I play the Alekhine exclusively as a defence to 1 e4 in online blitz. 
After 1 e4 Nf6 2 Nc3 I used to play d5. My scores were mediocre - mainly because I don't handle the Caro/Scandinavian type positions that result very well. Recently, however, I switched to e5 with much better results (after some initial learning pains). Yes, you are playing the black side of the Vienna but that is not so bad and there is really not a lot to learn. 

It is also important to realize that most of the people who play 2 Nc3 against the Alekhine would not play the Vienna if the game started 1 e4 e5 and so their knowledge is usually very limited. It is always amusing when your opponent sinks into thought on move three in an ancient position. In a significant number of cases they then allow a Nxe4 followed by d5 fork trick. 

About one third of my Alekhine games end up in the Vienna but I have very rarely met anyone who actually knows much from there. It is noticeable that stronger players will steer into a 4 Knights, again nothing to be afraid of with a little preparation especially bearing in mind that your opponent is probably a Spanish (the opening, not the country) player and never intended to end up here either.

I think for some people the transposition comes as a genuine surprise, which leads me to believe that not many Alekhine players exploit this opportunity.

thibdb13 wrote on 09/04/08 at 11:46:23:

By the way, no meaning / recommendation about this variation?

kylemeister wrote on 09/04/08 at 20:27:07:

Well if not a Pirc the either a Pirc or a Philor or a Czech System.  No need to start with 1...Nf6.

Viking wrote on 09/04/08 at 19:02:55:


Actually it was Cox who explained that to me.  But yes, that is true.  The only form of the French Black must accept if he goes 3...Nfd7 comes after 4.d4 c5 5.Nf3, when he has no better than 5...e6.  However that version of the Steinitz isn't considered very critical for Black. Of course, Black can ascede to a more normal Steinitz Variation if he wants to.


Personally also, I am not entirely convinced that 2...d5 3.e5 Ne4 4.Nce2 f6 is all that bad for Black.   

One thing I've learned in my studies is that there's a surpising amount of chess to be played after 2...d5 3.exd5.  Not that Black isn't O.K. there, but it remains a very interesting game of chess.

The problem with 2...d6 is that if you rely on that, White can always force you to play a Pirc.

You're absolutely right, 2. ...d6 can also be played, I actually never considered this. Probably because it's much easier to learn a particular french variation, or a vienna, than it is to learn the entire pirc.

another piece of advice is that black has to be ready to play either a vienna or a french.

1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e5

1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. e5 Nfd7 4. d4


Ok, ok. Black can also play a really boring and drawish line starting with 1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. e5 d4

Other references are:

i) The Siebenhar et al books. They are in german, outdated but quite
good in some lines.
ii)Markovich. The Eales and Williams book is quite good for old lines.
iii) Articles in chess magazines. See, for instance, chessbase magazine
123 with an article on the Miles and another on the 4PA, 9...Be7 10 d5.
Here, i perhaps agree with Markovich that the critical lines is 10. Be2.
It is a pity that the game Svidler Baburin stopped at move 11.
See also the articles in New in Chess Yearbooks , including short articles at the beginning (Forum - see, eg., Yearbooks 84 and 87). When searching teh website, the contents of these forums are not
given, and one does not know where an interesting Alekhine line
is analised.
iv) Game books of players with sometimes good analysis of an Alekhine game, eg. the book by Geller, Kasparov's books, etc. 

I think that one of the main questions is to know whether the Alekhine is in general weaker than the average rated defence.

I am puzzled by statements like "perhaps the Alekhine is not playable"
by Short (or Timman) as in a previous pots. Didn't Short obtain a good
draw against Adams in a recent game?

In the book by Alburt et al, "Chess Opening for White" one reads something like "Despite Lev's lifelong efforts, the theory still (correctly)
favour white in the modern line" ?!

Ithink taht one of the problems of the Alekhine is that there are bnot many good players playing it. I think that in teh 70's and 80's playing
teh Alekhine was associated to trying to play something quite different and odd.

However, I believe that nowadays, you can find "different and odd" variations in almost any open.

Viking wrote on 09/03/08 at 19:19:26:


I don't really agree with this statement. In my experience most players that play the chase variation do this because they don't know a line against the alekhine and well c5 attacks the "horsey" agian. But a well prepared player who plays the chase variation can really give black a run for his money (learnt this the hard way). 

My personal experience with the alekhine a rather good mainly because it suits my streetfigther chess style and because a my level (1700) no-one really knows it that well. Still I always have had the feeling that a well prepared player can make blacks life difficult in almost all main variations.

I have decided recently to move away from the alekhine to more mainstream systems in order to grow as a chessplayer. Perhaps in the future I will take it up again as secondary defence because it almost always interesting chess.