Answers.Body: <p>The moves 1.e4 Nf6 were played before Alekhine (analyzed by Allgaier in 1819), but Alekhine popularized it.  Alexander Alekhine first played this defense at Budapest in September 1921 against Saemisch and E. Steiner.</p>
  <p>By May 1922 it was being called the Alekhine’s Defense by Sir George Thomas in the British Chess Magazine.  Also in May 1922, Hans Fahrni wrote the first monograph on the opening, calling it Die Aljechin-Verteidigung.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-02-21T23:51:43.577Z
Answers.Text: As I've mentioned on other posts of yours before, please don't copy verbatim from somewhere else without attribution. It's plain not cool. http://www.chess.com/chessopedia/view/alekhines-defense
Answers.UserDisplayName: ETD
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-02-22T00:14:25.907Z
Answers.Text: @EdDean - I am trying to find the original source of it. I don't believe that is it.
Answers.UserDisplayName: xaisoft
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-02-22T04:55:54.987Z
Answers.Text: @EdDean - Chill out. I didn't actually get my info from there, so you are citing an incorrect source. I got mine from here: http://us.share.geocities.com/wallw_99/trivia5.htm under the Alekhine's Defense.  I also don't understand when you say "posts".  There was one other post were I initially forgot to put the link.  Don't make it seem as if I do this on multiple posts. That is not plain cool.
Answers.UserDisplayName: xaisoft
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-02-22T05:58:55.040Z
Answers.Text: The fact that I care about the lifting of other people's words doesn't mean that I am anything less than perfectly chill. (I assure you, anyone who knows me would describe me as "robotic" long before "hot-headed.") I think my pointing this matter out is perfectly fair, because it's the kind of thing that shouldn't happen once, and despite your protestation above, you have in fact omitted attributions more than once before on this site. Off the top of my head, see revision 3 of http://chess.stackexchange.com/posts/726/revisions, and my comment to http://chess.stackexchange.com/a/1104/167.
Answers.UserDisplayName: ETD
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-02-22T06:20:36.210Z
Answers.Text: I put the citation there.  As I already said, I did not get it from the link you posted, but from the one I did.
Answers.UserDisplayName: xaisoft
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-02-22T06:42:58.523Z
Answers.Text: *Which* site you happened to see these words at was never my concern, and also completely irrelevant. I'd wager that neither of the sites we linked to were the true origin of these words either; unfortunately, it's hard to tell, *precisely because of the lack of proper attribution* by some other party. My only point in giving any link at all was that the post above clearly wasn't original, and that such things should be made clear. That's the sum total of my interest in the matter.
Answers.UserDisplayName: ETD
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-02-23T20:21:53.603Z
Answers.Text: Why don't we continue this discussion in chat?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tom Au
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-02-21T22:11:54.370Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-11-26T19:29:26.017Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2022-11-26T19:29:26.017Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: xaisoft
Answers.Body: <p>You're right in that white <em>seems</em> to have a good game. But in reality, not much more than that. Black continues with 4. ...d6, and can go into many variations such as the optimistic, but shaky Four Pawns Attack with 5.f4, Exchange variation with 5.dxe6, where black can respond by taking with either pawn, and will usually follow up with a kingside fiancetto if he takes back with the c-pawn. Of course, there are other variations such as the Balogh, Two pawns attack, Two Knights variation, Scandinavian variation, Modern variation (perhaps the most challenging), etc. Look them up if you wish. Black's basic idea is to get white to over-extend his center, creating targets in the form of pawns and the weaknesses left in the pawns' wake, and then undermine those weaknesses with pieces. Again, white <em>seems</em> to have a good game because of the classic space advantage in the centre. BUT, that's black's plan - The Alekhine Defence is a hypermodern idea, so black voluntarily gives up the centre in the opening, just to challenge it later on from the sides.</p>
  
  <p>According to chessgames.com, the <a href="http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessopening?eco=B02">Alekhine's Defence</a> has a win rate of 33.4% for black, which is very, very respectable; especially when compared to other very highly respected openings such as the <a href="http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessopening?eco=B10">Caro Kann</a>, <a href="http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessopening?eco=C00">French</a>, <a href="http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessopening?eco=B90">Najdorf</a> etc.</p>
  
  <p>I don't know if Alekhine himself won tournaments using <em>just</em> this defence, but here are a few games where he successfully employed it against strong opponents: <a href="http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1012190">Bogoljubov</a>, <a href="http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1012284">Maroczy</a>, <a href="http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1096590">Mieses</a>, and a lesser known, but still strong <a href="http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1012447">Sergeant</a>. The last game is a famous positional crush featured in a book I have on the Alekhine Defence.</p>
  
  <p>Besides Alekhine, many world champions have employed it throughout history, such as Capablanca, Euwe, Tal, Bronstein, Fischer (remember the famous <a href="http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1128889">Spassky vs.Fischer 1972</a> game?), Smyslov, Petrosian, Spassky, etc. Even Carlsen has employed it now and then as a surprise weapon. Check out <a href="http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1485919">Carlsen vs. Topalov</a>.</p>
  
  <p>To conclude, I don't think its possible for anyone to answer <strong>why</strong> Alekhine introduced this defence (<em>if</em> he did), and what merits <strong>he</strong> saw. However, he must have certainly judged it to be a playable opening that matched his style (aggressive). But as I've outlined, it has become a formidable surprise weapon over time, and is even used nowadays at the very top level in <a href="http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1688935">major tournaments</a>.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-02-22T07:19:21.043Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-02-22T07:19:21.043Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: chubbycantorset
Body: <p>Alekhine, a world champion, has his name on the defense Nf6 in response to White's e4. But after e.g. 2. e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4. d4, White seems to have a good game. </p>
  
  <p>Did Alekhine win any notable games (or tournaments) using this defense? Did he publish any books or papers successfully defending this line? What did he see as its merits? </p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-02-21T21:30:11.553Z
Comments.Text: 1...Nf6 was certainly not Alekhine's standard response to 1.e4; he he usually replied 1...e5. You can see Alekhine responses to 1. e4 here: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer?pid=10240&side=black&node=21720&move=1.5&moves=e4&nodes=21720. I think the opening is named after him because he was the first big player to use it, but I am not sure that even he himself considered best.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Akavall
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-02-23T20:20:02.367Z
Comments.Text: @Akakvall: OK, it seems like the "Alekhine Defense" was named after him almost "by accident," not because he used it a lot or was exceptionally successful with it. That's what I wanted to find out.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Tom Au
Tags: <opening><alekhines-defense><alekhine>
Title: Why is the Alekhine Defense named after Alekhine?
ThreadText: # Why is the Alekhine Defense named after Alekhine?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2013-02-21)
  
  Alekhine, a world champion, has his name on the defense Nf6 in response to White's e4. But after e.g. 2. e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4. d4, White seems to have a good game.
  
  Did Alekhine win any notable games (or tournaments) using this defense? Did he publish any books or papers successfully defending this line? What did he see as its merits?
  
  **Tags:** opening, alekhines-defense, alekhine
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: 1...Nf6 was certainly not Alekhine's standard response to 1.e4; he he usually replied 1...e5. You can see Alekhine responses to 1. e4 here: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer?pid=10240&side=black&node=21720&move=1.5&moves=e4&nodes=21720. I think the opening is named after him because he was the first big player to use it, but I am not sure that even he himself considered best.  
  > **username_0**: @Akakvall: OK, it seems like the "Alekhine Defense" was named after him almost "by accident," not because he used it a lot or was exceptionally successful with it. That's what I wanted to find out.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2013-02-22. Score: 13 | Accepted answer
  
  You're right in that white *seems* to have a good game. But in reality, not much more than that. Black continues with 4. ...d6, and can go into many variations such as the optimistic, but shaky Four Pawns Attack with 5.f4, Exchange variation with 5.dxe6, where black can respond by taking with either pawn, and will usually follow up with a kingside fiancetto if he takes back with the c-pawn. Of course, there are other variations such as the Balogh, Two pawns attack, Two Knights variation, Scandinavian variation, Modern variation (perhaps the most challenging), etc. Look them up if you wish. Black's basic idea is to get white to over-extend his center, creating targets in the form of pawns and the weaknesses left in the pawns' wake, and then undermine those weaknesses with pieces. Again, white *seems* to have a good game because of the classic space advantage in the centre. BUT, that's black's plan - The Alekhine Defence is a hypermodern idea, so black voluntarily gives up the centre in the opening, just to challenge it later on from the sides.
  
  According to chessgames.com, the [Alekhine's Defence](http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessopening?eco=B02) has a win rate of 33.4% for black, which is very, very respectable; especially when compared to other very highly respected openings such as the [Caro Kann](http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessopening?eco=B10), [French](http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessopening?eco=C00), [Najdorf](http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessopening?eco=B90) etc.
  
  I don't know if Alekhine himself won tournaments using *just* this defence, but here are a few games where he successfully employed it against strong opponents: [Bogoljubov](http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1012190), [Maroczy](http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1012284), [Mieses](http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1096590), and a lesser known, but still strong [Sergeant](http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1012447). The last game is a famous positional crush featured in a book I have on the Alekhine Defence.
  
  Besides Alekhine, many world champions have employed it throughout history, such as Capablanca, Euwe, Tal, Bronstein, Fischer (remember the famous [Spassky vs.Fischer 1972](http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1128889) game?), Smyslov, Petrosian, Spassky, etc. Even Carlsen has employed it now and then as a surprise weapon. Check out [Carlsen vs. Topalov](http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1485919).
  
  To conclude, I don't think its possible for anyone to answer **why** Alekhine introduced this defence (*if* he did), and what merits **he** saw. However, he must have certainly judged it to be a playable opening that matched his style (aggressive). But as I've outlined, it has become a formidable surprise weapon over time, and is even used nowadays at the very top level in [major tournaments](http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1688935).
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2013-02-21. Score: 1
  
  The moves 1.e4 Nf6 were played before Alekhine (analyzed by Allgaier in 1819), but Alekhine popularized it. Alexander Alekhine first played this defense at Budapest in September 1921 against Saemisch and E. Steiner.
  
  By May 1922 it was being called the Alekhine’s Defense by Sir George Thomas in the British Chess Magazine. Also in May 1922, Hans Fahrni wrote the first monograph on the opening, calling it Die Aljechin-Verteidigung.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_3**: As I've mentioned on other posts of yours before, please don't copy verbatim from somewhere else without attribution. It's plain not cool. http://www.chess.com/chessopedia/view/alekhines-defense  
  > **username_2**: @EdDean - I am trying to find the original source of it. I don't believe that is it.  
  > **username_2**: @EdDean - Chill out. I didn't actually get my info from there, so you are citing an incorrect source. I got mine from here: http://us.share.geocities.com/wallw_99/trivia5.htm under the Alekhine's Defense.  I also don't understand when you say "posts".  There was one other post were I initially forgot to put the link.  Don't make it seem as if I do this on multiple posts. That is not plain cool.  
  > **username_3**: The fact that I care about the lifting of other people's words doesn't mean that I am anything less than perfectly chill. (I assure you, anyone who knows me would describe me as "robotic" long before "hot-headed.") I think my pointing this matter out is perfectly fair, because it's the kind of thing that shouldn't happen once, and despite your protestation above, you have in fact omitted attributions more than once before on this site. Off the top of my head, see revision 3 of http://chess.stackexchange.com/posts/726/revisions, and my comment to http://chess.stackexchange.com/a/1104/167.  
  > **username_2**: I put the citation there.  As I already said, I did not get it from the link you posted, but from the one I did.  
  > **username_3**: *Which* site you happened to see these words at was never my concern, and also completely irrelevant. I'd wager that neither of the sites we linked to were the true origin of these words either; unfortunately, it's hard to tell, *precisely because of the lack of proper attribution* by some other party. My only point in giving any link at all was that the post above clearly wasn't original, and that such things should be made clear. That's the sum total of my interest in the matter.  
  > **username_0**: Why don't we continue this discussion in chat?  
  
  ---
  
  