Alekhine's Defense = questionable?

Sort:
Avatar of blueemu

4. f3

Avatar of Ethan_Brollier
blueemu wrote:

4. f3

Oops, I'll fix that. Thanks!

Avatar of MisterOakwood
blueemu skrev:

 

Why in Earth would black play like that?

Avatar of blueemu
MisterOakwood wrote:
blueemu skrev:

 

Why in Earth would black play like that?

It's a line.

Alburt (a GM) used to play 5. ... f6. So did Basman.

Avatar of MisterOakwood
blueemu skrev:
MisterOakwood wrote:
blueemu skrev:

 

Why in Earth would black play like that?

It's a line.

Alburt (a GM) used to play 5. ... f6. So did Basman.

Well it's definitely not the critical test of the Alekhine. Most people consider dxe5 to be the critical response against the modern variation. Although g6 is playable (check my line against the modern from before). However, 5... f6 is a horrible move. If black simply plays 5...dxe5 6.dxe5 and Bg6. Black stands better.

Check this example:

 

Avatar of blueemu

7. Bd3 Qxd4 8. Bxf5 Qxe5+

Avatar of Kowarenai

the Bortinator has made it such a playable opening even in OTB events

Avatar of Kowarenai

Here is Bortnyk against the #2 Floridian in the state,  GM Julio Beccerra drawing in OTB classical

cool to see Julio being able to hold but even awesome to see the Alekhin OTB, really bortnyk has shown that even the most dubious moves can sstill be super cool and can work well

Avatar of blueemu

That's not the 7. Bd3 line given in post #83, though... which simply loses material.

Avatar of Bobery1
Defaultedwastaken wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
Bobery1 wrote:

It is a bad defense, if the pawn were to be taken than the queen would take the horse and result in a +2 trade. 

what

I also have no idea what he is talking about, maybe he thinks that chess players like to give pawns for knights? 

Iḿ saying it doesn't achieve anything 

Avatar of MisterOakwood
Bobery1 skrev:
Defaultedwastaken wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
Bobery1 wrote:

It is a bad defense, if the pawn were to be taken than the queen would take the horse and result in a +2 trade. 

what

I also have no idea what he is talking about, maybe he thinks that chess players like to give pawns for knights? 

Iḿ saying it doesn't achieve anything 

what does not achieve what?

Avatar of Ethan_Brollier
MisterOakwood wrote:
Bobery1 skrev:
Defaultedwastaken wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
Bobery1 wrote:

It is a bad defense, if the pawn were to be taken than the queen would take the horse and result in a +2 trade. 

what

I also have no idea what he is talking about, maybe he thinks that chess players like to give pawns for knights? 

Iḿ saying it doesn't achieve anything 

what does not achieve what?

He's 400. He probably assumes the Alekhine's loses a knight in three moves to e4 e5 exf6.

Avatar of Bobery1
MisterOakwood wrote:
Bobery1 skrev:
Defaultedwastaken wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
Bobery1 wrote:

It is a bad defense, if the pawn were to be taken than the queen would take the horse and result in a +2 trade. 

what

I also have no idea what he is talking about, maybe he thinks that chess players like to give pawns for knights? 

Iḿ saying it doesn't achieve anything 

what does not achieve what?

The pawn can be marched forward or protected with a horse of queen's pawn. 

Avatar of Ethan_Brollier
Bobery1 wrote:
MisterOakwood wrote:
Bobery1 skrev:
Defaultedwastaken wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
Bobery1 wrote:

It is a bad defense, if the pawn were to be taken than the queen would take the horse and result in a +2 trade. 

what

I also have no idea what he is talking about, maybe he thinks that chess players like to give pawns for knights? 

Iḿ saying it doesn't achieve anything 

what does not achieve what?

The pawn can be marched forward or protected with a horse of queen's pawn. 

That's literally the whole point of the opening.

Avatar of Bobery1
Ethan_Brollier wrote:
Bobery1 wrote:
MisterOakwood wrote:
Bobery1 skrev:
Defaultedwastaken wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
Bobery1 wrote:

It is a bad defense, if the pawn were to be taken than the queen would take the horse and result in a +2 trade. 

what

I also have no idea what he is talking about, maybe he thinks that chess players like to give pawns for knights? 

Iḿ saying it doesn't achieve anything 

what does not achieve what?

The pawn can be marched forward or protected with a horse of queen's pawn. 

That's literally the whole point of the opening.

none of those outcomes gain black anything 

Avatar of MisterOakwood
Bobery1 skrev:
Ethan_Brollier wrote:
Bobery1 wrote:
MisterOakwood wrote:
Bobery1 skrev:
Defaultedwastaken wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
Bobery1 wrote:

It is a bad defense, if the pawn were to be taken than the queen would take the horse and result in a +2 trade. 

what

I also have no idea what he is talking about, maybe he thinks that chess players like to give pawns for knights? 

Iḿ saying it doesn't achieve anything 

what does not achieve what?

The pawn can be marched forward or protected with a horse of queen's pawn. 

That's literally the whole point of the opening.

none of those outcomes gain black anything 

The point of the opening is to provoke white to take more space than he can defense. Provoking whites, pawns forward.

Avatar of sndeww
Bobery1 wrote:
Ethan_Brollier wrote:
Bobery1 wrote:
MisterOakwood wrote:
Bobery1 skrev:
Defaultedwastaken wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
Bobery1 wrote:

It is a bad defense, if the pawn were to be taken than the queen would take the horse and result in a +2 trade. 

what

I also have no idea what he is talking about, maybe he thinks that chess players like to give pawns for knights? 

Iḿ saying it doesn't achieve anything 

what does not achieve what?

The pawn can be marched forward or protected with a horse of queen's pawn. 

That's literally the whole point of the opening.

none of those outcomes gain black anything 

Every opening is a trade-off. 

OR you can see it as an argument. Since protecting the pawn is obviously not challenging, only pushing the pawn must be considered. In that case, white is arguing that his space advantage will be lasting and restrictive, while black is arguing that the center is overextended and brittle and subject to attack. 

The game revolves around white's center, and if he can keep his space and restrictions or not.

Avatar of Kowarenai

i used the alekhine for my otb blitz tournament tonight, it was bad but a classic swindle

Avatar of Bobery1
B1ZMARK wrote:
Bobery1 wrote:
Ethan_Brollier wrote:
Bobery1 wrote:
MisterOakwood wrote:
Bobery1 skrev:
Defaultedwastaken wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
Bobery1 wrote:

It is a bad defense, if the pawn were to be taken than the queen would take the horse and result in a +2 trade. 

what

I also have no idea what he is talking about, maybe he thinks that chess players like to give pawns for knights? 

Iḿ saying it doesn't achieve anything 

what does not achieve what?

The pawn can be marched forward or protected with a horse of queen's pawn. 

That's literally the whole point of the opening.

none of those outcomes gain black anything 

Every opening is a trade-off. 

OR you can see it as an argument. Since protecting the pawn is obviously not challenging, only pushing the pawn must be considered. In that case, white is arguing that his space advantage will be lasting and restrictive, while black is arguing that the center is overextended and brittle and subject to attack. 

The game revolves around white's center, and if he can keep his space and restrictions or not.

Fair points. However, I can still argue there are much better defenses against kings pawn such as 4 knights game or Italian. 

Avatar of blueemu
Bobery1 wrote:

Fair points. However, I can still argue there are much better defenses against kings pawn such as 4 knights game or Italian. 

Both of those are pretty dry if your opponent isn't looking for an exciting game.

The Sicilian or the Alekhine's are likely to be more eventful.