I always enjoy Markovich's posts and this one is no exception. I also recall thinking 4... Nb6 was simply a loss of tempo when I first saw the move but unlike 4... g6 it does stop Bc4 and the NIC surveys concluded it is at leat for the moment playable. 

I have also noticed that Gambit and Everyman often put books out on the same opening within months of each other. For example books on the QGA and Dutch (classical and leningrad) and Well's book on the CK followed Houska's on the same opening. Gambit would have known that Tim Taylor was writing on the Alekhine and it appears that they decided to get their book in first. I am not sure this is a bad thing particularly if it lifts standards because of competition but I would prefer a new book on an opening every 2 or 3 years rather than two books every 5 or 6 years as theory moves quickly these days. 

I also wonder though because of the recession how many will be able to afford both books assuming they both have merit.

Anon wrote on 02/24/09 at 19:14:52:


It's not only exciting for us aficionados, but also rather strange that Alekhine's now gets all this attention.  I hope it's not an example of cynicism on the part of these publishers, pandering to the masses and all.  That's the way I look at some of Everyman's newly announced stuff.

A problem for both these authors is that Alekhine's is a vast theoretical field, with many options available to both sides early on.  It would be futile to expect an exhaustive treatment.

I'm not sure that I care so much whether the Kengis is covered, but I hope that one of these authors at least addresses the question of why it isn't played any more.  I doubt very much that this is fashion only, but the precise cause is a mystery to me.

I do rather fear that Miles's variation will be covered to the exclusion of more interesting systems -- more interesting to me, anyway. 

My own notes against the Modern include the Old Main Line, the Flohr (which I play almost exclusively) and 4...Nb6.  I would like to be able trust the latter move in particular, since it's very uncompromising, but I just can't believe that a whole tempo should be spent that way. Not on move 4, anyway.

lg wrote on 02/23/09 at 14:22:14:


Yippee!

New book

PLAY THE ALEKHINE (Valentin Bogdanov)
112 pages (248 mm by 172 mm).
£12.99/$19.95/€20,35
Forthcoming.
October 2009
The Alekhine is arguably the most forcing and aggressive reply to 1 e4. Black immediately forces the pace and drags the game onto his own favoured territory. This strategy is not without risk, but those who specialize in the Alekhine find that the opening has a real practical sting and quick-strike potential.

This book describes the main positional and tactical themes unique to the Alekhine, and the principal directions of play in modern practice. The coverage is even-handed, and there are abundant ideas presented to both sides, including ways for White to seek to consolidate his space advantage, or else to try to blast Black off the board.

The author, Valentin Bogdanov, has a wealth of experience with the Alekhine, having played it over the course of more than three decades. Moreover, he was active in Odessa chess at the time when the Alekhine was extensively developed by a group of players including GM Semion Palatnik and three-time US Champion Lev Alburt. Thus he provides us not only with the benefit of his own accumulated wisdom, but also with insights gleaned from work with some of the greatest Alekhine devotees of all time.

International Master Valentin Bogdanov has over thirty years' experience as a chess trainer, and is from Ukraine. His pupils include Moskalenko, Savchenko and Drozdovsky, and he has acted as a second for the well-known grandmaster and theoretician Viacheslav Eingorn since the late 1970s. This is his third book for Gambit.

Gambit books by Bogdanov: Chess Explained: The French (Eingorn & Bogdanov), Chess Explained: The Grünfeld, Play the Alekhine.

kylemeister wrote on 02/02/09 at 18:51:55:


This is true, BUT!  is not as good for White as 10.Nge2.  The pin is annoying and there is no reason to allow it.  Last missive here lest I take a wrong turn into sloughterville by accident.    Again, I am actually parroting GM Nakamura and GM Shablaov, both of whom argued post mortem that Nf3 was an opening mistake.  Shabalov, in my opinion, is one US player to look at when playing the Black side of this defense, so I am perhaps blinded into agreeing with his assesment, while also lacking sufficient playing strength to challenge it properly. 

lg wrote on 02/02/09 at 18:17:16:



I believe it does because 10Nf3 is wrong, at least according to Nakamura in the post mortem!  

He also pointed out where White needed to prevent Black from playing e6, solidyfying the black position.  I remember d5 came into play.....  I will look for notes, but will not promise it as a high priority as I am not playing too many Alekhine anymore for reason better espoused by the better player and better CPub communicator:  Markovich.

lg wrote on 02/02/09 at 17:57:43:


Andrews - Nakamura 2007 may be one example I can come up with quickly.

Hikaru makes the defense look real good when Todd misses a shot during a combination started by Nakamura.

         2007 North American Open
White: Andrews, Todd
Black: Nakamura, Hikaru

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 


24 ....Nxd4 looks good but! 

But later Todd misses his chances to get back.  Uncle Fritzy will tell the truth, on a really deep search after a few more moves.  Hard to find otb, no doubt.  If Todd has pushed d5 at the right time he would have had a great game as White, I believe with winning chances. Also, 10 Nf3 is probably a mistake with the knight better placed on e2, as shown by the game continuation.  I don't have my game notes, but I think 32. Bf1 !? instead of the game 32 Bc4 and White is not losing. 

Another example I think was a high level game that Topalov lost recently in the Miles line where he chose a line known to be less than optimal for White.