Hi lg, here´s the notation of

Esserman Marc 2391 - Yermolinsky Alex 2522

e4 Nf6
e5 Nd5
c4 Nb6
d4 d6
f4 de:
fe: c5
d5  e6
Nc3 ed:
cd: c4
d6 Be6
Nf3 Nc6
Be2 Nd7
Qa4 a6
Nf4 g6
Ng5 b5
Ne6: fe6:
Qc2 Bg7
00 00
Bg4 Kh8
Qd2 Nce5:

1/2

Greetings

Gilmour

Markovich and Gilmour

I think that 19. Bb5 is the recommended line.
By the way, in the recent rapid game Grischuk Svidler
Black responded 19....c6 (instead of the recommended 19....c5)
and won .

In many books, 19....c6 is noted as probably loosing. However,
Karolyi in CBM 123 is of the opinion that it is NOT loosing, although
it appears that 19....c5 equalizes more easily than 19....c6

By the way, I have seen an interesting this weekend in playchess.com.
It was a 4PA and Alex Yermolinsky played Black.
AY played a topical line of the Alekhine 4PA with 6...c5 and played an improvement suggested in J Cox's book.
Unfortunately, the game ended prematurely, perhaps the players felt that they have little time.
The game was played in the Copper state open.

Unfortunately, i could not copy it. If someone got it, would be kind
enough to post it here?

Thanks, lg

Wow, there's a tremendous amount of interest in Alekhine's here lately.  I have a huge backlog of Alekhine ideas that I have to look at and comment on.  I'll try to get to your question, Gilmour, but if you're a subscriber you might also want to consider submitting it to John Watson, whose insight into any given position is likely to be much more penetrating than mine.

Why did I take up Alekhine's?  Mainly because I wanted to play some very different sorts of positions from the ones that I've been used to playing.  Also I think of Alekhine's as a tough, fighting defense.  It intrigues me that Black makes essentially no structural concessions (of course, this varies from line to line).  The only (ha ha!) thing that he concedes is space.  The foundation of a nice ending for Black is laid when White plays 2.e5.  The only (ha ha! once again) thing that Black has to do is weasel into it.   It's very Steinitzian in that regard.  I certainly don't think of Alehine's as "half correct."

Obviously, Black wants to be very active with his pieces and snip off a White pawn, or inflict further weaknesses upon White if possible.  In this defense I pay attention to White's interior weaknesses, especially d3.

You know, a game of chess is a fight, and so long as you're playing something that you yourself understand and isn't unsound, don't think it matters very much whether it's highly regarded by every last 2700 on this planet. 

Gilmour wrote on 05/19/09 at 07:30:51:


Actually I very rarely encounter the Four Pawns in my correspondence play, even though I've been playing Alekhine's more or less exclusively for the past three years.  On the rare occasions when I have encountered it, usually White hasn't really known what he was doing -- fatal in this system.  But if there is one critical line, it's 9...Be7 10.Be2 0-0 11.0-0 f6 12.exf6 Bxf6.  Watson has treated this in various updates.  I have my own theory of it, which I may get around to sharing here sometime.  Also I have some analysis of what Black should do after 10.d5 exd5 11.cxd5 Nb4 12.Nd4 Bd7 13.Qf3!?, which is also critical, but for the time being I don't want to share it.

I have encountered the Four Pawns more in the casual OTB chess that I sometimes engage in.  There are a couple of 1950's around here who play it.  In four or five 30-minute games against the two of them. I haven't failed to win, but this hardly says much since I outrate them by 200 elo.  Also I wasn't recording.

Gilmour wrote on 05/18/09 at 22:02:09:


Personally I play 5...dxe5 6.fxe5 Nc6 with perfect happiness.