Is Alekhine's Defense the best Black move in the opening?

Does a Caro Kann player need to be acquainted with everything in all of those pages, or is it possible, for example, to choose 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 dxe4 4 Nxe4 Bf5 and ignore 4...Nd7 ?

"... [After 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6] White can take a number of approaches, including 4.Nf3 or 4.Bc4. My preference is for 4.c4! Nb6 5.exd6 ... [5...exd6] produces a symmetrical pawn structure with White having an easy advantage due to his superior space. ... [After 5...cxd6 6.Nc3 g6 7.Be3 Bg7 8.c5!] White expects [8...dxc5 9.dxc5 N6d7 10.Bc4] with an advantage to White." - GM Yasser Seirawan's 1999 book, Winning Chess Openings

Perhaps if you say that enough times then it will become true. Then we can start teaching children and absolute beginners to eschew the "more complicated" classical variations in favor of the Alekhine. I'm sure you disagree with teaching children and beginners the Scotch, or Italian, or the Spanish. Those openings are far more complicated than the extremely hypermodern Alekhine. In fact, it's downright irresponsible for trainers to steer weaker players away from playing hypermodern systems. Don't these trainers know that the extremely hypermodern Alekhine is far easier to grasp and play? I guess not. Well then it's a good thing for us here at chess.com that we have our resident class C player to set us straight.

theory seems to be derived from the games of top players, from what i understand (never having studied openings much), so a smaller number of pages in mco just means strong players don't play 1...nf6 against 1.e4 very much. there may be a reason for that.

If one of the selling points of an opening is that you get something resembling a somewhat awkward Caro-Kann with a little study and effort, then I think I'd consider studying the Caro-Kann in the long run if those positions have any appeal to you whatsoever and you care about results.

We can count engine centipawns, pages of old analysis, and grandmaster citations, but none of this will help you if have trouble making sense of the positions over the board.

It is erroneous to equate the number of pages of printed text with the complexity of a variation (besides printed opening encyclopedias are so 1990s anyway), but if the general consensus is that a variation is +/= with clearly defined positional advantages, then there's not going to a great deal of analytical debate among titled players. I guess that's less to remember, but it's also less to remember for your opponent if your games are in databases and you don't have any great innovations changing the evaluation.

See, that's just the problem. That statement isn't true! The Alekhine is NOT easier to explain to beginners. Classical openings are far easier to explain to beginners.

Listen. The Alekhine is from the hypermodern school of chess - breaking all of Tarrasch's rules. It flies in the face of conventional wisdom with radical conceptions such as giving up the center and undermining it from the flanks, with HEAVY HEAVY emphasis on critical squares, pawn breaks, and prophylaxis. Hypermodern systems such as the Alekhine are to be learned far later on, only AFTER familiarizing yourself with the intricacies of chess through the more classical openings. No offense, but this is pretty much common chess knowledge 101. You either accept it or you don't.

When you are doing your own opening research, you really have to dig in between the lines. When I was a kid, the Trompowsky was becoming a popular trend to avoid theory when Hodgson was winning tournaments with it. If you glanced at the length of established theory in an opening encyclopedia at that time, you might get the impression that it is a fun, simple opening that is easy to learn. In actuality, it can become very complex and many critical lines after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 c5! were not well charted. A well-prepared novelty in these imbalanced positions could cause serious problems over the board. Until I found IM Sielecki's e-book on the Benko (about a quarter of a century later!), you'd be hard pressed to find adequate coverage of the critical 3.d5 Ne4!? 4.Bf4 e6 5.f3 Bd6!. This is at best a sentence in one of the better books, and even then the most testing continuation is overlooked. The line is very sharp and there are some only moves that are difficult to find without an engine.

From my experience, I had a few nice wins in the Trompowsky with its surprise value, but I ran into some difficulty against higher rated players. After a particularly bad tournament soon after I reached Class A (over 1800), I decided to stick with the main lines with 2.c4. The positions simply made more sense to me and my results began to improve. In some respects, I don't think I was a strong enough player to accurately analyze and evaluate many of the complications that occurred in the Trompowsky.

"The Sound 3...g6" - title of chapter 9 of The Ruy Lopez Revisited by GM Ivan Sokolov (2009).
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/931.pdf

"Alekhine Defence ... Four Pawns Attack ... it is the most heavily analysed of White's options. A certain knowledge of the variation complex is a primary requirement for both players. ..." - GM Paul van der Sterren (2009)

"To play either side of the Four Pawns Attack requires a good deal of study because the lines are extremely sharp and one false slip spells disaster. ..." - GM Yasser Seirawan (1999)

The 4 Pawns Attack is either won or very close to being won for white, and that might compromise the whole Alekhine.

I have been studying this line with SF in the past, now I need to do some more to be fully convinced black is busted.

I guess half of the modern openings are unsound, one way or another.

"Any opening that humans use can be considered to require a good deal of study, because there are complicated lines, and one false slip spells disaster. Dont worry! Im ready to teach you how to understand how the Alekhine is busted" - 'Alexa' (2021?)

Heck, maybe those mixed reality glasses will be available by then too.Let me guess: you'll still be talking about a 1999 book by who?

I thought you were better than Stockfish? Shouldnt you already know?

Maybe u are right but i would be curious to know how u "refute" Sergeev's pet line with g6.

This is advocated in the excellent repertoire book "Alekhine alert" by Timothy Taylor and seems reliable to me but i guess your laboratory found something...

In my opinion, the best way for white (and the simpler!) to get an edge is the "modern" line with Nf3.

I mean 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3.

"En passant", I agree with Deirdreskye's ideas.

Personnally I think beginners should start with Giuoco Piano with c3-d4, and even then with Evans Gambit (which aims to improve Giuoco Piano...). Or maybe king's gambit.

These openings were played during former centuries because the ideas were easy and followed instinctly basic principles, so easier to understand.

And anyway, what to a pleasure to watch gems of the past played by Anderssen, Morphy and others...

What is proof? Anybody can ask Stockfish. How much proof is needed is how dependent upon your chess recognition is. Once +.6 is achieved, the position needs to be looked at to see if its convertible.

The TCEC stockfish needed a nudge for like 5 times total. For someone like Carlsen, he probably only needs to know 15 moves total. I got it at 40 moves. At a 1600 rating itd be like 100 moves or more.

At 1500, its not refuted lol....itd be like 2,000 moves to explain it....all one could say at that point is it ends by white's d pawn advantage. Opening prinicple: Dont let white get the d pawn to d5   Break that principle at your own risk!

I concluded my analysis, the Alekhine is busted: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/the-secret-of-chess?page=124#last_comment , see the last 5 or 6 posts in the thread, I can not repost everything, so hence the link.

See the last 5 or 6 messages in 'The Secret of Chess' thread, I posted the link.

Nf3, which both SF and Komodo prefer for some strange reason(obviously, insufficient knowledge that makes them prune the wrong lines), is unambitious and should only lead to a draw after black fianchettoes kingside.

The 4 Pawns Attack is winning.

Actually, my book has all the relevant concepts to explain this:

- 7. Bb3 retreats, as black threatens to gain tempo after b7-b5, that is the 'pawn attack threat' term in 'The Secret of Chess'

- 7...Ba7 retreats for the very same reason, white threatens d3-d4, pawn attack threat

- h3 is played not to allow a black bishop or knight on g4, similarly h6, not to allow a white knight or bishop on g5, dangerously close to the friendly king; this is called prevention in Nimzovich's theory, my book has a special very specific term for it, 'preventing enemy minor penetration, any pawn on its relative 3rd rank attacking a square also attacked by an enemy minor, like the h3 white pawn attacking the g4 square simultaneously attacked by the black light-square bishop. This feature is considered an asset.

So that, easy to explain of course, using modern concepts.

What concerns the second position, well, it still favours white by some margin, but obviously the pair of bishops count quite a lot.