An Alekhine repertoire with kings bishop fianchetto

1 e4 Nf6 is a sound reply if you know what your doing, i no longer get many of those innevitable reverses as black that one gets from time to time, with it.

The repertoire that i choose involves usually a fianchetto of the kings bishop which makes alot of sense if you think about it-thus attacking the advanced pawns on e5 and d4 (and through it to the rook on a1 and pawn on b2) with a combination of the black squared bishop and an early sacrifice(gambit) of c5.

The four pawn attack is the most successfully undermined by this procedure with 1 e4 Nf6, 2 e5 Nd5, 3 c4 Nb6,(whites 3 rd and fourth moves are interchangeable), 4 d4 d6, 5 f4(the start of the four pawn attack) de, 6 fe g6, 7 Nf3 Bg7, 8 Be2(a usual position for the bishop although it is played to d3 also) Bg4, 9 0-0 (h3 is sometimes played but it is weakening of the two remaining kingside pawns) c5!!

the problem speelman yes the great speelman of the eighties and nineties, found with this line is that white can play 9 c5 and scupper blacks plans completely

OK, blueemu, I'll bite.

What is this?

Why would White play 5. Ng5?

Why does Black respond with f6? dxe5 followed by 6. dxe5 Bg7 looks more comfortable.

The position looks scary for Black but the computer says he is better and he should be able to convert the advantage.

(Though I did find a nice mate for White if Black becomes too greedy...)

What is this?

It's the Alburt variation (GM Lev Alburt was three times Ukrainian champion and three times US champion).

Why would White play Ng5?

Several reasons. It threatens Qf3 forking f7 and d5. So Black can't just play anything he likes... he is forced to respond to the threat. It gets the Knight out of the way of f2-f4, reinforcing the e5 Pawn. It puts the Knight in touch with both the e6 and e4 squares. And it brings up the possibility of the piece sacrifice that I gave above.

Why does Black respond with f6?

To answer White's Qf3 threat, and to break against the e5 Pawn at the same time as he pokes at the g5 Knight.

The position looks scary for Black but the computer says he is better...

.... and you trust a computer's views on openings, do you? The computer has entirely the wrong plan in mind for White. It will try to mate on f7... Black can successfully defend against that. White's proper continuation (from the above diagram) is to play a4 (threatening to win the piece back immediately with a5) and after Black replies a5, White plays h4 (gxh4) Rxh4 then Ra3 and swing it across to the K-side; then Bd3 threatening Rxh7 and Bxg6+ (after the Q-Rook passes through White can, if necessary, solidify the Q-side with Pawn to b3).

White swings all of his pieces across to the K-side, where Black's King is virtually isolated. Black is going to HAVE to return the piece with Bxe6, and there's no guarantee that will get him out of his troubles.

Here's a game against an opponent who was rated 2190-something at the time I played him, and he had three days to think over each move:

https://www.chess.com/daily/game/200865886

Do you REALLY take advice on openings from a computer? Seriously?

Thanks for this, but I still have a question:

what will you do when Black plays, as I suggested 5.... dxe5?

if 6. dxe5 Lg7 or if 6. Qf3 f6

I don't take opening advice from the computer, but it evaluates the position after 8. d5 as +2.7 for Black. That is a lot. If it'd been <2.0, I wouldn't have mentioned it, but I didn't know the computer could be that far off, if indeed you are right and White is better here. But your continuation with the Rooks looks scary indeed and I'm sure I'd crumble if I were up against that.

That Alburt line looks interesting   Thanks.

5. ... dxe5 6. dxe5 Bg7 7. Bc4 is 62.5% in the big database.

As for the position after d5, yes... I had probably missed the best continuation already. 7. Bd3 (instead of 7. Qf3) is 66.5% in the database.

... but my opponent had played the Alekhine regularly and I had not, so part of my opening plan was to get him out of book lines. In a game at our level, it hardly matters what a 3500-rated chess engine thinks of the moves. We aren't allowed to use them during the game, and neither one of us plays at the 3500 level.

In my other game against the same opponent in that country vs country team match, I stuck to the book line all the way out to move 27 (!) because I was convinced that I had found a hole in the published analysis. I was right...

https://www.chess.com/daily/game/200865884

Naturally I'm prepared to admit that if Black defends precisely, the Alburt variation gives White nothing special. But that's true in ALL lines. All sound openings lead eventually to balanced positions. That's why they are considered "sound" openings.

If you looked at the Alekhine game I posted in #6 above, you might have noticed that I ended up with my King's Knight (instead of my Queen's Knight) on c3, and my Queen's Knight (instead of my King's Knight) on f3!

Yeah, I did notice that.  It was unusual.

when i say the modern in the above opening i mean the modern variation of the alekhine sometimes called the classical variation.

Another interesting Alekhine side-line is:

i just play e6 there

After Qxc3 I like white's position.

Simple but effective.

I play the Alekhine whenever I can and I get the Scandi variation quite often, but nobody has played 4. Bc4 against me yet.

I'd probably play Nb6, followed by c5 and a kingside fianchetto.

As I mentioned above, none of these side-lines are particularly great... else they wouldn't be side-lines... but neither are they particularly bad. They are just alternatives to the usual main lines.

After all, at our level the main task in the opening is to reach a middle-game position in which you feel comfortable and confident. If you prefer these positions to the usual Alekhine positions... or if you suspect that you will take your Alekhine-playing opponent out of his own comfort zone... then go for it.

Another possibility (for King's Indian Attack players) is to just reply to 1. e4 Nf6 with 2. d3. Then you follow up with Nd2, g3, Bg2, Ngf3, 0-0, etc... a typical King's Indian Attack formation.