one more curiosity:

on the 3rd round of the olympiad, the game 
Topalov - Mauricio Arias Santana (Elo about 2300)
finished  1- 0
it was a Kengis and apparently Black was quite well for
several moves (in fact, according to chessvibes, Black did an unecessary exchange sacrifice on move 44)

almost 500 ELO points separate the two players, so
I guess thiis game might be included in a chapter of
a future book, the chapter titled "when World champions have difficulties playing against the Alekhine"

I asked about the timeline (sorry for the mess in previous message since my text was embedded into yours) becausee I feel that this Voronezh article appears out oftime.
Previous Alekhine (and other openings) articles are motivated by a recent game. In fact, for this one has to congratulate NIC. What puzzle sme is that I was not aware that anything interesting (to make an article in NIC) has been played in this variation

Markovich wrote on 09/14/10 at 20:45:52:

for the "addicts" to let you know that the next NIC yearbook (nº 96) will have an article on the Voronezh by Raetsky and Chetverik

lg wrote on 08/10/10 at 14:44:19:


The US Open games are available for dowload in TWIC:

http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/twic.html

The Nakamura game is in Megabase - An ...exd6 Exchange. White was better but missed a tactic - in the end, a draw. 

If there is sufficient interest I might post a file of Ramirez's Alekhine games at the Alekhine Defense Working group.

Seeking an Alekhine's defence role-model?

The young US-based GM Alejandro Ramirez from Costa Rica just won the 111th Annual U.S. Open ended at the Hyatt Regency in Irvine, California with a score of 8-1. See

http://main.uschess.org/content/view/10605/598

For Alekhine players looking for possible role models, Ramirez might be one to watch. He frequently plays our opening (so far I have 29 of his games in my database) and he scored two useful points with it at the US Open; this was admittedly against lower-rated opponents, but in the past Ramirez has shown that he is not afraid to play the Alekhine against GMs (Nakamura, Kritz, Becerra...).

I perhaps ought to add that Ramirez also plays a mean Sicilian - his US Open win against GM Khachiyan is a wonderful example of dynamic Sicilian play.

well, since everybody is giving comments on Taylor's book, let me add a few:

i) I confess that most of the lines I like are not here but in any way this is a book I am glad to have

ii) it has many positive points, most of them related with how the author defends the lines he suggests,
eg, exchange, 4PA, 2.Nc3, etc.; 
although I would have
preferred a book on the exchange with cxd6 (why did
Marin skipped that on his articles on CBM?) it appears that Taylor makes a strong point for using exd6, even
as winning for Black. One interesting (missing) point is: in a game by Larsen with the bishop in g4,
Black moves to h5 after White playing h3 - in another game by Larsen played by much later (not even mentioned in the book), Larsen played Bxf3 and won (apparently this is the line recommended in several other books)

ii) one point I really dont like (here i strongly agree with Markovich) is in the way he argues against non recommended lines: i) when illustrating why Black should not play a certain line, he uses games that are
not the best from White's point of view misleading
a player  on what is best for White; for instance with respect to the Alburt, apparently it was more important to say that a player like Alburt (an expert on the Alekhine)  lost 4 games against Short rather than show games that really show Black's current troubles. By the way, was not Short at the time better than Alburt? And isnt an advantage to White to know that the Black player always plays the same opening?
ii) I dont agree with arguments like "I prefer this line since here we play chess; and in the other line we need to memorize several (computer) moves"; aren't computers, now, part of the preparating for this game? should we skip a line because it needs from us
several hours of preparation and several hours a week
(a month) of currently being updated? one example
was why he dismisses 5...Nd7 in the Larsen; as far as I remember Miroschnichenko made good use of this line several years ago (playing it continuously) and as far as I remember never lost unprepared againt the Nf7 sacrifice
iii) I am really not in favour of the argument "today I lost because your computer is better than mine".
I would prefer to say that "today I lost because MY analysis with the help of my computer/program was not good/deep enough".
In fact, Taylor's dismisses lines where apparently computers make it a lot easier to evaluate lines; here is one case he misses, in the Qf3 variation against the Larsen,
in the game shown, Black played Qd4+ and White answered with Nd2. What happens if White plays Bd2 leaving the Pawn on b2 undefended? This has been suggested by Burguess on his second book as leading
to a win for White. I think (with the help of computer/program) that the move leads to a draw, with best play from both sides. But the analysis is far from easy, the game does not fade to a draw in a few moves, and the engines really help us to analise
the variations starting with Bd2