Against 1.e4, Alekhine's or Nimzovich Defence?

Against 1.e4, Alekhine's (1...Nf6) or Nimzowitsch (1...Nc6) ?

Alekhine's Defence: Grandmaster Nick de Firmian observes of Alekhine's in MCO-15 (2008), "The game immediately loses any sense of symmetry or balance, which makes the opening a good choice for aggressive fighting players."

Nimzowitsch Defence:  Garry Kasparov and GM Raymond Keene wrote that it "It is sound and offers the maverick spirit a great deal of foreign territory to explore."

I used the Nimzowitsch Defence extensively and exclusively from 1975-1988. Generally you have a struggle against anyone rated OTB 2000 and above. Thats why I gave it up and started playing the Dragon. I had pretty good results with it when I played lower rated players. I have the opinion thats Alekhine's D is better at all levels while the Nimzo has a "ceiling" where its better to play something else. Of course, I still struggle with the Dragon against anyone above 2000 but I feel that I have better chances.

Nimzowitch defense is a very playable opening but also a very inflexible one. 

This is why the opening is inflexible:

I liked the Kennedy variation in The Nimzo uf White complies, but it's too easy to transpose to other stuff, so I do't play it anymore:

Alekhine's Defence.

It's all I play OTB.  You may have to get a bit creative sometimes to get counter play but it throws almost every white player out of his/her game. 

alekhines! it's better

go alekhines!(I would prefer pirc though)

Both are junk.  White has numerous options against the Alekhine, and the Exchange and Classical both are very strong for White!

Pirc?  You'd never get it against me.  Better be ready for a Kings Indian (3...g6) or Old Indian (3...e5) because I will play 3.f3, heading for a Saemisch setup.

Stronger are 1...e5, 1...e6, 1...c5, and 1...c6, in no particular order.  Whichever one of these four you personally understand best is the best answer to e4.  For me?  That is 1...e6.

beware of anyone calling an opening junk without reasons (as in actual lines!) why.

Both are fine but very defeat beasts. Nimzowitsch is far more flexible but flexibility is not always a good thing. As someone said above, the main annoyance is 1.e4 nc6 2.nf3  which gives black a bunch of choices, but only 2 (and MAYBE a 3rd) are decent (namely 2.d6 but played a specific way, transposing with 1.e5 and perhaps e6 are satisfactory.

Alekhine is a lot like the Scandinavian in that black tries to reduce the amount of lines and formations at their disposal to get a very specific branch of positions (all defenses do this but those two really reduce possibilities) If you like the specific positions you get in the alekhine, go for it, although they are not to everyone's taste and you dont equalize as quickly as with the most popular defenses.

Ok, I gave you actual lines.  The Exchange and the Classical.  Both are far stronger for White!

Just curious, the Alekhine's is pretty solid. What system/moves do you recommend for white against the Alekhine?

he already told it...

Already answered twice.  Reread posts 7 and 9.

But what is the classical? I know the exchange pretty well (as an Alekhine player myself) but have never heard of the classical.

I guess he meant this variation :

Which is just the beginning of many possible lines...

Theory calls it the modern variation, not the classical, but whatever...

Poucin is always a stickler for opening names  

My preferred variation against modern:

No, the line 4.Nf3 is the Classical.

The "Modern Variation" is a sub-variation of the Classical (how ironic of a name).  The Classical is the entire 4.Nf3 complex.  The Modern Variation is specifically 4...dxe5.

For example, 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 Bg4 and 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 g6 are NOT the Modern Variation (I don't give 2 hoots what Chess.com calls it, Chess.com doesn't know how to define openings - Case in point, 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 is NOT the "Sicilian, French Variation".  There is no French Variation.  Clearly one of the interns was hired to name openings here.  But again, ONLY 4...dxe5 is the Modern Variation!

Well, I've just checked on books I have for black side.

Timothy Taylor calls it the modern variation in Alekhine Alert, same for Lev Alburt in The Alekhine for the tournament player, and Bogdanov in Play the Alekhine.

However, John Cox in Starting out the Alekhine, calls it both the classical and the modern, but is he really an Alekhine specialist compared to the authors given above?

It is true that 4.Nf3 dxe5 is the modern way to play as black but I would trust specialists...

And in Nigel Davies' book

Ch 1 - Classical with 4...Bg4

Ch 2 - Classical Kegnis System 4...dxe5 5.Nxe5 g6

Ch 3 - Classical with ...

Greet, in Beating Unusual Chess Defenses 1.e4 just calls it the "Main Line", not the Classical or Modern, referring to 4...dxe5 as being what has taken over as the Main line and 4...Bg4 as the old main line.

And in Alekhine Defense A Complete Guide, it has no name.  It is 4.Nf3.

So 0 for 3 at "Modern Variation".  One for Classical, one for Main Line, one for 4.Nf3.

If anything, the specialists amongst these are the ones that call it "4.Nf3".

So there!  The Davies book seems to be a little Black biased, but in general, I am obviously going to be owning the non-black biased books because there is so much better out there than this garbage.  Only side I play of the Alekhine is White.  Why play 1...Nf6 when you've got 1...e5, 1...c5, 1...e6, and 1...c6, all of which are better?

I might also add that not only is the Chetverik and Kalinichenko the only real "objective" book (others are Black or White biased), but I just thumbed through pages 313 to the end of the book, which covers 4.Nf3, and in 39 games (Games 62 thru 100), the score is terrible for Black.  TERRIBLE!  Which just goes to validate post 7!

Draws?  8

Black wins? 6

The rest are wins for White!  25 wins in 39 games!  Combined with the 8 draws, that's a 74% score!

In fact, he scores bad almost across the board!  In the "objective" book, Black scores well in the Scandinavian Variation (2.Nc3 d5), and about even in the Two Pawn Attack (a.k.a. the Chase Variation), but the 4.Nf3, Exchange, and even the Four Pawns, Black's score is horrible!  Now, admittedly, the Four Pawns is on a smaller sample size of 11 games with 3 draws and 2 wins for Black, only a 68% score for White.

But the message is clear.  White plays 3.d4, Black's in trouble.  White avoids 2.e5 and 3.d4, like 2.Nc3 or the Two-Pawn attack, Black has everything he could possibly want and probably more!

Observing all games where White plays 3.d4 (Games 29 thru 100, 72 games total), Black gets 16 draws and 13 wins.  A resounding 29.166 percent score!

Include games in the Introduction that include 3.d4 (or a transposition to it, like 3.c4 Nb6 4.d4), and Black's numbers go up slightly as you tack on a win for White, a draw, and 2 Black wins (Games 2, 7, 8, 9).  That is still, across 76 games, 17 draws and 15 wins.  Congrats, you've upped your score to just shy of 31%!

A 69 percent score across a large sample size is enough to say that the Alekhine is weak, but it's only weak if White plays an early d4.

In the 18 games covered where does does not play d4 (Games 11 to 28), Black scores 7 wins and 7 draws to only 4 losses, a resounding 58.3%, but across a small sample size (less than 30, which is normally considered the standard in Statistics), but even so, it is enough to show that White really needs to play d4 early to take advantage of this garbage defense!