bf5." (1-0, 32 /34 moves database) [database: 1852]

Six games:
[First printed "after Cochrane's Homecoming" in Ill. London News, published 1873 in Nordisk Skaktidende. The latter source writes: "[...] Both Brahmins, however, most Saumchurn, are pronounced defensive players, they choose with partiality the closed game and covered behind their entrenchments, you see them from spying after an unfortunate "victim" [...]. A contrary to this tactic is Cochrane [...] as Cochrane knew how to put the day of the attack - an art, which probably still only Morphy has reached him. (The English call the aptly Morphy: "Cochrane without error.") [...] - Lots of those opponents could of course not always satisfy the modern time claims of "correctness", [...] but they are in return possessed of a freshness that our newer play often miss ..." etc. etc. 
- Cochrane - Moheschunder, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 exd4 4.Qxd4 (1-0, 25) [database: 1854]
- Moheschunder - Cochrane, 1.e3 d5 2.d4 c5 3.Nf3 e6 4.Be2 (1-0, 37) [database: 1851]
- Cochrane - Saumchurn, 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 (1-0, 30) [game not in database] 
- Cochrane - Moheschunder, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7!? (Cochrane's Gambit); (1-0, 32) [database: 1855]
- Cochrane - Moheschunder, [b]1.e4 d6 2.d4 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.f4 0-0 (0-1, 32; "Unregelmaessigt Parti") = the game from reply #56. 
- Saumchurn - Cochrane, 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 g6 3.d4 Bg7 4.e3 (0-1, 29) [database: 1856] 

Cochrane - Moheschunder, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7!? (1-0, 14); The Westminster Papers 1874, p. 53 (notes by Zukertort/Wisker) [database: 1855]

Moheschunder - Cochrane, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 (0-1, 33) Cook: Synopsis of the Chess Openings 1874, p. 34 [database: 1852]

Saumchurn - Moheschunder, 1.d4 Nf6 2.g3 e6 3.Bg2 c5 (1-0, 51) Deutsche Schachzeitung Feb. 1875, p. 42f. [not in database; the DSZ reprinted this game from The Field.

Cochrane - Moheschunder, [b]1.e4 d6 2.d4 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.f4 0-0 (0-1, 32) = the game from reply #56. The City of London Chess Magazine 1875, p. 39

Cochrane - Moheschunder, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7!? (1-0, 24 /database: 25) The City of London Chess Magazine 1875, p. 40 [database: 1855]

Cochrane - Moheschunder, 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Bd3 g6 4.c4 Bg7 5.Nc3 0-0 6.f4 e5 7.fxe5 dxe5 8.d5 c6!? 9.Nf3 cxd5 10.cxd5 (1-0, 36) The City of London Chess Magazine 1875, p. 231 [database: 1852]

How many Fischers from Detmold who played chess in that period do you expect to find?

It's almost certainly E(rnst?) Fischer, even though I can't find a single game of his.

I hope you're not too worried that our hero played a 1..e5 against Max Lange. Even the Paulsen brothers didn't always play their eponymous opening.

[quote author=4B7E73557A7C7776711F0 link=1309972666/71#71 date=1310563898][quote author=053B2F253A392009103738560 link=1309972666/70#70 date=1310561664][quote author=05223330373809142333353D3324560 link=1309972666/63#63 date=1310454929][quote author=033D29233C3F260F16313E500 link=1309972666/60#60 date=1310391441][highlight]Btw, Parti/Partie/Partia just means "game".[/highlight] I'm guessing most of the people here know that, but monoglot English speakers may not be aware of this.[/quote]
Exactly. For example, the [b]"Partita di Fischer"[/b] was a system for Black. Do monoglot English speakers here know which line it was?[/quote]

I'm not a monoglot, and I don't know which opening is known as the "Partita di Fischer". :-[[/quote]

KGA 3.Nf3 [b]d6[/b] ?[/quote]
No, sorry. The solution is [b]1.e4 Nc6. [/b] A scan from [i]Neue Berliner Schachzeitung[/i] 1869, p. 278: 

[img]http://api.photoshop.com/v1.0/accounts/bbb52ca3d6c1425daebec45981ed3ceb/assets/5d98a85be5654e129648d63b8d804a88/renditions/1024.jpg[/img]

Footnote (a), p. 279, explains: 
[quote]Wie uns die Gebrüder Paulsen mittheilten, wendet Herr Fischer in Detmold, ein starker Spieler, mit Vorliebe diese Entgegnung an. [/quote] 
Translation: 

[quote]As the brothers Paulsen told us, Mr. Fischer in Detmold, a strong player, applies this reply with preference.[/quote] 
This important piece of information is not overlooked by Tassilo von der Lasa: [i]Handbuch des Schachspiels[/i] 1874 (5th ed.): "Von Fischer in Detmold häufig angewendet." Which means: [b]"Frequently used by Fischer in Detmold."[/b]

The [i]Handbuch[/i] 6th ed. 1880: "Von Fischer in Detmold häufig angewendet." 

The [i]Handbuch[/i] 7th ed. 1891: "Von Fischer in Detmold häufig angewendet." 

The [i]Handbuch[/i] 8th ed. 1916: "Von Fischer in Detmold häufig angewendet." 

No wonder that the name appeared in many opening works of the 19th and 20th century, e.g. [b]"Partita di Fischer".[/b] - Maybe this Fischer is identical with [b]"E. Fischer from Detmold"[/b] who played a correspondence game against Max Lange, 1854-1856: [i]Schachzeitung [/i]1854, p. 463, gives the first moves; [i]Schachzeitung [/i]1858, p. 292, the rest (Lange won). - But why played this E. Fischer 1.e4 e5?