Alexander Alekhine was chess world champion twice, just by the way. Alekhine's defence seeks to entice White's central pawn formation forward and thereby weaken it. I used to play Alekhine's Defence as Black, but switched to the French after several bad experiences with Alekhine's Defence.

Being world champion twice is perhaps less impressive than once, because it means you lost it the first time   He was an awesome player though.

I use Alekhine defense because i know most of the lines and variations. And because the database says it benefits white, ( it benefits white slightly ) It makes the opponent feel comfortable in the position but once they run out of book moves the position becomes uncommon. It is nice and simple and complex at the same time.

Prof. Elo calculated Alekhine's rating at 2690. Bobby Fischer said that if you saw one Alekhine game, you saw them all. Alekhine kept his championship by refusing Capablanca a rematch and carefully selecting his opponents. Until 1942 Alekhine never was able to win a game from Capablanca outside their championship match. Alekhine wrote two books of his best games. The first written before his match with Capablanca (when Alekhine had some points to make) covers his career form 1908 - 1923, and is a masterpiece. The second covers the period from 1924 - 1937, was written when Alekhine needed money, and is a potboiler. The second book was quickly dashed off-- mostly written blindfold-- and contains many errors.

Actually Alekhine took one off Capablanca: at the 1938 AVRO Tournament. Overall (and ignoring draws), apart from the 3-6 loss in the 1927 match, Capablanca had a 6-1 win-loss record against Alekhine.

Rueben Fine also had a positive win record against Alekhine.

White has chosen a fairly restrained response to Black's provocative opening.

This line is one I favor, steady but white wins more than black does.

Black can blockade d5, but neither isolani is a fatal weakness.

Just as long as the "pressure" doesn't distract White's pieces from their crucial defence of their own isolated d-pawn.

Mind you, White will, broadly speaking, be quite happy to exchange isolated pawns, leaving herself with a 2-1 majority on the Q-side, Black with a 4-3 on the K-side. Such a distribution is advantageous to White - other things, of course, being equal.

I have my doubts about the move 18.a4. There is a high likelihood that White's b-pawn will be left backward, for instance if Black were to play ...a5 at some point.

I hoped that Joanne would follow some basic chess principles and would go for the weak c pawn. Moving the a pawn proved me right and the exchange was prepared.

a4?! doesn't help mobilize the queenside majority.

And suddenly the board is half-empty (or half-full, the optimists say)

White's Q exchange was in my view ill-advised: Black was only too happy to rid himself of his isolated c-pawn. I think I would have brought the f1-rook to d1 instead. In fact the whole exchange sequence has benefited Black - not one of Joanne's better motivated simplification sequences!

The exchange was provoked, and if accepted i would get a nice end game with Joanne with a superior pawn structure.

White has simplified into an ending where black has no pawn weaknesses while white is on the defensive. This is enough for a master to win while denying white counterplay so it might have been better to forgo the queen exchange.

What is the alternative? White is reduced to passivity. The reason why the game turns bad is that Black can convert his advantages even while exchanging the isolani.

Definitely Ne1-Nc2. White's advantage lies in the queenside majority. If he doesn't devote pieces to capitalising on it, he may as well have no queenside majority. So if you don't try to push the b-pawn it is as if it doesn't exist...and Ne1-Nc2 is the most natural way of doing this with a piece other than the king.

This knight move is OK. Black's advantage is still only slight. The move that makes things really difficult for White is her 30th. To be sure, she wanted to minimise the effect of a possible discovered attack against her h-pawn, but the better 30.f3! would have done as well, at the same time getting some pawns off the dark squares and out of reach of the Black bishop. At the same time the Black king would find barred all paths into the White position via the light squares. White's game really does start to head south after 30.g3?

My advantage was slow and steady With time on my side and keeping my pieces lined up I just have to wait for white to try to push here queen side pawns or exchange pawns my position would benefit from either of them.

The problem is that white is on the defensive and must play carefully to draw here. As easy points out, the burden of doing so is very great. Agree that 30 g3? creates too many problems. On general principles, because it puts all three pawns on the color of the bishop and the opponent's bishop, it makes the white bishop weaker. Also, ...a5 stops the majority cold.

The b-pawn has moved, but I rather think it's too late. Black can devote his bishop to stopping the b-pawn while his knight and king push his own pawns.

Black is playing this endgame very powerfully.

36. b4 was to late and gave me the game and there was no turning back I said gotcha 36.Ne1 would be far better defensively speaking. Positional it would be a bit cramped but the game would have lasted longer

There is an element of desparation since Nd3 causes too much irreparable damage long before the queenside majority can become a reasonable threat--in fact Black could simply eliminate the b pawn via that means if there were not something stronger. Ne1 makes Black show what he has.

The b-pawn isn't even passed, strictly speaking - it's potentially passed. And let me be honest - I don't think it will ever become passed.

At move 40, Black's 40...Ng4 is good enough, but 40...Bc7! would have stopped cold White's counterattack.

Strong play by both sides. Well done both players!

Certainly an interesting contrast in styles. Black tended to wait his chance before undertaking anything really active. That came with White's only real big mistake - at move 30 - which she probably would have avoided had she remembered (for I know she knows this principle) that pawns are better on square colours different from those the bishops operate on. Objectively, her subsequent sacrificing her K-side to push home her b-pawn might not have been the best defence, but it was one in which Black might have had more opportunities to go wrong. Nothing wrong with that approach in desperate situations at all - and it made the game the more exciting in its closing stages. After 47.b8=Q Black could have taken the queen at once - 47...Bxb8 48.Nxe3 Bf4! 49.Bb6 Bxe3 50.Bxe3 e1=Q+ 51.Kxe1 Kxe3 (-+); or, as suggested, defer it a move. Good game.

wel played i enjoyed it much and i wil add some more specific chess stuff to the annotation soon.

With such a skill difference, Black can afford to give White some slack and apply Napoleon's rule that you never interrupt your opponent when they are (or can) make a mistake. There is the well known comment that if you have a choice between two rooks, you are likely to move the wrong rook. The same goes for pawns. White did well.