|
First, my apologies to basketnight as the title is supposed to be a joke on th etitle of his recent posts
on other openings.
But, the title might also be what I think about the recent Khalifman's book.
It appears that most (maybe, all of them) books
written on the Alekhine are written by players
which frequently play the Alekhine.
Here, we see a book written by someone which PROBABLY rates the Alekhine as equal (in relevance)
to the 4 knights variation of the Sicilian, and
is a good player.
That is, being a good player, I may easily understand
that as giving a menu for white, he may think that
he needs to explain more about the modern 4...Bg4
or evel the Alburt, rather them the Miles or the Kengis
(I am not saying his analysis may not be a bit flawed).
I think that a reasonable good player but not that well
acquainted with the Alekhine, may slip more frequently
in the Bg4, g6, Nc6 variations.
Another reason for his "short" analysis on the Miles and Kengis may be due to the "broadcasting" time in the
chess area. Perhaps, one of the
main messages of J. Cox's book (use the Miles!) may yet
not have reached everyone.
One thing that has puzzled me (when I saw the layout
of the book in a lost thread) was that within the 4...Bg4
variation, he was spending as much time with 5 Nc6 as
with the more common 5 ... e6 and 5 ... c6.
But then, looking at his analysis, I got the idea (mentioned before) that for a white player not acquainted with the Alekhine, Nc6 may need some
explanation rating the number of pages gicven to the
other two more common variations.
In fact (I might be wrong) but this was the first book
where I saw the following line:
4. Nf3 Bg4
5. Be2 Nc6
6. 0-0 Qd7 (the "new" move)
with K saying that one option for Black is this
followed by 0-0-0. His analysis show that White must
play well.
I also liked is brief reference to
5 Bf5
in the Larsen line. Lots of people play that move in ICC
(Alekhine played it in 192?) and it is worth trying to
get out the bishop before playing Nd7. Of course,
a strong move (as suggested by K) shows that Bf5
may not be that good. He gives a line where Black
(at best) gets two pawns on the f column and I agree
that may not be good (however, I believe that a
similar situation happens for White in the quenside
in the Vienna).
I also liked he revisiting the first Tal Larsen game
where
5 ... e6
was played (I agree - why shut in the bishop)
but what i liked most was
6 Qf3 Qe7 (first time I saw this move - and why shutin
the other bishop?) but looking at K's analysis, again
one sees that white need to play quite well.
Some lines look like Anand playing them, e.g.
the variation against the Alburt (I was one of that spent a lot of time studying the complications of the Ng5 move an dthen was really disapointed with the easy win
of Anand agains Timman, I think), the variations against
the Miles and Kengis, but I am not sure whether the
suggested variations against the Larsen 5 ..Nd7 or
the 4 ... Nc6 would be played by Anand.
Two things on the last Alehine post in chesspublishing.
com. I am glad J, Cox is showing his Miles games and
I dont agree with A. Martin's accessment on the last
game that the Alburt is alive. That game does not show anything.
lg
|
Pages: [1] 
A New Look at the Alekhine (Read 20047 times)
