Does anyone know how to put life into the petroff

Nxf7 is pretty effective over the board, because most people have only one or two moves of knowledge after the sac. In a correspondence game where your opponent can look stuff up, it pretty much goes sput.

I looked up your FIDE rating and it's not even 2300.  Way better than mine obviously (after my first tournament I had a provisional of 1975 but that did *not* last long)  However it seems FIDE is giving away GM norms now like candy canes.  My coach is an IM who got a GM norm or two decades ago, and he thinks all these 2700/2750+ players are ridiculous, and that Fischer, Karpov and/or Kasparov "in their prime" could beat almost all of them handily.  Good luck with your chess but being an IM and then recommending garbage like 4. Nxf7 is hardly helpful.      

Yeah but the FIDE is the FIDE if they are giving away GM norms like candy canes. Why dont you have one? and you know. Im from Venezuela here is difficult to increase the rating. If a live in a country like spain i can make sure that i would have 2300+ and also with the last tournament i played my rating will increase to 2298 and look it at the end of the 2013 year i would like to bet that it will be more than 2350. 4. Nxf7 is excellent for blitz and also playable in classic time. So why do not you become a FM at least you? And stop criticizing and envy others...

So where are these candy canes?

If FIDE were not being obdurate and obstructive the ceiling on your rating could be infinite?

Why not try USCF?

I dont need to play against you, Dont take it as bad but i have a lot of more important things to do. Objetively speaking 4.Nxf7 is a dubios move but a recommended you to take a look at the book " the seven deadly chess sins" written by GM Jonathan Rowson he describes chess as an intersubjetive game not like an objetive one. So in practical chess 4. Nxf7 can be considered as an interesting move. Maybe not in a correspondence game because the players has a lot of time to think and maybe not against a very strong player . But why dont you turn on your Rybka and take a look? after 4. Nxf7!? black WITH HIS BEST PLAY can only obtain an slight advantage. Obviously you need to have this line very well studied as white or as a black player because its very tactical.

Is the scotch 4 knights really that dangerous or lively? The chess.com database shows that it is even more drawish than the petroff defense.

Your a and b slightly contradicted each other. Yes, the cochrane is perfectly playable. The question is: is it any good? It will need more testing at high levels in the future. In my opinion white has full compensation for the piece, but probably not better than equality.

As a fan of the old gambits, I would probably offer a transpo to a line in the Bishop's Opening with 3.Bc4 and if Black replies 3...Nxe4 then 4.d4 really opens up the game.

Objectively speaking between 2300+ players  its not good, just playable. But in the world what percentage of players are 2300+? maybe 0,1% i dont really know. Against players between 2300 and even 2500 maybe just as a surprise but if you use it several times (more than one) in your life. i should give jempty_method the reason is not suitable.

You sac a piece for positional compensation i.e. dynamic chances.

These clearly decrease in value the lower you go in the rating scale: everybody can exploit a piece advantage, exploiting positional pressure is a thing that requires experience, technique and zero inaccuracies.

If you think that sac is only "playable" at your level, for lower rated players it's less than playable.

Move 8 (Ne5) was ill-advised by your opponent.

8...Bf5 probably better.

A gambit is just that. Being materially-disadvantaged essentially demands either imperfect play or mistakes from other player to win.

The Nimzovitch Attack is not even allowed in our chessclub because

it scores more than 60 percent for White and is essentially risk free!

Yes.

Was speaking of the ''Cochrane'' (gambit) which you mentioned?

jempty_method wrote:

• I answered you firstly re: Petroff (C42 game posted)
• Second-comment an opinion on gambits obviously
• What is it you are trying to say?

In these sentences:

You really need to stop reading so fast and try to comprehend the *entirety* of what, 3 sentences?

I merely mentioned the Cochrane, than presented a game with the Nizmovitch Attack

• What is it you are trying to say?

In these sentences:

You really need to stop reading so fast and try to comprehend the *entirety* of what, 3 sentences?

I merely mentioned the Cochrane, than presented a game with the Nizmovitch Attack

Wow, jempty you're a bit full of yourself recently. First off your line with 5.Nc3 led to famous losses in several high-level games recently (I enjoyed Nakamura-Giri although it was at Reggio Emilia) and most likely doesn't lead to an advantage against reasonable play by Black. It's also not that hard to play against. I'm sure at your 1400-1500 level it works fine as would any line. I seriously doubt you would win in a classical game against me if I played the Cochrane against you though.

Secondly he was clearly stating an opinion about gambits and not directly replying to your game, hence the clear white space on your monitor between his comments on your game and his comment about gambits. He was also replying to a point YOU MADE (saying Black has made no mistakes and the Cochrane is therefore unjustified, which is the same logic that would say all gambits in mainline chess openings are unsound - uh oh the Semi-Slav isn't a mistake so 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Qc2 Bd6 7.g4 is unjustified! admittedly they don't sac a piece but your comment was a bit misguided) and now you're just being a jerk to him for no reason.

Please cool it, is all I'm trying to say. You don't need to jump down people's throats because you can't read three lines of text and understand their context even when they are a direct reply to a post you made.

Expertise87 dont try to make Jempty understand. He is just trying to copy what 2700+ do. He doesnt understand that before be an 2700 player you need to be a 2600 and before a 2500 and this is the way it works. You should try to understand dynamic chess mainly to do that. After 4. Nxf7!? (not 4. Nxf7?!) white has a little material deficit (2pawns for a piece) and has the following compensations: 1. The blacks king should invest a lot of time to found a safe place 2. White has a potential pawn avalanche because the "e" and the "f" pawn has no counterpart so in a future this is an important factor 3. a 95% of Petrov players dont pay attention to this subvariations. 4. Your opponent should starts wasting time from the first moves. Instead to try to understand this aspects of the chess he prefers to show a game of him played on the ICC with i dont know what idea because in the move 10th black can simply exchange queens and obtain a favorauble endgame. CHESS IS NOT 100% OBJETIVE... WE ARE NOT MACHINES... JUST HUMANS... AND THE TIME CLOCK AND THE NERVE ARE VERY IMPORTANT FACTORS IN A CHESS GAME! 

I agree with JR Gascon's premise, but I don't think it works for the Cochrane gambit, at least not at the competitive level. Any player who is +2100 and knows his opponent will play the Cochrane Gambit against him will be able to prepare a challenging defense. There are many subtleties to the Cochrane Gambit that will score some great surprise points. But it's not a reliable repertoire choice, especially against players who are rated +2000 who will face you repeatedly.

I don't like Jempty's personal attacks on an IM who is willing to share his opinion. I also believe the Cochrane would be a very powerful weapon below ~2000 strength. But this particular opening just isn't quite good enough to be included as a main repertoire weapon against experts and masters.