John Cochrane Check out these

bestselling titles from

Part One USCFSales.com:

In earlier columns on forgotten masters we discussed the Germans

Bilguer and Bledow, and the Italian Serafino Dubois. These men, though
largely forgotten at least in this country, were very strong masters who
had a great impact on the history of chess in their respective countries.

It is hard to find a British master of the same period who is comparably

forgotten, since the British chess scene of that time produced a great deal
of activity and literature, which is still easily accessible today. Many of
New Stories the British players who were once celebrated and now largely forgotten
were in my opinion not as strong as their reputations at the time; an
about Old example would be William Lewis.
The Life & Games of
Chess On the other hand, John Cochrane (1798-1878), though fairly well Akiva Rubinstein
remembered, was much stronger and more influential than most now by John Donaldson &
Players appreciate. Strangely enough, as I will argue later, one reason he is Nikolay Minev
underestimated was that he stayed on friendly terms with Howard
Staunton throughout his life. Another is our tendency to evaluate players
Jeremy P. Spinrad only by match and tournament results, or (in the case of automatic rating
systems) scores of preserved games. Cochrane was known in his time as
the most brilliant and original player who had ever lived; this reputation
might be considered as important as being the most likely to win a match.

St. Petersburg 1909

by Emanuel Lasker

Play through and download

the games from
ChessCafe.com in the
DGT Game Viewer.

The Complete
DGT Product Line John Cochrane

He took more risks than other players. In some cases, this led to new
openings and ideas; at other times, only to interesting losses. Since these Lasker's Manual of Chess
were often in informal sets rather than formal matches, where Cochranes by Emanuel Lasker
top priority might be experimentation rather than winning, it seems unfair
to judge him too harshly only because he lost more games.

Of course, a major reason he is under-rated is that although British,

Cochrane lived for many years in India, and was only occasionally part of
the London chess scene.

Cochrane is responsible for some of the boldest opening innovations still

unrefuted (well, at least not completely) to this day. Captain Evans
deserves credit for his Evans Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4),
which influenced chess for years, but this was only a pawn sacrifice for
obvious strong development in the center. By contrast, it takes a
remarkably brave, persistent, and creative player to try the piece sacrifice
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7!?, and realize that rather than being
a tyros silly attack, this is really a dangerous weapon because of long-
term pressure.

Indeed, I would venture that no great player, at least until Spielmann or

Tal came along, was as willing as Cochrane to sacrifice a full piece
without clear compensation. Here is an example, from Masons book
Social Chess, page 107. Unfortunately, that book has the irritating habit
of omitting the name of any losing player, so I do not know the opponent.
Mason feels that Blacks errors come on move five, where d5 is better,
move seven, and move nine, where he recommends giving a pawn back
with d4-d3.

Cochrane-NN (notes by Taylor Kingston, assisted by Fritz8): 1.e4 e5 2.

Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7 Kxf7

5.Bc4+ Modern theory prefers 5.d4. Nunns Chess Openings (1999) gives
as a main line 5.d4 Be7 6.Nc3 c6 7.Bc4+ d5 8.exd5 cxd5 9.Nxd5 Be6 (9...
Nxd5 10.Qh5+) 10.Ne3 Bxc4 11.Nxc4 Nc6=. 5Be6 Better, as Mason
noted, is 5d5, when after 6.exd5 Bd6, Black stands better. 6.Bxe6+
Kxe6 7.00 7.d4 was somewhat better. 7...c5 8.d4 cxd4 9.c3!? Another
sacrifice. As stated above, Cochrane was not afraid of risk! 9dxc3 10.
Nxc3

For his sacrificed piece, White has flushed out the black king and has
many open lines of attack. 10Qb6? Probably the losing move;
relatively best seems 10Nbd7. 11.Nd5! Nxd5 After most queen moves,
12.Qb3 is deadly, e.g. 11...Qc6 12.Qb3 Kd7 13.Bg5 Nxd5 14.exd5 Qb6
15.Qf3 Be7 16.Qg4+ etc. 12.Qxd5+ Kd7 13.Qf5+ Kd8
14.Bg5+ Probably better than 14.Be3 Qc7 (not 14...Qxb2?? 15.Bg5+ Be7
16.Bxe7+ Kxe7 17.Rab1+) 15.Rac1 Nc6 16.b4 Qd7 17.Qd5 when
Whites attack seems to be losing some steam. 14...Be7 15.e5

15.Rfd1 was probably best. The text allows Black one slim defensive
chance, which he misses. 15...Nd7? 15...Nc6 was the only hope. Now
Cochrane concludes energetically. 16.Rad1! Bxg5 17.Qxg5+ Kc8 18.
Rxd6 Qb5 19.Rc1+ Kb8 20.Qxg7 Rc8

21.Rxc8+ Kxc8 22.e6 Ne5 23.Qf8+ Kc7 24.Qe7+ 1-0

This piece sac in the Petroff is not the only line named for Cochrane. The
Oxford Companion lists three Cochrane lines in the Scotch: the Cochrane
Attack (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 Nxd4 4.Nxe5 Ne6 5.Bc4 c6 6.Nxf7), the
Cochrane Variation (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bb5+ 5.c3 dxc3
6.bxc3 Ba5 7.e5) and the Cochrane-Shumov Defense (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6
3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Ng5 Nh6 6.Nxf7 Nxf7 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qh5+ g6 9.
Qxc5 d5); plus a Cochrane Variation in the Kings Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4
exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.Ne5 Qh4+ 6.Kf1 f3!).

The OC further says If the so-called romantic style existed, then

Cochrane has a claim to be regarded as its founder. George Walker, in
his book Chess Studies (1844), put it more colorfully. He felt that
Cochrane could have been the best player in the world, but chose instead
to disdain winning by standard means if an attack was in view:

Mr. Cochranes banner bears for its device Attack, attack. Attack
at all risk attack at every cost. Mr. Cochrane is the most brilliant
player I have ever had the honor to look over or confront, not even
excepting De la Bourdonnais; and pity it is that his very brilliancy
so often mars success. Mr. C.s game can be compared to the very
dashing charges made by the Mamelukes at the Battle of the
Pyramids; when they impaled themselves, horse and man, upon the
bayonets of France.
 Howard Staunton

Staunton, in the Chess Players Handbook, refers to the Cochrane Attack

as one of Cochranes brilliant conceptions. In the following game we see
Cochrane using it against the great man himself:

Cochrane-Staunton, Bilguers Handbuch, page 106: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.

d4 Nxd4 4.Nxe5 Ne6 5.Bc4 c6 6.Nxf7 Kxf7 7.Bxe6+ Kxe6

As in the Petroff line, Blacks king is forced out to the third rank. With
correct defense, he should be able finally to retreat back to safety, but
Staunton does not find the correct defense. 8.00 Kf7 9.Be3 Ne7 10.f4 d5
11.f5 Kg8 12.c4

12b5? A bad idea to open the position when Black is so behind in

development. Instead 12...Qe8!, with veiled counter-threats to the loose
Be3, was best, viz. 13.cxd5 Nxf5! 14.exf5 Qxe3+ 15.Kh1 c5 and Black is
probably winning. After the text, Cochrane is in his element. 13.cxd5
cxd5 14.Nc3 Bb7?! Better 14b4. Now the advantage definitely shifts to
White. 15.e5 Also strong was 15.Qg4 h5 16.Qg5 Rh6 17.f6. 15...b4 If
instead 15...Nc6 16.f6 h6 17.Qg4 d4 (or 17...Qc8 18.Qg6 Rh7 19.e6) 18.
Rad1 and White is in command.
16.f6! Attack! Attack! White threatens 17.f7 mate. 16...gxf6? The only
chance was 16...h6 17.Qd3 Rh7 (if 17...bxc3 18.f7#) 18.fxe7 Qxe7 19.
Nxd5 Qxe5 20.Rf5 Qe6 21.Re1, when material is even, but White still has
a major, probably winning developmental advantage. Now White has
several forced wins. 17.exf6 Or 17.Qg4+ Kf7 (17...Ng6 18.Qe6+ Kg7 19.
exf6+ Qxf6 20.Qxf6+ Kg8 21.Qf7#) 18.Rxf6+ Ke8 19.Nb5+. 17...Ng6

18.f7+ Kg7 19.Qd4+ Qf6 20.Qxf6# 10

I know little of Cochranes personal life, though it is said to have been

very exciting. He was born in 1798 to a prominent Scottish family. In his
youth he joined the Royal Navy, serving for a time aboard the
Bellerophon, the warship to which Napoleon, fleeing from his defeat at
Waterloo, surrendered in 1815, and which transported the fallen French
emperor to England, preparatory to his final exile on Saint Helena. After
leaving the navy, Cochrane studied law and was admitted to the bar in
1822, becoming a barrister in London. He spent a large part of his life in
India, where he must have been quite successful, as we will see later. I am
sure there is much more of interest, and I would love to hear it, but this
series focuses on the chess influences of the masters rather than their
personal lives. Of course, I would not have stuck to this rule if I had
found a particularly interesting anecdote worth sharing.

Louis-Charles Mah de La Bourdonnais

Cochrane first appears in recorded chess history in the early 1820s. He

lost a few games (+1 3 =1) to the Turk automaton, operated at that time
by Mouret, who gave odds of pawn and move. After beating most of
Londons players, he visited Paris in 1821, engaging in a triangular series
with Deschapelles and Labourdonnais. He lost to both, apparently 7-0 to
Labourdonnais at even strength, and 6-1 to Deschapelles at odds of pawn-
and-two. But he then beat Deschapelles without odds (perhaps the only
time anyone beat Deschapelles at even strength), but with the condition
that Deschapelles must win two-thirds of the games. There is a modern
claim that he also finished approximately equal in a series of about fifty
friendly games with Labourdonnais after his initial drubbing, though I
have not seen any old sources confirming that. Of course, Deschapelles
and Labourdonnais were considered the two strongest players in the
world at this time (indeed, this triangular contest is often said to mark the
point when Labourdonnais surpassed Deschapelles). Cochrane wrote a
treatise on chess in 1822.

Cochrane is famously associated with the confusing naming history of the

Scotch Game. Though Scottish himself, Cochrane played for London in
its important correspondence match of 1824-1828 with Edinburgh, and
persuaded them to choose this then obscure opening. In the middle of the
first game, he had to leave for India; the English team squandered their
opening advantage after that, and went on to lose the game.

London-Edinburgh, correspondence, 1824-25: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4

exd4 4.Bc4 The gambit form of the Scotch, as opposed to 4.Nxd4. 4
Bc5 5.c3 Qe7 6.00 dxc3 7.Nxc3 d6 8.Nd5 Qd7 9.b4! Nxb4 10.Nxb4
Bxb4 11.Ng5 Nh6 12.Bb2 Kf8

Whites opening play has led to a considerable advantage. If instead

12...00?? 13.Qd4! forces mate. 13.Qb3 Qe7 14.Nxf7 Nxf7 15.Qxb4 Ne5
16.f4 Nxc4 17.Qxc4 Qf7 18.Qc3 Be6 19.f5 Bc4 20.Rf4 b5 21.e5 dxe5 22.
Qxe5 h6 23.Re1 Rh7 24.f6 g5

25.Rf5?! Im not sure exactly when Cochrane left for India, but it seems
likely he was gone by this point. Instead of the text, White has at least
three crushing continuations: (A) 25.Rd4 intending 26.Qf5 and 27.Rd7 or
27.Re7, (B) 25.Rxc4 Qxc4 (if 25...bxc4 26.Qc5+ Kg8 27.Re7 Qg6 28.Qd5
+) 26.f7 Kxf7 (if 26...Rxf7 27.Qh8#, or 26...Qxf7 27.Rf1) 27.Qf6+ Kg8
28.Qg6+ Kf8 29.Qxh7 etc., and (C) 25.Qc5+ Kg8 26.Rxc4 Qxc4 27.Qf5
Qf7 28.Re7+. 25a5 26.Qc5+ Kg8
27.Rxg5+? Supposedly here London somehow sent two moves, the text
and 27.Re7. They tried to retract 27.Rxg5, but Edinburgh insisted on the
postal equivalent of touch move. Neither move is much good; instead
27.Qc6 Rf8 28.a4 still offered winning chances. Now the best White can
hope for is a draw, but without Cochrane London missed that too. 27...
hxg5 28.Qxg5+ Kf8! 29.Bd4 Be6 30.Qc5+ Kg8 31.Qg5+ Kf8 32.Bc5+
Ke8 33.Qd5 Ra6! 34.Qb7 Qh5 35.f7+ Kxf7 36.Rf1+ Kg6 37.Qe4+ Bf5
38.Qe8+ Rf7 39.Qg8+ Kf6 40.g4 Ra8 41.Qxa8 Qxg4+ 42.Kh1 Rd7 43.
Ba3 Kf7 44.Qc6 Rd1 45.Qxb5 Qe4+ 46.Kg1 Kg6 47.Qb2 Qg4+ 48.Qg2
Qxg2+ 49.Kxg2 Bh3+ 50.Kxh3 Rxf1 51.Be7 a4 52.a3 Rf5 01

The Scottish team was sufficiently impressed that they played the gambit
successfully later in the match, and this led to the name.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]

[Endgame Study] [The Skittles Room] [Archives]
[Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe.com] [Contact Us]

2009 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

"ChessCafe.com" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.