Taylor Kingston wrote:

On Nov 22, 1:50 am, "help bot" wrote:

In addition to, perhaps, not liking to defend, it should
be noted that, in his prime, Alekhine had little *need*
to defend. No doubt some exceptions could be found,
but for example in his book "My Best Games of Chess",
Alekhine rarely was on the defensive.

Of course! That particular sample is biased.

Are you trying to suggest that the author was biased,
pro-Alekhine, or against him? Maybe he was just
jealous of Alekhine's amazing skill.


It's a bit like saying
"In games that they won, the Boston Red Sox were rarely outscored."


Only the games which they won by forfeit show them
being "outscored" by the loser. Steroids, pine-tar bats,
spitballs -- that sort of thing. Come to think of it, even
outright cheating seems to be okay in baseball, almost
never resulting in a forfeit. No wonder the game is so
popular here.


For a "best games" collection Alekhine was not about to include any games
showing him losing a defensive battle.

With so many brilliant wins, surely he could afford
to toss in a couple of losses. I don't remember, but
this would easy to check -- even for me.


Heck, at times he'd even change
the moves to show himself winning faster than he actually did.


I have read plenty of comments to that effect, as well
as references to a book by Dr. Nunn on this. But it
should be noted that GM Nunn needed Fritz in order
to find his improvements, and were Alekhine alive
today, he would not even know what Fritz is, let alone
need it for analysis help. Give the man a bottle of Jim
Beam, and he requires nothing more than a chess board
to analyse GM Nunn's games. So who is the real GM
here?


But it's quite true that in his prime Alekhine was rarely on the
defensive. Few players were so insistent on, and successful at, gaining
the initiative early in the game.


I wish I had said that; you're a very insightful guy. (Let me
guess: IM Innes told you Alekhine was a world champ?)


Having shifted to a new position, Mr. Kingston has yet
to provide *any* substantive support for the idea that
Alekhine was starved for ideas in classical "style"
positions, instead, suggesting I read some book.

I realize, Greg, that it might be a novel experience for you actually
to read something thoroughly before passing judgement on it, but you
might find it refreshing. The Coles book is still widely available in
the second-hand market. I highly recommend it. Even if you don't agree
with everything Coles says, you will probably find it a very
interesting read. If, after having read it, you still want to discuss
it, let me know.


Unlike Mr. Kingston, I do not require another party
to do my thinking for me. In this case, I have come to
the conclusion that the quote selected by Taylor Kingston
is nonsense, for Alekhine was never in a desert, regardless
of the type of position. If I were to *look* for players who
were lost in a desert, lacking creative ideas, the last place
on earth I might check would be Alekhine's grave. I won't
even bother to list the countless players who appear higher
on the "desert" list than Alekhine; suffice it to say that he is
near the very bottom. Geographically speaking, I place him
somewhere in the middle of the Pacific ocean -- on the
farthest side of the planet from the Sahara. (Note that I may
well be positioned somewhere in North Africa, in a tiny oasis
near the edge of the desert.)


In reply, may I suggest TK read Alekhine's book, instead
of relying upon Mr. Coles to *do his thinking for him*.
Just an idea. It's a thick book, and in truth, the most
boring games therein may well be the Queen's Indians,
which just happen to be hypermodern in style! :D

Which Alekhine book would you suggest?

How I Demolished Nimzowitch (and other Hypermoderns)
by Cardoza.

Playing to Win, by Batsford

Beating the Human Chess Machine, by Chess Digest

How to Beat Bobby Fischer and Kasparov, by Future
Publishing

My Best Games of Chess, by Dover

My Best Games of Chess, vol. II (yes, he's THAT good)

Euwe Was Just Lucky, by Whiner Press

Bogolyubov, Man or Myth?, by Slaughterhouse Publishing

My Defense (1.P-K4 N-KB3!), self-published

How to Defeat Anyone* at Chess, by Batsford
(*anyone except Em. Lasker, that is)


Decades ago I bought and read
through both his best games collections (1908-23 and 1924-37). Those
same old copies still sit on my shelf now.
Some years ago I acquired and reviewed "Alexander Alekhine's Chess
Games, 1902-1946" (McFarland, 1998), which has every game he ever
played that survives -- over 2,500 of them. Looking at its openings
index, the most frequently played openings a

1. QGD Orthodox -- about 335 games
2. Ruy Lopez -- 330
3. French Defense -- 240
4. Other symmetrical QP -- 175
5. Sicilian -- 165
6. QGD Slav/Semi-Slav -- 125
7. Nimzo-Indian -- 100
8-9. Caro-Kann -- 90
8-9. Vienna Game -- 90
10. Queen's Indian -- 70

It would be interesting to weed out the choices made
by his opponents, leaving only the choices indicating
Alekhine's own openings preferences. For example,
1.e4 c6 leads to a Caro-Kan, yet if Alekhine had White
this in no way implies that he prefered that opening;
rather, it indicates that his opponent did.

-- help bot