lg wrote on 07/09/07 at 17:52:17:

I don't recall that.  Where?
lg wrote on 07/09/07 at 17:52:17:

I don't think the queen sac is playable after 17. c6.  I think Black has to play 18...Qd3 with the lines I gave above.  I have examined them rather deeply.  (B) is the most promising for White, but I think that difficult as it may appear, Black may hold on by the skin of his teeth.  We could discuss this further if you wanted.

lg wrote on 07/09/07 at 17:52:17:


Ah, yes.  That perhaps argues for the queen sac.  In any case I think that the position with two bishops + two pawns vs. queen is more promising than the the one with three pawns versus the bishop.  This would be without 17. c6, of course.

Markovich wrote on 06/12/07 at 13:14:44:


19...Qxc5+  20. Kh1 and now not 20...Rd7?! as given, but 20...Qe5  21. Re1 Rd2  22. Qc3 Qxc3  23. Nxc3 Rd7 and although the three pawns are not worth as much as White's knight, Black may nevertheless be able to hold the ending.

Also in case of 17. Rf4, Black can try 17...Qxf4  18. Bxf4 Bxc5  19. Be3 Rxd4  20. Bxd4 Bxd4+ with a comparatively solid position and an unusual material matchup: two bishops and two pawns versus queen (in each case with a rook).

However White also has (instead of 17. Rf4) 17. c6 bxc6  18. Rf4 Qd3 (18...Qxf4 is no good now) 19. Nxe2 Qxe2.  Even so:

A. 20. Bxa7 Qb5  21. Qc2 Qxe5  22. Rxf7 Kb7  23. Bf2 Bd6  24. Rc1 Qd5 is still a game.

B. 20. Rxf7 Rd3  21. Qxe6+ Kb7  22. Bf2 Qxb7  23. Rf1 Bb4 is perhaps more problematic, but Black still has counterplay based on ideas of ...Rhd8 and ...Rd1.  For instance 24. Qg4 Re8  25. Qe4 Red8  26. Bg3 Rd1.

Thanks MNb,

I knew U could help.
I had the opportunity to buy it once - hasitated one day - and then it was gone

I will have a look at this when I have a board available.

Instead of allowing the Voronezh, what do u think of:

5-, cxd6 6. Nc3 Bf5!?

It isnt covered in any of my alekhine books - but have been tried by alekh-guru Alburt

Black often gets play similar to the 3.Nf3 Bg4 mainline with an early exd6 exchange - (except that the bishop is placed on f5 of course...)

lg wrote on 06/13/07 at 17:19:46:


Thank you for that most generous revelation of your ideas.  I'll take a look.  However, since tomorrow I leave for vacation in Arizona for two weeks, it may be some time before I can get back to you.  I never study chess while away on vacation; too much like work.

By the way, I once lost horribly with White's side of a Marshall Gambit vs. the Tarrasch (4. cxd5 exd5  5. e4!?) in a game that featured my KN hopelessly condemned to h1.  The proposed ...Na8 reminded me of that.

lg wrote on 06/12/07 at 17:56:26:


Yes, I said that, but I am not sure how bad it is for Black.  I also recall your attention to the other lines I mention without having much new to contribute about them.  The reason is that it seems necessary to scour some of these black pots deeper, to see if any of them can be made to shine.  Or else just give up on Alekhine's.

I'll look at 11...f6 to see what I can see.

@John: I hope you'll be back soon on this subject. 

@others:  I doubt that Black is in much trouble in the Exchange when he recaptures with his e-pawn, so I don't see how this system can come anywhere close to refuting Alekhine's.  Discourage people from playing it, perhaps, but not refute it.  The 4PA, on the other hand, looks to me to be very close to a refutation.  Also I think that Black can hold his own after ...cxd6.  Unlike John I don't face thoroughly booked up opponents all the time, so I am less concerned than he is about certain lines after ...cxd6 that don't give Black much play for a win.  Also my opponents, unlike John's I imagine, pretty often produce stupid moves (and I never do!), so even a position without theoretical prospects can be played for a win.

@lg: My own time-wasting has been with 9...Qd7 10. Be2 0-0-0  11. 0-0 Bg4  12. c5 Nd5  13. Nxd5 Qxd5  14. h3! something we discussed before.  14...Qe4 and now:

(a)  15. Qb3 Nxd4  16. Nxd4 Bxe2  17. Rf4 Qxe4  18. Nxe2 Bxc5  19. Bxc5 Qxc5+  20. K~ Rd7 and while Black is somewhat worse (his kingside pawns lie somewhat exposed, so I think), I'm not sure that he is lost.  His king seems to be in no danger and if he can just hang onto all his pawns, how bad can it be?  The late-middlegame/early ending is perhaps the weakest part of my game; I would appreciate someone else's judgement here.

(b)  16. Qc1 Bf5  17. Ng5 Nxd4  18. Bc4 Qc6  19. Nxf7 Bxc5  20. Kh2 (20. Nxh8 b5! is due to lg) and here Black can consider 20...Bb6 or just play 20...b5 anyway.  Black will have a pawn and some pretty decent activity for his exchange.  Hiarcs 10 thinks it's close to even, but I doubt it.  Another situation where Black is likely worse but possibly not enough to lose. 

Also after 14. h3! Black has 14...Bf5 and I am not completely sure that Black is so bad then.  His wanderings with this bishop have wasted time, but White has conceded the d5 square.  I was surprised to find that Christiansen, whose little work on the 4PA I recently obtained, pointed out 14. h3! a long time ago.  Surprised, since Davies just ignored this in his Alekhine book.  Anyway, Christiansen opines that 14...Bf5  15. Qa4"!" Qe4  17. Qa3"!" is good for White, a strange judgement, since it appears to me that Black can then play 17...Nxd4.  In a CC game on net-chess.com an opponent answered 14...Bf5 with 15. Bb5?! but after 15...a6  16. Bxc6 bxc6 I won a nice opposite-color bishop middlegame; Black's king is very safe on d7 and his bishop will be a mighty piece if he can get it to d5 (as I did).

If there is another line that holds out against the 4PA, it may be 9...Be7  10. d5 Nb4  11. Rc1 exd5  12. a3 Nxc4.  Still another case where Black is worse by probably not losing, I think.  Christiansen claims only +=.  This may be the most reliable idea of the lot.

lg, I'd like to hear more about your 11...f6 idea.  I had thought Black was lost after 12. d5.

... and what about 5... exd in the exchange?

I believe this has a drawish reputation but I think Larsen won some games with it (one at least a well known game against Gipslis, Ithink) and never played 5... cxd.

Ivanchuk won a recent nice game with it.

Have you seen the recent game Naiditsch (2654) - Chigladze (2346) ? Black played the ugly g6 and Bg7 (yes, after exd)
and did not loose despite having about less 300 Elo points. What is more is that Naiditsch
play is not easily improved.


Going back to the Voronezh (after 5 ...cxd) I agree that some variations by black do not feel right (but wasnt the same said about the Sveshnikov variation in the Sicilian ?)