How could that be rating manipulation if he's losing the games? Do you mean that he's in on it with other players to boost their ratings? That seems a little far-fetched IMO but I'm sure it has happened with some players. Though I doubt very seriously Phoenyx has done anything at all wrong. Though I will admit the second to last game he lost - his resignation was quite odd.
@Phoenyx75
Why did you resign here? You were completely winning.
Can someone please explain to me why the master popularity ~ theoretical, objective soundness fallacy continues to be committed?
Pro chess players (FIDE master and up) have x amount of time. It simply does not behoove them to invest time into an opening in which no one plays, and of which transposition is easily induced.
Again, speaking of objective soundness, the centipawn loss of 1...Nf6 in place of 1...e5 is comparable to the centipawn loss resulting from 1...c4 in place of 1...e5.
The opening is perfectly viable and not at all bad.
Can someone please explain to me why the master popularity ~ theoretical, objective soundness fallacy continues to be committed?
Pro chess players (FIDE master and up) have x amount of time. It simply does not behoove them to invest time into an opening in which no one plays, and of which transposition is easily induced.
Again, speaking of objective soundness, the centipawn loss of 1...Nf6 in place of 1...e5 is comparable to the centipawn loss resulting from 1...c4 in place of 1...e5.
The opening is perfectly viable and not at all bad.
This is beyond me. I'm not even strong enough to play 1...c4 on the first move as Black. That's like super-GM ability. I just look at mainline Alekhine positions and think "Yuck, this is really passive! White has a comfortable space advantage."
On the other hand, I'll play 1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6! 3.e5 Nd5 and 1.e4 c5 2.a3?! Nc6 3.b4 Nf6! 4.b5 Nd4 5.c3 (5.e5 Qc7!) Ne6 6.e5 Nd5. Those are good Alekhines except they're not from the Alekhine. Black starts with less space, but he is breaking apart the center. The problem is that you need to play the Sicilian to get positions like this. That pawn on c5 helps in the fight for the center, you see.
Of course it doesn't matter what masters play because they understand things we don't.
It is really funny when total beginners, that don't know even the basics, are trying to interpret what masters do and why.
It's even funnier when Stockfish lovers do that.
I agree that Alekhine's defense is perfectly viable.The fact that it is 7th in the prefferation of masters means something but it has nothing to do with the soundness of the opening.It has to do with the safeness.There are so many the openings and the lines that give Black a good game that there is simply no room in master's repertoire for an opening like Alekhine's defense.Ruy Lopez with more than a dozen playable systems covers almost every taste and there is Sicilian with another doxen playable systems and if one wants something different , French defense and Caro Kan fully cover the rest.The problem with Alekhine's defense is that it's white that chooses the type of play he wants and that is pretty much undesirable.That is why Ruy Lopez , Sicilian , French and Caro Kan with the much more choices that offer for Black are preffered.But the reasons that make it undesirable in high level might be very good reasons to make it desirable in lower levels.The theory is not so much and not so difficult and the lack of too many options and positions allows the player to specialise easier than in other openings.In Sicilian you will always worry for an engine prepared line and in Ruy Lopez it is easy to get lost in the complexity of the positions.In Alekhine's defense the development and the plans are pretty straightforward and the options not so many.That doesn't mean it's easy , nothing is easy in chess , but it is much more easy to understand than other openings.
I agree with a lot of what was written here. But the last part is something with which I most respectfully disagree. The Alekhine is much harder to understand than the more classical, pawn-centre openings. As is the case with most, if not all, hypermodern lines, the fact is that the Alekhine is not at all recommended for weaker players precisely because of it's complexity. If simplicity is what one is after than the more classical, centre-pawn openings are much better choices than the Alekhine.
To play a hypermodern opening such as the Alekhine, the Nimzowitsch/Larsen, the Modern, etc, one simply must have an appreciation and intuitive understanding of the importance of central control, structure, critical squares, and time. You have to know with which pieces to use for central control, pawn breaks, when and where to strike. Just one simple mistake and you're right - it will be very simple. For the white pieces. For the black side, on the other hand, things are about to get very claustrophobic and by the time it's all over will feel as though they've been run over by a cement truck. Believe me, I know from experience, as I've played (and play) hypermodern openings myself.
No offense, but your assessment of the opening is very dismissive and laughably dogmatic - it's nowhere near as cut and dry as you make it seem; and your analysis concerning structure and piece placement is overtly generalistic to the point of being flat wrong, as there are simply far too many considerations in a given position before determining proper structure, goals and piece placement - in fact, there are so many lines and transpositions arising from 1...Nf6 that when I read your statement, "There are realy (sic) very few choices for both sides...", I almost spat soda on my screen.
I think my assesment of the opening is absolutely accurate.This is the kind of positions that the average club player will deal with.Even Seirawan said that White will be out of his preparation already from move 1.In high level it's a deep opening although certainly less deeper than Sicilian or Ruy Lopez and that is the reason , that is not played so much.If you compare it with Berlin ,you will realise it's 10 times simpler.No amateur can really understand Berlin.And it is just one line of Ruy Lopez.I believe eveyone who just attempted to understand a complicated line like Berlin knows that Alekhine's defense is not even close regarding the difficulties and the available options and plans.Berlin is simply chaotic while Alekhine's defense needs no more than a month of intense study of the lines and games and you are good to go.And with that I don't mean that you will win every game.I mean you will always get a playable position you understand and you will always know where you went wrong.That's it.
There are openings that although rich , are simple.French defense for example is much easier to understand.The pawn structure is specific.Black is the one that can deviate.He is the one choosing the pawn structure.White's only chance to avoid that , is to choose exchange variation which offers him nothing and it's comfortable for Black.In Alekhine's defense on the other hand Black's choices for a meaningful deviation are slim.I am not talking about lines.I am talking for deviation that leads to a radically different game.It is white who always chooses what pawn structure he wants and Black that always(well , almost always) follows.That is why the opening, although perfectly fine , was never , and in my opinion it's never going to be , more popular in high level.Yes , there will a couple grandmasters attracted to it , some will use it as a surprise weapon , but I don't remember anyone in top 10 using it as his main defense.Not even Alekhine.
Sure, the Sicilian is "deeper", per se, in that it has a million and one variations and a thousand books written for each one. But yet it appears that you're still calling the opening simple, and I am telling you that it's not. And here's why: take someone who is lower rated and limited in their opening knowledge. Give them five moves as black with any of the classical openings mentioned by you - then give them five moves of theory in the Alekhine. When those five moves run out, they will have a better chance of screwing up big time in the Alekhine. And the reason is because it's a hypermodern opening based in hypermodern principles that lower rated players simply do not understand. All of the openings you mention as being more complex - they are classical openings. They've been around longer. They will have more transpositions and more theory to ingest - I never denied that. But those are just lines. When you're learning the Sicilian, you're not actually learning the Sicilian - you're learning a specific line of the Sicilian. Perhaps the dragon, closed, Kalashnikov, or Najdorf. So of course, speaking in general, "the Sicilian" or "French Defence" are far deeper simply because of the insane amount of theory out there. But it doesn't mean they are hard to play because you only play one line at a time. You don't have to know every line in every variation of the Sicilian to play the Sicilian.
Lastly, speaking as to the future popularity of the Alekhine, I thought seeing as how you brought up Seirawan, I would point out that Seirawan himself believes that the Alekhine will eventually become extremely popular among top-level GM play - we're talking Berlin level popular. But you disagree and you're entitled to your opinion. But the man is a four time US champion. So...
But any way, I don't really care about popularity. I really don't know why people keep bringing that up. All I've ever said is that the opening is sound. Because it is. But to say that it's easy to play compared to more classical openings - I couldn't disagree more.
why so many Indian opening eg. KID QID NID BID ? are those introduced by Red-Indian? whereas russian's are dominating chess over the years. where are chinese/moi-thai openings ? 
... Even Seirawan said that White will be out of his preparation already from move 1. ...
"... [After 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6] White can take a number of approaches, including 4.Nf3 or 4.Bc4. My preference is for 4.c4! Nb6 5.exd6 ... [5...exd6] produces a symmetrical pawn structure with White having an easy advantage due to his superior space. ... [After 5...cxd6 6.Nc3 g6 7.Be3 Bg7 8.c5!] White expects [8...dxc5 9.dxc5 N6d7 10.Bc4] with an advantage to White." - GM Yasser Seirawan's 1999 book, Winning Chess Openings
I used to play 4c4 and think white has reasonable chances for advantage after 5...cxd5 maybe 8Rc1 instead of 8c5, but after 5...exd6 there are difficulties proving anything. 4Nf3 as the best reputation and it is covered quite nicely in John Shaw's rep book https://www.qualitychess.co.uk/products/1/209/playing_1e4_-_caro-kann_1e5_and_minor_lines_by_john_shaw/
I used to play 4c4 and think white has reasonable chances for advantage after 5...cxd5 maybe 8Rc1 instead of 8c5, but after 5...exd6 there are difficulties proving anything. 4Nf3 as the best reputation and it is covered quite nicely in John Shaw's rep book https://www.qualitychess.co.uk/products/1/209/playing_1e4_-_caro-kann_1e5_and_minor_lines_by_john_shaw/
What are your thoughts on the Alekhine as it pertains to playability and approachability? Another poster and myself are having a friendly debate about this. He/she feels that the Alekhine is far simpler to play and understand than any of the more classical openings and I feel that it's the other way around - that hypermodern openings, including the Alekhine, are more complex and best left to players who know what they're doing.
He's so adamant about this that I'm starting to second guess myself. Maybe I've gone nuts. 
You have to match the style of play with the player and with the opponent. Alexhine's defense temps White to become over-extended early in the opening with Pawns not perfectly placed where White would ordinarily like them. The same kind of thing occurs for White in some other opening like the Closed Sicilian,
That gives Black an edge if he knows how to exploit the position, but otherwise doesn't create many threats.
sicilian period.
... Alekhine's defense ... with much less(almost none) "problematic issues" than French and Caro Kan. ...
The October 2017 issue of Chess lists the top twenty openings compiled from a list of 4192 August games where both players were rated over 2400 Elo. One can not take position on this list too seriously because it is greatly influenced by how the openings are grouped. For example, all the Retis are grouped together, while English is separated into 1...c5, 1...e5, etc. Nevertheless, for what it is worth, some of the list entries are: 271 Retis, 232 King's Indians, 172 Caro-Kanns, 165 Nimzo-Indians, 126 Najdorf Sicilians, 126 Slavs, 118 declined Queen's Gambits, 100 Queen's Indians, 98 1...e5 Englishes, 94 1...c5 Englishes, 93 Kan Sicilians, 81 Tarrasch Frenches, 77 1...Nf6 Englishes, 73 Guioco Pianos, 67 1...e6 Englishes, and 66 Moderns
Another poster and myself are having a friendly debate about this. He/she feels that the Alekhine is far simpler to play and understand than any of the more classical openings and I feel that it's the other way around - that hypermodern openings, including the Alekhine, are more complex and best left to players who know what they're doing.
He's so adamant about this that I'm starting to second guess myself. Maybe I've gone nuts.
You're not gone nuts, he obviously lacks practical experience with (not to mention theoretical knowledge of) the Alekhine. For someone who employed it almost exclusively against 1.e4 over twenty years his claims come across as gross oversimplification and border on the ridiculous.
A few examples.
>The main advantage of Alekhine's defense is that there are no good Anti-Alekhine's defense lines.
I never heard the term "Anti-Alekhine" before but if we presume it's meant to encompass various early deviations from the main lines by White (like in the Anti-Sicilians) -- most notably not playing 2.e5 -- then there are at least two: 2.Nc3 and 2.d3. The former is the most common move at levels below 1800, while the latter can be either the sign of the ignorance of the opening theory or that White is quite a bit more sophisticated than it looks.
In effect he may be saying "Never mind all the Alekhine theory you've learned, how would you like playing against a KIA/Reverse Old Indian setup where the center tension will go unresolved for 20+ moves and both sides will have to show their skills in lengthy, slow positional maneuvering?" Take on e4 early or push ...d4 prematurely and White will nurse a nagging edge deep into the endgame. You're likely to drop material along the way or die of sheer boredom. If that doesn't qualify as an Anti-Alekhine I don't know what does.
>White will pretty much play e5-d4 and c4 at some point
With opponents rated under 1800 you will often see neither d4 nor c4.
>His pieces also have specific places. There is nothing better than Nf3 and Nc3 and the question is
>about the bishops but the nature of the position doesn't change
The king's knight often goes to e2 in some lines of the Exchange (both the ...cxd6 and the ...exd6 varieties) and in some 2.Nc3 lines where White exchanges on d5. Its best place is on h3 in the ...f5 lines of the Voronezh Variation. The other knight is frequently played to d2 in the exchange lines of the Old Main Line and the Flohr-Agzamov, or it can be deployed via a3 when White opts for a stolid setup with c3.
>There are realy very few choices for both sides for a meaningful deviation and that limits
>the possible pawn structures to maybe less than half a dozen.
You are correct in stating elsewhere that White is usually the one to dictate the main direction of events (by deciding whether to play 2.e5; an early Nc3; the Chase, the Exchange, the Four Pawns or the Main Line) but in all cases Black will have more than line at his disposal.
E.g. he's not commited to playing ...e5 and ...d5 against 2.d3 but can take the play into the Sicilian/Pirc-like lines with ...c5/...d6. The Pirc is also an option after 2.Nc3. If he does meet 2.Nc3 with 2...d5 and White pushes 3.e5 there are at least three options: the simplifying 3...d4, the French-like 3...Nfd7 and the die-hard 3...Ne4. If White exchanges on d5 Black has the choice between the solid ...c6, maintaning the knight in the center, and the dynamic ...Nb6.
In the Four Pawns alone, besides various piece setups and move orders Black can opt for in the main line, Black can go for the cutthroat Argunov with 5...dxe5 6.fxe5 c5 or the more positional Sergeev with 6...g6 (also playable on the 5th move). In the Argunov itself play can take on very different character depending whether Black plays ...Bb4, ...Bg4 or ...Qh4.
Finally, the Main Line 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 offers Black the choice between at least four different systems: the Old Main Line with 4...Bg4 5.Be2 e6, the Flohr-Agzamov with 5...c6; the Alburt with 4...g6 and the Kengis with 4...dxe5 5.Nxe5 g6, the latter outwardly similar to the Alburt but in practice plays like a kind of Caro-Kann where Black fianchettoes on the kingside. If four is not enough and Black feels adventuresome, there are two more options at his disposal: 4...Nc6 that obliges White to go for the critical e6 sacrifice lest he end up worse and Larsen's 4...dxe5 5.Nxe5 Nbd7 with the king-walk lines and the accompanying craziness.
Most of the above (and some I haven't mentioned) have different pawn structures as well along with wildly diverging styles of play that stem from them. You have structures that resemble the Pirc, the Benoni, the Caro-Kann, the French, a kind of Gruenfeld with a pawn on c2 rather than c4 (e.g. 2.Nc3 d5 3.e5 Ne4 4.d5 Nxc3 5.bxc3 g6) and several uniquely Alekhine formations like those arising in the Chase and the Four Pawns. There are some really oddball ones, like in the Planinc Four Pawns (5...g5) and the Alburt where White sacrifices a piece to get a fearsome c4-d5-e6 pawn wedge with the black f-pawn gone.
And to give the Berlin Defence as an example of complex opening theory? Deirdre, you're so out of your depth here I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. The volume of the theory on just the mainline Four Pawns is easily 4x that of the Berlin Defence, and I suppose you never heard of the SDO either? That's are two colossal, encyclopedia-like tomes on the Alekhine Defence released in Germany in the 80s -- and the theory has advanced by leaps and bounds since then. Just to give you an idea of the scope and depth of the analysis presented there: an offbeat line like 2...Ng8 (Brooklyn V) is given no less than a dozen pages of small print.
The main trouble with playing the Alekhine at master level and above is not the opening's dubious theoretical status or lack of complexity. The problem is that if White is bent on an a draw and obtaining a dreary symmetrical position there's little Black can do, unless he's prepared to run disproportionately high risks. The Exchange Variation is commonly cited as a sure way to minimize Black's counterplay, but White has in fact much simpler and safer alternatives at his disposal.
The most straightforward of them is 2.d3 aiming for a KIA/Reverse Old Indian/Reverse Philidor setup mentioned above -- after 2...e5 Black has no way to avoid it.
2.Nc3 d5 3.e5 Ne4 4.Nxe4 dxe4 5.d4 is another nightmare for an ambitious Alekhine player. There's little fun he can look forward after either 5...exd3 6.Bxd3 or (worse yet) 6.Qxd3 (the latter line prompted a woeful "Is this any way to use the white pieces?" remark in Burgess' definitive The Complete Alekhine book). There remains 5...Bf5 transposing into an obscure (and dubious) line of the French, but now the onus is on Black to justify his play. Sure, 3...Nfd7 and 3...d4 avoid all that (though the latter is not a particularly exciting alternative should White prove to be not in a fighting mood) but they are not the first choice of a die-hard Alekhine fan.
So no, LAnDL81, you're not nuts, just wasting your time in the wrong forum. Check out chesspub.com instead -- even if you're not a paying subscriber you can learn a tremendous lot by just reading the forums where players of master strength are the rule rather than an exception, well-known book authors are regular posters and the tolerance to noise is very low. You will find the Alekhine subforum in particular interesting, of course.
... Alekhine's defense ... with much less(almost none) "problematic issues" than French and Caro Kan. ...
Yeah...it has a big problem. Its appears to be defective currently.
Another poster and myself are having a friendly debate about this. He/she feels that the Alekhine is far simpler to play and understand than any of the more classical openings and I feel that it's the other way around - that hypermodern openings, including the Alekhine, are more complex and best left to players who know what they're doing.
He's so adamant about this that I'm starting to second guess myself. Maybe I've gone nuts.
You're not gone nuts, he obviously lacks practical experience with (not to mention theoretical knowledge of) the Alekhine. For someone who employed it almost exclusively against 1.e4 over twenty years his claims come across as gross oversimplification and border on the ridiculous.
A few examples.
>The main advantage of Alekhine's defense is that there are no good Anti-Alekhine's defense lines.
I never heard the term "Anti-Alekhine" before but if we presume it's meant to encompass various early deviations from the main lines by White (like in the Anti-Sicilians) -- most notably not playing 2.e5 -- then there are at least two: 2.Nc3 and 2.d3. The former is the most common move at levels below 1800, while the latter can be either the sign of the ignorance of the opening theory or that White is quite a bit more sophisticated than it looks.
In effect he may be saying "Never mind all the Alekhine theory you've learned, how would you like playing against a KIA/Reverse Old Indian setup where the center tension will go unresolved for 20+ moves and both sides will have to show their skills in lengthy, slow positional maneuvering?" Take on e4 early or push ...d4 prematurely and White will nurse a nagging edge deep into the endgame. You're likely to drop material along the way or die of sheer boredom. If that doesn't qualify as an Anti-Alekhine I don't know what does.
>White will pretty much play e5-d4 and c4 at some point
With opponents rated under 1800 you will often see neither d4 nor c4.
>His pieces also have specific places. There is nothing better than Nf3 and Nc3 and the question is
>about the bishops but the nature of the position doesn't change
The king's knight often goes to e2 in some lines of the Exchange (both the ...cxd6 and the ...exd6 varieties) and in some 2.Nc3 lines where White exchanges on d5. Its best place is on h3 in the ...f5 lines of the Voronezh Variation. The other knight is frequently played to d2 in the exchange lines of the Old Main Line and the Flohr-Agzamov, or it can be deployed via a3 when White opts for a stolid setup with c3.
>There are realy very few choices for both sides for a meaningful deviation and that limits
>the possible pawn structures to maybe less than half a dozen.
You are correct in stating elsewhere that White is usually the one to dictate the main direction of events (by deciding whether to play 2.e5; an early Nc3; the Chase, the Exchange, the Four Pawns or the Main Line) but in all cases Black will have more than line at his disposal.
E.g. he's not commited to playing ...e5 and ...d5 against 2.d3 but can take the play into the Sicilian/Pirc-like lines with ...c5/...d6. The Pirc is also an option after 2.Nc3. If he does meet 2.Nc3 with 2...d5 and White pushes 3.e5 there are at least three options: the simplifying 3...d4, the French-like 3...Nfd7 and the die-hard 3...Ne4. If White exchanges on d5 Black has the choice between the solid ...c6, maintaning the knight in the center, and the dynamic ...Nb6.
In the Four Pawns alone, besides various piece setups and move orders Black can opt for in the main line, Black can go for the cutthroat Argunov with 5...dxe5 6.fxe5 c5 or the more positional Sergeev with 6...g6 (also playable on the 5th move). In the Argunov itself play can take on very different character depending whether Black plays ...Bb4, ...Bg4 or ...Qh4.
Finally, the Main Line 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 offers Black the choice between at least four different systems: the Old Main Line with 4...Bg4 5.Be2 e6, the Flohr-Agzamov with 5...c6; the Alburt with 4...g6 and the Kengis with 4...dxe5 5.Nxe5 g6, the latter outwardly similar to the Alburt but in practice plays like a kind of Caro-Kann where Black fianchettoes on the kingside. If four is not enough and Black feels adventuresome, there are two more options at his disposal: 4...Nc6 that obliges White to go for the critical e6 sacrifice lest he end up worse and Larsen's 4...dxe5 5.Nxe5 Nbd7 with the king-walk lines and the accompanying craziness.
Most of the above (and some I haven't mentioned) have different pawn structures as well along with wildly diverging styles of play that stem from them. You have structures that resemble the Pirc, the Benoni, the Caro-Kann, the French, a kind of Gruenfeld with a pawn on c2 rather than c4 (e.g. 2.Nc3 d5 3.e5 Ne4 4.d5 Nxc3 5.bxc3 g6) and several uniquely Alekhine formations like those arising in the Chase and the Four Pawns. There are some really oddball ones, like in the Planinc Four Pawns (5...g5) and the Alburt where White sacrifices a piece to get a fearsome c4-d5-e6 pawn wedge with the black f-pawn gone.
And to give the Berlin Defence as an example of complex opening theory? Deirdre, you're so out of your depth here I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. The volume of the theory on just the mainline Four Pawns is easily 4x that of the Berlin Defence, and I suppose you never heard of the SDO either? That's are two colossal, encyclopedia-like tomes on the Alekhine Defence released in Germany in the 80s -- and the theory has advanced by leaps and bounds since then. Just to give you an idea of the scope and depth of the analysis presented there: an offbeat line like 2...Ng8 (Brooklyn V) is given no less than a dozen pages of small print.
The main trouble with playing the Alekhine at master level and above is not the opening's dubious theoretical status or lack of complexity. The problem is that if White is bent on an a draw and obtaining a dreary symmetrical position there's little Black can do, unless he's prepared to run disproportionately high risks. The Exchange Variation is commonly cited as a sure way to minimize Black's counterplay, but White has in fact much simpler and safer alternatives at his disposal.
The most straightforward of them is 2.d3 aiming for a KIA/Reverse Old Indian/Reverse Philidor setup mentioned above -- after 2...e5 Black has no way to avoid it.
2.Nc3 d5 3.e5 Ne4 4.Nxe4 dxe4 5.d4 is another nightmare for an ambitious Alekhine player. There's little fun he can look forward after either 5...exd3 6.Bxd3 or (worse yet) 6.Qxd3 (the latter line prompted a woeful "Is this any way to use the white pieces?" remark in Burgess' definitive The Complete Alekhine book). There remains 5...Bf5 transposing into an obscure (and dubious) line of the French, but now the onus is on Black to justify his play. Sure, 3...Nfd7 and 3...d4 avoid all that (though the latter is not a particularly exciting alternative should White prove to be not in a fighting mood) but they are not the first choice of a die-hard Alekhine fan.
So no, LAnDL81, you're not nuts, just wasting your time in the wrong forum. Check out chesspub.com instead -- even if you're not a paying subscriber you can learn a tremendous lot by just reading the forums where players of master strength are the rule rather than an exception, well-known book authors are regular posters and the tolerance to noise is very low. You will find the Alekhine subforum in particular interesting, of course.
That was extremely well written and informative. Thank you very much for taking the time.
I'll check out chesspub.com.
It is a very double-edged opening. While having some theory, it is far less theory intensive than something like the Sicilian or French.
That is subject to debate. Playing the Black side of the Main Line or Exchange requires the knowledge of rather large volume of theory and numerous move-order subtleties; playing it by relying on general positional considerations will likely get you suffocated or slowly ground down. And a player who enters the Four Pawns Attack (on either side) not armed to the teeth with theory (we are talking about 20+ moves of theory in a multitude of lines) will most likely find his position smashed to pieces before move 20. Although, like in many ultra-sharp lines of the Sicilian, many such lines end in a draw by force they frequently give rise to hair-raising positions where it appears that a set of pieces has been randomly thrown on the board and general considerations play no role whatsoever.
One thing about unorthodox openings is that you should expect to do a lot of independent work if you want to play them well. Less published theory does not mean you have an easier task of preparation, especially if your position is harder to play than normal mainline openings. You may think it is easier if you're inexperienced, but it's an illusion. I remember banging my head against some problem lines for Black in the Benko. Although I moved to greener pastures with the Black pieces, the side effect of this was that I found some very effective lines with the White pieces.
Alekhine is an average type of opening. At club level it is fine.
It is a solid, hypermodern opening used by many top GMs of today. The idea is to let white occupy the center first as well as overextend - then launch a fierce attack against that center. If white doesn't know what they're doing, it's 0-1 fast enough to make their head spin. Very, very quickly. Here is a game of mine in the Alekhine that demonstrates how quickly white can be overwhelmed after overtextension of both pawns and pieces (french transposition):