What are people's thoughts on this?

For the unaware, it's 1.e4 Nf6, which I use as my main weapon as black. It's a useful surprise attack, notable for winning Fischer the 1972 World Championship. The basic principle is that Black is hoping to draw out White's pawns, leaving him over extended. The pawns are then targets and the rest of his forces defenceless. If things go wrong Black ends up crushed.

Of particular interest to me is the Planinc Variation of the Four Pawns Attack (the most Megalomaniacal line in the opening, and possibly the whole of chess). It goes 1.e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. c4 Nb6 5. f4 g5!? Ha ha! Set up a board with this position and have a look! An underminer's dream *not my phrasing but I can't remember who did say it*. The idea is to completely wrong foot White by destroying the entire pawn centre in one fell swoop - exactly what happens if the awful 6. fxg5? response turns up! 6. dxe5 is the book line, but apparently a more sober 6. Nc3 is viable.

The theory is low on this line at the moment, but I think it's something to consider - in the club I used to go to I prevented people using the 4 Pawns Attack against any Alekhine's because I was using the Planinc and beating people graded 400 points higher than me!

Hi Caissasdeathangel,
Just tried that in a quick test game, it worked drawing out the white pawns Will have to remember that one! Comp went e5, I replied Ne4, he went d3, and before I knew it he had 4 or 5 pawns drawn right out... went onto win that one

Will have to have a look at the other positions you posted
Steven

Don't play Ne4!

It's theoretically extremely bad! Yes your opponent blundered but that's because d3 isn't anywhere near a good move. 3.b4, as suggested by Chernov, is far better, although by playing totally against the way normal Alekhine's Defence lines are played according to Eric Schiller (Link) it's not quite as bad as reputed.

Even so, I can't recommend anything other than 2. Nd5.

Thanks Caissa's DeathAngel!
You sure know a lot about this! just makes me realise how much I have to learn I'll try the whole opening again, see how I get on this time,
Steven
PS thanks for the link there

There's not many openings I do know a huge amount of specific detail about, but Alekhine's is something I specialise in

I know that much of my chess knowledge is rather dated, but I think of that as the Cambridge Gambit (of the Alekhine Defense: Four Pawns Attack). Am I misinformed, recollecting from the perspective of a different region, or simply very dated?

I've never studied the White side of the opening purely because I don't want to believe it can be beaten hehe! I always just respond 2. Nc3, which is a famous line but I call it the Transposition Variation because it generally removes it from Alekhine's altogether - there's a large variety of openings it could then be turned into.

The "real" Alekhine's move is 2. e5 Nd5, and there's a number of lines from there. The Modern (3. d4 d6 4. Nf3) is probably the best of these, though all can be dangerous and I've lost a fair few to the Chase Variation (3. d4 d6 4. c4 Nb6 5. c5)


I'm astonished, but you're right! Yes, it would indeed appear that Nigel Davies's assertion that Planinc was responsible for that variation was wrong! I've never seen it referred to as the Cambridge Gambit, and it appears that Google lacks information on it, but it is indeed.

However, I can't actually find any real information on it, so it would appear it was largely untheorised until Planinc and Schirmer started using it. Actually it's still untheorised to a large degree, but that's something I'd love to see rectified.

It's an oppening that definately looks fun to play, if admittedly a bit stressful... for my own part, I don't know that much about the Alekhine's Defence, as I don't play it all that often. Nevertheless, this is an opening that definately looks to give black a dangerous attack though at the moment, I get the impression that if white can survive, white should come away with some advantage. However, once again, this is my first time seeing this opening so I only have my intution to base this assessment on.

Have never played it in an actual game, but it looks an enterprising opening - the other day i was looking in Schiller's unusual openings and stumbled upon the currently un-refuted shocker 1.e4, Nf6 2. e5, Ne4!!!!
Has an african name meaning a type of mythical beast but my memory confounds me of its name....

More like 2. ... Ne4?! if one is feeling particularly generous. Un-refuted? What is there to refute?

The only possible value I can see is to hope to psychologically shock your opponent sufficiently to cause him to play less well than normally...not normally a sound basis for determining one's opening play.