I think I say that about every Alekhine game I play through. All of them are so enjoyable and instructive. Anyway, I really like this one because I think it's incredibly illustrative.

For the opening and early middlegame, Alekhine plays the position pretty much like normal, nothing earth shattering here. But the game really picks up with 14.Qe3. White intends to capture and win the c5 pawn, but it doesn't seem like he notices black's newly created tactical threat of skewering the queen and rook with the dark-squared bishop. Alekhine immediately pounces on the idea, which white parries, but then Alekhine uses the weaknesses created by stopping the threat to launch an unstoppable kingside attack. I just love how he uses a tactic not to win material, but to create a winning plan. And of course once Alekhine gets the initiative, it's game over. The final exchange sac is a nice way to cap it all off.

Also very instructive the way he didn't unnecessarily commit his king. Just a great game overall.

To top it all off, this game is one of four played as a clock simul. What a stud.

Tselikov-Alekhine, Moscow 1915, 0-1

Meh - after the correct 10. O-O-O he'd be struggling!

Modern looking play by Alekhine for the most part, 9.-d5 looks strange to me (and I guess to leofric as well).

Agree completely that 9...d5 looks odd. I'm not sure why black would want to close the center in that situation. Like leofric pointed out, if white castles queenside I think black could be in trouble. He's underdeveloped, has no pieces on the kingside, and his pawn structure looks very vulnerable to h4->h5. Apparently he wanted to close the center and attack with a typical queenside c5 idea, but that looks way too slow if white plays O-O-O.

I don't get it.. I think d5 is completely standard and I would play it a heartbeat. I don't really understand what does 0-0-0 change?

btw, not saying that I am right, just want an explanation as to why yall think that way

NO NEED TO BE SO PUSHY haha totally kidding.

I didn't like 9...d5 because I like the idea of keeping tension in the center and having pressure on white's e5 pawn. I feel like closing the center dooms the g7 bishop to a life of passivity and also gives white a free hand on the kingside. Maybe Alekhine was planning to castle queenside the entire time, I don't know. I could totally be wrong, lately I've been in a phase of pretty much never resolving the central tension unless forced to, so that could be affecting my judgement.

I also liked 10.O-O-O because with the e5 pawn locked in and since black has already played g6 and h6 we have a ready-made pawn storm on the kingside. Then again, maybe that doesn't work since black isn't committed to the kingside.

I like the pressure on e5 and want to play Nc6 to increase it. The position is very reminiscent of a 2.-e6 3.e4 h6 Trompowsky. If I played d5 I'd be worried about not having enough means to put pressure on the white pawns (maybe Alekhine proved me wrong tho)

I just think White should always castle Q side in this line - Black will find it time consuming to follow suit and either way White can advance on the K side to attack the weaknesses on g6/h6. Even if Black doesnt go there the time advantage should be enough to make White better. Black still should have chances though with the 2 bishops but then that makes closing the position (albeit temporarily) with d5 look even more strange.

To me this looks like a relatively modern line played nearly a hundred years ago where only one player grasped what was going on in the position. Not surprising when you consider their relative strengths.

White's mistake was nd1, which is totally the wrong plan. I think 0-0 and 0-0-0 are equally good. White's attacking plan is more or less the same in wither case and it's not clear where the king feels safest.