2015 New year's resolutions

[Kevin Pacey]

Besides my usual annual resolutions (get in shape, save more money, improve my rating - all arguably related to chess), I've got the following concrete chess resolutions for 2015:

1. Play at least 75 CFC regular or Quick TC rated games (about my annual average for both types of CFC rated games for some time now);

2. Get to 2300+ (regular TC) CFC and have such a rating at the end of 2015;

3. Try to play at least one game with each of my regular defences against 1.e4 (8 regular defences) and 1.d4 (5 regular defences) in 2015.



How did I do with my 2014 resolutions, you may ask? Well they were the same as for 2015, except for the last concrete resolution, which was instead: 3. Play at least one new opening with each colour at least every 3 months on average in 2014. I succeeded with this concrete resolution, but failed at the other two. Of my three usual resolutions first mentioned, I only succeeded with the most important: to save more money by the end of 2014 than at the start.

[Ken Kurkowski]

Re: 2015 New year's resolutions

8 regular defences to 1.e4? That would include pretty much every reputable defence, unless you're counting sub-variations. Seems a bit much in my humble C-class opinion, unless your goal is variety and exposure to lots of new ideas.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: 2015 New year's resolutions

Are you including KlAuStRrApHoBiC defenses like the French Winawer?

[Digeng Du]

Re: 2015 New year's resolutions

Good luck my friend. Goal number 3 will make goal number 2 much more difficult than otherwise however.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: 2015 New year's resolutions

Based on a database study of the average frequencies I face 1.e4 and 1.d4 (mostly in my club, or weekend events, in Ottawa, since 1989), in about 37 games a year on average with Black I would face 1.e4 about 20 times and 1.d4 about 12 times, with other first moves (mostly 1.c4 or 1.Nf3) faced about 5 times in total, and these frequencies have remained pretty stable for decades even though the people I play have changed a lot over time.

I use some universal systems that can be used against flank openings and 1.d4 (with flank openings sometimes transposing to 1.d4 openings). They are the QGD Classical Orthodox, QG Tarrasch and a generally positional Nimzo-Indian complex of related defences, which I choose to regard as one major (or regular) 1.d4 defence as a whole (else I couldn't ever hope to play everything at least once a year). This is all in the hope of a better chance of making my quota of 1 game per year with each of five current regular 1.d4 defences that have been in my fairly stable (but large) repertoire for many years now. I deviate from these once in a while, to try to keep my opponents on their toes, or 'play the man' when it seems best, and for the sake of even greater variety. The Slav (a former regular choice of mine) comes in handy against a habitual Trompovsky player, since besides 1...e6 I can play 1...c6 (being a Caro player too) on top of 1...c5 and other moves than 1...Nf6 (or 1...d5), on days I wish to duck the Tromp (1.d4 c6 2.Bg5 Qb6 or 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bg5 Ne4 being examples of little explored possibilities for most folks).

It is not so easy to make my quotas for all my five 1.d4 defences, since opponents (especially rated below 2000) play 1.e4 more often than other moves, and because some of my defences my opponents often prefer not to allow more than half the time I try to get into these openings. That would be such as the Modern Benoni, which is less popular these days, and which therefore may be evaded by people simply because they don't get enough practice against such a sharp defence (by contrast I can get to play the more common Grunfeld almost whenever I wish, even though it too starts around move three). In 2012 I played more games in total than in 2013 (just 67 games total, i.e. with both colours), and I made all my 1.d4 quotas with Black in 2012, unlike in 2013 (though I did at least try to finish the job in several games, but no Modern Benoni or QGD Classical Orthodox happened for me).

By contrast, making my annual quotas of a single game with each 1.e4 defence is a piece of cake if I am even remotely determined to try, in spite of having eight 1.e4 defences, since I face 1.e4 about 20 times a year on average as I said, and four of my eight defences begin on move one (including that blessed French, yes usually with the Winawer to follow if allowed - it's the opening I use most when I face tough opposition since it's a roll of the dice IMHO, and it costs less rating points if I don't win). Of my other regular 1.e4 defences, two are Open Sicilian variations (I face anti-Siciilans about half the time I play 1...c5) and two are Ruy Lopez defences (I get to play either about 30% of the time I open with 1.e4 e5). That usually still leaves plenty of extra games against 1.e4 each year to play defences that aren't in my current repertoire of regular defences.

I find that having a wide repertoire doesn't hurt much, since only about 25% of my losses or undesirable draws can be blamed largely on the opening - it just doesn't seem to matter much below 2400, and I've got decades of experience with many types of positions anyway, which makes up for the lacklustre study routine I've had for many years now (Plus it's tough to prepare against a wide repertoire, even if I prefer just one line only per major variation available to any opponent). Daily tactical study and a reasonable amount of sleep are what I estimate will do me the most good, and probably the same is true for many other players too.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: 2015 New year's resolutions

Daily tactical study and a reasonable amount of sleep are what I estimate will do me the most good, and probably the same is true for many other players too.

True. Browsing through other GM games helps too. Long breaks are not helpful.

[Hugh Siddeley]

Re: 2015 New year's resolutions

I use some universal systems that can be used against flank openings and 1.d4 (with flank openings sometimes transposing to 1.d4 openings). They are the 1 QGD Classical Orthodox, 2 QG Tarrasch and a generally positional 3 Nimzo-Indian complex of related defences, which I choose to regard as one major (or regular) 1.d4 defence as a whole (else I couldn't ever hope to play everything at least once a year). This is all in the hope of a better chance of making my quota of 1 game per year with each of five current regular 1.d4 defences that have been in my fairly stable (but large) repertoire for many years now. I deviate from these once in a while, to try to keep my opponents on their toes, or 'play the man' when it seems best, and for the sake of even greater variety. The 4 Slav (a former regular choice of mine) comes in handy against a habitual Trompovsky player, since besides 1...e6 I can play 1...c6 (being a Caro player too) on top of 1...c5 and other moves than 1...Nf6 (or 1...d5), on days I wish to duck the Tromp (1.d4 c6 2.Bg5 Qb6 or 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bg5 Ne4 being examples of little explored possibilities for most folks).

It is not so easy to make my quotas for all my five 1.d4 defences, since opponents (especially rated below 2000) play 1.e4 more often than other moves, and because some of my defences my opponents often prefer not to allow more than half the time I try to get into these openings. That would be such as the 5 Modern Benoni, which is less popular these days, and which therefore may be evaded by people simply because they don't get enough practice against such a sharp defence (by contrast I can get to play the more common x Grunfeld almost whenever I wish, even though it too starts around move three). In 2012 I played more games in total than in 2013 (just 67 games total, i.e. with both colours), and I made all my 1.d4 quotas with Black in 2012, unlike in 2013 (though I did at least try to finish the job in several games, but no Modern Benoni or QGD Classical Orthodox happened for me).

By contrast, making my annual quotas of a single game with each 1.e4 defence is a piece of cake if I am even remotely determined to try, in spite of having eight 1.e4 defences, since I face 1.e4 about 20 times a year on average as I said, and four of my eight defences begin on move one (including that blessed 1 French, yes usually with the Winawer to follow if allowed - it's the opening I use most when I face tough opposition since it's a roll of the dice IMHO, and it costs less rating points if I don't win). Of my other regular 1.e4 defences, two are Open 2,3 Sicilian variations (I face anti-Siciilans about half the time I play 1...c5) and two are 4,5 Ruy Lopez defences (I get to play either about 30% of the time I open with 1.e4 e5). That usually still leaves plenty of extra games against 1.e4 each year to play defences that aren't in my current repertoire of regular defences.

Your 5 regular defenses against 1.d4:
1 QGD Classical Orthodox
2 QG Tarrasch
3 Nimzo-Indian
4 Slav
5 Modern Benoni
x Grunfeld

Your 8 regular defenses against 1.e4:
1 French
2 Sicilian type 1
3 Sicilian type 2
4 Ruy Lopez type 1
5 Ruy Lopez type 2
6 x
7 y
8 z

On 1.d4 c6 2.Bg5 Qb6 I like 3.Nc3, even if White wastes a tempo with 3...Qxb2 4.Bd2. This is the way to go if White is seeking a dynamic game. Guarding the b2-pawn is lame, and in many openings this pawn is sacrificed, for instance in the Sicilian Najdorf 6.Bg5 Poisoned Pawn and in a few French Classical Steinitz lines.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: 2015 New year's resolutions

I think I alluded above that the Slav used to be what I considered a regular 1.d4 defence for me. I don't think of it that way currently. The main troubles with the Slav I have had to date are that besides poor results over time with it (in spite of initially very good results), the Exchange Slav and even the Main line Slavs often take more effort/luck to win against with Black, for me at least, even against weaker players. However, there are certain people that I still view as desirable customers for at least the possibility of inviting their playing against the Slav from time to time...

I didn't wish to name all eight regular 1.e4 defences of mine (currently) if only not to make for a lengthier post. I listed them on chesstalk long ago, too; I assume most folks I play may look at CANBase or are quite familiar with what they could guess is my regular stuff (as I wrote, that is not to say I don't ever deviate from it). For those who don't wish to search, I also play 1.e4 Nc6 and 1.e4 d6, when a Nimzovich or Pirc are virtually assured if I wish (as I usually do). [edit: I also play the Caro-Kann, as you may have missed in my previous post] I play certain (offbeat) Dragon lines and the Kan as Black. I also play the Open Lopez and the [Anti-]Marshall as Black when I can get it (like most players should, I am usually happy to face the less critical anti-Sicilians or deviations from the main line Lopez [after 1.e4 e5] when Black - I wouldn't go so far as GM Yermolinsky to call the former all "weak stuff", but I kind of like his spirit :) ).

With about half a dozen games a year on average to spare against 1.e4 players, on top of making my quotas for my eight 1.e4 defences if I wish to (or am allowed), there is plenty of room for me to throw 1.e4 players curve balls by deviating from my current regular defences if I wish. The space-challenged Alekhine's Defence is an opening I play once in a blue moon, for example. You'd be surprised how many players (especially rated below 2000) don't even elect to reply 2.e5, and not just in my games. People are often desperate to take evasive measures when surprised, however harmless these are.

Some short years ago I was rated over 2300, and even made it 2400+ for a very brief time one relatively recent year. Being prepared in the opening happened to pay off more often than usual when playing the odd 2400+ player, leading up to that brief time. Otherwise, as I alluded to, in samples of my games in the new millenium for over two different years, only 25% of my losses and undesirable draws could be blamed largely on the opening. I may have had more than the odd disadvantage due to the opening, but that often turned out not to be the deciding factor, very likely due to the fact many of my opponents were rated well below 2400. Another factor in my making it above 2400+ for a brief time was that the CFC still had participation points. After this was dropped I guessed that I would lose about 20 rating points a year for a few years at least, for this reason alone. For a while, I seem to recall, the CFC made it more difficult/impossible to get bonus rating points too, but I may be wrong about that. Also, now that I have hit my mid-50s, age may be becoming a factor, especially as I am not in ideal physical shape - reminds me again of one more resolution I should try to keep...

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: 2015 New year's resolutions

...
On 1.d4 c6 2.Bg5 Qb6 I like 3.Nc3, even if White wastes a tempo with 3...Qxb2 4.Bd2. This is the way to go if White is seeking a dynamic game. Guarding the b2-pawn is lame, and in many openings this pawn is sacrificed...

While this variation that you gave (following 2...Qb6) could be playable for either side, it is perhaps an illustration of what might be called 'hope chess' if White played 3.Nc3 counting on this continuation. On a good day a player that's rated, say, 2000+ would normally ask himself if Black can do better than this, and yet perhaps still grab the pawn on b2 if he wishes. Then the question arises, what does White do if Black plays 3...h6, putting the question to the bishop. After 4.Bh4 Black can take on b2 if he wishes, but with Bd2 no longer possible - in fact it seems rather devastating. On 4.Bf4, Black could still try taking on b2, but why not change plans by playing ...Nf6 (after first 4...d5, to anticipate e2-e4), taking advantage of the fact Bxf6 will no longer be possible. This still retains the possibility of taking on b2 later if White leaves the pawn unprotected, perhaps arguing that the threat is stronger than the execution, though 5.Qd2 puts the ball back in Black's court, since 0-0-0 would smoothly guard b2. That is, except for commiting the White king to the long side, which may or may not bother White more psychologically than anything else, depending on his style.

[edit: just looking in my head 'blindfold', after 1.d4 c6 2.Bg5 Qb6 3.Nc3 h6 4.Bh4? Qxb2 Black seems to win at least a piece; the following at the least is available for Black, it appears:
1) 5.Na4 Qa3 6.c3 (6.Nc5 Qc3+ wins a rook; 6.c4 Qb4+ wins the knight) 6...b5 wins the knight or a rook;
2) 5.Ne4 f5 (threatens to ultimately win the B/h4 by...g5 and ...f4) and if White plays e2-e3 (right away or soon after moving the N/e4 or soon after 6.Rb1 Qa3) Black can just win a piece since the Black king has d8 as a flight square in case the Q/d1 goes to h5.]

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: 2015 New year's resolutions

...
The space-challenged Alekhine's Defence is an opening I play once in a blue moon, for example. You'd be surprised how many players (especially rated below 2000) don't even elect to reply 2.e5, and not just in my games. People are often desperate to take evasive measures when surprised, however harmless these are.
...

The Alekhine's (1.e4 Nf6) is a good example of an infrequent defence that puts a lot of over-the-board players in a quandry when they are constructing a repertoire based on playing 1.e4, at least if they are rated below 2000 (if not 2400). The main line (1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3) is generally thought to be the best (if not the only) way to give White a little edge out of the opening with roughly best play, but this requires learning quite a bit of theory against an infrequent defence, theory that can be a bit tricky, as well as forgotten over time if one does not freshen up one's memory regularly. As I heard one class player lament to his pal one day, otherwise he thought Black just equalized. Still, it could be important to have something ready against the Alekhine's (or just about anything), especially if you happen to ever face it in a game you can't afford to lose. Note that the Exchange variation against the Alekhine's also may get White a little something, but it has a similar problem to the main line. Plus, Black is usually expecting either of these most of the time.

My approach is to view the Alekhine's as not being such a terrible opening. It may be underrated (even Magnus has played it now and then), and Black can always come up with unproven (i.e. as yet 'unreliable') ideas against the main line or Exchange that need to be further tested. Can we find something simpler to play (or recall the important points of) against the Alekhine's that still has some bite for White? Depending on your repertoire (whether in the process of being constructed, or mostly established), or your style, the answer could well be 'yes'.

How did one GM handle the Alekhine's, possibly with some of this philosophy in mind? GM Sveshnikov must have done a little research long ago, and noticed that certain lines of the Two Pawn's Attack (2.e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4.c5) can transpose to lines of the 2.c3 Sicilian, which is what he played against the Sicilian as White. My own favourite solution, at the moment, is to play 2.e5 Nd5 3.Nc3 Nxc3 4.bxc3 (4.dxc3 is safer but Black pretty much instantly has clear equality in my view). Then Black pretty much has only two approaches, either to play ...d6 (when f2-f4 reinforces e5, to be followed by d2-d4 with a space edge and interesting play, but with relatively little theory) or to play ...d5, when d2-d4 leads to a Winawer French style structure, but with differences that someone who plays both sides of that opening can have a kind of feel for anyway - again some potency, and little theory, for White against this uncommon defence.

If even those two ideas don't do anything for you, at least if you decide to deviate at move two, doing so with 2.Nc3 is better most days than 2.d3 in my view, though the former may take learning more theory, however slight. The advantage of 2.d3 is if you are a diehard King's Indian Attack or Philidor's Defence Reversed player then they can suit you, but most folks regard these openings as lacking in potency beyond a certain rating range.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: 2015 New year's resolutions

Are you including KlAuStRrApHoBiC defenses like the French Winawer?

Last time I looked in my databases (circa 2007), in 2650+ vs. 2650+ games involving 1.e4, the Sicilian and 1...e5 were most popular, as usual. At this level the purpose of these popular first moves seems clear respectively: try to win with 1...c5, try to draw with 1...e5 (unless White overpresses). There were a fair number of French and Caro-Kann games. From what I could tell, between 2004 and 2007, at least, the French and Caro-Kann were played mostly with a view to drawing by such players (e.g. French Rubinstein-like structures [3.Nc3/Nd2 dxe4 or 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4] were relatively often played).

What appeared to be the trend in the French was that players were still using 3...Be7 against the Tarrasch, which seems to be suffering a crisis, both as far as theory, and results for such players with Black, went. I imagine some other reply to 3.Nd2 is currently more popular, and 3...Be7 has fallen by the wayside. Depending on the variation chosen, Black does not need to feel cramped against the Tarrasch. He may have some trouble with winning chances in such cases, in high level play (I have in mind 3...c5, and if 4.exd5 Black may try either recapture).

The French Exchange posed relatively little problems for Black. Winning chances seem okay too - two wins for Black in a dozen games or so, with one being a transposition to a specific position by the Petroff, however. The French Advance was a similar story in terms of results for Black, I vaguely recall. True, like the Main Line Winawer, White has that pawn on e5 that could be called completely cramping, but think of this structure like the mirror image of a King's Indian Defence, frequently (White pawn on d5), where folks aren't too upset with a space issue when playing Black. In the French c7-c5 gaining space on the queenside and near-centre usually comes in, while in the KID it's f7-f5. Not like the Alekhine's, where Black is at times cramped in all sectors, in the hope of a freeing blow at a future time (true, I play the unreliable and space-challenged Guimard [3...Nc6] against the French Tarrrasch often, but I can vary).

Having said all that, 2650+ players had largely switched to 3...Nf6 instead of the Winawer. In my view many Open Sicilians are safer, more thoroughly investigated ways to play for the win with Black than the Winawer. Also, ways of avoiding Open Sicilians aren't feared much at this level, whereas you don't get to play the Winawer quite as often with Black even if you wish to since White has more respectable options against the French at move three. Having said all that, the Winawer took a beating in high level chess in the Poisoned Pawn lines towards the end of the 20th century. Not only that, but even if you come up with improvements with your computer, no one can be sure of the evaluation of the mass of largely untested lines that still exist, and therefore the high possibilty of being caught out by a novelty. Sadly, top players are all too often risk-averse, or they put their efforts into Open Sicilians and 1...e5, where they can use the fruits of their research more often. At least that's the way I'll spin the Winawer and the French today. ;)

[Gary Ruben]

Re: 2015 New year's resolutions

Having said all that, 2650+ players had largely switched to 3...Nf6 instead of the Winawer. In my view many Open Sicilians are safer, more thoroughly investigated ways to play for the win with Black than the Winawer. Also, ways of avoiding Open Sicilians aren't feared much at this level, whereas you don't get to play the Winawer quite as often with Black even if you wish to since White has more respectable options against the French at move three. Having said all that, the Winawer took a beating in high level chess in the Poisoned Pawn lines towards the end of the 20th century. Not only that, but even if you come up with improvements with your computer, no one can be sure of the evaluation of the mass of largely untested lines that still exist, and therefore the high possibilty of being caught out by a novelty. Sadly, top players are all too often risk-averse, or they put their efforts into Open Sicilians and 1...e5, where they can use the fruits of their research more often. At least that's the way I'll spin the Winawer and the French today. ;)

I think my original contention was that the lower rated player should not play the French Winawer against a higher rated opponent in the over 2400 or maybe it was 2450 category. I'll concede some GM's over 2400 can't beat the Winawer but most have good success.

Euwe played the French Winawer 4 times against Alekhine in their first Championship Match. Alekhine laughed so hard that even while scoring 3 1/2 points from 4 games he lost the match. In the rematch, Euwe didn't play the Winawer even once. Alekhine won that match and took back his title. Make what you want of that one but possibly losing with the Winawer has a purpose.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: 2015 New year's resolutions

A possible problem with all that is that Alekhine was an expert playing the French himself (he beat Capa in the first game of their match using the Winawer with Black). Also, the Winawer may not have suited Euwe's style. It is a difficult, risky opening.

[Hugh Siddeley]

Re: 2015 New year's resolutions

While this variation that you gave (following 2...Qb6) could be playable for either side, it is perhaps an illustration of what might be called 'hope chess' if White played 3.Nc3 counting on this continuation. On a good day a player that's rated, say, 2000+ would normally ask himself if Black can do better than this, and yet perhaps still grab the pawn on b2 if he wishes. Then the question arises, what does White do if Black plays 3...h6, putting the question to the bishop. After 4.Bh4 Black can take on b2 if he wishes, but with Bd2 no longer possible - in fact it seems rather devastating.

[edit: just looking in my head 'blindfold', after 1.d4 c6 2.Bg5 Qb6 3.Nc3 h6 4.Bh4? Qxb2 Black seems to win at least a piece; the following at the least is available for Black, it appears:
1) 5.Na4 Qa3 6.c3 (6.Nc5 Qc3+ wins a rook; 6.c4 Qb4+ wins the knight) 6...b5 wins the knight or a rook;
2) 5.Ne4 f5 (threatens to ultimately win the B/h4 by...g5 and ...f4) and if White plays e2-e3 (right away or soon after moving the N/e4 or soon after 6.Rb1 Qa3) Black can just win a piece since the Black king has d8 as a flight square in case the Q/d1 goes to h5.]

1.d4 c6 2.Bg5 Qb6 3.Nc3 h6 4.Bh4? and the variations you analyzed thereafter illustrate that it is you playing 'hope chess' ;)

No, after 3...h6, the move is 4.Bc1, mission accomplished and making Black wonder why he played ..Qb6 and ..h6. What are you going to do now Kevin? Huh, huh, huh

[Hugh Siddeley]

Re: 2015 New year's resolutions

The Alekhine's (1.e4 Nf6) is a good example of an infrequent defence that puts a lot of over-the-board players in a quandry when they are constructing a repertoire based on playing 1.e4, at least if they are rated below 2000 (if not 2400). The main line (1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3) is generally thought to be the best (if not the only) way to give White a little edge out of the opening with roughly best play, but this requires learning quite a bit of theory against an infrequent defence, theory that can be a bit tricky, as well as forgotten over time if one does not freshen up one's memory regularly. As I heard one class player lament to his pal one day, otherwise he thought Black just equalized. Still, it could be important to have something ready against the Alekhine's (or just about anything), especially if you happen to ever face it in a game you can't afford to lose. Note that the Exchange variation against the Alekhine's also may get White a little something, but it has a similar problem to the main line. Plus, Black is usually expecting either of these most of the time.

My approach is to view the Alekhine's as not being such a terrible opening. It may be underrated (even Magnus has played it now and then), and Black can always come up with unproven (i.e. as yet 'unreliable') ideas against the main line or Exchange that need to be further tested. Can we find something simpler to play (or recall the important points of) against the Alekhine's that still has some bite for White? Depending on your repertoire (whether in the process of being constructed, or mostly established), or your style, the answer could well be 'yes'.

How did one GM handle the Alekhine's, possibly with some of this philosophy in mind? GM Sveshnikov must have done a little research long ago, and noticed that certain lines of the Two Pawn's Attack (2.e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4.c5) can transpose to lines of the 2.c3 Sicilian, which is what he played against the Sicilian as White. My own favourite solution, at the moment, is to play 2.e5 Nd5 3.Nc3 Nxc3 4.bxc3 (4.dxc3 is safer but Black pretty much instantly has clear equality in my view). Then Black pretty much has only two approaches, either to play ...d6 (when f2-f4 reinforces e5, to be followed by d2-d4 with a space edge and interesting play, but with relatively little theory) or to play ...d5, when d2-d4 leads to a Winawer French style structure, but with differences that someone who plays both sides of that opening can have a kind of feel for anyway - again some potency, and little theory, for White against this uncommon defence.

If even those two ideas don't do anything for you, at least if you decide to deviate at move two, doing so with 2.Nc3 is better most days than 2.d3 in my view, though the former may take learning more theory, however slight. The advantage of 2.d3 is if you are a diehard King's Indian Attack or Philidor's Defence Reversed player then they can suit you, but most folks regard these openings as lacking in potency beyond a certain rating range.

Of course the Alekhine's (Accelerated Petroff) is not such a terrible opening. I believe it is the only opening in World Championship history to have a plus score for Black (2.5/4).

As you pointed out if you're an Alapin player against the Sicilian you can employ the Chase variation against the Alekhine's and possibly transpose.

Your line against the Alekhine's is an interesting one but I wouldn't describe the position after ...d5, d2-d4 as being Winawer-like because Black hasn't parted with his King's bishop but with his King's knight so it's a different kettle of fish.

2.Nc3 is a very respectable move against the Alekhine's and is why I suspect the opening isn't more popular. Against this 2...e5 is thought to be the most respected move but lo and behold you're back in a 1.e4 e5 opening where White wouldn't normally play 2.Nc3 and where Black would probably prefer seeing 2.Nf3 as well.