[quote author=575A4F523D0 link=1129641682/16#16 date=1300688460][quote author=72715D3F0 link=1129641682/5#5 date=1129669302]Siebenhaar/Delnef/Ottstadt in their big Alekhine book spend no less than 6 pages on the Mokele Mbembe. They give 3.d4! e6 4.Bd3! d5 and now 5.h4, 5.Nh3 and 5.Ne2. Nothing though on 3...f6.[/quote]

Nunn's Chess Openings (p. 129, #30) has 3. d4 f6  4. Qh5+ g6  5. Qh4 d5  6. Bd3 better for white.

As for 3. d4 e6, Nunn's recommends 4. Nh3, but I can't find a refutation of 4...Qh4.   Can anyone help me here?  [/quote]

5.Qe2 looks very good for White. Shame about 5.g3 Nxg3.

the opening is dealt with at http://www.chessville.com/UCO/index.htm

FightingDragon wrote on 10/18/05 at 08:21:21:


The book to read is 

"On the track of missing animals" by Dr Serge Frechkop 1965 originally published in French in 1955 as "Sur la Piste des Betes Ignorees"

So far at least one of the missing animals has been found along with one or two others.

If there is a refutation of the Mokele Mbembe (or Mokele, for its fans), it should begin with (1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Ne4) 3.d4. However, in my 7-8 OTB games the reaction was always the same: 3.d3. Searching for a forced refutation of a rare opening, with the clock ticking, requires more courage than many have. Psychology aside, even 3.d4 f6 is difficult to beat. It might work even in correspondence chess.

Taljechin, I have to agree, Na6 looks better. I have tested the opening a bit on the playchess server.
My experience is that it might be ok, but is difficult to play.
After 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Ne4 3.d3 Nc5 4.d4 Na6 black has in principle two ways to play:
1. he can play d5 and reach a position which resembles a Gurgenidze. Should be playable though I think black is worse.
2. he can play more ambitiously in Alekhine fashion with d6 and c5 (which is supported by the knight on a6). This is more risky because the knight could be missing on the kingside (but where is the difference to the Alekhine?) but seems to give black some play.
As I don't have any issue of Kaissiber, I don't know what Buecker has to say on the subject. 
Has anyone checked what I wrote on the mainline with 3.d4 f6 ?
Everybody seems to go 4.Bd3 d5 5.f3 Ng5 6.Bg5: fg5: 7.f4 g6 8.fg5:
Perhaps I have to look at 8. ... c5 9.c3 a little closer. Does anybody know what Buecker says about that? I hope he adresses the Mokele Mbembe in a future issue of his "Over the Horizons" column at Chesscafe.com (by the way, recommended!).

Alias, thanks for your fast reply!
Yesterday I tried the Mokele Mbembe online and funnily my opponent (rated about 2100) played the seemingly critical variation! I deviated with the weak 7. ... g4? and was much worse after 8.f5! (though I won the game anyway).
But perhaps the main value of the Mokele Mbembe is that the black position is not as bad as it looks (otherwise it would be horrible). I've experienced that almost all Buecker recommendations have a certain logic in them and are to a certain extent playable.
In your line after 7. ... g6! 8.Nf3 (after 8.fg5: c5 9.dc5: Nc6 10.Nf3 Bg4 11.Bb5 e6 black looks okay, even Fritz acknowledges that) gf4: 9.Ng5 I don't see what white replies after 9. ... Bh6. The black position looks absolutely sound.
Perhaps we should also not forget that white has already made a concession in giving up the bishop pair (a first small psychological victory for black?!)!
@LostHighway: Do you have any experiences with the Mokele or why do you consider 8. ... gf4: better than 8. ... g4?

I am surprised that nobody has suggested 3.d3, which looks quite logical to me. What is black's plan after 3. ... Nc5 4.d4 Ne6 (any other idea?)? Perhaps he could play d6, or d5.
And how to assess the position after 3.d4 f6!? (Buecker's way to play the Mokele) 4.ef6: Nf6: (or even ef6:)  ?

Siebenhaar/Delnef/Ottstadt in their big Alekhine book spend no less than 6 pages on the Mokele Mbembe. They give 3.d4! e6 4.Bd3! d5 and now 5.h4, 5.Nh3 and 5.Ne2. Nothing though on 3...f6.

I was right. There's two pages of analysis in the book I mentioned.

Main line:

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Ne4 3.d4! f6 4.Bd3 d5 5.f3! Ng5 6.Bxg5 fxg5 7.f4! g6! 8.Nf3! g4 9.Ng5 Bh6 10.Nxh7 Rxh7 11.Bxg6+ Rf7 12.Qd3 Bf8 13.f5 e6 14.f6 Qd7 15.h3! g3 16.Qxg3

The name was apparently given by Bücker. 

Quote:


Well, as it's spelled I guess.