Attached is correspondence game featuring an unusual line 

[Event "NAPZ/WS/M/26"]
[Site "ICCF"]
[Date "2016.01.01"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Flude, David A"]
[Black "Malek, Sigmund"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C14"]
[WhiteElo "2115"]
[BlackElo "2154"]
[Annotator "David Flude"]
[PlyCount "91"]
[EventDate "2016.??.??"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. h4 {The Albin Chattard
attack is a good line to play against higher rated players. If white is well
prepared black will have to play carefully to draw and has few winning chances.
} Bxg5 7. hxg5 Qxg5 8. Nb5 {This move was first played in 1909 and then
forgotten about for a hundred years. Not only is it very dangerous but even
better it is not mentioned in many books and for the most part has been played
in correspondence chess and may come as a shock to over the board chess
players.} (8. Nh3 {this is the original move. However black can reach at least
equality if he knows the theory.}) (8. Qd3 {this is the line given in recent
books. It is probably unclear.}) 8... Qd8 9. Qg4 Kf8 {This move was played in
only one correspondence game and one over the board game on my database. I had
an improvement ready to sping on my opponent.} (9... g6 10. c4 {is the main
line. If white does not play 10. c4 the black siezes the advantage with 10...a6
}) 10. Nf3 a6 {This move looks obvious driving back the knight with a better
position for black.} 11. Ng5 Kg8 (11... axb5 12. Nxh7+ Kg8 13. Bd3 {other
moves are inadequate. The idea is to support the knight preparing to move the
queen to the h file.}) 12. Qf4 Qe7 13. Nxc7 Ra7 14. c4 {How can white
extricate the knight?} h6 15. Ngxe6 dxc4 {the best chance} (15... fxe6 16. cxd5
exd5 17. Nxd5 Qf7 18. Bc4 Qxf4 19. Nxf4+ {is winning for white}) 16. Nd5 Qxe6
17. Bxc4 g5 18. Qg3 Kg7 19. Bb3 Qg6 20. Ne3 Nf8 21. d5 Qe4 22. e6 {Note the
loose knight on b8} Qf4 23. Qxf4 gxf4 24. Nf5+ Kf6 25. Rxh6+ Ng6 (25... Rxh6
26. e7 {and white queens} Rh1+ 27. Ke2 Rxa1 28. exf8=Q) 26. Rxh8 Nxh8 27. Nd6 {
white wins back the piece with a much better position.} Bxe6 28. dxe6 fxe6 29.
Ne8+ Ke7 30. Nc7 e5 31. Nd5+ Kf8 32. Rc1 Nc6 33. Ba4 Nd8 34. Rc7 Nhf7 35. b4
Ne6 36. Re7 Neg5 37. f3 Kg8 38. Bc2 Kf8 39. a4 Kg7 40. a5 Kf8 41. Kf2 Kg7 42.
Re8 Nh7 43. Bb3 Nf8 44. Nb6 {the black rook is trapped.} Nd6 45. Re7+ Kh6 46.
Rxe5 1-0

kylemeister wrote on 12/01/15 at 02:49:57:



Kind of strange all this name confution.... So just for fun I looked up in my 1974  Chess Informant. No other than Keres is responsible for this French section. He gives a note  after 6.h4 which simply says "Aljehin". One cannot argue with Keres, so Alekhine is not to be excluded as a part of the name in this variation 

Hehe. Not to be taken that seriously...

GG

I knew of it as Alekhine-Chatard.  Looking in a number of books that is also the most frequent name I find, though in the 1960s Horowitz called it the Albin-Chatard-Alekhine, and in the 1940s Fine wrote "Alekhine's Attack, sometimes also called Chatard's or Albin-Chatard's Attack."   

@everalexfor

I think the Alekhine-Chatard Gambit is very interesting. 

Have a look at this:



The reason that I call it the Alekhine-Chatard Attack is that im forty years old and never heard another name. I was pretty sure that the name was alredy established, but no.. Well, no matter. Its the variation everalexfor is interesed in, and and chessvise I think its a good one. Could also be used at pretty high level as the game shows...

Pedersen named this 8.Qd3 "The Hector-variation". And right he was even though Kasparov also played it against Korchnoi (around 2001 if my memory serves me right) and won. 

The statistics in my databases suggest its a very sound gambit.

GG 

   

Bibs wrote on 11/30/15 at 09:25:30:


I disagree. One can safely say that 1.e4 e6 is =+  (Zugzwang)

Ametanoitos wrote on 01/17/11 at 20:35:34:


Anyone who plays 3.Nc3 against the French Defence has to be prepared for a range of lines by black. So black can play the Winawer,the Mccutcheon, The Burn variation, the Rubenstein variation or even Hecht-Reefsclager 3..Nc6.

So white players have a lot of work to do to prepare for the French Defence.

A useful rule of thumb for white is 

If your opponent is higher rated

then play 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4Bg5 

4...Bb4 the Mccutcheon is unfashionable at high levels and black will not win if white plays well and knows the theory.
 
4...dxe again is very drawish.

4...Be7 5.Bg5 dxe is also drawish.

4...Be7 5.Bg5 Be7 6.e5 Nd7 h4 is the line that we are interested in. Black can draw if he knows how but attempts to win are risky.

If black is higher rated in my opinion he should play the Winawer 3..Bb4 or the Hecht-Reefsclager 3..Nc6.

If white is higher rated he should consider

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 This is a main line where it is difficult for black to fully equalize but he should draw if he has a really good technique. If white is a stodge merchant this is the line to play.

MNb wrote on 01/16/11 at 04:25:32:


I've been playing the French Classical for most of my life. I always thought the long name for the gambit was "Alekhine-Albin-Chatard" 

Is there a specific variation that gets the "Alekhine" name and another that gets the "Albin" name?  And who determined this? Tim Harding, in his 1991 book on the Classical French, didn't make any such distinction.

A nice first step will be to find out the difference between Albin and Alekhine ...
Last year saw Vallejo Pons, Kostenjuk and Berg playing it against Zvjaginsev, Kortchnoi and Kovacevic.