What is the theoretical verdict of 1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. e5 d4!? at the higher level?  I've played it for years, and have found it an attractive alternative.  I know it isn't the move white wants to see.  Most white players play into the endgame after 4. exf6 dxc3 5. fxg7 cxd2+ 6. Qxd2 Qxd2 7. Bxd2 Bxg7 8. O-O-O.  The game is unbalanced which generally allows the stronger player to outplay his opponent.  Suprisingly, the move that I'm not crazy about seeing is 3. exd5 Nxd5 which enters some dry lines of the Center Counter (1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nxd5) which don't lead to the more interesting positions, but I can't imagine it being a line white is thrilled about getting either.  I have always shyed away from the Nfd7 line (1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. e5 Nfd7) because of the annoying 4. e6?! lines.  Now, regardless of what the theoretical conculsion is on this line at any given time, I know from first-hand experience that black gets a real uncomfortable position for the mere investment of a weak pawn.  

I guess what Christoph has in mind is what was briefly discussed in:
http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1119459361/12#12

One of his main variations was :1. e4 Sf6 2.Sc3 d5 3.e5 Sfd7 4.f4 e6 5.Dg4!?

Too bad his web site seams to be down  
It had quite a lot of analysis on it if I remember correctly...

But then 2.Nc3 becomes more attractive to those White players, who also have the French Steinitz on their repertoire ...
I am not sure if trading the French Exchange, Advance and Tarrasch for the Alekhine Four Pawns, Alekhine Exchange and Classical Alekhine (4.Nf3) is such a good deal for Black, but anyone his cup of tea of course.
I am looking forward to IM Wisnewski's reaction.

Quote:


I fully agree that Black should not seek to avoid the Steinitz French.  But please say how, after 2...d5  3. e5 Nfd7 4. d4 c5, White can insist on a Steinitz.  I admit to ignorance this point.

Can Black avoid the French Steinitz after 1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e5 Nfd7 4.d4 and 4.f4 ? Maybe with 4...c5 ? I don't think many Alekhine devotees want to enter this transposition ...

Quote:


I know that we've been around this particular mulberry bush before, but I just don't think that 2...e5 is a "concession," as you asserted elsewhere, particularly since 2. Nc3 after 1. e4 e5 is theoretically suboptimal.  However I do understand why 2. Nc3 makes sense for those, like Hector, whose repertoire is based on the Vienna.  Also I am not completely sure that White has more than his first-move advantage after 2...d5  3. e5 Nfd7. 

Maybe this would be a good place to debate the latter question.  Since the affirmative proposition appears to be that there exists a strong line of play against 3...Nfd7, I suggest that you, or someone, make that case here; I will then try to uphold the negative.

I, errr, said that 2...e5 was Black's best choice!

I agree with you by the way: the coverage of this line in every Alekhine book I've ever seen is deplorable.

Quote:



I think that you yourself have to answer these questions.  If you don't think they can be answered, well and good, play something else.  Personally, I'll continue to play 1...Nf6 a little longer.

I agree with Marcovich that 4Nf3 is the critical line against the Alekhine.
It would be nice to see a book "winning against the alekhine which advocates that line" and would give good any major reply .
One thing that bothers me is to see two recent "play with 1.e4" reportoire books that suggest the
exchange variation. At first sight, this seems to be a sound idea in the sense that people may not see the Alekhine
too many times. However, these books do not seem to be up to date with recent (maybe, not even that very recent)
Alekhine news (see, for instance, J.Cox's comment on this thread).
The other criticism is that if one wants to be a reasonable chess player, then he/she should start learning
and using the good lines (and 4.Nf3 seems to be the best line against the Alekhine). It is like
writing as White the exchange for the Ruy Lopez (and then use that often used slogan "played by Bobby
Fischer" - by the way have you seen BFs recent comment on a game in Iceland). For more, on these
more serious options for a reportoire, see J.Cox's nice Introduction for his nice 1.D4 starting out book.

Going back to 4 Nf3,
Khalifmans' book is one example but it would be nice to have a book like J. Cox's book explaining main
ideas an only dedicated to 4Nf3.
About a "Dangerous weapons" type of book it might also be the case that Black could get some "interesting" surprises (based on simply revisiting old lines)
in some lines such as 4 ...Bg4 and 4 ...g6. However, i would say that such a book would be more in
the fashion of the SOS books of New-in-Chess.

Unfortunately i also think that "something in the alekhine defence" may not sell that well.

About playing the Alekhine ever and ever, the problem is that the player you are playing against with,
may know that in advance and use also a surprise, or simply be prepared to your lines. I think the
reason that Alburt lost so many games with the Alekhine is that people knew about it. His match agains Short (1995, I think, is one example). Although, I think that in the fisrt game, Short was the one that
seemed to be better prepared on the Alekhine.

lg

kevinludwig wrote on 12/12/06 at 23:52:25:


Oh, I'm sure that many people will agree that 1...e5, well-played, is the soundest answer to 1. e4.  The problem is, however, that it can be rather difficult to produce wins that way if White plays unambitiously but solidly. Of course, producing the full point with Black can be a problem no matter how you play, but the appeal of Alekhine's, for me, is that it's a tough defense and a challenge, from move one, to White's ability to find good moves. 

I've looked a lot at the 4 Pawns Attack and was worried about it for a long time, but I now think I have a pretty good answer to it -- which I won't share now, however.  Also I think the Exchange is defensible for Black with either recapture.  My present opinion is that 2. e5 Nd5  3. d4 d6  4. Nf3 is the most serious challenge to Black, whether he seeks the half point or the whole. 

The real question with Alekhine's is, can you trot it out in game after game, expecting to get a reasonable game each time, so long as you don't foul up?  Or is so shaky that it must always remain pretty much a surprise weapon?  I'd probably give it up if I thought the latter, since I prefer to play sound moves and leave the unsound ones for my opponent.  Also I don't have the time to master entire systems just to unleash them on rare occasions.

For sure the Alekhine is a fighting provocative defence, but the often at times unwieldly middlegames positions certainly make it an acquired taste.

Over the years ive tried various lines and approaches against the Alekhine but have come to enjoy the stability of the exchange variation:  The Voronezh variation is still the most promosing way to play against 5...cxd6 while on 5...exd6 opinion is divided on Whites best approach, many sources advocate lines with Bd3 followed by Ne2 but there is still a lot to be said for the older Nf3, Be2 formation and I particularly like the way Bojan Kurajica handled this position as White. Perhaps both these formations should be studied in conjunction.

Of the current generation Arkadij Naiditsch plays the exchange variation exclusively against the Alekhine I think and his games are worth close study.

Playing Black isn't always easy and no matter what defence you eventually settle on, a fair bit of work will be required before you will feel confident employing it. At your level 1900-2000 a careful study of the typical plans, tactical motifs and common pitfalls arising out of the chosen defence could prove invaluable and for that reason I would reccommend you consider a more classical defence with clearer more straight forward play.

Toppy    

Markus; in that Exchange variation line 14…h6 just isn’t the right move; 14…Na5 15 Be2 b6 is. But whether Black can equalise there or not – I think he can - his winning chances are not so great, I concede (this is the Voronezh variation I mentioned).

Black has a lot of other ways to handle the Chase than the one given there, and that’s not what I usually play so I’m not sure about it. I know Nigel annotated a game on this line where White gives up his e-pawn like that, so I expect that was this line, and from what I remember White had to be just as careful as Black to demonstrate his compensation.

You speak of IM/GM level as though these were the same thing as the 2700 level! I can assure you the air is a good deal less rarefied down here than at Linares. One can even get away with stuff like 1 e4 d5……

I think you are right; with this opening more than most it is a question of whether you feel comfortable with the deal involved. As you say you will find that most games at your level depart from theory reasonably quickly anyway.

From my point of view the reason the e-book isn’t by me is that they didn’t ask me to do it. Nigel did the site for a long time and Andrew slightly less long, and I expect there are many more games annotated by them than me. I’ve only ever been a semi-occasional guest contributor.

The story goes – doubtless untrue, but still – that Baburin was asked by whichever publisher to do a book for them called ‘Winning With the Alekhiine’, and that he declined, stating that he would only do such a  book if it could be called ‘Surviving with the Alekhine’. The publishers felt that lacked punch from a marketing point of view, and so sadly the book was never produced.

There is a kernel of truth in this tale. When I play it I feel that I have to be more than usually alert if I don’t want to get a bad position. But probably that’s not a bad thing.

I’m not sure who the Alekhine e-book is by, and I can’t look at it because for some reason the site people don’t seem to be able to make my password work, but some of those statements are way too gloomy.

I don’t know your strength either of course and if you’re aiming to be 2700 then it’s a different matter: basically as far as I can see the elite seem to think you need to be looking at the Najdorf, the Sveshnikov, the Berlin, the Marshall or the Petroff, and not much else. But for knocking about at 2500 level and under the Alekhine is fine.

Specifically:

The statement you quote about the Chase Variation I find quite extraordinary. The only question in most of the lines is whether White is actually losing by force or not. If I could start every game from the position after move 4 then I’d be 2600 by now.

The Exchange Variation – well, 5…cxd6 is certainly not refuted but it is difficult to play for a win as Black against the Voronezh, since the best lines lead to drawish endgames. See my valuable contributions in the archives. I take it the e-book is on about 5…exd6, which I think is fine. White does have some rather dull set-ups, and Black needs to be very aware of move order – again see the Baburin and Ivanchuk games I annotated – but I don’t think White obtains the sort of easy edge you’re talking about.

4 Nf3 Bg4 is a difficult one. Baburin does fine with it – theory (in the form of Graham Burgess, anyway) has been rather down on it. You need to like a particular sort of position – closed and cramped but with structural upsides. Search a database for Bagirov’s games in the main line. But 4…dxe5 5 Nxe5 c6, 5…g6 or even 5…Nd7?!!, are possible. The first two give similar play to the Fort Knox or the Caro; probably White is a little better, but probably too Black can equalise in the end. I don’t know about ‘seems to leave Black fighting for a draw’: that hasn’t been my experience particularly.

The Four Pawns is the biggest challenge and is coming back into fashion. Of course White has space and attacking prospects, but that doesn’t mean he’s better. This is the area Black needs to do the most work in – again, the games I’ve annotated in the archives suggest the reason why Black is under pressure here more than he has been for a while. I have some ideas for Black myself – I guess most Alekhine fans do – but whether they are any good or I ever get the chance to test them remains to be seen.

Why should you play the opening – well, it’s not for everyone. The whole idea of it is provocative; and that means that on the whole you have to be happy to undergo pressure for the sake of reward if you come out the other side. Not everyone likes to play that way.

Hi Alekhine fans,

I want an opening repertoire for nearly the rest of my life and therefore I've tested a little bit around this year. Since Sicilian is too much theory (I can't afford the time to learn this) I ended up with Centre Counter and French (played this as young boy) and finally I decided to have a look at Alekhine Defense.

But...!
Looked over the ChessPubl. Alek. Paper (date 10.9.2006) I didn't feel confident with Alekhine.

Follow me and just have a look at the mainvariation conclusions:

Chase Variation:
"black is ok, but has to be careful"
ok, this sounds quite fine but now it gets worse for black...

Four Pawns Attack:
"White has more Space and attacking chances"
so what? Do I really want something like this while playing black?

Exchange:
"White has a nagging edge and the two Bishops"
Still not better...

4.Nf3 without Bg4
"...seems to leave Black fighting for a draw"


4.Nf3 Bg4
"statistivs are very poor"
"Clearly Black needs new ideas"
"Black is compelled to passive play"
ok this is a really no-go for an intermediate player like me

So I summed up and there was nothing left for me to give Alekhine a chance.
And now I ask all Alkehine fans reading this, why do you still play Alekhine? Or why should I play it despite the mentioned facts above?

Best regards,
Markus