I agree with MrAlekhine - that I fear the exchange much more than the four pawn attack.

When playing the Alekhine - I do it to win!
Playing exd6 does not attract me much as blacks counter play is reduced. Besides, when looking into it earlier - I have stopped - as I am not so sure about his solidity there either...



When it comes to blacks alternatives to meet the Voronezh:
i) a5 is interesting. I have played this move with some success - but without developing the knight to a6 - as done by Chukky. Btw I started a thread on a5  a while back in time....

ii) e6 does feel strange to me. The way Chetverik played it with Bd7-c6-Bxf3 is time consuming and doesnt feel right.

iii) Nbd7 does have some logic to me as  b6 often is not a very good square for the knight. Although white often kicks it the right direction when playing c5 as a response on d5... But still- this doesnt seam right.

other possibilities:
iv)Bd7. I dont have the book by Davies but I think it is recomended there? Any practisioners? What is his point?

v) f5 - could this be something to investigate?

vi) Nc6. I am still amazed by the amount of people playng this move (even GMs)... The whole setup is designed against this standard move.... But - what do I know?

vii) e5 - May be the best move after all. Although I think white has the easier play. A white knight (or something) seams to always penetrate into blacks position when black has to be (more than I usually like) careful.

Very interesting lines on the pesky Voronezh variation.  Despite the theoretical standing of the Four Pawn Attack, most Alekhine players have a pet line against the Four Pawn Attack they feel somewhat comfortable with and generally score pretty well (excluding the GM level).  However, at the Master and below level, I'd be willing to bet the Voronezh is the line that makes many Alekhine players rethink their repetoire choice.  I personally raised the white flag a few years ago and started playing the exd6 lines after a few lifeless losses, but I think I'll take another stab at making cxd6 a viable option again.  I like Ivanchuk's idea despite the result.   

lg wrote on 06/10/07 at 11:29:59:


I am very conservative in my judgement of chess moves, and both 9...e6 and 9...Nbd7 just smell bad to me.  Both seem to weasel around without creating any obvious counterplay.  Though I doubt its soundness, at least 9...f5 is a move with some bite.

But 9...e5! continued with 15...b6 in the main line, as played in Martin-Cox, Port Erin 2005, is fully adequate, I opine.  And in a recent update Watson said that nobody has shown White's path to advantage there.

Without the queen exchange, 12...Qa5?! as played by Baburin against Rowson, Isle of Mann 1999, is wrong I think (the pdf document available here has not been updated with the latest on that line); but I believe Black does well enough with 12...Nc6 and ...Qa5 later.

I am far more worried about the Four Pawns Attack.  In all frankness, I am unaware of how Black can get a satisfactory game against it (particularly since noticing that my idea of 9...Be7  10. d5 Nb4  11. Rc1 f6  12. a3 Na6  13. g4 Bxg4  14. Rg1 h5?! is utterly refuted by 15. Rxg4 -- I should've seen that in the first place).  Really, it is a huge blow to Alekhine's that 9...Be7, for a long time regarded as Black's best against the 4PA, appears to lead to a very nice game for White after 10. d5 exd5  11. cxd5 Nb4  12. Nd4 Bd7  13. Qf3! c5  14. dxc6 bxc6  15. Be2!  But all that is for another thread, I suppose. 

I do share your frustration with Cox's absence here.  I think that the Alekhine is in crisis right now, and I have my doubts that he wants to take up the burden of defending it.  Or maybe he just doesn't want to share his secrets.  I can't blame him for that.

I doubt that we will ever see this rumored Baburin book.  But if we do, perhaps it'll contain some answers.  As you will know, there hasn't been a really systematic monograph on this defense since Burgess's.