Thanks for the reminder of your game with 13 Bg5!?, Markovich. I saw this at the time but didn't look at it too closely 'cos I was "on" something other than the Alekhine! Looking again I think 13 ...Nc8!? is a really nice move. We looked at it in the pub this evening -- main line something like 14 Qd2 Nf6 15 Re1 Nd6 16 Bd1 Nf5 17 Ne5 Bd1 18 Rad1 Qa5 -- and concluded Black is OK. Of course this means nothing but 13 ...Nc8 does look quite solid as well as thematic!

I guess I implicitly distrust 13 ...c5 -- personally I'd be seeking to play this only if it clearly works in spades -- but comparing my analysis with an engine's I find that the former was so pathetic that I shall say nothing! Meanwhile 13 ...Re8 looks very interesting, especially since ...Nf8 doesn't [i]have[/i] to happen next. On 14 Qd2 maybe 14 ...f6 and 15 ...e5 is possible?

Michael, I think Ke1 e5 is a little ambitious - now that f2 is defended it is not clear that black will get enough pawns for the piece. It might well still give practical chances but I think I'd probably bottle out with the draw here rather than risk sacrificing the piece for a dubious endgame.

Apologies Markovich, have been away for a while so I'm just catching up with all the debate over the past few months whilst trying to form my repertoire with black. This 13.Bg5 idea is certainly interesting - am I to think that black is okay in the other 13th move options for white (Rc1, c5, Qd2, Ne4 and Ne5 are the moves I believe have been played here before). I've yet to look at this chapter in Cox's book and no doubt there are some answers there for me.

@ CraigEvans
Nice line, even if not forced. But on say 24 Ke1, can Black perhaps try 24 ...e5 anyway?

@ lg
It could well be that 6 Qf3 is a sideline, but it's not (yet) treated as such in the literature, so I was keen to see if its fangs could be drawn before, as you say, moving on. And as I wrote earlier, the book lines here all seemed to me good for White!

Re 6 c4, as well as an earlier thread on here there's a great discussion in John Cox's book (pp. 24--7). So far as I'm aware the latest is still Grischuk--Baburin with either 15 ...f5!? (Cox!) or 18 ...Qc7!? (Ayton!) -- anyone have any updates here? Looking forward too to any discussion of 6 Bc4 and 6 g3!?.

[quote]For theoretical purposes, a draw is a perfectly satisfactory result for Black.  It is White who is trying to win.  So if you have shown that a line is dead drawn, you are essentially done. [/quote]

Exactly so. And equally we can say, (1) [i]practical[/i] purposes are (or rather may be) more complicated, (2) it's important to be as clear as possible which is which in a given discussion, (3) the two often in a sense interrelate, as the remainder of your post implicitly shows.

I guess I see much/most of the discussion on ChessPub as operating at the crossing-points of the theoretical and the practical. Many if not most of us are highly practically concerned about our opening systems; equally, many/most of us probably wouldn't be here if we didn't have a fairly strong theoretical interest.

It's an interesting question you raise, is the Alekhine player (or devotee of other combative systems with Black) sometimes prone to ask more of a defence than it should be thought able to give? A practical question, but intersecting with the theoretical. It's partly a question of what opponents one meets, I suppose. At my level, I'm scarcely going to avoid playing the Exchange Alekhine with ...cxd6 on account of that line where there's a twenty-odd-moves-deep forced draw, since the player who punts all this down at the Club is probably a player whose hand I'd shake off any time anyway!

I'll try to find the time to review the many interesting contributions here, and come back with some ideas of my own.  But for the time being, I would just like to comment on the everlasting "White to play and draw" worry.

For theoretical purposes, a draw is a perfectly satisfactory result for Black.  It is White who is trying to win.  So if you have shown that a line is dead drawn, you are essentially done.  In the normal course of things, White will not want to play this way.   

It is true that dynamic, ambiguous positions better suit our ambitions with the black pieces than dead drawn ones, but these positions aren't always easy to bring about.  It is well and good to look for them, but the very first work of the analyst should be to ascertain whether, in any given line, Black can hold the draw.   

I am not reacting to anything specific said above, just commenting on the notion that we can never be satisfied with a position that is likely drawn or dead drawn -- particularly with 1...Nf6.  Most Whites smell blood when you play this, and their very first idea is not to grab the half point.

ps:

After

9 ...Nc2!? 10 Ke2 Qe5 11 Kd1 Na1!? 12 Qb8 Kd7 13 c5 

i)  13... Qxc5 14 Bc5+ c6 15 Qb7+ =
ii) 13...  Bf5  14 Qb5+ (14 Bb5+? Ke6!) Kd8 15 Qb8+ =
iii) 13.... Bg4+ 14 f3 Bf5 and transposes to previous line

Just back after Easter hols -- it's good to see so much interest in this line!

I should have said that I wrote my initial post in full awareness of Cox, Davies and the earlier Kengis-related threads on ChessPub! I haven't studied this line at all deeply, but I did look a bit at 9 ...Nc2!? 10 Ke2 Qe5 11 Kd1 Na1!?, feeling that all the alternatives looked good for White.

After 12 Qb8 Kd7 13 c5, why does Black need to take the draw? I think White can force it after 13 ...Ba2 or 13 ...Qh5!?. But what about the odd-looking but principled 13 ...a6!?-? (The pawn is immune because of 14 ...Qd4!) Even 13 ...Qc5, 13 ...Bf5 and 13 ...Bg4 might avoid the drawing line, but 13 ...a6!? looks the most interesting to me! -- what do people think?