This may surprise you guys, but I have a complete book titled "A startling opening reperatoire", and the whole point of the book is to suggest unorthodox ways for white to win playing e4. It's written by GM E.Lasker apparently, although I doubt that. It is a boring book mind you, just a lot of games to analyze, argh.
It suggests this knight sack theory against the Petroff, the idea is to give up a knight, for two pawns, prevent the king from castling, and lead in development. Call it a very advanced gambit concept, except of a pawn gambit, it's a peice gambit! But it's essentially the same as any gambit, a gambit involves giving up a 1 point in material when accepted, this gambit is the same 1 point of material given up, except it's forced to acceptance.
Originally posted by BLReidI don't think that Cochrane gambit is much more unsound, than say KG. With best play black probably has slightly better chances (probably not). And it is not easy to defend against.
I ran it through Fritz 8 (admittedly on 10 min time control, and only once), but black won...for what it's worth
Toymauzer is right. d4 is a better follow up move after sacking the knight. The e pawn can't be touched by black, of course. Named after the Scottish master John Cochrane (1798-1878) of the last century:
Chronology 1821 Visited Paris where he was beaten by Deschapelles and Bourdonnais
1822 Published A Treatise on the Game of Chess. Joined the bar.
1824 Played on the London team in a correspondence chess match against Edinburgh. Made the Scotch Gambit fashionable. (get it?)
1841-3 Played hundreds of casual games with Howard Staunton
Also, he was a second lieutenant on the ship Bellerophon that transported Napoleon to his last exile in Helena. And you thought chess players were boring.