Nice website, brabo. Reminds me of Hard Chess.

Well I had a game I lost recently that ran deep into the theory.  I think white may be in a bit of trouble here.

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.f4 dxe5 6.fxe5 Nc6 7.Be3 Bf5 8.Nc3 e6 9.Nf3 Be7 10.d5 exd5 11.cxd5 Nb4 12.Nd4 Bd7 13.e6 fxe6 14.dxe6 Bc6 15.Qg4 Bh4+ 16.g3 Bxh1 17.0-0-0 0-0 18.gxh4 Qf6 19.Be2 Bd5 20.Rg1 Qe5 21.Bh6 g6 22.h5 Rf6 23.Bg5 Rf2 24.hxg6 h6! and my attack ran out of steam.

I ended up playing 25.Bxh6? trying to minimize the damage, but black's counterattack crushed me quickly.
Further review showed that I could have tried 25.Qh4 and I would still be on the board.  But that is not what I am aiming for out of this variation, especially after 25...Rxh2 26.Qf4.

Surely there is another way for white?

Reply to  # 33 by Ig.
I do apologize to anyone who was misled to believe that the traditional main line of the Four Pawns Attack involved a thematic bishop development move to f4 or c4. My bishop development comments refer specifically to some interesting side lines of the Four Pawns Attack as shown in the following lines, which were also discussed in detail in the Alekhine book by Taylor.

1.e4 Nf6  2.e5 Nd5  3.d4 d6  4.c4 Nb6  5.f4

a) 5….dxe5  6.fxe5 c5  7.d5
a1) 7….e6  8.Nc3 exd5  9.cxd5 c4 10.d6! Nc6  11.Bf4  g5  12.Ne4 (white’s last move is very strong) gxf4  13.Nf6+  Qxf6  14.exf6  Be6  etc
a2) 7…. g6  8.Bf4  Bg7  9.Nc3  O-O  10.Qd2 e6  etc.

b) 5… g5  6. Nc3 Bg7  7.Nf3 gxf4 (g4)  8.Bxf4 Bg4  9.c5!

Kam wrote on 03/11/11 at 22:56:01:


Kam, In the good lines for White in the 4PA, I am referring to classic variation, I do not see any variation where
White gains by playing Bc4 or Bf4 (although the f4 square is empty). Due to the pressure on the d4 square
White needs to put the bishop on e3. In some lines,
the bishop in e3 can be exchanged by the knight in b6
(after d4-d5).
In some other lines, considered now bad for Black (e.g., dxe5, Bf5 and Bb4 (no knight on c6 before playing c5)) the refutation by White is based on the
move Bd3!

STEFANOS wrote on 03/11/11 at 06:23:35:

It was not in the Bundesliga

It would be nice to see his notes; however, it appears to me that both games are examples of the Alekhinists not knowing the theory

I expect from the writer of the section more on the 4PA since he won two games with that in German Bundesliga and one it is against Short.

Luis (aka Ig) has done some splendid work collating his available information and home analysis on Black's plan of ...Qd7,...Rd8 and ...Bg4 against the Four Pawns Attack, an interesting option recently chosen by the Spanish GM Narciso.

With Luis's approval, I have edited his material, splitting it into two main sections, and added some references and a few lines of engine-assisted analysis (pgn file attached). Comments welcome, of course!

The file has also been uploaded to, and will remain available at, the "Alekhine Defense Working Group" (Google groups) which is always glad of new members, especially ones willing to contribute their ideas, games and analyses.

Paddy wrote on 05/09/10 at 10:38:04:


The Alekhine section of the forum has been very quiet lately, so I thought I'd contribute the attached game and comments. Narciso has recently played another game with ...Qd7 and ...Rd8 against the 4 Pawns!

Subscribers to this section will be interested to learn that the game confirms some ChessPub analysis by John Watson, based on work by Luis. I think I might have also discovered Narciso's intended improvement on Watson (see attached game).

lg wrote on 05/04/10 at 12:53:44:


I used to play the ...Bg4 line with the risky 13...Nbd7 instead of 13...Nd5, which has always seemed depressing to me. The general GM opinion (e.g. Atalik) seems to be that 13...Nd5 is more solid and that Black can probably draw with good play and a strategy of blockade. After 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. c4 Nb6 5. f4 dxe5 6. fxe5 Nc6 7. Be3 Bf5 8. Nc3 e6 9. Nf3 Bg4 10. Be2 Bxf3 11. gxf3 Qh4+ 12. Bf2 Qf4 13. c5 Nd5 14. Nxd5 exd5 15. Qd2 Qxd2+ 16. Kxd2, here 16...g6 is the most popular move, intending something like 17 Be3 h5 18 f4 Ne7 19 Bd3 Nf5 20 Bxf5 gxf5 (= according to Illescas). Baburin tried (and lost with) a more active plan of 16...g6 17 Be3 f6 18 exf6 Kf7.

Rozentalis's 16...Ne7 has not been played much, although of course it might well transpose into 16...g6 lines.

Bologan's 17. Bb5+ appears to be new. The game was quite sharp and deserves serious analysis by someone much stronger than me!

Another thing that puts me off the ...Bg4 line at present is that even after the "mistake" 11 Bxf3?! the game is only a draw with best play (according to my analysis anyway).

And the final snag is that White can avoid the whole line, if he wants, with the move order 9 Be2!?

Check out the exciting game between GMs Bologan and Rozentalis in the latest TWIC. Perhaps this is another sign of a revival of the 4Ps at strong GM level? Normally Bologan plays 4 Nf3.

Note that Bologan played 9.Nf3 rather than 9.Be2, from which one might infer that he intended to answer 9...Be7 with 10 d5, possibly going for the line seen in Dominguez-Almeida 2005.

[Event "TOP 16 GpB"]
[Site "Mulhouse FRA"]
[Date "2010.05.01"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Bologan, V."]
[Black "Rozentalis, E."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B03"]
[WhiteElo "2684"]
[BlackElo "2628"]
[PlyCount "83"]
[EventDate "2010.03.26"]
[EventType "team"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[EventCountry "FRA"]
[Source "Mark Crowther"]
[SourceDate "2010.05.03"]

1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. c4 Nb6 5. f4 dxe5 6. fxe5 Nc6 7. Be3 Bf5 8. Nc3
e6 9. Nf3 Bg4 10. Be2 Bxf3 11. gxf3 Qh4+ 12. Bf2 Qf4 13. c5 Nd5 14. Nxd5 exd5
15. Qd2 Qxd2+ 16. Kxd2 Ne7 17. Bb5+ c6 18. Bd3 g6 19. b4 Bh6+ 20. Kc3 Kd7 21.
b5 Rhc8 22. h4 b6 23. h5 Bf8 24. hxg6 hxg6 25. Rh7 Ke6 26. a4 Nf5 27. Bxf5+
gxf5 28. Rah1 cxb5 29. axb5 a6 30. c6 axb5 31. R1h6+ Bxh6 32. Rxh6+ f6 33.
Rxf6+ Ke7 34. Kb4 Ra1 35. Bh4 Rb1+ 36. Kc3 Rc1+ 37. Kd2 Rc4 38. Rd6+ Ke8 39.
Rxd5 R4xc6 40. Ke3 Rc3+ 41. Kf4 Rd3 42. e6 1-0

Ludde, Happy to help. As it happens, I went to amazon.de.

Bookfinder is often useful for OOP books.

http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=Siebenhaar&title=aljechin&lang=de&isbn=...

Does anyone know how to get hold of those volumes today?

I wonder what intervened.  Siebenhaar's mortality?  The men in white coats?

The history of Siebenhaar and his project would be interesting to know.

The thick volumes were both divided in three parts, 1-3 and 4-6. The 2nd ed., according to Siebenhaar's foreword planned as six volumes with a total of about 2000 pages, started with part No. 3, the 4PA. But I believe that no more volumes were published.

Siebenhaar / Delnef / Ottstadt: Die Aljechin-Verteidigung
vol. 1, 525 pp., 1986, covered the 4PA, the Chase Variation and much else
vol. 2, 672 pp., 1989, on the Modern Variation and Exchange Variation.

And then, in 1995, Erich Siebenhaar wrote (alone) the first volume of the second edition, only covering the 4PA: 296 pp.
As far as I know, no other volume of the 2nd edition has appeared.

lg wrote on 03/03/10 at 17:40:51:


Siebenhaar, Delnef and Ottstadt. It's fantastic; more than 200 pages on 5.f4. It's only objection is that it is from 1986 (OK, for some people it is an objection that it is written in German).

Markovich wrote on 03/03/10 at 14:00:45:


This is true even at the highest levels. Last year Grischuk played the 4 Pawns against Svidler at the World Rapid cup, forgot the theory and went under very easily. Notably, he switched to 4.Nf3 for that great game against Riazantsev in the Russian Super Final.

Bagirov's book is the one you should look at for a first contact.
If you are looking for games, you can have a look at this: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?node=737763

Which sort of material: games, books, theory, T-shirts, other stuff?