Hi there. I'm an "Alekhiner" (may be a good neologism  )
from many years... I played very little in recent years but I am slowly reconnecting.
I'm writing some notes and analisys on one of my sites about our preferred defense. When they're ready i'd be glad to share with you, if you like, and hear your opinions.

Two curiosities:

i) Natalia Zhukova played consistently the Alekhine
(fianchetto lines and the Alburt) in the last World Blitz championship. Results are not astounding, but it is curious to see many of the lines here mentioned in the past, played by her.

ii) Today on the first day of the Olimpiad, Ivanchuk
played 1...Nf6 against 1.e4 which I think was a first since a long time ago; no doubt this was against a much weaker player; since he did contribute a lot to the defence we might hope to see more;
as a curiosity, White played 2.Nc3 and Ivanchuk played
(!!) 2...e5 and we got a Vienna. Since there has been a live discussion about the best way to reply against 2. Nc3 and since many books advocate not to play 2...d5, we could see Ivanchuk's move as an expert opinion on the matter.

If you send in a timely letter, you can pretty well count on it appearing in the next volume.

I think you have to be an IM or better to get an article published, though they have let in Martin-de-What's-His-Name a few times and maybe one or two other amateurs armed with a strong computer.  I'm not at all sure of the wisdom of that.  

In the latest issue someone tries to prove that that endgame that arises from the Two Knights with 4.d4 and ...Qa5 is a win for White.  Someone always tries to do that every ten years or so, and it isn't true.  I don't have it in my files any more, but Pal Benko took a long look at that ending in his excellent Chess Life column and concluded that if anything, Black has the better play for a win.

I wish I still had that piece.  Does anyone?

lg wrote on 09/14/10 at 17:13:51:


Yeah, this came in the mail on Saturday, and the article looks like real crap to me.  Utterly incognizant of discussions and Watson's analyses here, for one thing, and not breaking any new ground that I could see.  Do these people get paid for this?  They should send back their paycheck.

Phil Adams wrote on 08/10/10 at 15:49:35:


Thanks,
and probably yes

Phil

Are the games in the Us Open available? if yes where?
what did he play against Nakamura?

tks,

At 
http://www.chesscafe.com/abby/abby.htm
Abby Marshall provides a general survey of the Four Pawns attack. The same material is also available in pgn via the Chess Theatre link.

I have only scanned her article brielfy so far but first impression is that it is based on "official" theory rather than home analysis so it will probably be of little interest to Alekhine fanatics. Nevetheless, players new to the Alekhine might find this article a useful strating point.

Taylor's book is quite a good introductory guide, but I would recommend starting with Cox's book, which is more objective and in my view provides better explanation and examples of the key ideas in each variation of the Alekhine. If you are a thrifty chess player, you can use only Cox's book and update your theoretical knowledge using the threads on this Forum and the aforementioned Alekhine Working Group.

MarkG wrote on 08/01/10 at 16:24:12:


Well, I gave some of views on Taylor's book already (above). Agreed, he can be a bit irritating and "in your face". Also (disappointingly) he gives the solid (tedious?) ...exd6 against the Exchange, but that is also in line with the preference of many current GMs e.g. Short, Spraggett, Mirzoev, Degraeve, Kraai, Narciso, Davies, so perhaps we should accept that that's the current trend among titled players, most of whom only have the Alekhine as an occasional weapon.

All I can say to summarise is that I (currently 2144 at age 62 - I give that information just for context) am glad to have Taylor's book. With over 80 Alekhine games played over the board, against players from 1800 up to the likes of Danny King and Mark Hebden, I have to say I found the book very readable, interesting and even refreshing.

Personally I do find the other side's repertoire books worth reading.

Taylor's book is useful, I suppose, but he puffs it up with a tremendous quantity of exposition of what he does not like.  I'm surprised that his editors permitted him to do so much of that.  If you trim the book to include only his exposition of his recommended lines, it would be, oh, perhaps two-thirds or one-half its actual length.

Taylor also persistently mocks  preferences alternative to his own, which I found neither convincing nor endearing.

These kind of books are gods gift to 1.e4 players

I've had thoughts about taking up the Alekhine and I've bought the new book 'Alekhine Alert' by Timothy Taylor.  I'd be interested to know people's views on it and its strengths and weaknesses.  Would this book be enough to launch me into this opening do you think?

To be frank I have not noticed much happening with the Alekhine recently but this week in the British Championship the Polish (!) player (don't ask  ) Tymrakiewicz has been playing 9..Bf5 against the Voronezh!

I've attached some analysis of his game against M.Rich which shows that one of the ...d5 lines that I initially dismissed as bad for Black in fact seems to provide interesting compensation.

Today Tymrakiewicz has played an interesting sacrificial line first analysed at the forum's Alekhine offshoot, the Alekhine Defence Working Group! More on this later.

A big thankyou to Luis for drawing my attention to these games!

well, this is great because it is getting more likely that we will have Marin doing an article on the Voroznev

OldGrizzly

In one of your previous posts you mention

"[instead of 13...Nc6 14.Bxc6 bxc6 15.Nge2 with advantage to White - Marin.]"

Apparently this remark is by Marin. Can you tell me where it is from? Thanks, lg

Did GM Skembris have anything else of interest concerning the Alekhine?
He's not an Alekhine player himself. He covered these variations complying our (a teammate and me) specific request.
My impression is that White can stay on top by being willing to return the exchange in return for developing and keeping the strong passed c-pawn, e.g. 14...dxc3 15 Qxd8 Rxd8 16 Bxa8 c2 17 Ne2 Bb2 18 0-0 Bxc1 19 Nxc1.
I think the better way should be 14...dxe3 [An interesting alternative could be 14...Na6!? 15.Bxa6 (15.Bxa8 Nxc5 with compensation) 15...Qa5! with counterplay] 15.Qxd8 Rxd8 16.Bxa8 Nd7! 17.Ne4 Ne7 18.Bb7 Rb8 with compensation.

We had a decent look at the variations with 9...Bf5 in some training sessions with GM Skembris a few months ago and came to the conclusion that after 10.Be2 e5 both 11.dxe5 dxe5 12.Qxd8 Rxd8 13.c5 N6d7 (13...Nc8!?) 14.Nb5 Nc6 15.Nd6 Nb4 16.Bc4 Rf8! and 11.Nf3 Nc6!? 12.d5 Ne7 13.h3 Bc8 14.0-0 Sd7 15.Bd3 f5 with KI-structures are not to fear. 
I think even 10...d5 is not simply to put aside, at least till a clear refutation is found to 11.c5 Nc8 12.Bf3 e5!? 13.Bxd5 exd4!?.
The most troublesome line we've found is 10.Nf3 Bg4 10.Be2 d5 (or 10...e6 with later transposition) 11.h3 Bxf3 12.Bxf3 e6 13.0-0 Nc6 14.cxd5 exd5 with a small but annoying advantage for White.

[quote author=103C2F36322B343E355D0 link=1228335807/35#35 date=1266163301]@Paddy: These 9...Bf5 ideas are fascinating.  Clearly I haven't been paying enough attention to recent developments, and not all that recent really.  

When play reverts to a normal ...cxd6 Exchange, Black doesn't seem to miss his tempo very much, probably because Rc1 and b3 aren't very useful there -- especially the former.  Black doesn't have his ...Nc4 ideas, but he does well enough with ...Nc8.  Anyway in practice Black scores well there.

Also I agree that after 10.d5 e5 11.dxe6 Bxe6, Black's resources seem to be adequate.  White pays a price for his slow early play.  I looked at 12.Nf3 Nc6 13.Nb5, but it doesn't seem that bad for Black.

I think that White's most challenging idea is 10.d5 e5 11.g4!, which you may be aware of since I (now) see that it was played in Dvoirys - Steffens, Overwart 2004.  It continued 11...Bc8 12.h4 f5 13.h5 (my silicon also likes 13.gxf5) 13...f4 14.Bxb6 axb6 15.hxg6 hxg6 16.Qc2.  Dvoirys won with his 400 Elo advantage, but I believe he could have beaten a much stronger opponent in this same position, which to me looks good for White.  So for the time being, this line looks to me like the most challenging rejoinder to 10...e5.

But what about 10...e6, with the idea that 11.Nf3 exd5 and 11.Be2 exd5 seem to offer Black enough play, while 11.dxe6 transposes.  That leaves 11.g4, when 11...Bxc3 12.Rxc3 Be4 13.f3 Bxd5 14.cxd5 Nxd5 15.Re3 (15.Qd2 Nxc3 16.Qxc3 Nc6 looks about even, though Black will have to watch out for the two bishops) 15...Nxe3 (15...Nc6!?) 16.Rxe3 Qh4+ 17.Ke2 Nc6 18.Bg2 (18.Qxd6? e5) 18...d5 (18...Rfc8!?; 18...Nb4!? 19.Qd2 a5) seems to offer Black pretty decent compensation for his material deficit.
(rest cut - different topic)
[/quote]

Thanks Mark; the sac idea with 10…e6 is an amazing resource, with Black getting two good pawns and unsafe white king to harass. Further analysis might reveal a way for white to coordinate (as seems to have happened in the piece for three pawns sac line  in the Slav with 6 Ne5), but until then…

However, I don’t think that Dvoirys-Steffens comes close to making 10…e5 doubtful. In some ways, “both sides stand badly” as Tarrasch once said. Black has an undeveloped queenside and badly placed knight at b6; but White is attacking with his kingside pieces undeveloped, his king in the centre and his rooks unconnected, so my feeling is that in the resulting King’s Indian-like positions Black should get his share of the chances, as long as he does not allow a stable blockade of the e4 square.

In the game itself, I think Black was doing OK until 17…Bxg4; instead, 17…Qe7 seems to give plenty of counterplay. Also instead of 18…Bxh3, 18…Bf5 was better, intending 19 Bxf5 gxf5!, again with enough counterplay, I think.

However, there several other issues to discuss in this game.

1)      After 11 g4, also to be considered is 11…Bd7 12 h4 e4!? To open the long diagonal and the e-file. I accept that the compensation is not immediately apparent. A sample line is 13 Nxe4 Qe7 14 Bd3 Na6 15 Bg5 f6 16 Bf4 Nc8 17 Kf1 f5 18 Bg5 Qf7 19 gxf5 Bxf5.

2)      After 11 g4 Bc8 12 h4 it is possible that Black does not need be in such a rush to play …f5, since White’s threats on the h-file might lack substance. Black can consider moving a knight to d7 or a6, or playing …a5 then ...Na6, watching for a favourable moment for …f5 (or …e4).

3)      Instead of 13 h5, you rightly identified 13 gxf5 as a critical alternative. I have looked at this in some detail without coming to a clear conclusion, other than that the play is difficult for both sides. I’ll post my analysis to the Alekhine group.

4)      Instead of  14 Bxb6, 14 Bd2 is critical, retaining this important bishop and intending to blockade e4 and then put pressure on black using the g and h files, and maybe the c5 break. I have so far found nothing satisfactory for Black. The 14…e4 pawn sac to prevent a blockade on e4 seems inadequate in this line.

For those who have not seen the game in question, here it is:

[Event "op"]
[Site "Oberwart"]
[Date "2004.07.13"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Dvoirys, Semen I"]
[Black "Steffens, Olaf"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B03"]
[WhiteElo "2612"]
[BlackElo "2244"]
[PlyCount "75"]
[EventDate "2004.07.10"]
[EventRounds "2"]
[EventCountry "AUT"]

1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. c4 Nb6 5. exd6 cxd6 6. Nc3 g6 7. Be3 Bg7 8. Rc1
O-O 9. b3 Bf5 10. d5 e5 11. g4 Bc8 12. h4 f5 13. h5 f4 14. Bxb6 axb6 15. hxg6
hxg6 16. Qc2 e4 17. Nxe4 Bxg4 18. Bh3 Bxh3 19. Rxh3 Na6 20. a4 Qe7 21. Kf1 Nb4
22. Qe2 Rae8 23. Re1 Qd7 24. Qd2 Na6 25. Ng5 Rxe1+ 26. Qxe1 Nc7 27. Qe4 Rf5 28.
N1f3 Be5 29. Nxe5 dxe5 30. Qh1 Qg7 31. Rh7 Rxg5 32. Rxg7+ Kxg7 33. Qh4 Kf6 34.
Qh8+ Kf5 35. f3 Rh5 36. Qc8+ Kg5 37. Qd8+ Kh6 38. Qh8+ 1-0

In the July09 update, John Watson has analysed this
position in the context of the game Esserman-Yermolinsky, 2009 

He claims that after 10. d6 Be6 11. Nf3 Nc6 12. Nb5
is critical (12. Be2 Nd7 ! was played in Esserman-Yermolinsky) and gives some analysis

Bresando wrote on 02/12/10 at 12:03:16:


So many of the critical games in this line were played by Luther...

Funny, I always thought the refutation of 10...Nc6 was 11.Nf3 Bg4 12.Bf4 g5 13.Ne4! gxf4 14.Nf6+ Qxf6 15.exf6 0-0-0 16.Qc1! as first suggested by Burgess, and played in Bryson-Luther, Bled 2002 (despite the eventual 1/2-1/2). But 11.Nb5 etc. looks good too I admit.

After the more challenging 10...Be6, I suggest 11.Nf3 Nc6 (11...f6? 12.Nd4) 12.Bg5!? f6 (almost forced; 12...Qc8? 13.Nb5; 12...Qd7 13.a4 and Black has taken d7 square from the knight, while 13...a5 would make b5 a permanent outpost.) 13.exf6 gxf6 and this needs analysis; one sample line: 14.Bf4 Qd7 15.a4! Bf7 (edit: I found this corr. game which looked solid for Black: 15...Nb4 16. Rc1 O-O-O 17. a5 N6d5 18. Nxd5 Bxd5 19. Bxc4 Bxd6 20. Bxd6 Qxd6 21. Bxd5+ Kb8 22. O-O Qxd5 23. Qxd5 Rxd5 24. Rc4 1/2-1/2. Tushev-Alvarez, AR-2003-Q-00008 (1) 2003) 16.a5 Qe6+ 17.Kf2!? Nd5 18.Nxd5 Qxd5 19.Qxd5 Bxd5 20.Rd1 and White's initiative continues into the endgame.

In light of Tushev-Alvarez maybe White should still try his luck with 12.Nb5 or 12.Be2.

Bresando wrote on 02/12/10 at 19:31:16:


First, to clarify, after 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. exd6 cxd6 5. c4 Nb6 6. Nc3 g6 7. Be3 Bg7 8. Rc1
O-O 9. b3 Bf5 10. Nf3 the idea is definitely to lose a tempo and play 10...Bg4, aiming to reach a normal type of position in which the d4 pawn is fixed, e.g.

[Event "North American op 17th"]
[Site "Las Vegas"]
[Date "2007.12.28"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Andrews, Todd D"]
[Black "Nakamura, Hikaru"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B03"]
[WhiteElo "2304"]
[BlackElo "2648"]
[PlyCount "70"]
[EventDate "2007.12.26"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "7"]
[EventCountry "USA"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2008.01.10"]

1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. exd6 cxd6 5. c4 Nb6 6. Nc3 g6 7. Be3 Bg7 8. Rc1
O-O 9. b3 Bf5 10. Nf3 Bg4 11. Be2 e6 12. O-O d5 13. c5 Nc8 14. b4 Bxf3 15. Bxf3
a6 16. a4 Nc6 17. b5 Na5 18. Re1 h6 19. Bf4 Ne7 20. Be5 Bxe5 21. Rxe5 Nf5 22.
Be2 axb5 23. axb5 Qf6 24. f4 Nxd4 25. Qxd4 Nb3 26. Qe3 d4 27. Ne4 Qxe5 28. Qf3
Qf5 29. g4 Qxe4 30. Qxe4 Nxc1 31. Bc4 d3 32. Qe3 Rfd8 33. Qd2 Ra4 34. Bxd3 Nxd3
35. c6 Ra1+ 0-1

Secondly, if White prevents ...d5 by playing 12 d5 himself, Black can reply with 12...e5, e.g.

[Event "FRA-chT Top 16 GpA"]
[Site "France"]
[Date "2008.03.23"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Baklan, Vladimir"]
[Black "Nakamura, Hikaru"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B03"]
[WhiteElo "2647"]
[BlackElo "2670"]
[PlyCount "128"]
[EventDate "2008.03.22"]
[EventType "team"]
[EventRounds "7"]
[EventCountry "FRA"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2008.05.06"]

1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. c4 Nb6 5. exd6 cxd6 6. Nc3 g6 7. Be3 Bg7 8. Rc1
O-O 9. b3 Bf5 10. Nf3 Bg4 11. Be2 e6 12. d5 e5 13. O-O Bxf3 14. Bxf3 Na6 15.
Be2 f5 16. f3 Nc8 17. a3 Bf6 18. Bf2 Bh4 19. g3 Bg5 20. Rc2 Nc7 21. b4 b6 22.
Re1 Bf6 23. Bf1 Kg7 24. Rd2 a5 25. Na4 axb4 26. axb4 Na6 27. Qb3 Rf7 28. Ra2
Rfa7 29. Nc3 Nc7 30. Rxa7 Rxa7 31. Na4 Rb7 32. Qc2 Qe8 33. Rd1 b5 34. cxb5 Nxb5
35. Qc6 Qxc6 36. dxc6 Rb8 37. Nb6 Nc3 38. Nxc8 Nxd1 39. Nxd6 Nxf2 40. c7 Ra8
41. Kxf2 Be7 42. c8=Q Rxc8 43. Nxc8 Bxb4 44. Bc4 Bc5+ 45. Ke2 h5 46. h3 Kf6 47.
Kd3 Bf2 48. Ke2 Bc5 49. Bd5 Kg7 50. Kd3 Kf6 51. Kc4 Bf2 52. g4 hxg4 53. fxg4 e4
54. Nd6 Bg3 55. Nf7 Bf4 56. Kd4 Bc1 57. h4 Bb2+ 58. Ke3 Bc1+ 59. Kd4 Bb2+ 60.
Kc4 fxg4 61. Ng5 Kg7 62. Nxe4 Bf6 63. Nxf6 Kxf6 64. Kd4 g5 1/2-1/2

Of course, Black was eventually in difficulties in the Baklan game ("I swindled Vladimir Baklan with black in an Alekhine and drew." Nakamura) but that does not necessarily imply that Black was significantly worse in the opening. Although in most lines Black does indeed do best to adopt the ...d5. ...e6 pawn centre, there are many Alekhine games by strong players in which the ....d6, ...e5 centre provided enough counterplay and the structure of white pawns c4 and d5 vs black pawns d6 and e5 is a familiar one from the ...e5 Sicilian lines.

However, it is not clear to me why Nakamura did not play 11...d5 in the two games above; why is it necessary / better to prepare it with 11...e6? Unless White has something better than 12 c5 Nc8 13 0-0 it seems that the game is likely to transpose to

[Event "Gibraltar Masters"]
[Site "Gibraltar"]
[Date "2007.01.24"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Narayanan, Srinath"]
[Black "Nakamura, Hikaru"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B04"]
[WhiteElo "2229"]
[BlackElo "2651"]
[PlyCount "76"]
[EventDate "2007.01.23"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "GGB"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2007.03.07"]

1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. c4 Nb6 5. exd6 cxd6 6. Nc3 g6 7. Be3 Bg7 8. Be2
Nc6 9. Rc1 O-O 10. b3 Bf5 11. Nf3 d5 12. O-O Bg4 13. c5 Nc8 14. b4 a6 15. Rb1
e6 16. a4 Bxf3 17. Bxf3 N8e7 18. b5 Na5 19. Bg5 h6 20. Bxe7 Qxe7 21. Qd3 Rfd8
22. bxa6 Rxa6 23. Nb5 Nc6 24. Nd6 Ra7 25. Rb6 Bxd4 26. Rxc6 Rxa4 27. Nb5 bxc6
28. Nxd4 Rc8 29. g3 e5 30. Nb3 Qf6 31. Bg2 Ra3 32. Qc2 Rb8 33. Nd2 e4 34. Qc1
Ra2 35. Bxe4 Qd4 36. Bxd5 Qxd5 37. Nc4 Qxc5 38. Qc3 Rb4 0-1

Thirdly, 10 Be2 e5!? is (as far as I know) a new position, so we can only be tentative at this stage. My previous posts argued that Black has sufficient counterplay if White exchanges the pawns and the queens and that Black is sufficiently better off than in the lines with 9...e5. If White declines to exchange on e5 and develops with 11 Nf3 instead, then Black has several plausible moves e.g. 11...e4 (this forcing move should be analysed first - if good, problem solved!), 11...Nc6, 11...Qe7 and maybe 11...Na6.

Fourthly, we need to work out how to develop after 10 Be2 e5!? 11 d5, when the bishop might be misplaced on f5. (Baklan-Nakamura may or may not indicate the way to go.)

Fifthly, I began to worry whether there was a simple positional refutation of 9...Bf5 in 10 d5, intending Nf3-d4 with the sort of bind/space advantage  - based on a pawn structure known to be favourable to White (e.g. from the Sicilian Dragon) - which is the main point of the Voronezh move order, but I think Black's counterplay comes quick enough despite another loss of tempo with the bishop (!)  i.e. 10 d5 e5! and if 11 dxe6 Bxe6 12 Nf3 Nc6 13 Be2 d5! and if then 14 c5 d4! seems at least =+.

Your thoughts please!

Bresando wrote on 02/12/10 at 18:19:41:


There's a critical Tomas Luther game, but I forget the opponent, that is widely regarded as refuting the line with ...e6.  Maybe somebody else can cite it.  If you subscribe to this section, you'll find that Watson extensively treated 6...c5 7.d5 g6 in a couple of updates.  

You shouldn't take my word for it; I'm a chess nobody and there are those that will play 6...c5.  I'm just saying that when my own score is on the line, I'll play 6...Nc6. In some ways it depends on the level of opposition, and you might be able to get away with 6...c5 against sub-2200 opposition.

As for Paddy's line, which you question in another post, I would be interested to hear Paddy's answer.  But didn't someone say that a Nakamura idea was 9....Bf5 10.Nf3 Bg4 followed by an eventual ...d5, accepting a lost tempo?  Does Nakamura really have ideas or does he just play random moves?

Paddy's 9...Bf5 10 Be2 e5!? looks very interesting but what if white simply continues 11 Nf3?
11 ...Bg4? now is certainly weak since black is worse when he plays e5 instead of d5! in the "classical" variation.
My computer suggests 11...Re8 but after dxe5 white is simply a move up on the line shown in Paddy's game.Maybe this is still good enough for black but there must be something better than losing a tempo!
11...Qe7!? maybe this can be a decent waiting move but frankly i have not a real plan in mind...
Any suggestions?

persiandrunkard wrote on 02/04/10 at 12:59:49:


Sorry, I just noticed your post.  See my PM.

-In the 4PA i used to play the 5...dxe5 6...c5 line with e6
but i heard that a refutation has been discovered; i guess it involves the sharp 10 d6 but can you show me the precise line which cause black trouble?
10.d6 Nc6? (Better is 10...Be6) 11.Nb5! Qh4+ 12.g3 Qxe4+ 13.Qe2 Qxh1 14.Bg5! +-

Hi
I'd be interested in joining this alekhine workgroup
if somebody could give me directions
Thx

Pier lala wrote on 02/02/10 at 20:50:40:

Easy to criticize. Maybe you could try to do better. I think we are 9 in this group and most of us have also a job during the day and a family at home. We are no professionnals but my impression from the first steps is that the delivered work is far from bad, I'd even say it is good.
By the way, the Alekhine is not really a hot topic among the GM's and so the theory is not evolving that fast. Taking his time and going for the best we can find and maybe create is in such circumstances an adhoc approach.

Paddy wrote on 01/29/10 at 23:55:39:


A. That's quite interesting.

B. Perhaps you'd be interested in joining the Alekhine Defense Working Group that some of us have started on Google Groups?  We haven't gotten very far, I must admit, but it has promise, and we could use another strong analyst.

Keano wrote on 01/27/10 at 08:58:54:


I know that this defense is used as a surprise weapon at high levels, but I think that Black is usually bluffing: he's not actually prepared to face the Four Pawns Attack, the Chase, or any of White's dangerous little ways of playing against this defense.  It may be a good assumption that a professional won't call that bluff, since it would require him booking up on a defense he's not likely to see very much.  But at the club or weekend Swiss level, I think Black will see his share of White's alternative ways of meeting Alekhine's and so he'll have to be prepared for them.  

And if Black must prepare, this ruins the Alekhine as a surprise weapon because there really is a large body of theory with which Black must be acquainted.  The whole thing about Alekhine's is that in most lines, White is not under much immediate pressure and so may select from a plethora of alternatives, with each of which Black must be familiar.

I've been preparing the Scheveningen Sicilian reached via 2...e6, and I've noticed that my Sicilian notes are much smaller than my Alekhine notes.  To me that says: play Alekhine's regularly and use the Sicilian as a surprise weapon.  Most Whites aren't accustomed to a Scheveningen reached other than via the Najdorf, so that idea has some heft to it.

Paddy - when I saw the Marin game with 9...Re8 I looked at it with curiosity thinking this could be a great TN but basically I agree with you, I really can´t see any long-term future for the move.

Ig - that plan with ...e6, ...Bd7-c6 has a certain logic to it, I will need to examine it more closely - I played Alekhines when I was younger and no real plans to go back to it but it would be handy to have it as a surprise weapon.

lg wrote on 01/26/10 at 13:14:48:


Yes, I also noticed the Marin game. Athough in general I'm an admirer of the Marin "brand", I suspect that 9...Re8 will prove to be  dead-end since, as waiting moves go, it is actually quite committal! 

I am suspicious of it for these reasons:

a) White can continue to delay Nf3, playing sensible waiting moves (Be2, h3) which are likely to be at least as useful than Re8; 

b) if Black wants to switch to ...e5 plans, then ...Re8 will be a complete waste of a tempo after dxe5, dxe5, Qxd8, Rxd8;

c) Even if  Black somehow avoids an exchange of queens on d8 after playing ...e5 (e.g. by playing ...Bd7 first), White can answer with d5 if he wants, after which the rook on e8 might well be misplaced (perhaps better on f8, supporting ...f5).

d) ...Re8 does not fit in well with the ...f5 plan, so that is another Black option that ...Re8 more or less rules out.

Therefore I would argue that ...Re8 is the opposite of flexible and its value depends entirely on White naively playing Nf3, allowing ...Bg4, when Black has gained a tempo on the 9...Bf5 line (always assuming that Re8 is useful in the "old-style" structure (Black pawn on d5, White pawns on d4 and c5).

Still, it's early days in the life of  these ideas, so let's hope we soon have some more games to study, so that any conclusions can be more concrete than the above.

Incidentally, Marin's opponent allowed ...Bg4 but did not push c4-c5:

[Event "Cto. España CECLUB 1ª División B"]
[Site "Barbera del Valles (ESP)"]
[Date "2009.08.11"]
[Round "1.1"]
[White "Almagro Llanas, Pablo"]
[Black "Marin, Mihail"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B03"]
[WhiteElo "2481"]
[BlackElo "2583"]
[PlyCount "90"]
[EventDate "2009.08.11"]
[EventRounds "3"]
[EventCountry "ESP"]
[Source "Arranz, Pablo"]
[SourceDate "2009.08.11"]
[WhiteTeam "Afronta Consultoría V. Atocha"]
[BlackTeam "Foment Martinenc"]
[WhiteTeamCountry "ESP"]
[BlackTeamCountry "ESP"]

1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. c4 Nb6 5. exd6 cxd6 6. Nc3 g6 7. Be3 Bg7 8. Rc1
O-O 9. b3 Re8 10. Nf3 Bg4 11. Be2 d5 12. h3 Bxf3 13. Bxf3 e6 14. O-O Nc6 15.
cxd5 exd5 16. Qd3 a6 17. Na4 Nxa4 18. bxa4 Ne7 19. Qb3 b6 20. Bg5 Ra7 21. Rfe1
h6 22. Bxd5 hxg5 23. Bxf7+ Kh7 24. Bxe8 Qxe8 25. Qxb6 Qd7 26. Red1 Nd5 27. Qc6
Qf7 28. Rc5 Nf4 29. Rxg5 Bxd4 30. Kh1 Rc7 31. Qf3 Rc3 32. Qe4 Bxf2 33. Rf1 Re3
34. Qc6 Re1 35. Rxe1 Bxe1 36. Qxa6 Qe7 37. Rb5 Kh6 38. Rb1 Qe3 39. Qc8 Bc3 40.
Qg4 Nh5 41. Qf3 Qe5 42. Qf8+ Kh7 43. Qf7+ Kh6 44. Qf8+ Kh7 45. Qf7+ Kh6 1/2-1/2

I think Marin recently played the bizarre-looking 9...Re8!? if I´m not mistaken - the idea seems similar (wait for Nf3 to play ...Bg4, if not prepare some central action with ...e5)

Against the 4 Pawns I play 6...Nc6 and either 9...Be7 or 9...Qd7!? with 0-0-0.  

Against the Modern I mostly play the Flohr Variation, 4...Bg4 5.Be2 c6.  This obliges me to be prepared for positions similar those that arise from the Exchange and ...exd6.  I also prepare 4...Bg4 5.Be2 e6; 4...dxe5 5.Nxe5 g6; and 4...Nb6.  I think that the latter is the best choice if you must have the full point, and I plan to play it more often.

Against the Exchange proper I play ...cxd6.  I am not very much afraid of the Voronezh, concerning which there has been quite a bit said in other threads here, and also by Watson in his updates.  In fact, his latest update has fairly deep analysis of a key Voronezh variation, with an conclusion satisfactory to Black.  Black sometimes lacks winning chances, but he is safe enough, I opine.

Against 2.Nc3 I play 2...d5, believing that Black's game after 3.e5 Nfd7 is fully adequate.  Contrary to what TN said, this does not, in general, oblige Black to enter a Steinitz French: only after 4.d4 c5 5.Nf3 does it become necessary to go into a French, and the early Nf3 is not White's best in the Steinitz.  Of course 2...e5 is an excellent move as well.

Have to say 4 nf3 de 5 ne5 c6 must be worth considering in your repertoire- Sbort and Carlsen have played this with success. 5... nd7 is a crazy line (both sides) after 6 nf7.

The exchange system is a major  challenge - you need to be ready 5..ed is best.

TonyRo wrote on 12/03/08 at 20:23:27:


I suppose "bad" here means something like "giving White a greater chance for a slight advantage than the alternative."  That has sometimes been the reputation of 5...cd, even before the advent of the Voronezh (the Be3/Rc1/b3 thing), but isn't clear to me at any rate.  For instance, ECO, NCO and MCO don't give 5...ed as better. 

One bit this brings to mind is Nakamura's seeming preference for 5...cd, with the tempo-sacrificing idea of 9...Bf5 10. Nf3 Bg4 in the Voronezh, trying to steer the game into an old familiar type of position.

Hello all, 

I really like the Alekhine, and have played it on and off (not too seriously, I have to add) for as long as I've played chess. I have the Davies book, and used to have The Complete Alekhine, but got rid of it. I was just wondering what variations (specifically), you play against: 

1. The Classical with Nf3 - I have always played ...Bg4 and ...e6 and followed the main lines for the most part, but people seem to think this is not a good way to play as Black. 

2. The Four Pawns- I've fiddled around with everything, but I've always had a soft spot for the early ...c5 and ...e6 line, with ...exd5 and ...c4. Who knows if it's good enough though. 

3. The Exchange - I've been under the impression that ...cd was bad on account of the Be3, Rc1, b3 plan, followed shortly by d5, so I've always played ...ed, but it's rather dry. 

What other materials would you recommend to learn the Alekhine? I'm taking it seriously now.