< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|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 Stauntonís treatment (such as having only their losses to Staunton published in his widely read "Chess Playerís 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 Playerís 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 Cochraneís 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 DeVereís praise of Bannerjee, and thus enhance Cochraneís status by his having beaten Bannerjee?
My opinions on this are quite arbitrary, but I see no way to avoid arbitrariness. Taking into account Cochraneís 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 canít say out loud that they are cheaters, you donít 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 Stauntonís. Given the praise heaped on Cochraneís 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 Cochraneís 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.
|Sep-28-11|| ||Ziggurat: <"The great chess men have generally been long lived and have preserved their faculties to the last. I remember well receiving a note from John Cochrane, a famous player, in London just before the tournament in Paris in 1878. He was then ninety years of age and said that he would like to explain to me some new ideas. He did so, and I was surprised to see a man of his advanced years write out from memory variations sixteen moves deep. The next day I read in the papers a notice of his death. I cannot imagine a happier way to die. It is so with almost all who devote their time to the game of chess. They live long and they retain mental vigor to the end of their days.">|
Steinitz, quoted in the current Urcan column at ChessCafe. (http://www.chesscafe.com/urcan/urca...)
|Sep-28-11|| ||keypusher: <I remember well receiving a note from John Cochrane, a famous player, in London just before the tournament in Paris in 1878. He was then ninety years of age and said that he would like to explain to me some new ideas.>|
Subtraction was not Steinitz's forte.
|Oct-02-11|| ||Karpova: <keypusher: Subtraction was not Steinitz's forte.>|
I think that Steinitz can be forgiven considering that this was an interview and he probably didn't know every birthyear of every chessplayer up to 1894. Cochrane was still 80 years old and Steinitz' enthusiasm justified.
There are a lot of factually wrong or at least strange claims from famous chessplayers (not even counting the more recent ones). Like Marshall calling Johannes Zukertort a former Worldchampion and the story of the "Five First Grandmasters" at St. Petersburg 1914.
So let's just correct that mistake and appreciate the fact that a strong and important master like John Cochrane was still in such a good shape shortly before he died at the age of 80 (in the 19th century!).
|Oct-03-11|| ||keypusher: <Karpova> You are absolutely right, of course.|
It is nice to see you posting regularly here again.
|Oct-06-11|| ||tamar: Was Steinitz making the same error confusing John Cochrane b 1878 with James Cochrane b. 1870?|
<ARubinstein> <SBC> and <Calli> debate this on pages 3 and 4 of this page.
|Feb-04-12|| ||Penguincw: R.I.P. John Cochrane.|
|May-09-13|| ||Graham1973: I think I've found a Cochrane-Mohishunder game that does not appear to be in the database.|
It was printed in the St Louis Globe-Democrat of 13/07/1879. Supposedly it was from a private collection and had originally been published in the Glasgow Herald.
The article (Link below) contains annotations allegedly by Cochrane himself, but does not give any dating or location details.
My transcription of the moves is:
Assitance in converting to algebraic notation would be greatly appreciated.
|May-09-13|| ||Calli: <Graham1873> See Cochrane vs Mohishunder, 1852|
|May-09-13|| ||Graham1973: <Calli> Thanks for identifying the game. I'm going to incorporate the Cochrane annotations into the existing file and upload as a correction.|
|Jun-17-13|| ||Gottschalk: [Event "Unknown"]
[White "John Cochrane"]
[Black "H W Popert"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Bb4+ 5. c3 dxc3 6. O-O d6 7. a3 Bc5 8. b4 Bb6 9. Nxc3 Nf6 10. Bg5 h6 11. Bh4 g5 12. Nxg5 hxg5 13. Bxg5 Be6 14. Nd5 Bd4 15. b5 Be5 16. f4 Bxa1 17. bxc6 Bxd5 18. Bxd5 Bc3 19. cxb7 Rb8 20. Qd3 Ba5 21. Bxf6 Qxf6 22. Qb5+ Ke7 23. Qxa5 1/2-1/2
Source: Simbase from Netherlands.
|Jun-17-13|| ||thomastonk: <Gottschalk> The game has been published in "The Chess Player's Chronicle", Vol. III, p19. The game score is incomplete, because there it is stated after 23.xa5: "AND BLACK DREW THE GAME, BY GIVING `` PERPETUAL CHECK.īī"|
So, 23.. d4+ has to be added, but then it's ambiguous. The easy solution is 24.f2 d1+ 25.f1 d4+. But also 24.h1 xh2+ 25.xh2 h8+ 26.g3 g8+ should lead to a perpetual, but White's next move can be 27.h2 or 27.f3.
The easy solution is more probably, because otherwise, Staunton would have published the additional moves, I think.
The game has been played in London during Cochrane's visit from 1841 to 1843, and since the CPC appeared some time after April 27, 1842, the year is 1841 or 1842.
I couldn't find the game under the link you gave, because Cochrane's games are unavailable there. However, such collector databases often miss important information for such old games, which you can complete by using primary sources. Many useful links can be found for example here Calli's Game Collections or here http://www.chessarch.com/library/ma..., respectively.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·