[quote author=TimS link=1148352894/0#5 date=1148398995][quote author=Uberdeker link=1148352894/0#4 date=1148382968]5. 0-0 is of course a much better way of implementing White's "endgame majority strategy". Compare for example 5. ...f6 ; 6. d4 with 5. d4.[/quote]
Hmm! "Of course...much better"? Lasker, Capablanca and Alekhine are among those who failed to work that out!
5.d4 is the thematic move. It has a drawback - it opens the centre earlier than other moves. It also has an advantage over 5.0-0 - White retains the option of castling long, which speeds development and places the king where it can be useful for defending White's queenside pawns and/or preventing a queenside breakthrough by Black.
True, 5.0-0 is much more popular than the alternatives, but I doubt it is much better.
I am away and do not have any databases with me, but I would be fascinated to know how the main move-five options (d4/0-0/Nc3/d3) compare results-wise ...
[/quote]

I don't know what makes 5. d4 any more thematic than White's other moves.  I suppose it is the most direct way to go for the 4 vs. 3 pawn ending that is one of the themes of this system.  Unfortunately for White, what exists after the exhange of queens on d4 is not an ending, but a queenless middle game where Black is very comfortable with his two bishops.  Personally, I would rather be Black in that position.  How to win?  Well, activate your pieces and then shift them around, looking for opportunities -- especially opportunities to make the position more open.

With 5. O-O, White completes his development and tries to exact some compromises from Black before playing d4.  White doesn't even have to recapture on d4 with a piece, but sometimes first goes c2-c3 and recaptures with the c-pawn.  It's a system that is much more fluid and less single-minded than 5. d4, and there is some degree of unanimity that it's White's best way of playing the Exchange.  All those players might not be right, of course; it wouldn't be the first time that theory had been overturned.  Nf3 in the Exchange Grunfeld was not so long ago considered to be a duffer's move!  But you nevertheless might want to give due consideration to the judgement of theory.

I don't think that statistics are worth very much even if one is selective about the strength of the players whose games are sampled, but that's a topic for another day.

Thanks JEH - interesting stuff.
I used to do well with d4 till I started meeting stronger, say 2100+, players, which is why I switched to Nc3. Glad to see the stats back my switch, altho maybe I'd do even better if I made the effort to study 0-0.

[quote author=Uberdeker link=1148352894/0#4 date=1148382968]5. 0-0 is of course a much better way of implementing White's "endgame majority strategy". Compare for example 5. ...f6 ; 6. d4 with 5. d4.[/quote]
Hmm! "Of course...much better"? Lasker, Capablanca and Alekhine are among those who failed to work that out!
5.d4 is the thematic move. It has a drawback - it opens the centre earlier than other moves. It also has an advantage over 5.0-0 - White retains the option of castling long, which speeds development and places the king where it can be useful for defending White's queenside pawns and/or preventing a queenside breakthrough by Black.
True, 5.0-0 is much more popular than the alternatives, but I doubt it is much better.
I am away and do not have any databases with me, but I would be fascinated to know how the main move-five options (d4/0-0/Nc3/d3) compare results-wise ...

Hello,

Another game of Alekhine's annotated in his first best games book is 

[Event "DSB-19.Kongress"]
[Site "Mannheim"]
[Date "1914.07.20"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Post,Ehrhardt"]
[Black "Alekhine,Alexander"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "C68"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.d4 exd4 6.Qxd4 Qxd4 7.Nxd4 Bd7 8.Bf4 0-0-0 
9.0-0 Nf6 10.Nd2 h6 11.c3 c5 12.Ne2 c4 13.Rfe1 Bc5 14.Nd4 Rhe8 15.Re2 Ba4 16.N4f3 Bc2 
17.Ne5 Nh5 18.Ndxc4 Rd1+ 19.Rxd1 Bxd1 20.Rd2 Nxf4 21.Rxd1 b5 22.g3 Nh3+ 23.Kg2 Nxf2 24.Rd5 Nxe4 
25.Na5 Bb6 26.Nec6 Nf6 27.Rd2 Nd7 28.Nb3 Nc5 29.Ncd4 Nxb3 30.Nxb3 Rd8 31.Re2 Kd7 32.Kf3 f6 
33.Kf4 Re8 34.Rd2+ Ke7 35.Nd4 g6 36.Nc6+ Kf7 37.Rd7+ Ke6 38.Rd2 g5+ 39.Kf3 f5 40.Nb4 g4+ 
41.Kg2 Kf7 42.Nxa6 Re1 43.h4 Kg6 44.Nb4 Rg1+ 45.Kh2 f4 46.gxf4 g3+ 47.Kh3 Bf2 48.Kg4 Rh1 
49.f5+ Kf6 50.Nd5+ Ke5 51.Kf3 Kxf5 52.Nxc7 Rxh4 53.Nxb5 Rf4+ 54.Kg2 h5 55.Rd8 h4 56.Rf8+ Kg5 
57.Rg8+ Kh5 58.Rh8+ Kg6 59.Re8 Bc5 60.Re2 Kf5 61.b4 Bb6 62.Kh3 Rf2 63.Nd6+ Kf4 64.Re4+ Kf3 
65.Kxh4 Bd8+ 66.Kh5 Rh2+ 0-1

Bye John S

Well, Alekhine was a big proponent of Black's chances in this sort of position.  I remember this game being given in some old books, like maybe Reuben Fine's book on the middle game:

[Event "Orebro"]
[Site ""]
[Date "1935.??.??"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Petterson, Einar"]
[Black "Alekhine, Alexander Alexandrovich"]
[Result "0-1"]
[NIC "RL 8.5"]
[ECO "C68"]
[PlyCount "54"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. d4 exd4 6. Qxd4 Qxd4 7. Nxd4 Bd7 8. 
Be3 O-O-O 9. Nd2 Ne7 10. O-O-O Re8 11. Rhe1 Ng6 12. Ne2 Bd6 13. h3 f5 14. exf5 Nh4 
15. Nc4 Nxg2 16. Rg1 Nxe3 17. Nxe3 Be5 18. Nd4 Re7 19. c3 Rf8 20. Rg4 g6 21. Nf3 
Bd6 22. Nd4 c5 23. Ndc2 Bxf5 24. Nxf5 Rxf5 25. Rg2 Re2 26. Rf1 Rd5 27. Ne3 Bf4 0-1

You might even take a look at this game, which I played a long time ago.  (I was Black; incidentally my opponent later became US Champion, though he was quite young at the time of the game.)

NN--kylemeister

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dc 5. 0-0 Qd6 6. d4 ed 7. Qxd4 Qxd4 8. Nxd4 Bd7 9. Bf4 0-0-0 10. Nc3 Ne7 11. Rad1 Ng6 12. Bg3 h5 13. f3 h4 14. Bf2 h3 15. g3 Ne5 16. Be3 Nc4 17. Bc1 Bc5 18. Nce2 f5 19. b3 fe 20. bc ef 21. Nc3 f2+ 22. Kxf2 Bg4 23. Ke3 Rhe8+ 24. Ne4 Bxd1 25. Rxd1 Rd7 26. Bb2 Rde7 27. Kd3 Bxd4 28. Bxd4 Rxe4 29. Bxg7 Re2 30. Bh6 Rxh2 31. Rf1 Rg2 32. Bf4 h2 33. Rh1 Rd8+ 34. Ke4 Rd1 35. Kf3 Rxg3+ 36. Kxg3 Rxh1 37. Kg2 Ra1 0-1