Ideas in Alekhine Defense, Brooklyn Variation

@tpr No reason to study the lines deeply. It's just about playing comfortable positions, and the opponent at this level doesn't know theory well as well. The "real chess" start not in the point where the humanity doesn't know how to play yet, but where the players don't.

I think various sharp lines are more appropriate to learn "tactics training, calculation and pattern recognition" as you mention, and to be honest, Brooklyn doesn't look sharp enough and can lead to a slow game like in Petrosyan example you linked to. And to play such a game properly you should have better studied and practiced French Advance before. Despite I'm completely okay with Brooklyn in general, I doubt it is a good way to go for an aspiring player, and 1... e5 followed by something less common than 2... Nc6 would be my recommendation for sure.

@nh78 If you think that a couple of engine/theory lines with a phrase "clear advantage" (supported by what? engine evaluation?) refute the opening, I don't want to discuss that anymore. You can as well "refute" the whole Alekhine Defence in the same manner, but oops, the Brooklyn will not be in the main line, and thus you'll need to make up a refutation over the board when you encounter it.

@tpr #29 Exactly. I don't spend a lot of time on opening theory - I typically play the alekhine brooklyn or scandinavian as black just so I can get into the non-opening-theory part as fast as I can.

#28 You are right that tactics (and probably simple endgames) should be my focus right now - and it is. But FWIW I don't think playing around with weird opening lines is a bad idea for a beginner/intermediate - it allows us to be on the same page as our opponents and not to fall for tricky opening lines that we don't know the theory of. When I get to 2000 (lol) maybe then it will be time to worry about playing sound openings.

It's not about it being unsound though, what I meant was you really shouldn't bother with opening theory of ANY opening too much at all in my opinion, but for example e4 e5 or d4 d5 can give you a good handle on typical position struggles in the middlegame and help you in understanding the classical principles. Just understanding the basics of positional play and focusing on learning tactics, calculation etc. would be my advice.

@Klip98 I see. I'm starting to get sick of the Alekhine anyways so maybe I'll try something else for a while. I just worry about getting hit with traps if I play E4 or D4. But I guess that just helps one learn.

Accepting a nearly lost position in order to leave theory - that is dumb. It will work for bullet games on lichess against players below 2200 rating. But as soon as you play it OTB your opps will be prepared the second time you play it. And stronger players in lichess bullet games will also.

So this is a 'im a patzer, my opp is a patzer, unless no one drops a rook the result is completely unclear' opening.

But then say it. Dont act as if this is a objectively good opening. It is NOT. People who are really interested in becoming a better player may read this thread and misunderstand your bla bla as if this is a playable opening.

So, again: This opening leads objectively to a nearly lost position for black, but play it and learn your own lessons.

Thanks.

@nh78 A nearly lost position is exaggerated. It worked for Carlsen against Fressinet in the World Blitz Championship. It was good enough for Joel Benjamin to score his IM norm in a classical over the board game. So it should be good enough for lesser mortals in over the board games. Objectively it may be slightly inferior, but that is offset by the advantage of evading opening theory. It is like a gambit: sacrifice objective strength in favour of practical chances.

I have played myself patzer openings against masters and grandmasters in over the board games and I never lost one of those games because of the opening. If I had chosen a mainstream opening I would have been crushed.

If a player asks me what he should play, then I would concur with @Klip98 and say: 1 e4 e5 and 1 d4 d5. But that will come at a cost. You will run into prepared lines and you will get crushed.

@sharkema Regardless of what you play, take more time playing the opening. In #1 you missed 6...Qh4+ which would have won for you. In that 5+0 game you had only spent 7 seconds. That is way too fast.