From: perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman)
Subject: Re: Alekhine Defense
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:32:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.082215.13181@jyu.fi> ako@jyu.fi (Antti Koponen) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.164426.19767@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul28.093723.12747@jyu.fi> ako@jyu.fi (Antti Koponen) writes:
>>>In article <1992Jul27.105407.36@swvcc.wvnet.edu> cc3@swvcc.wvnet.edu (Allen Farley) writes:
>>>>Hi!
>>>>
>>>>I'm posting this for a friend:
>>>>------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>What is white's best line against the Alekhine Defense (1. e4 Nf6)? I'd like to
>>>>use your responses in our club newsletter, with your permission of course.
>>>>
>>>>Tim
>>>>------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>Definetely 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 and +-
>>
>>If only life were so easy! 
>
>Well, I think Nf3 really is very dangerous for black, but of course I could
>have inserted :-)!

Actually, MHO is to agree with you; my opinion of the Alekhine's is not
so hot.  However, I was just being a bit more careful, since I'm by no
means an expert on it.  It should be noted that according to some
discussions I've been having with Mark Ginsburg via email, GM praxis
backs up a rather large White edge in the Nf3 lines; he's sending me
some stuff through the USnail and I will post a review after I read
that.

>>While I don't play the Alekhine as Black (my own repertoire tends
>>towards the French, Sicilian, Petroff, and a few other lines against
>>1.e4), I don't think it's yet possible to say that it's been refuted.
>
>Of course not. But it certainly offers white good chances. I myself
>really like the opening but Nf3..... :-(

No argument.  My own repertoire, as I mentioned, doesn't include the
Alekhine (so you can guess my personal opinion).

>>While in one postal game I'm involved in I'm using that line, it's still
>>at move 5, so no comment yet.
>>
>>Anyone who's interested should definitely see Lev Alburt's book on the
>>subject; also, there is a 1977 Chess Digest pamphlet which isn't too
>>bad, but isn't nearly as good as Alburt's work (Alburt uses the Alekhine
>>as virtually his only reply to 1.e4).
>
>I think Alburts book is not very impressive. It thinks blacks changes too
>highly and has been written without much effort. Much better books are
>Burgess: Complete Alekhine (New!!! Batsford) and a german 1200 pages long 
>bible printed in the end of 1980's. It is most throghout book ever made
>on any opening!!!

Is this the same Graham Burgess who wrote a book last year on the
Classical KID?  If so, I would add a cautious endorsement of the work,
for his book on the KID is absolutely first-class.  One of the problems
with Alburt's book is that it is written from the viewpoint of a player
who has, for over a decade, dogmatically used the Alekhine, despite
disappointing results with it.  True, he catches a number of players out
on it, and has come up with numerous innovations and improvements, but
one need only recall his results in the matches vs. Short.

>Alburt by the way has had very hard times with the opening. According to a
> statistics in  NIC he has had less than 40 % with his favourite g6-system.
>(the usual white percent is 55.6) Other systems for black aren't much better.
>Kengis's 4.-de 5.Nxe5 g6 ia among the best bets.

I haven't seen those particular statistics, not being a NIC subscriber,
but they don't terribly surprise me either, Antti.  Gracias.

-- 
"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
     Eric S. Perlman  <perlman@qso.colorado.edu> or <eric@lyra.Colorado.EDU> 
  Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder