Did GM Skembris have anything else of interest concerning the Alekhine?
He's not an Alekhine player himself. He covered these variations complying our (a teammate and me) specific request.
My impression is that White can stay on top by being willing to return the exchange in return for developing and keeping the strong passed c-pawn, e.g. 14...dxc3 15 Qxd8 Rxd8 16 Bxa8 c2 17 Ne2 Bb2 18 0-0 Bxc1 19 Nxc1.
I think the better way should be 14...dxe3 [An interesting alternative could be 14...Na6!? 15.Bxa6 (15.Bxa8 Nxc5 with compensation) 15...Qa5! with counterplay] 15.Qxd8 Rxd8 16.Bxa8 Nd7! 17.Ne4 Ne7 18.Bb7 Rb8 with compensation.

We had a decent look at the variations with 9...Bf5 in some training sessions with GM Skembris a few months ago and came to the conclusion that after 10.Be2 e5 both 11.dxe5 dxe5 12.Qxd8 Rxd8 13.c5 N6d7 (13...Nc8!?) 14.Nb5 Nc6 15.Nd6 Nb4 16.Bc4 Rf8! and 11.Nf3 Nc6!? 12.d5 Ne7 13.h3 Bc8 14.0-0 Sd7 15.Bd3 f5 with KI-structures are not to fear.
I think even 10...d5 is not simply to put aside, at least till a clear refutation is found to 11.c5 Nc8 12.Bf3 e5!? 13.Bxd5 exd4!?.
The most troublesome line we've found is 10.Nf3 Bg4 10.Be2 d5 (or 10...e6 with later transposition) 11.h3 Bxf3 12.Bxf3 e6 13.0-0 Nc6 14.cxd5 exd5 with a small but annoying advantage for White.

[quote author=103C2F36322B343E355D0 link=1228335807/35#35 date=1266163301]@Paddy: These 9...Bf5 ideas are fascinating.  Clearly I haven't been paying enough attention to recent developments, and not all that recent really. 

When play reverts to a normal ...cxd6 Exchange, Black doesn't seem to miss his tempo very much, probably because Rc1 and b3 aren't very useful there -- especially the former.  Black doesn't have his ...Nc4 ideas, but he does well enough with ...Nc8.  Anyway in practice Black scores well there.

Also I agree that after 10.d5 e5 11.dxe6 Bxe6, Black's resources seem to be adequate.  White pays a price for his slow early play.  I looked at 12.Nf3 Nc6 13.Nb5, but it doesn't seem that bad for Black.

I think that White's most challenging idea is 10.d5 e5 11.g4!, which you may be aware of since I (now) see that it was played in Dvoirys - Steffens, Overwart 2004.  It continued 11...Bc8 12.h4 f5 13.h5 (my silicon also likes 13.gxf5) 13...f4 14.Bxb6 axb6 15.hxg6 hxg6 16.Qc2.  Dvoirys won with his 400 Elo advantage, but I believe he could have beaten a much stronger opponent in this same position, which to me looks good for White.  So for the time being, this line looks to me like the most challenging rejoinder to 10...e5.

But what about 10...e6, with the idea that 11.Nf3 exd5 and 11.Be2 exd5 seem to offer Black enough play, while 11.dxe6 transposes.  That leaves 11.g4, when 11...Bxc3 12.Rxc3 Be4 13.f3 Bxd5 14.cxd5 Nxd5 15.Re3 (15.Qd2 Nxc3 16.Qxc3 Nc6 looks about even, though Black will have to watch out for the two bishops) 15...Nxe3 (15...Nc6!?) 16.Rxe3 Qh4+ 17.Ke2 Nc6 18.Bg2 (18.Qxd6? e5) 18...d5 (18...Rfc8!?; 18...Nb4!? 19.Qd2 a5) seems to offer Black pretty decent compensation for his material deficit.
(rest cut - different topic)
[/quote]

Thanks Mark; the sac idea with 10…e6 is an amazing resource, with Black getting two good pawns and unsafe white king to harass. Further analysis might reveal a way for white to coordinate (as seems to have happened in the piece for three pawns sac line  in the Slav with 6 Ne5), but until then…

However, I don’t think that Dvoirys-Steffens comes close to making 10…e5 doubtful. In some ways, “both sides stand badly” as Tarrasch once said. Black has an undeveloped queenside and badly placed knight at b6; but White is attacking with his kingside pieces undeveloped, his king in the centre and his rooks unconnected, so my feeling is that in the resulting King’s Indian-like positions Black should get his share of the chances, as long as he does not allow a stable blockade of the e4 square.

In the game itself, I think Black was doing OK until 17…Bxg4; instead, 17…Qe7 seems to give plenty of counterplay. Also instead of 18…Bxh3, 18…Bf5 was better, intending 19 Bxf5 gxf5!, again with enough counterplay, I think.

However, there several other issues to discuss in this game.

1)      After 11 g4, also to be considered is 11…Bd7 12 h4 e4!? To open the long diagonal and the e-file. I accept that the compensation is not immediately apparent. A sample line is 13 Nxe4 Qe7 14 Bd3 Na6 15 Bg5 f6 16 Bf4 Nc8 17 Kf1 f5 18 Bg5 Qf7 19 gxf5 Bxf5.

2)      After 11 g4 Bc8 12 h4 it is possible that Black does not need be in such a rush to play …f5, since White’s threats on the h-file might lack substance. Black can consider moving a knight to d7 or a6, or playing …a5 then ...Na6, watching for a favourable moment for …f5 (or …e4).

3)      Instead of 13 h5, you rightly identified 13 gxf5 as a critical alternative. I have looked at this in some detail without coming to a clear conclusion, other than that the play is difficult for both sides. I’ll post my analysis to the Alekhine group.

4)      Instead of  14 Bxb6, 14 Bd2 is critical, retaining this important bishop and intending to blockade e4 and then put pressure on black using the g and h files, and maybe the c5 break. I have so far found nothing satisfactory for Black. The 14…e4 pawn sac to prevent a blockade on e4 seems inadequate in this line.

For those who have not seen the game in question, here it is:

[Event "op"]
[Site "Oberwart"]
[Date "2004.07.13"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Dvoirys, Semen I"]
[Black "Steffens, Olaf"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B03"]
[WhiteElo "2612"]
[BlackElo "2244"]
[PlyCount "75"]
[EventDate "2004.07.10"]
[EventRounds "2"]
[EventCountry "AUT"]

1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. c4 Nb6 5. exd6 cxd6 6. Nc3 g6 7. Be3 Bg7 8. Rc1
O-O 9. b3 Bf5 10. d5 e5 11. g4 Bc8 12. h4 f5 13. h5 f4 14. Bxb6 axb6 15. hxg6
hxg6 16. Qc2 e4 17. Nxe4 Bxg4 18. Bh3 Bxh3 19. Rxh3 Na6 20. a4 Qe7 21. Kf1 Nb4
22. Qe2 Rae8 23. Re1 Qd7 24. Qd2 Na6 25. Ng5 Rxe1+ 26. Qxe1 Nc7 27. Qe4 Rf5 28.
N1f3 Be5 29. Nxe5 dxe5 30. Qh1 Qg7 31. Rh7 Rxg5 32. Rxg7+ Kxg7 33. Qh4 Kf6 34.
Qh8+ Kf5 35. f3 Rh5 36. Qc8+ Kg5 37. Qd8+ Kh6 38. Qh8+ 1-0

In the July09 update, John Watson has analysed this
position in the context of the game Esserman-Yermolinsky, 2009

He claims that after 10. d6 Be6 11. Nf3 Nc6 12. Nb5
is critical (12. Be2 Nd7 ! was played in Esserman-Yermolinsky) and gives some analysis

Bresando wrote on 02/12/10 at 12:03:16:


So many of the critical games in this line were played by Luther...

Funny, I always thought the refutation of 10...Nc6 was 11.Nf3 Bg4 12.Bf4 g5 13.Ne4! gxf4 14.Nf6+ Qxf6 15.exf6 0-0-0 16.Qc1! as first suggested by Burgess, and played in Bryson-Luther, Bled 2002 (despite the eventual 1/2-1/2). But 11.Nb5 etc. looks good too I admit.

After the more challenging 10...Be6, I suggest 11.Nf3 Nc6 (11...f6? 12.Nd4) 12.Bg5!? f6 (almost forced; 12...Qc8? 13.Nb5; 12...Qd7 13.a4 and Black has taken d7 square from the knight, while 13...a5 would make b5 a permanent outpost.) 13.exf6 gxf6 and this needs analysis; one sample line: 14.Bf4 Qd7 15.a4! Bf7 (edit: I found this corr. game which looked solid for Black: 15...Nb4 16. Rc1 O-O-O 17. a5 N6d5 18. Nxd5 Bxd5 19. Bxc4 Bxd6 20. Bxd6 Qxd6 21. Bxd5+ Kb8 22. O-O Qxd5 23. Qxd5 Rxd5 24. Rc4 1/2-1/2. Tushev-Alvarez, AR-2003-Q-00008 (1) 2003) 16.a5 Qe6+ 17.Kf2!? Nd5 18.Nxd5 Qxd5 19.Qxd5 Bxd5 20.Rd1 and White's initiative continues into the endgame.

In light of Tushev-Alvarez maybe White should still try his luck with 12.Nb5 or 12.Be2.

Bresando wrote on 02/12/10 at 19:31:16:


First, to clarify, after 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. exd6 cxd6 5. c4 Nb6 6. Nc3 g6 7. Be3 Bg7 8. Rc1
O-O 9. b3 Bf5 10. Nf3 the idea is definitely to lose a tempo and play 10...Bg4, aiming to reach a normal type of position in which the d4 pawn is fixed, e.g.

[Event "North American op 17th"]
[Site "Las Vegas"]
[Date "2007.12.28"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Andrews, Todd D"]
[Black "Nakamura, Hikaru"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B03"]
[WhiteElo "2304"]
[BlackElo "2648"]
[PlyCount "70"]
[EventDate "2007.12.26"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "7"]
[EventCountry "USA"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2008.01.10"]

1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. exd6 cxd6 5. c4 Nb6 6. Nc3 g6 7. Be3 Bg7 8. Rc1
O-O 9. b3 Bf5 10. Nf3 Bg4 11. Be2 e6 12. O-O d5 13. c5 Nc8 14. b4 Bxf3 15. Bxf3
a6 16. a4 Nc6 17. b5 Na5 18. Re1 h6 19. Bf4 Ne7 20. Be5 Bxe5 21. Rxe5 Nf5 22.
Be2 axb5 23. axb5 Qf6 24. f4 Nxd4 25. Qxd4 Nb3 26. Qe3 d4 27. Ne4 Qxe5 28. Qf3
Qf5 29. g4 Qxe4 30. Qxe4 Nxc1 31. Bc4 d3 32. Qe3 Rfd8 33. Qd2 Ra4 34. Bxd3 Nxd3
35. c6 Ra1+ 0-1

Secondly, if White prevents ...d5 by playing 12 d5 himself, Black can reply with 12...e5, e.g.

[Event "FRA-chT Top 16 GpA"]
[Site "France"]
[Date "2008.03.23"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Baklan, Vladimir"]
[Black "Nakamura, Hikaru"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B03"]
[WhiteElo "2647"]
[BlackElo "2670"]
[PlyCount "128"]
[EventDate "2008.03.22"]
[EventType "team"]
[EventRounds "7"]
[EventCountry "FRA"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2008.05.06"]

1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. c4 Nb6 5. exd6 cxd6 6. Nc3 g6 7. Be3 Bg7 8. Rc1
O-O 9. b3 Bf5 10. Nf3 Bg4 11. Be2 e6 12. d5 e5 13. O-O Bxf3 14. Bxf3 Na6 15.
Be2 f5 16. f3 Nc8 17. a3 Bf6 18. Bf2 Bh4 19. g3 Bg5 20. Rc2 Nc7 21. b4 b6 22.
Re1 Bf6 23. Bf1 Kg7 24. Rd2 a5 25. Na4 axb4 26. axb4 Na6 27. Qb3 Rf7 28. Ra2
Rfa7 29. Nc3 Nc7 30. Rxa7 Rxa7 31. Na4 Rb7 32. Qc2 Qe8 33. Rd1 b5 34. cxb5 Nxb5
35. Qc6 Qxc6 36. dxc6 Rb8 37. Nb6 Nc3 38. Nxc8 Nxd1 39. Nxd6 Nxf2 40. c7 Ra8
41. Kxf2 Be7 42. c8=Q Rxc8 43. Nxc8 Bxb4 44. Bc4 Bc5+ 45. Ke2 h5 46. h3 Kf6 47.
Kd3 Bf2 48. Ke2 Bc5 49. Bd5 Kg7 50. Kd3 Kf6 51. Kc4 Bf2 52. g4 hxg4 53. fxg4 e4
54. Nd6 Bg3 55. Nf7 Bf4 56. Kd4 Bc1 57. h4 Bb2+ 58. Ke3 Bc1+ 59. Kd4 Bb2+ 60.
Kc4 fxg4 61. Ng5 Kg7 62. Nxe4 Bf6 63. Nxf6 Kxf6 64. Kd4 g5 1/2-1/2

Of course, Black was eventually in difficulties in the Baklan game ("I swindled Vladimir Baklan with black in an Alekhine and drew." Nakamura) but that does not necessarily imply that Black was significantly worse in the opening. Although in most lines Black does indeed do best to adopt the ...d5. ...e6 pawn centre, there are many Alekhine games by strong players in which the ....d6, ...e5 centre provided enough counterplay and the structure of white pawns c4 and d5 vs black pawns d6 and e5 is a familiar one from the ...e5 Sicilian lines.

However, it is not clear to me why Nakamura did not play 11...d5 in the two games above; why is it necessary / better to prepare it with 11...e6? Unless White has something better than 12 c5 Nc8 13 0-0 it seems that the game is likely to transpose to

[Event "Gibraltar Masters"]
[Site "Gibraltar"]
[Date "2007.01.24"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Narayanan, Srinath"]
[Black "Nakamura, Hikaru"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B04"]
[WhiteElo "2229"]
[BlackElo "2651"]
[PlyCount "76"]
[EventDate "2007.01.23"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "GGB"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2007.03.07"]

1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. c4 Nb6 5. exd6 cxd6 6. Nc3 g6 7. Be3 Bg7 8. Be2
Nc6 9. Rc1 O-O 10. b3 Bf5 11. Nf3 d5 12. O-O Bg4 13. c5 Nc8 14. b4 a6 15. Rb1
e6 16. a4 Bxf3 17. Bxf3 N8e7 18. b5 Na5 19. Bg5 h6 20. Bxe7 Qxe7 21. Qd3 Rfd8
22. bxa6 Rxa6 23. Nb5 Nc6 24. Nd6 Ra7 25. Rb6 Bxd4 26. Rxc6 Rxa4 27. Nb5 bxc6
28. Nxd4 Rc8 29. g3 e5 30. Nb3 Qf6 31. Bg2 Ra3 32. Qc2 Rb8 33. Nd2 e4 34. Qc1
Ra2 35. Bxe4 Qd4 36. Bxd5 Qxd5 37. Nc4 Qxc5 38. Qc3 Rb4 0-1

Thirdly, 10 Be2 e5!? is (as far as I know) a new position, so we can only be tentative at this stage. My previous posts argued that Black has sufficient counterplay if White exchanges the pawns and the queens and that Black is sufficiently better off than in the lines with 9...e5. If White declines to exchange on e5 and develops with 11 Nf3 instead, then Black has several plausible moves e.g. 11...e4 (this forcing move should be analysed first - if good, problem solved!), 11...Nc6, 11...Qe7 and maybe 11...Na6.

Fourthly, we need to work out how to develop after 10 Be2 e5!? 11 d5, when the bishop might be misplaced on f5. (Baklan-Nakamura may or may not indicate the way to go.)

Fifthly, I began to worry whether there was a simple positional refutation of 9...Bf5 in 10 d5, intending Nf3-d4 with the sort of bind/space advantage  - based on a pawn structure known to be favourable to White (e.g. from the Sicilian Dragon) - which is the main point of the Voronezh move order, but I think Black's counterplay comes quick enough despite another loss of tempo with the bishop (!)  i.e. 10 d5 e5! and if 11 dxe6 Bxe6 12 Nf3 Nc6 13 Be2 d5! and if then 14 c5 d4! seems at least =+.

Your thoughts please!

Bresando wrote on 02/12/10 at 18:19:41:


There's a critical Tomas Luther game, but I forget the opponent, that is widely regarded as refuting the line with ...e6.  Maybe somebody else can cite it.  If you subscribe to this section, you'll find that Watson extensively treated 6...c5 7.d5 g6 in a couple of updates. 

You shouldn't take my word for it; I'm a chess nobody and there are those that will play 6...c5.  I'm just saying that when my own score is on the line, I'll play 6...Nc6. In some ways it depends on the level of opposition, and you might be able to get away with 6...c5 against sub-2200 opposition.

As for Paddy's line, which you question in another post, I would be interested to hear Paddy's answer.  But didn't someone say that a Nakamura idea was 9....Bf5 10.Nf3 Bg4 followed by an eventual ...d5, accepting a lost tempo?  Does Nakamura really have ideas or does he just play random moves?

Paddy's 9...Bf5 10 Be2 e5!? looks very interesting but what if white simply continues 11 Nf3?
11 ...Bg4? now is certainly weak since black is worse when he plays e5 instead of d5! in the "classical" variation.
My computer suggests 11...Re8 but after dxe5 white is simply a move up on the line shown in Paddy's game.Maybe this is still good enough for black but there must be something better than losing a tempo!
11...Qe7!? maybe this can be a decent waiting move but frankly i have not a real plan in mind...
Any suggestions?