Talk:Alekhine's Defence

Alekhine Defence or Alekhine's Defence?

Alekhine Defence or Alekhine's Defence? Is one name more correct than the other? --Sonjaaa 20:04, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

ECO says Alekhine's, but both are generally accepted. --Fermatprime 20:23, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you’re an American, Alekhine’s Defense should be preferred to Alekhine’s Defence. Jeffreybarke (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Lasker attack

Does anyone know which one of the two Laskers invented the Lasker Alekhine Attack? The name should be linked, just to which one? Viruswitch 23:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've always known and read about it as the "Two pawn attack". If anybody gave Emanuel Lasker credit for it, it's probably for just one game, same as in the Lasker-Pelikan variation (now Sveshnikov variation) of the Sicilian. AFAIK, no opening name credits Edward Lasker. --Wfaxon 15:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It is probably named after Emanuel Lasker, but I can't be sure. MCO says that the Alekhine was embrased by the hypermodern school when he used it to defeat Maroczy in 1924. But the MCO-13 calls it the two pawns attack and has no Lasker games. Bubba73 (talk), 16:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This is probably the stem game (for the name, anyway): Em. Lasker v. Buchholtz, simultaneous exhibition, Copenhagen 1927, billed as an "Alekhine Defense: Hunt Variation. Lasker Simul Gambit" by www.chessgames.com. That reminded me that I've also seen "Hunt variation" used for 4.c5, and I think that might even be more popular than "Two pawn attack". (At least Google(tm) agrees...) I'm pretty sure the Lasker name would be associated only with the subvariation. --Wfaxon 17:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just made some changes to the article, and MCO uses "two pawns attack", so I changed it to that. If you're familiar with the opening, please check the article for errors. Bubba73 (talk), 18:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

4.c5 is also known as the "Chase variation". A lot of names for probably the worst of White's major lines. --Wfaxon 18:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

O'Sullivan's Gambit

Someone put it in a reference to a supposed "minor variation" called "O'Sullivan's Gambit" (1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 b5). I've been playing chess for 35 years and have never heard of this. It simply loses a pawn for no compensation (hence the "gambit") to 4.Bxb5. I used Opening Explorer (members-only) on chessgames.com to search that site's 471,000+ game database, and found zero examples of this "variation." Since the variation seems to be so minor as to be virtually nonexistent, I've deleted it as non-notable. (Cf. my deletion of the similarly unseen "King David Variation" of the Sicilian Defense, 1.e4 c5 2.Ke2?). Krakatoa (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, obviously I know nothing about chess. I Googled it (should have done that first) and there is actually a fair amount on this goofy gambit. I even ran across two games where near-2300 players played the gambit and scored 1.5/2 with it. So I've put it back. See [1]. Krakatoa (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible that the above edit on this wikipedia article has coined the name for the O'Sullivan's Gambit Chess opening? The only source I can find for this name older than this article comes from an anonymous forum post in 2002. It appears the person who wrote that forum post was mistaken on the details. O'Sullivan Gambit name was then mentioned in this article and Wikipedia is now the easily findable source for this name available online.

https://everything2.com/user/Dreamvirus/writeups/O%2527Sullivan+Gambit

I contacted the Irish Chess Union and they reviewed physical copies of the Irish Chess Journal from 1992/1993 and found no mention of the O'Sullivan Gambit or any chess player named O'Sullivan. There was a chess player in a tournament in 1947 named O'Sullivan, but that person played no games in Alekhine's defense in that event, let alone an "O'Sullivan Gambit"

Can anyone find a reputable source for the name of this opening that predates this entry? The source above points to a google search for the name.

Steiner Variation

Does anybody know anything about the Steiner Variation 1.e4 Nf6 2.d4 d5 3.c4, and does this merely transpose or does it have independent significance? 24.124.50.106 (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm... doesn't 2.d4? just lose the e-pawn? Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I don't know what User:24.124.50.106 is talking about. Essentially the only second moves that are ever seen among players of any stature are 2.e5, 2.Nc3, 2.d3, and 2.Bc4?! Everything else either loses a pawn or is silly (2.f3, 2.Qe2, 2.Bd3, 2.Qf3). Krakatoa (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I think the moves came out wrongly, googling this reveals the Steiner variation to be 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4.b3. This may have some significance, but I must admit that I haven't studied it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not even mentioned in Alburt and Schiller, The Alekhine for the Tournament Player (American Chess Promotions, 1985). Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, Volume B, Third Edition (1997), p. 28 n. 55 mentions a game Ljubjevic-Oney, Praia de Rocha 1978 (Chess Informant, Volume 26, game 152) that went 4...d6 5.exd6, and now ECO gives 5...Qxd6 6.d4 Nc6 7.Be3 Qg6= as analysis by Hort. If a 134-page specialty book on Alekhine's (Alburt and Schiller) doesn't mention the line, it would seem that it is obscure enough that it probably doesn't warrant inclusion in our article. Krakatoa (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Mokele Mbebe or Mokele Mbembe?

I have always heard of it being called 'Mokele Mbembe', is the other spelling used in the referenced work by Schiller? PeskyGnat (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It is spelled "Mokele Mbebe" twice in John L. Watson and Eric Schiller, The Big Book of Busts, p. 120, which attributes this name to Stefan Bücker. Krakatoa (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Schiller got it wrong, then. See Mokele-mbembe for what the variation is named after. 91.105.11.122 (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

chessgames.com

some of these openings seem to have links, on the main picture, to chess games.com, I was gonna delete it as it seem to just be advertising but is there some relevant reason for it being there? Broonsparrow (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Carlsen win

Magnus Carlsen used the defence to win a game recently (2009) Worth a mention?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 21:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure which game this is. The chessgames.com database (which is quite comprehensive for games at Carlsen's level) shows his last win with the Alekhine to be against Topalov in 2008 [2], and if I recall correctly, Topalov mishandled the opening and lost a pawn early on.

If it is this game, it might perhaps be mentioned in the coverage of the Miles (4.Nf3 dxe5 5.Nxe5 c6) line, but unless the game contributed to the theory of the opening, I don't think this is crucial. If the Alekhine were a very rare opening, GM usage of the line is worth a mention, but I don't think that is the case for this opening. Although 1...Nf6 is much rarer than 1...c5, 1...e5 and 1...e6, it is still played quite often and some grandmasters use it regularly. Maybe I'm a bit biased in favor of the Black side of the Alekhine as 1...Nf6 happens to be my main reply against 1.e4 (my first encounter with the Voronezh last month inspired me to expand that coverage a little), but I think the opening is respectable enough to prevent a super-GM Black win from being an event which demands mention in this article. Fischer's use of it against Spassky is already mentioned, and that event is far more notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

longest and shortest games

What is the significance of having the longest and shortest games of the variations? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• I see no real relevance, and I cannot really see reliable sourcing. A database can have an impressive number of games, but they only contain a fraction of what has ever been played, so trying to use it for making statistics over what games are longest or shortest is something I would be wary about. I will also think that the Brooklyn and Balogh variations are given far too much prominence in the article given that they are played so rarely. I would have condensed the content and put it into the "other lines" section. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Right. chessgames.com isn't really a reliable reference for anything, and absolutely can't be used to establish first use of a variation, number of uses in master play, winning percentages, etc. As you say, the Brooklyn and Balogh should be trimmed and moved into Other lines, probably with the diagrams axed as well. Quale (talk) 06:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I have changed my mind a bit on the 4.Bc4 Balogh Variation (but we need a source that calls this the Balogh Variation!). I used to think of this as an amateurs only line, but I looked it up in my chess books and I found that both Cox and Taylor devote some coverage to it, and when a strong Grandmaster plays it with success, it has some merit. I added a paragraph based on what I read there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
      • OK, I have moved the Brooklyn Defense into "other lines", and cut out much of the text (but I was able to remove many words while preserving most of the meaning.) The Balogh Variation has been moved down a few notches, behind the Modern Defense (4.Nf3), but still has its own section. The name "Balogh Variation" is not sourced, but I saw that it is called this here, so I'm won't complain about that anymore. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The Emory Tate Variation

The entire section is WP:OR. No reliable sources are provided demonstrating that this line is called "the Emory Tate Variation", and we can't promote that without a good source. A game on chessgames.com is completely unsatisfactory to support the claim that Tate was the first to play it. The claims about the aims of the variation and the nature of the game are not cited. The claim that the variation has had a "surge in popularity" is unsupported, and probably not really true ("surge" isn't a specific term, so you could argue that it has). The actual move that is associated with Tate is 5.Ra3. The article says that Tate was the first to play 4.a4 in a serious tournament game, and that is false. Probably the entire section should go. Quale (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• I looked up the line in Cox' book (Starting Out: Alekhine's Defence) and found 4.a4 covered in the chapter "Other Tries for White", under the heading "A Really Random Pawn Move". The line probably is worth mentioning, but I don't think it deserves a separate heading in the article since it would falsely imply that it is a variation on par with the much more common main lines. I have rewritten the text accordingly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Make this page easier to read

I feel as if it is quite taxing on the eyes to read this at length. Please cooperate and help make it easier to read by bolding all the chess notation, including the names of individual squares. --User:Brobotics Brofessor 12:47, 12 Sep 2017

Non-standard use in hundreds of existing WP:CHESS articles. Exceptions are game scores bolded against annotations, or main lines bolded against descriptive text. Excess bolding can be a detraction to an article's main points & organizational structure. Bolding s/ have limited use per MOS:BOLD guideline: "Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text." --IHTS (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Not in the source given

Statement The opening is named after Alexander Alekhine, who introduced it in the 1921 Budapest tournament in games against Endre Steiner[2] and Fritz Sämisch.[3] has two links that are simply recorded games in question. They do prove Alekhine did use this opening in aforementioned games, but nowhere do they say he introduced it. For all we know it may have been a common opening already, back then. --Nomad (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

[3]. Ok? --IHTS (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)