Dear Mr. Silman,

One of the main lines of the “Alburt” Alekhine goes 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 g6 5.Bc4 Nb6 6.Bb3 Bg7 and now, with 7.Ng5 having fallen somewhat from grace, 7.Qe2 Nc6 8.h3 0-0 9.0-0 a5 10.a4 dxe5 11.dxe5 Nd4 12.Nxd4 Qxd4 13.Re1.

WHITE IS HAPPY

But what about playing the same way as black before both sides castle: 8…a5 9.a4 dxe5 10.dxe5 Nd4 11.Nxd4 Qxd4 and whoops ... White has no Re1!

NOT AS HAPPY AS BEFORE

I guess White has to try and exploit the move order either by not answering a5 with a4 (seems dubious) or making some kind of e6 sac work – but I can’t see anything convincing.

SILMAN REPLIES: Though I toyed with Alekhine’s defense in the days of the dinosaurs (playing it successfully on several occasions), my knowledge of modern Alekhine theory is sorely lacking. Nevertheless, I’ll do my best to answer, hoping that my ignorance doesn’t shine through too much.

The position after 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 g6 5.Bc4 Nb6 6.Bb3 Bg7 7.Qe2 Nc6 8.h3 a5 9.a4 dxe5 10.dxe5 Nd4 11.Nxd4 Qxd4 is fine for Black (as you suggest) since, after 12.f4 Nd5 13.Bxd5 Qxd5 14.Nc3 Qc6 15.Be3 0–0, the second player will ultimately set his people free with a timely …f7-f6.

However, this happy Black result is made possible by White’s inaccurate move order. You gave 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 g6 5.Bc4 Nb6 6.Bb3 Bg7 7.Qe2 Nc6 8.h3 0-0 9.0-0 a5 10.a4, but most top level games feature the following, far better, order of moves: 7.a4 a5 (Alburt’s sharp 7…dxe5 is very interesting, but it’s now generally considered favorable for White after 8.a5 N6d7 9.Bxf7+! Kxf7 10.Ng5+ Kg8 11.Ne6 Qe8 12.Nxc7 Qd8 13.Nxa8 exd4 14.0-0 Nc6 15.c3 Nc5 16.b4. Of course, these lines are extremely complex and new ideas are likely waiting to be discovered.) 8.Qe2 Nc6 (8…0-0 9.h3 leads to a somewhat passive position for Black) 9.0-0 dxe5 10.dxe5 Nd4 11.Nxd4 Qxd4 and we get the critical position.

CRITICAL POSITION

White has two ways to play for an advantage:

1) 12.e6!? Bxe6 13.Bxe6 fxe6 14.Qxe6 Qc4 15.Qxc4 Nxc4 16.Ra2 Rf8 17.b3 Nd6 18.Ba3 when White, in Van der Wiel - Santo Roman, Cannes 1992, had a little something thanks to his superior pawn structure and managed to massage his edge to victory.

WHITE HAS A “LITTLE SOMETHING”

For those interested, here’s the conclusion: 18…Rf5 19.c4 Bf6 20.Re2 Re5 21.Rxe5 Bxe5 22.Nd2 Rd8 23.Nf3 Bf6 24.Rd1 Nf5 25.Rxd8+ Kxd8 26.g4 Nd4 27.Nxd4 Bxd4 28.Kf1 e5 29.f3 Kd7 30.Ke2 Ke6 31.Kd3 b6 32.Ke4 Bg1 33.h3 Bf2 34.Bb2 Bg3 35.c5 Bh2 36.Bc3 Bg3 37.Ba1 Bh2 38.Bb2 Bg3 39.Bc3 Bh2 40.Be1 Bg1 41.cxb6 cxb6 42.Bg3 Bd4 43.Bh2 g5 44.Bg3 h6 45.Be1 Bc5 46.h4 Be7 47.hxg5 hxg5 48.Bc3 Bf6 49.b4 axb4 50.Bxb4 Bd8 51.Be1 Be7 52.Bf2 Bc5 53.Bxc5 bxc5 54.a5 Kd6 55.Kd3 Kd5 56.Kc3 Kd6 57.Kc4 Kc6 58.a6 Kb6 59.a7 Kxa7 60.Kxc5, 1–0.

2) 12.Re1 when 12…0–0 gives White an easy advantage: 13.Nc3 e6 14.Nb5 Qc5 15.Qe3 Qe7 16.Qg3 Bd7 17.Bg5 Qb4 18.Nc3 Bc6 19.Rad1 Rfe8 20.h4 h5 21.Rd3 Rac8 22.Red1 Qc5 23.Bf6 Bh6 24.Rd4 Ra8 25.Kh2 Rac8 26.f4 Kh7 27.Qd3 Rg8 28.Rg1, 1–0, P Wells – A Silva, Oviedo 1993. Since 12…0-0 fails to please, Black’s best try is 12…Bg4 and now:

2.a) 13.Qe3 Qxe3 14.Bxe3 Nd7 15.f4 (15.h3!? Bf5 16.Bd4) 15…g5 16.Nc3 gxf4 17.Bxf4 Nc5 18.Nd5 Ne6 (Avoiding 18…Nxb3 19.Ra3!? [White doesn’t get much from 19.cxb3 Rc8 20.Nf6+ Bxf6 21.exf6 Be6] 19…Nc5 20.Nxc7+ Kd7 21.Nxa8 Rxa8 22.Rg3 h5 23.h3 Ne6 24.hxg4 Nxf4 25.gxh5 Bh6 26.Rb3 (It seems that 26.Rd1+ Ke6 27.Rb3 is the only way for White to try for anything in this position.) 26…Rg8! 27.Rxb7+ Kc6 28.Rxe7 Nxg2! 29.Rb1 Be3+ when White is suddenly being kicked around by Black three rabid pieces.) 19.Bg3 Rd8 20.c3 Bh6 21.Ne3 Bxe3+ 22.Rxe3 Rd2 was less than nothing for White in Bologan - Santo Roman, Belfort 1993.

LESS THAN NOTHING FOR WHITE

2.b) 13.Be3 Bxe2 14.Bxd4 Bc4 15.Bxb6 Bxb3 16.cxb3 cxb6 17.Nd2 was recommended by Nigel Davies in his 2001 book ALEKHINE’S DEFENSE (click HERE to see Bauer’s review).

THUMBS UP FROM DAVIES

It’s easy to see what Davies liked (i.e., powerful Knight on c4 defending e5 and attacking b6), but Santo Roman, who plays this line of the Alekhine for Black whenever he can, made a claim for survival (in the game Palac - Santo Roman, Cannes 2000) by 17...0–0–0 18.Nc4 Rd3 19.Rac1 (Finkel pointed out 19.Nxb6+, which he said gave Black more problems. Even so, he claimed equality after 19...Kb8 20.Nc4 Rhd8 21.Nxa5 R8d5 22.Nc4 Rxb3.) 19…Kb8 20.Rc3 Rhd8 21.f4 e6 22.Nxb6 Bf8 23.Kf1 (23.Rxd3 Rxd3 24.Rc1 Bb4 25.Rc8+ Ka7 26.Nc4 Rxb3 27.Rc7 Ka6 28.Rxf7 b5 29.axb5+ Kxb5, =, is an important line that shows the kind of counterplay Black is seeking. Analysis by Finkel.) 23...Bb4 24.Rxd3 Rxd3 25.Rc1 Rxb3, ½–½.

Though Black drew the game, and though Finkel claims equality, it all looks a bit worrisome for Black to me, and the position after 17.Nd2 (or 17.Na3) remains (in my opinion) promising for White.

2.c) 13.Qf1 is also very important. J Benjamin - Santo Roman, Cannes 1992 continued Nd7 (13…Bxe5 14.Nc3 Bg7 15.Bg5 e5 16.h3 Bf5 17.Rad1 Qc5 18.Qb5+ Qxb5 19.Nxb5 0–0 20.g4 Bc8 21.Nxc7 Rb8 22.Be7 Na8 23.Bxf8 Kxf8 24.Rd8+ Ke7 25.Re8+ Kd7 26.Rg8 Bf6 27.Nd5, 1–0, Lobzhanidze – Reinemer, Helmond 2001.) 14.Nc3 Nxe5 15.Nb5 Qd7 16.Bf4 c6 17.Bxe5 Bxe5 18.Rxe5 cxb5 19.h3 Bf5 20.Rd1 (Also strong is 20.Qe2) 20…Qc6 21.Rxb5 0–0 22.c3 Qc7 23.Qe2 Rfd8 24.Rxd8+ Rxd8 and Black had equalized.

I’m left wondering, though, what happens if White tries 21.Rde1! (instead of 21.Rxb5).

WHAT DOES BLACK DO HERE?

After 21.Rde1, a quiet point of White’s move is demonstrated if Black plays 21…0-0: 22.Qxb5 Qxb5 23.Rxb5 and the key defense with …Be4 (defending b7) is no longer available. This leaves us with 21...e6, though 22.g4 then appears to be a simple case of Armageddon.

Overall I must admit that this whole line of the Alekhine seems an uphill battle from Black’s perspective. Santo Roman continues to defend its honor, but it’s not a pleasant job.