PDA

View Full Version : Alekhine's Defense



Zwischenzug
04-12-2006, 11:58 PM
Why do few GMs play Alekhine's Defense as their main defense to e4? What is your opinion about taking up this opening?

eclectic
05-12-2006, 12:05 AM
It's apparently "refuted" ...

MichaelBaron
06-12-2006, 02:26 PM
Why do few GMs play Alekhine's Defense as their main defense to e4? What is your opinion about taking up this opening?

It is an opening like any other :). And of course it has not been refuted. Some GMs still play it on regular basis.

qpawn
06-12-2006, 03:06 PM
Well, it hasn't been refuted from an objective standpoint.

BUT and it is a big BUT , from a practical standpoint black is operating on a narrow ridge in this defence after conceding the centre and space; I would advise strongly against Alekhine's defence unless you know EXACTLY what you are doing.

Phil Bourke
06-12-2006, 06:43 PM
How about helping us lower ranked players out by telling us what Black is trying to do?
Would be much appreciated, either as a guide to playing it as Black, or playing against it when faced with it.

sleepless
06-12-2006, 07:04 PM
The brooklyn variation with black's immediate Ng8 is interesting to trot out in blitz. Here's an oldie - sorry, not sure how to present it with a playable board.

White: Solomon,Stephen J
Black: Depasquale,Chris
Event: Sydney: Sydney (1)
Date: 1989
(B02 Alekhine, Brooklyn D)

1 e4 Nf6
2 e5 Ng8
3 d4 d5
4 c4 c5
5 Nc3
5 dxc5 d4 6 Nf3 Nc6 7 Be2 e6 8 0-0 Bxc5 ; 5 cxd5 Qxd5 6 Nf3 cxd4 7 Nc3 Qa5 8 Qxd4 Nc6 9 Qf4 e6 10 Bb5 Bd7 11 0-0 Bb4 12 Qg3 Kf8 13 Bd2
5 ... e6
6 cxd5 exd5
7 Nf3 Nc6
8 Be2 cxd4
9 Nb5 Bc5
10 0-0 Nge7
11 Bg5 h6
12 Bf4 0-0
13 Rc1 Bb6
14 Nbxd4 Ng6
15 Bg3 Nxd4
16 Nxd4 Qe7
17 Qd2 Nxe5
18 Rfe1 Qf6
19 Nf3 Nxf3+
20 Bxf3 Be6
21 Be5 Qg5
22 Bf4 Qf6
23 Qb4 Rfc8
24 Be5 Qg5
25 Bf4 Qh4
26 g3 Qf6
27 Bg2 g5
28 Be3 d4
29 Bd2 d3
30 Rf1 Rxc1
31 Bxc1 Rc8
32 Be3 Bxe3
33 fxe3 Qe5
34 Qd2 Bf5
35 Qf2 Bg6
36 e4 Rc2
37 Qe3 Qxb2
38 Bf3 d2
39 Qxa7 Rc1
40 Qa4 Qb1
41 Rd1
41 Qe8+ Kh7 42 Bg2 Rxf1+ 43 Bxf1 d1=Q
41 ... Rxd1+
42 Qxd1 Bxe4
43 Qxb1 Bxf3 0-1
(44 Kf2 d1=Q 0-1 )

Kevin Bonham
06-12-2006, 10:47 PM
Quite a lot of GMs do play it actually. Do a search on chessbase for 1.e4 Nf6 and enter black rating >2550 and you will see that there are dozens - though a lot of them may be playing trendy gambits more than the old main lines.

MichaelBaron
07-12-2006, 12:26 AM
Well, it hasn't been refuted from an objective standpoint.

BUT and it is a big BUT , from a practical standpoint black is operating on a narrow ridge in this defence after conceding the centre and space; I would advise strongly against Alekhine's defence unless you know EXACTLY what you are doing.

This applies to all the openings, not just Alekhine's Defence...

Denis_Jessop
07-12-2006, 11:24 AM
How about helping us lower ranked players out by telling us what Black is trying to do?
Would be much appreciated, either as a guide to playing it as Black, or playing against it when faced with it.

As nobody has yet taken up the offer I shall mention briefly what I understand the aim to be, given that I am also a lower-ranked player! As with all openings these days one really needs to get a book dealing with it to get the full picture as modern research has taken it away from the original intention in some lines. Moreover, like many of the Hypermodern openings it is susceptible of various lines that give it a rather different character depending on which is played. (Of course that also applies to other openings, notably the Sicilian.)

The basic aim of Alekhine's Defence was to tempt White to advance his centre pawns whilst chasing the Black KN and then to demonstrate that the advanced W pawns were a weakness. This is pretty vague but cannot really be expanded on without a treatise including other options for W or B. At first the defence was very trendy but then fell from grace for a while later to undergo a couple of revivals. It still is quite popular probably, among other things, because mainstream openings have been so fully researched and riskier openings are safer when time limits are shorter.

DJ

MichaelBaron
07-12-2006, 12:10 PM
How about helping us lower ranked players out by telling us what Black is trying to do?
Would be much appreciated, either as a guide to playing it as Black, or playing against it when faced with it.

I can surely help, pls message me for info on chess lessons :owned: .

Btw, I have published some Bronstein's games at My Blog and one of them is Bronstein-Ljuboevic. It is a beautiful game. Many of the ideas used in that game are still relevant (even though 4 pawns attack is not that popular these days)

qpawn
07-12-2006, 12:50 PM
Ok, Michael Baron, I will have to risk being somewhat insulting to your breath of chess knowledge.

Did you see all those games in the match between Lev Alburt and Nigel Short? Alburt played Alekhine's defence again and again, and Short smashed it each time. Alburt knew what he was doing with Alekhine's defence and kept trying different variations. Gulp. I don't think that Alekhine's defence can be lumped in with other openings as you suggest.

MichaelBaron
07-12-2006, 02:11 PM
Ok, Michael Baron, I will have to risk being somewhat insulting to your breath of chess knowledge.

Did you see all those games in the match between Lev Alburt and Nigel Short? Alburt played Alekhine's defence again and again, and Short smashed it each time. Alburt knew what he was doing with Alekhine's defence and kept trying different variations. Gulp. I don't think that Alekhine's defence can be lumped in with other openings as you suggest.

I did see the games. However Just because Short (who was already much stronger than Alburt at the time) crushed his Alekhine - it does not mean that the opening is dead. Alekhine's defence has been played alot ever since

qpawn
07-12-2006, 04:57 PM
Ok . Here are teh orthodox defences that sail close to being unplayable in practical terms.

[1.] Robatsch : 1...g6
Alekhine condemned this as a "joke" defence. At best I have found that 1...g6 often leads to positions that are in theory equal but have a much harder job of piece coordination/planning for black than for white.

[2.] Pirc : 1...d6 with various systems like 2...c6 or 2...g6 or 2...Nf6 etc. [ cantranspose into Robatsch]

Slightly more reliable than [1.] But not much. There are two main ways to play the pirc. Go "macho" with an early...c5 and bring the queen to a5 to grab the pawn back. [ Fischer played this way against Spassky in 72 in th WCC final] Or go "sneaky" and set up for a later..c5 or...e5 counterstrike.

[3.] Alekhine : 1..Nf6 against king's pawn opening.

Can get a somewhat equal position if the defence is understood well. But the four pawns attack, while being harmless in theory, can smash black up over teh board.

Desmond
07-12-2006, 05:09 PM
qpawn, are you aware that
1. Michael Baron is a much better player than you will ever be
2. Just because you do not understand how to play an opening does not mean that there is no good way to play it.

Phil Bourke
07-12-2006, 06:07 PM
I can surely help, pls message me for info on chess lessons :owned: .

I am sure you can, but without knowing what you would charge for an hour of instruction, I am pretty sure that for around the same money, I could buy a good book that will be there on the shelf whenever I need to refer back to it. :wow:
Sorry Michael, but I am not some rich young kid that has parents with money to throw away on chess lessons. :eek:
Matter of fact, I am a parent looking for money to pay for my own kids education, music lessons, riding lessons, guide commitments, and ..... do I need to go further. :uhoh: I forgot that most expensive thing a man can desire, a wife. :)

Phil Bourke
08-12-2006, 09:07 AM
The basic aim of Alekhine's Defence was to tempt White to advance his centre pawns whilst chasing the Black KN and then to demonstrate that the advanced W pawns were a weakness. This is pretty vague but cannot really be expanded on without a treatise including other options for W or B. At first the defence was very trendy but then fell from grace for a while later to undergo a couple of revivals. It still is quite popular probably, among other things, because mainstream openings have been so fully researched and riskier openings are safer when time limits are shorter.

DJ
Thanks Dennis. Hence the mainline play of 1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Nd5 3 d4 d6 4 Nf3 should lead to a reasonably sound position. I have experimented with 3 c4 Nb6 4 c5 Nd5 5 Bc4 as an alternative, it is risky but does give a fun game. But as you point out, riskier openings seem OK when the time controls are shorter.
What we, us lowly ranked players, need to do is coach each other :) Perhaps if we post our games in the Alekhine here, successes and failures alike, we will all benefit from seeing what worked and what didn't, plus give the higher ranked coaches some laughs along the way :)

Basil
08-12-2006, 11:52 AM
What we, us lowly ranked players, need to do is coach each other :)
A snappy $20 HCDs :uhoh:

qpawn
08-12-2006, 02:06 PM
Boris, I admire your ability to be a mixture of Nostradamus, soothsayer, clairvoyant and psychic.

I am 31. That leaves a lot of chess ahead of me. I might even be playing at 90 like Nick Emodi who plays fine chess still. So you have no way of knowing what level of chess proficiency I will or will not reach.

But then again you do know that becuase you are Michel De Nostradam? Aren't you? :evil:

Boris, let me teach you one of the home truths of this life. When it comes to an ability to argue a case and find a weakness in another person's statement you are a puppy dog and I am a great dane who who just toys with you.

You are not in my league. But unlike you I don't pretend to know what you will do with the rest of your life so, possibly, you could come to my level eventually.

Desmond
08-12-2006, 02:44 PM
Boris, I admire your ability Thanks, you are wise beyond your years.

All jokes aside though, on reflection I was a bit harsh with you above. My apologies for that.

The point that I was trying to make is that perhaps you should give some weight to what Michael has to say, and also do not be so quick to dismiss entire opening systems out of hand.

MichaelBaron
08-12-2006, 04:26 PM
Ok, Lets get to business diplomacy aside - all statements that "Alekhine Defence is dead" or "Pirc is dead" are simply rubbish.

Thus, I invite QPawn to post the games that he believes refute Alekhine's Defence or Pirc over here. And i I will simply provide a detailed response explaining why I believe these games carry no refutation of these opening lines.

Alekhine's is still Played occasionally by Ivanchuk, Vaganian etc.

Pirc is played by Morozevic, Aizmarparashvili etc.

These two openings may not be most fashionable at the moment but so what?
Some years ago, everyone was playing King's Indian as black cause Kasparov was doing so.
Today, few top GMs play King's Indian (only Rajabov regularly and Ivanchuk occasionally) However, It does not make it a bad opening. Rajabov still gets great results in it.
Fashion is changing all the time but it does not mean that openings get refuted.

So if Qpawn really thinks that these openings are no longer of value, fine! Where is the game that has refuted the openings then?

Kevin Bonham
08-12-2006, 05:40 PM
Yes Short smashed Alburt four games in a row when Alburt played Alekhine's against him in 1985. But if Short thought Alekhine's was as fine a line to walk as you suggest then why did Short himself play it against Kasparov, Polgar, Kotronias and Almasi in 2002-3 (he lost to Kotronias and drew the rest)?

Since 2000 Alekhine's has been played 90 times in games where both players were 2500+ with stats for white of +29=46-15 (58%).

qpawn, stop trying to pretend you are or ever will be a strong enough player to back up some of the statements you make about openings. If I had a way to collect my profits instantly I would bet, at 100-1 on, that you will never be 1800 OTB.

Basil
08-12-2006, 06:11 PM
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y105/scene66/images.jpg

eclectic
08-12-2006, 10:41 PM
qpawn, stop trying to pretend you are or ever will be a strong enough player to back up some of the statements you make about openings. If I had a way to collect my profits instantly I would bet, at 100-1 on, that you will never be 1800 OTB.

I'm so very relieved you haven't offered to resign as a chesschat moderator were qpawn ever to achieve that goal. :hand:

MichaelBaron
09-12-2006, 10:44 AM
I have seen QPawn play in Elwood, by offering to resign in case QPawn reaches Master Level, Kevin is not risking much :owned:

qpawn
16-12-2006, 11:00 AM
Ok. I take the apology from Boris on board.

I agree that I will probably never reach 1800 ELO in OTB chess. Heck. I won't reach 1300 ELO in ELO chess. Why? I have given up playing crossboard chess. I don't expect that I will take it up again. Of course, to be consistent with my reply to Boris, I cannot be a clairvoyant and rule it out.

Of course Michael Baron is a better chessplayer than I am at crossboard chess. He has had coaching that I have never had, among other things. And considering how arrogant your last comment was, Michael, about my abilities at chess, you should be very happy that I have the restraint to response as I have with the first sentence of this paragraph. You wonder why I have given up crossboard chess? You have just shown why! All I have ever got from crossboard chess is this sort of cheap, destructive contempt.

Of course you do not see my games in correspondence chess. You do not see the amount of care that I put into UNDERSTANDING positions. If I have to take a week to WRITE a desc of all the positional and tactical points in a paragraph then that is what I do. People talk about cheating putting them off CC. Cheating for me is pointless. Because there is no chess computer in the world that can do in a week what I do with a position.

I am always improving my chess. Right now I am reading "Technique in Chess" By Gerald Abrahams. Maybe you think I am some sort of patzer. Fine. But if I have anything to offer it is this sentence: Lasker, Keres, Abrahams are some of teh finest writers on chess who have evre lived and anything they wrote is worth a read.




In respect to Alekhine's Defence, I did not say ay any point that there is a "refutation" of these defences or that they are "dead". If you read through my posts CAREFULLY instead of believing what you WANT to read then you will s ee this. My point is, and has always been, that in practical terms pirc and Alekhine's defences unbalance the position to such a degree that black must proceed with the utmost accuracy to get equality or advantage. Of course in correspondence chess with databases etc at hand pirc or Alekhine's become more playable than in OTB chess. Let's contrast both of these defences with 1.e4 e5 . At that point both sides have a pawn in the centre. It is a balanced position. Black can play quite natural moves to gain equality. That surely is a much more sensible plan than pirc or Alekhine's ?? For me fashion has absolutely nothing to do with my assessment of chess openings. It has everything to do with common sense . Surely, as a rule in chess, it is better to take the centre with pawns if possible. Then the onus is on the other player to evict you from your central home. However, if you let the other player take the centre, as in pirc or Alekhine's, then you must reclaim it or you are crunched. I know which side I would rather be on in these defences. It's not rocket science.

I have spent enough t ime on this. I have to return to reading my book by Abrahams. Unlike most people on this forum he has some sense in his head.

I will be very happy if/when I lose a game in correspondence chess. Why? Because my opponent will have had to understand the positions in question to the utmost. And if I have forced my opponent to do that then I am happy even in a loss.

Kevin Bonham
16-12-2006, 11:54 AM
Of course you do not see my games in correspondence chess. You do not see the amount of care that I put into UNDERSTANDING positions. If I have to take a week to WRITE a desc of all the positional and tactical points in a paragraph then that is what I do.

You're always welcome to post some if you want to try to prove it.


My point is, and has always been, that in practical terms pirc and Alekhine's defences unbalance the position to such a degree that black must proceed with the utmost accuracy to get equality or advantage.

If this was so then openings manuals would show long forcing lines that Black was required to follow to reach a position assessed as =, with any deviation leading to +/= or better for white. However this is not the case.

It's true that there are lines of both where black has to really know their stuff, but these are lines in which white also has to really know their stuff. I'd never play either the Alekhines or the Pirc in a fit, but I don't see any evidence that either is especially dodgy.


Of course in correspondence chess with databases etc at hand pirc or Alekhine's become more playable than in OTB chess.

I'm not sure this follows either. OTB you are more likely to get away with it if you play either inaccurately and give the opponent too much space; in CC such errors would most likely get you ground into the dust.


Let's contrast both of these defences with 1.e4 e5 . At that point both sides have a pawn in the centre. It is a balanced position.

Symmetry does not necessarily equal balance. Plenty of symmetrical positions are forced wins (or in some cases forced losses) for the player with the move.


Black can play quite natural moves to gain equality.

2...Nc6 is quite a natural move, I'm sure you will agree, yet after hundreds of years of analysis no-one knows whether it equalises or not.


That surely is a much more sensible plan than pirc or Alekhine's ?? For me fashion has absolutely nothing to do with my assessment of chess openings. It has everything to do with common sense . Surely, as a rule in chess, it is better to take the centre with pawns if possible. Then the onus is on the other player to evict you from your central home. However, if you let the other player take the centre, as in pirc or Alekhine's, then you must reclaim it or you are crunched. I know which side I would rather be on in these defences. It's not rocket science.

But it is personal taste. It's very easy to overextend when you grab the centre and the opponent is contesting it with pieces. I play 2.Nc3 against Alekhines precisely because I am not comfortable having that big centre and having to be so careful not to overextend it.


I will be very happy if/when I lose a game in correspondence chess.

How many CC games have you finished?

Want to post some?

qpawn
16-12-2006, 02:19 PM
The amount of contempt that has been shown to me on this board makes it largely pointless to post any of my correspondence chess analysis. In any case I have a shorthand system that would be unreadable to anyone else. That having been said, I did put one of my completed games in the computer thread.

Kevin, you wrote:

qpawn, stop trying to pretend you are or ever will be a strong enough player to back up some of the statements you make about openings. If I had a way to collect my profits instantly I would bet, at 100-1 on, that you will never be 1800 OTB.
***********

So, I am not entitled to present my own thoughts, feelings, and opinions about openings? Do you go around wearing a Nazi uniform and doing the Hitler salute? Some people have accused me of arrogance in this forum. But that is the most arrogant, presumptuous, rock-headed statement I have seen from any poster at any point in this forum.

The kid-gloves are off sunshine. And the knuckle dusters on on. There is only word to describe you: dickhead. I would never say what you said about ANYONE; anybody could get to 1800 ELO with some coaching, books, tournaments etc. I just couldn't be bothered; I enjoy postchess so much that I don't play crossboard now. In fact, I will go further. If I coached someone, loaned them my books etc I could get someone to 1800 ELO . Easily. And since in your intelligensia you have never specified a time-limit for this supreme feat of chess achievement, I assume that I, or my pupil, or both, would have all the time we needed to get to 1800 ELO. You are very lucky that I am not a betting person.

I am fed up with you and this forum. Ban me if you want. I am beyond caring.

You have brought out the worst in me.

If you want to bring out the best in me:
[1] join the correspondence chess league of Australia
[2] Play me at some point
[3] Receive at the end of the game, whatever the outcome, my annotations in addition to Fritz-analysis. [ I add that contrary to popular belief some people such as myself do have the self-control to not touch Fritz until after the game. ]

I have only finished 2 correspondence games. I have been very unlucky; in my 4/2 event there was an approved withdrawer and Peter Knight vanished. The Victorian postal champs started late but has got underway with myself, Peter Cook [champion of Ballarat Chess club] , Peter Caissa [Hobsons Bay player and coach of juniors], Stewart Booth [very strong crossboard [2200 ELO?] and a master CC title, Simon Jenkinson [ master CC title and winner of oz champs in 83, and Ken Allan [very experienced postchess player]. Already they are all good games.

I could play more games but I don't like playing by email; I tried it once with IECG and I hated it. I am finding that the more CC games I play the more games I can handle at once.

Basil
16-12-2006, 02:37 PM
In any case I have a shorthand system that would be unreadable to anyone else.

??? :doh: ??? :eek: ???

Ahem, I think you'll find your illegible shorthand is not relevant as you'd transcribe to text for the purpose of this board :uhoh:

Kevin Bonham
16-12-2006, 03:30 PM
The amount of contempt that has been shown to me on this board makes it largely pointless to post any of my correspondence chess analysis.

Non sequitur.

In fact the amount of contempt that has been shown to you on this board is because you continue making know-all statements you have not demonstrated any ability to back. Successfully providing evidence that you were actually a very good player on some level or another would do much to encourage respect for your views but instead what we get from you is copouts. Like this:


In any case I have a shorthand system that would be unreadable to anyone else.

You could always translate it for us.


So, I am not entitled to present my own thoughts, feelings, and opinions about openings?

Someone who supposedly has some clue about liberty should not be confusing criticism with denial of the right to comment. To do so is an elementary blunder in debating and suggests extreme cluelessness.

You are entitled to present your thoughts, feelings (ha!) and opinions about openings, but if you continue to do so in a know-all fashion with no reliable evidence that such views should be taken seriously, you should expect to be criticised.

Are you familiar with Godwin's Law?


Some people have accused me of arrogance in this forum. But that is the most arrogant, presumptuous, rock-headed statement I have seen from any poster at any point in this forum.

Then go out there and get an 1800 OTB rating and disprove it.


The kid-gloves are off sunshine. And the knuckle dusters on on. There is only word to describe you: dickhead.

Oooooh. Withering stuff, boyo. I imagine you saying it with a sort of chipmunk squeak.


I would never say what you said about ANYONE; anybody could get to 1800 ELO with some coaching, books, tournaments etc.

Anyone could but you are very unlikely to.


I just couldn't be bothered; I enjoy postchess so much that I don't play crossboard now. In fact, I will go further. If I coached someone, loaned them my books etc I could get someone to 1800 ELO . Easily. And since in your intelligensia you have never specified a time-limit for this supreme feat of chess achievement, I assume that I, or my pupil, or both, would have all the time we needed to get to 1800 ELO.

You are the one who made your playing strength a matter of public debate when you wrote "So you have no way of knowing what level of chess proficiency I will or will not reach" while groundlessly insulting Boris for making two statements that are both in all great likelihood true.

You have insulted me unreasonably on this forum before and those insults remain unretracted.

You have no right to complain.


You are very lucky that I am not a betting person.

Actually I am very disappointed.

I could quite safely offer to give you money if you got to 1800. If only you weren't attempting to be insulting, I could make you a generous offer. :lol:


I am fed up with you and this forum. Ban me if you want. I am beyond caring.

Leave if you want. I was beyond caring the first several times you sooked off saying you wouldn't come back and then did so. You are just ridiculously oversensitive.


You have brought out the worst in me.

Your worst is as harmless as your OTB rating.


I have only finished 2 correspondence games.

And yet you carry on like you are some kind of great CC player when you don't yet have the results in the bag to back it.

littlesprout85
18-12-2006, 08:24 PM
Heyy Heyy- finally a thread sprouty can relate too. :owned:

Lets not get off the thread topic here for this is important to sprouty this Alekhines opening defence sounds like it may have some use.

Always luv the debate in CC Threads over anythang chess- so heated at timez.But all Sides barred - What are some of the pros & cons of this defence ? From both color perspectives plz. Sprouty is trying to progress with black but this opening defence seems weak at first glance on black side from a plants perspective, Plz help Obi-1 :wall: help enlightin sprouts fragile mind.(hehe)

Would like to hear from some of the Jedi on this topic plz. Weight in on strength -weakness ect. Thanks ;)

-Sprout :)

Basil
18-12-2006, 08:31 PM
Lets not get off the thread topic here
Good point! I wonder if a mod would be good enough to change the 'S' in defense to a 'C'.
Everybody carry on. Back to the Sprout.

Desmond
18-12-2006, 08:32 PM
Good point! I wonder if a mod would be good enough to change the 'S' in defense to a 'C'.
Everybody carry on. Back to the Sprout.
Alekhine'c Defense?

Bereaved
06-01-2007, 11:38 PM
Hi Everyone,
Here is a game with Alekhine's I once annotated


[Event "Melbourne Chess Club Under 2000"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2002.08.05"]
[Round "1.3"]
[White "Machet, Richard"]
[Black "Malitis, Edwin"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B03"]
[WhiteElo "1631"]
[BlackElo "1806"]
[PlyCount "40"]

1. e4 Nf6 {This move is the start of the Alekhine's defense, a very
provocative approach to white's opening strategy. From the very start, Black
offers White the ability to have as much space as he would like in return for
the chance to have the same big centre as an immediate target if White over
extends himself. White must walk a fine line between enough pawn moves and too
many.} 2. e5 ({White's only other option is to defend the pawn with} 2. Nc3 {
when Black has the choice of the immediate} d5 {which both provokes White to
choose to advance his pawn a move later than in the game ( the e4-pawn is
attacked twice now ) or to exchange on d5 when black will have little
difficulty in securing a very playable game e.g. after a double exchange on d5,
the Black Queen is not so easily removed from the centre and at the same time
Black is fully able to adapt his scheme of development to whichever approach
to developing White adopts.} ({If instead Black plays} 2... e5 {
he equalises easily but is not as well placed for immediate attack.})) 2... Nd5
{The knight moves out of the range of the White pawn and taunts white to
expand further if he chooses. White now seeks to combine a degree of
aggression with a degree of caution and does not give in to the temptation to
immediately try to blast the Black king off the board.} ({
Some players have even experimented with the bizarre looking} 2... Ng8 $5 {
with the idea that his knight may be able to find greener pastures from the
square g8, possibly coming out via e7 and possibly later going to g6 or f5.
This idea seeks to prove that the White pawns early advance has perhaps
weakened White's grip on the light squares. All the same this approach is not
often played.}) {Instead he plays} 3. d4 {which both supports the advanced
pawn on e5 and also opens the line for the Bc1. All the same this gives black
a space to breathe and he takes the opportunity to begin to snipe at White's
advanced pawn.} d6 {Opening a line for the Bc8 and attacking White's far
advanced pawn on e5. After the same number of moves, Black has a piece
developed and White does not. This is balanced by the fact that Black still
requires a move to clear a square for the Bf8 to leave the back line.} 4. c4 {
White strikes out at the loose Nd5 before Black acquires the freedom of many
different retreats to choose from. One of the advantages of playing 4.c2-c4 on
this move, is that White keeps Black guessing about how much space he will
grab for one more move.} ({A more modest approach from White involves the
immediate knight development with} 4. Nf3 {which although working in harmony
with white's previous moves ( the knight places both the white pawns under its
protection ) does block the pawn on f2 and as such removes the possibility of
propping the pawn on e5 up further with pawns. The other question is that
after the almost inevitable exchange of the white pawn on e5 for the black
pawn on d6 ( it is unlikely that the white pieces would be able to support the
pawn on e5 indefinitely without becoming passive ), whether Black may be able
to successfully execute the knight on f3 with his Bc8 when white may end up in
a position where the advantage of the two bishops may not be as significant
as the removal of a supporting piece of the White centre. All the same with a
move such as this white retains the option of expansion with his c-pawn at a
later stage, and also maintains flexibility of development, given that in most
openings this is where the knight is going anyway. Systems starting from this
move are very popular among players of an unambitious nature.}) 4... Nb6 {
This is the only way to save the knight. Black is not in a position to try and
provoke white further at this stage without swift retribution.} ({By no means
can the Black knight advance further without making a rapid exit from the game
eg after} 4... Nb4 $4 {White immediately plays the forking move} 5. Qa4+ {
which checks the Black king and also puts the question to the undefended Black
Nb4. Although it can flee for a moment with} N4c6 {White can immediately take
advantage of Black's forced retreat into an absolute pin with the move} 6. d5 {
when the knight cannot move without exposing the king to check and even should
black collect both the e- and d-pawns for his knight, not only will he be a
piece down but the pawns he has been forced to collect in replacement for his
lost knight will be weak and his knight which has used up many moves has left
the board without causing White any particular distress. I do not imagine many
people would be especially enthusiastic to play the black position from there.}
) 5. exd6 {White finally concedes his advanced pawn now that he has succeeded
in maintaining a presence in the centre with his pawns on c4+ d4. He now will
be free to choose how to develop his pieces in almost any manner he sees fit,
secure in the knowledge that Black will have to begin to pay attention to
completing his development also.} (5. f4 {is a far more ambitious approach.
This move starts what is known as the 4 pawns attack when white hopes that
having such a great advantage in the centre will enable him to develop his
pieces quickly and support his centre while stopping Black from being able to
choose good squares for his pieces without much careful planning. This
strategy generally results in a very sharp game where one of two things
generally happens; White maintains his grip on the centre and prevents Black
from developing any counterplay, and usually wins quickly; on the other hand,
quite often the time that white has taken setting up a centre like this
rebounds on him viciously, as the Black pieces all come into the game with a
gain of time, both directly attacking the White centre and also seeking to
exchange off the White pieces that support the centre, when the centre
collapses and Black plows through the wreckage with devastating effect.}) 5...
exd6 {Black opens the e-file completely and plays for the chance of a later
counter attack.} ({If instead Black plays} 5... cxd6 {the pawn structure
becomes asymetrical. The Bf8 will usually end up on g7 after a move like
g7-g6 and Black will use his extra pawn in the centre to seize space there
while White will try to use his extra pawn on the queenside to restrict the
Black pieces freedom and create the conditions for making his extra pawn there
into a passed pawn hopefully should an endgame arrive without Black creating
play elsewhere.}) 6. Bd3 {White begins to clear the lines to castle kingside.}
g6 {A natural plan, the bishop develops to the long diagonal where its chances
to be an active force in the game is immensely better than from the square e7.
This move is also a good response to white's choice of square for his Bf1 as
this move blocks the diagonal to h7 which might be easily attacked otherwise.}
7. Ne2 {Diagram # This move takes certain liberties and is perhaps a bit silly.
Although it is unlikely that Black could successfully exchange this knight off
now for his Bc8, the knight's prospects from this square are not great and I
feel that the need to get ones pieces off the back line must be
counterbalanced by a desire to also prevent ones opponent's pieces having too
great a degree of freedom. In particular, it is difficult to see where this
knight is heading for from this square.} Bg7 {
Black prepares to castle as early as possible.} 8. O-O O-O {Now that White has
castled, he must turn his attention to his remaining minor pieces.} 9. Nbc3 {
The natural square for this knight} N8d7 {The knight prevents White trying
moves like c4-c5 for the moment and comes one step closer to completing his
development.} 10. b3 {The benefit of the Bd3 not being the only guard of the
c4 pawn is a big price to pay for such a drastic weakening of a diagonal where
the Black bishop on g7 is already prepared to show great activity.} c5 $5 {
By far and away the most accurate response. The White pawn which is the only
shield along the diagonal a1-h8 is removed from its position by force. White
is now left with the unenviable task of deciding how to untangle.} 11. d5 {
White seizes more space in the hope that this will counterbalance the new
squares available to Black's minor pieces, and that the squares denied to
black will prevent any immediate calamity.} Ne5 {The attack on the Bd3 is only
of superficial importance; the fact that the diagonal from c8-h3 is opened and
that Black is one step closer to the white king with his knight is of much
more significance.} 12. Bb2 {White finally completes his development, but it
might have been more circumspect to bring this piece towards the kingside to
bolster the defence. All the same it is understandable that white should want
to at least challenge the black control of the diagonal a1-h8.} Qh4 {
a move that would have been impossible had white chosen the more regular
option of Ng1-f3} 13. h3 {Diagram # White does not see the storm coming and
takes measures to prevent the move ...Ne5-g4 with a double attack on h2 which
is quite soft.} Bxh3 $3 {Bang!!! Black completes his development violently
and the bishop leaves the board after only one move. However given how many of
the white pieces are committed to a role on the queenside and the lack of
pieces ready to defend the White king, Black will gain massive compensation
for his piece.} 14. gxh3 Qxh3 {
With both a double attack on the Bd3 and a threat of mate in 1 by ...Ne5-f3#}
15. f3 {The only defence. however now Black gets a third pawn for his piece
and his attack continues...he has plenty of other pieces waiting in the wings!}
Nxf3+ 16. Kf2 $6 {
It was crucial that white give some material back at this point.} (16. Rxf3 {
This is all white had; all the same I do not hold high hopes for White's
prolonged existence after} Qxf3 {When with 3 pawns and a rook versus the White
knight and bishop, the ending would be difficult for white if he survives the
middlegame.}) 16... Rae8 {This rook was chosen in case at some stage white
played Nc3-b5 attacking the pawns on a7 and d6, when the Black rook would not
be shut in the corner after a move like Nb6-c8 as a defence of the pawns.} 17.
Rh1 {attempting to drive the Black queen away.} Nh2 {The knight now acquires a
whole new range of squares and the queen maintains its close proximity to the
white king.} 18. Ke1 {White seeks sanctuary for his king on the Queenside.} Bh6
{Diagram # Cutting off the White escape and creating the immediate threat of
mate in 1...How?} 19. Qb1 {
the White Queen makes way for the king but now white loses the lot.} Nf3+ {
With a discovered attack on the rook, which cannot be saved.} 20. Kd1 {
The king does succeed in reaching the safety of the queenside at the cost of a
rook.} ({Not} 20. Kf2 $4 {When although the rook is defended, the king is lost
instead! Indeed the game ends immediately after} Be3#) 20... Qxh1+ {the king can now come to c2, and Black would not be able to check particularly
effectively. However it is absolutely straightforward and simple to play 21...
Qxb1+ and Black will have an easy win with no fuss with his rook and 3 pawns
against the helpless White bishop. For that reason, White resigned. A
magically played game, befitting a countryman of Mikhail Tal, the Wizard from Riga.}
0-1

It doesn't seem especially refuted from this...

Take care and God bless, Macavity

Denis_Jessop
07-01-2007, 12:03 PM
Was (is) Richard Machet still a junior when this was played? If so, it's good to see a junior being thoroughly hammered tactically by someone about 50 years older than he.

Moreover, this talk of openings being refuted is all comparative. I'm not sure that any opening has conclusively been refuted. Some are regarded as much weaker than others but unless one is a top player, it is unlikely that their weakness can be fully or accurately exploited. Openings are almost as much about fashion as strength.

DJ

MichaelBaron
07-01-2007, 11:09 PM
Hi Everyone,
Here is a game with Alekhine's I once annotated


[Event "Melbourne Chess Club Under 2000"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2002.08.05"]
[Round "1.3"]
[White "Machet, Richard"]
[Black "Malitis, Edwin"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B03"]
[WhiteElo "1631"]
[BlackElo "1806"]
[PlyCount "40"]

1. e4 Nf6 {This move is the start of the Alekhine's defense, a very
provocative approach to white's opening strategy. From the very start, Black
offers White the ability to have as much space as he would like in return for
the chance to have the same big centre as an immediate target if White over
extends himself. White must walk a fine line between enough pawn moves and too
many.} 2. e5 ({White's only other option is to defend the pawn with} 2. Nc3 {
when Black has the choice of the immediate} d5 {which both provokes White to
choose to advance his pawn a move later than in the game ( the e4-pawn is
attacked twice now ) or to exchange on d5 when black will have little
difficulty in securing a very playable game e.g. after a double exchange on d5,
the Black Queen is not so easily removed from the centre and at the same time
Black is fully able to adapt his scheme of development to whichever approach
to developing White adopts.} ({If instead Black plays} 2... e5 {
he equalises easily but is not as well placed for immediate attack.})) 2... Nd5
{The knight moves out of the range of the White pawn and taunts white to
expand further if he chooses. White now seeks to combine a degree of
aggression with a degree of caution and does not give in to the temptation to
immediately try to blast the Black king off the board.} ({
Some players have even experimented with the bizarre looking} 2... Ng8 $5 {
with the idea that his knight may be able to find greener pastures from the
square g8, possibly coming out via e7 and possibly later going to g6 or f5.
This idea seeks to prove that the White pawns early advance has perhaps
weakened White's grip on the light squares. All the same this approach is not
often played.}) {Instead he plays} 3. d4 {which both supports the advanced
pawn on e5 and also opens the line for the Bc1. All the same this gives black
a space to breathe and he takes the opportunity to begin to snipe at White's
advanced pawn.} d6 {Opening a line for the Bc8 and attacking White's far
advanced pawn on e5. After the same number of moves, Black has a piece
developed and White does not. This is balanced by the fact that Black still
requires a move to clear a square for the Bf8 to leave the back line.} 4. c4 {
White strikes out at the loose Nd5 before Black acquires the freedom of many
different retreats to choose from. One of the advantages of playing 4.c2-c4 on
this move, is that White keeps Black guessing about how much space he will
grab for one more move.} ({A more modest approach from White involves the
immediate knight development with} 4. Nf3 {which although working in harmony
with white's previous moves ( the knight places both the white pawns under its
protection ) does block the pawn on f2 and as such removes the possibility of
propping the pawn on e5 up further with pawns. The other question is that
after the almost inevitable exchange of the white pawn on e5 for the black
pawn on d6 ( it is unlikely that the white pieces would be able to support the
pawn on e5 indefinitely without becoming passive ), whether Black may be able
to successfully execute the knight on f3 with his Bc8 when white may end up in
a position where the advantage of the two bishops may not be as significant
as the removal of a supporting piece of the White centre. All the same with a
move such as this white retains the option of expansion with his c-pawn at a
later stage, and also maintains flexibility of development, given that in most
openings this is where the knight is going anyway. Systems starting from this
move are very popular among players of an unambitious nature.}) 4... Nb6 {
This is the only way to save the knight. Black is not in a position to try and
provoke white further at this stage without swift retribution.} ({By no means
can the Black knight advance further without making a rapid exit from the game
eg after} 4... Nb4 $4 {White immediately plays the forking move} 5. Qa4+ {
which checks the Black king and also puts the question to the undefended Black
Nb4. Although it can flee for a moment with} N4c6 {White can immediately take
advantage of Black's forced retreat into an absolute pin with the move} 6. d5 {
when the knight cannot move without exposing the king to check and even should
black collect both the e- and d-pawns for his knight, not only will he be a
piece down but the pawns he has been forced to collect in replacement for his
lost knight will be weak and his knight which has used up many moves has left
the board without causing White any particular distress. I do not imagine many
people would be especially enthusiastic to play the black position from there.}
) 5. exd6 {White finally concedes his advanced pawn now that he has succeeded
in maintaining a presence in the centre with his pawns on c4+ d4. He now will
be free to choose how to develop his pieces in almost any manner he sees fit,
secure in the knowledge that Black will have to begin to pay attention to
completing his development also.} (5. f4 {is a far more ambitious approach.
This move starts what is known as the 4 pawns attack when white hopes that
having such a great advantage in the centre will enable him to develop his
pieces quickly and support his centre while stopping Black from being able to
choose good squares for his pieces without much careful planning. This
strategy generally results in a very sharp game where one of two things
generally happens; White maintains his grip on the centre and prevents Black
from developing any counterplay, and usually wins quickly; on the other hand,
quite often the time that white has taken setting up a centre like this
rebounds on him viciously, as the Black pieces all come into the game with a
gain of time, both directly attacking the White centre and also seeking to
exchange off the White pieces that support the centre, when the centre
collapses and Black plows through the wreckage with devastating effect.}) 5...
exd6 {Black opens the e-file completely and plays for the chance of a later
counter attack.} ({If instead Black plays} 5... cxd6 {the pawn structure
becomes asymetrical. The Bf8 will usually end up on g7 after a move like
g7-g6 and Black will use his extra pawn in the centre to seize space there
while White will try to use his extra pawn on the queenside to restrict the
Black pieces freedom and create the conditions for making his extra pawn there
into a passed pawn hopefully should an endgame arrive without Black creating
play elsewhere.}) 6. Bd3 {White begins to clear the lines to castle kingside.}
g6 {A natural plan, the bishop develops to the long diagonal where its chances
to be an active force in the game is immensely better than from the square e7.
This move is also a good response to white's choice of square for his Bf1 as
this move blocks the diagonal to h7 which might be easily attacked otherwise.}
7. Ne2 {Diagram # This move takes certain liberties and is perhaps a bit silly.
Although it is unlikely that Black could successfully exchange this knight off
now for his Bc8, the knight's prospects from this square are not great and I
feel that the need to get ones pieces off the back line must be
counterbalanced by a desire to also prevent ones opponent's pieces having too
great a degree of freedom. In particular, it is difficult to see where this
knight is heading for from this square.} Bg7 {
Black prepares to castle as early as possible.} 8. O-O O-O {Now that White has
castled, he must turn his attention to his remaining minor pieces.} 9. Nbc3 {
The natural square for this knight} N8d7 {The knight prevents White trying
moves like c4-c5 for the moment and comes one step closer to completing his
development.} 10. b3 {The benefit of the Bd3 not being the only guard of the
c4 pawn is a big price to pay for such a drastic weakening of a diagonal where
the Black bishop on g7 is already prepared to show great activity.} c5 $5 {
By far and away the most accurate response. The White pawn which is the only
shield along the diagonal a1-h8 is removed from its position by force. White
is now left with the unenviable task of deciding how to untangle.} 11. d5 {
White seizes more space in the hope that this will counterbalance the new
squares available to Black's minor pieces, and that the squares denied to
black will prevent any immediate calamity.} Ne5 {The attack on the Bd3 is only
of superficial importance; the fact that the diagonal from c8-h3 is opened and
that Black is one step closer to the white king with his knight is of much
more significance.} 12. Bb2 {White finally completes his development, but it
might have been more circumspect to bring this piece towards the kingside to
bolster the defence. All the same it is understandable that white should want
to at least challenge the black control of the diagonal a1-h8.} Qh4 {
a move that would have been impossible had white chosen the more regular
option of Ng1-f3} 13. h3 {Diagram # White does not see the storm coming and
takes measures to prevent the move ...Ne5-g4 with a double attack on h2 which
is quite soft.} Bxh3 $3 {Bang!!! Black completes his development violently
and the bishop leaves the board after only one move. However given how many of
the white pieces are committed to a role on the queenside and the lack of
pieces ready to defend the White king, Black will gain massive compensation
for his piece.} 14. gxh3 Qxh3 {
With both a double attack on the Bd3 and a threat of mate in 1 by ...Ne5-f3#}
15. f3 {The only defence. however now Black gets a third pawn for his piece
and his attack continues...he has plenty of other pieces waiting in the wings!}
Nxf3+ 16. Kf2 $6 {
It was crucial that white give some material back at this point.} (16. Rxf3 {
This is all white had; all the same I do not hold high hopes for White's
prolonged existence after} Qxf3 {When with 3 pawns and a rook versus the White
knight and bishop, the ending would be difficult for white if he survives the
middlegame.}) 16... Rae8 {This rook was chosen in case at some stage white
played Nc3-b5 attacking the pawns on a7 and d6, when the Black rook would not
be shut in the corner after a move like Nb6-c8 as a defence of the pawns.} 17.
Rh1 {attempting to drive the Black queen away.} Nh2 {The knight now acquires a
whole new range of squares and the queen maintains its close proximity to the
white king.} 18. Ke1 {White seeks sanctuary for his king on the Queenside.} Bh6
{Diagram # Cutting off the White escape and creating the immediate threat of
mate in 1...How?} 19. Qb1 {
the White Queen makes way for the king but now white loses the lot.} Nf3+ {
With a discovered attack on the rook, which cannot be saved.} 20. Kd1 {
The king does succeed in reaching the safety of the queenside at the cost of a
rook.} ({Not} 20. Kf2 $4 {When although the rook is defended, the king is lost
instead! Indeed the game ends immediately after} Be3#) 20... Qxh1+ {the king can now come to c2, and Black would not be able to check particularly
effectively. However it is absolutely straightforward and simple to play 21...
Qxb1+ and Black will have an easy win with no fuss with his rook and 3 pawns
against the helpless White bishop. For that reason, White resigned. A
magically played game, befitting a countryman of Mikhail Tal, the Wizard from Riga.}
0-1

It doesn't seem especially refuted from this...

Take care and God bless, Macavity

Good to have Malitis compared to Tal. If Tal would be alive, he would be honoured :P

Sheroff
25-06-2013, 10:01 PM
Fischer played Alekhine's Defence twice in the 1972 World Championship match. One draw, and one win. The win was an amazing endgame, and in some respects, the final nail in Spassky's coffin. Hans Berliner, World Correspondence Champion, has also used the Alekhine's very successfully (though you'll find a loss to Fischer in Fischer's "My 60 Memorable Games" book.) I know from personal experience that GM Smerdon rolls it out during Blitz games now and then - it's so rarely seen that many White players have little experience with how to handle it, and can certainly go astray.

Cheers, Kevin Casey

Agent Smith
25-06-2013, 10:55 PM
[Event "World Championship 28th"]
[Site "Reykjavik"]
[Date "1972.??.??"]
[Round "13"]
[White "Spassky, Boris V"]
[Black "Fischer, Robert J."]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2660"]
[BlackElo "2785"]
[ECO "B04"]

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 g6 5.Bc4 Nb6 6.Bb3 Bg7 7.Nbd2 O-O 8.h3 a5
9.a4 dxe5 10.dxe5 Na6 11.O-O Nc5 12.Qe2 Qe8 13.Ne4 Nbxa4 14.Bxa4 Nxa4 15.
Re1 Nb6 16.Bd2 a4 17.Bg5 h6 18.Bh4 Bf5 19.g4 Be6 20.Nd4 Bc4 21.Qd2 Qd7 22.
Rad1 Rfe8 23.f4 Bd5 24.Nc5 Qc8 25.Qc3 e6 26.Kh2 Nd7 27.Nd3 c5 28.Nb5 Qc6
29.Nd6 Qxd6 30.exd6 Bxc3 31.bxc3 f6 32.g5 hxg5 33.fxg5 f5 34.Bg3 Kf7 35.
Ne5+ Nxe5 36.Bxe5 b5 37.Rf1 Rh8 38.Bf6 a3 39.Rf4 a2 40.c4 Bxc4 41.d7 Bd5
42.Kg3 Ra3+ 43.c3 Rha8 44.Rh4 e5 45.Rh7+ Ke6 46.Re7+ Kd6 47.Rxe5 Rxc3+ 48.
Kf2 Rc2+ 49.Ke1 Kxd7 50.Rexd5+ Kc6 51.Rd6+ Kb7 52.Rd7+ Ka6 53.R7d2 Rxd2
54.Kxd2 b4 55.h4 Kb5 56.h5 c4 57.Ra1 gxh5 58.g6 h4 59.g7 h3 60.Be7 Rg8 61.
Bf8 h2 62.Kc2 Kc6 63.Rd1 b3+ 64.Kc3 h1=Q 65.Rxh1 Kd5 66.Kb2
66...f4 67.Rd1+ Ke4 68.Rc1 Kd3 69.Rd1+ Ke2 70.Rc1 f3 71.Bc5 Rxg7 72.Rxc4
Rd7 73.Re4+ Kf1 74.Bd4 f2 0-1

Max Illingworth
25-06-2013, 11:17 PM
Fischer played Alekhine's Defence twice in the 1972 World Championship match. One draw, and one win. The win was an amazing endgame, and in some respects, the final nail in Spassky's coffin. Hans Berliner, World Correspondence Champion, has also used the Alekhine's very successfully (though you'll find a loss to Fischer in Fischer's "My 60 Memorable Games" book.) I know from personal experience that GM Smerdon rolls it out during Blitz games now and then - it's so rarely seen that many White players have little experience with how to handle it, and can certainly go astray.

Cheers, Kevin Casey

Perhaps the leading Australian exponent of the Alekhine is Wohl, though he tends to meet 1.e4 with 1...e5 these days. Of the higher-rated Aussies only Dale seems to be using it with much regularity. Unfortunately for Black there doesn't seem to be a way to equalise against 4.Nf3, but for some, greater familiarity with the irregular middlegame positions will outweigh the slight theoretical disadvantage (assuming White knows what he's doing).

James Watson
26-06-2013, 04:47 PM
I like to bring out the Alekhine from time to time, having said that I'm only your average club player

Oepty
27-06-2013, 12:56 PM
I have never had the urge to play Alekhines Defense, I do not understand it all. I guess though you could say I do not understand anything about chess at all so perhaps I should give it a try at some stage.

Saragossa
30-06-2013, 12:56 AM
Man, the amount of crap Qpawn got just for posting his feelings and opinions on the Alekhine's (how do is Alekhine pronounced, I tend to say Al-Ye-Kin because of Larry Christiansen on Chessmaster videos?) is really comparable to the censorship of books during HITLER'S NAZI REGIME.

Rincewind
30-06-2013, 10:33 AM
Man, the amount of crap Qpawn got just for posting his feelings and opinions on the Alekhine's (how do is Alekhine pronounced, I tend to say Al-Ye-Kin because of Larry Christiansen on Chessmaster videos?) is really comparable to the censorship of books during HITLER'S NAZI REGIME.

I would advise strongly against irony unless you know EXACTLY what you are doing.

aelfric
11-01-2014, 06:01 AM
The alekhine defense is just too simplistic for high level chess

antichrist
11-01-2014, 09:46 AM
I would advise strongly against irony unless you know EXACTLY what you are doing.

I can't detect any irony in his statement

KingsIndian
21-07-2014, 11:37 PM
You're right, especially with the Hypermodern masters who typically gave their opponents a large, classical pawn structured center. And White has a duty to defend in the Alekhine as I see it.

MichaelBaron
22-07-2014, 11:49 PM
The alekhine defense is just too simplistic for high level chess

Would love to know rating of the person saying its ''too simplistic for high level chess''. Does he know what ''high level chess'' is all about? :)