Alekhine's Defense Help from higher rated players

I play Alekhine's defense as black in most of my games where white plays 1) e4. Usually I get a decent game, and the plans to follow are straightforward: undermine white's center, hit at d4, get white to overextend, etc...

I'm having trouble dealing with a situation in which white plays c3, solidifying his center. In games like these, I can't really hit his center with anything, and my knights are poorly positioned on the queenside. My king's bishop is also usually a dead piece; it's biting at a pawn chain. As a result, I end up playing passively and defensively, and I don't know where to take the game.
Case in point is the game I've attached below... I played a dismal endgame, but I was defending the entire middlegame; I never once felt like I was in charge of that game.

en.lichess.org/NqLFgP5HlCT2

Does anyone know of themes, or plans to follow if white plays like this?

Thanks,
Bogdan

4. capture with the c pawn to unbalance the game. (I play the Dragon now, so this has become natural for me.)
5. ... Nf6 transpose to the Petroff.
6. ... c5, threatening to trap the Bishop, then d5 with better control of the center.
An early d5 to block his Bishop and develop yours more aggressively at d6.
Push your pawn to a3 to provoke weaknesses. This is where your pieces are, so your should attack there. Notice how weak these light squares become after the Bishops are exchanged.
16. ... Bf6 doesn't do anything, and soon your pieces are uncoordinated. Re8 -> Bf8, or Qd7 -> Rae8.

jones has some interesting suggestions.
what i see, though, is a deeper issue: you are just playing "alekhine defense moves" without thinking about what's actually happening in the position. there were no considerable mistakes until 10..Bf6, but before then it seems clear that you didn't really consider your options.

white has not presented any targets, but at the cost of not playing actively. that means that you should do so yourself, most likely by playing d5 at some point, even as early as move 6 - it stakes some central control and allows the bishop to go to d6, which seems like the better square to me.
after 8.c3 it's obvious that blindly piling your pieces on the d4-pawn isn't going anywhere - so how about 8..d5? maybe even 8..c5 or a5?
even 10..d5 is still not too late, i feel the best way to improve your position would be just ..d5 ..Bd6, or another plan is Na5-Nc4 but that doesn't seem to actually achieve anything.

my own line, though, would be 6..Qe7 - the check can't be met satisfactorily and trading queens obviously means black has equalized, though that might be too drawish for your taste, with the symmetrical structure and all. i don't like calling these positions drawish, there still are a lot of pieces left :p

I spent a little time looking at openings to figure out what to play against e4, and it seems there are basically four reliable options: e5, the Sicilian, the French, and the Caro-Kann. This is basically what Greg Shahade says in his column "Building an Opening Repertoire" for Chess Life (available via Google).

In particular, the Alekhine is not one of these. If your opponent knows the book lines, white seems to get a slight advantage without paying any cost. (There's detailed discussion of the opening at the chesspub.com forums, if you're interested.) And this scenario, even with non-optimal play by white, seems to be what happened in your game. After move 5, Stockfish gives white at least +0.3 until at the early middlegame, when he messes up.

So, when you say that you never felt like you were in charge, I'd argue for locating the problem in your choice of opening, rather than your play. Notice how the best #3 can do after considered analysis is entering an equal, drawish structure, for example.

Of course, this is just one patzer's view. I'm a poor player and not worth taking too seriously. But I'd be interested in hearing any counterarguments. Checking the Masters database in the opening explorer on lichess confirms my view: the Alekhine scores noticeably worse for black than the four defenses I listed.

chess is too complicated to just go ahead and say "everything besides the big four is unreliable".
interestingly enough, if you consider the lichess players database for blitz and classical games between only 2000+ rated players, the alekhine is actually the best scoring response.

some grandmasters employ the alekhine as one of their regular weapons, and even carlsen has essayed it against former world championship contender topalov (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1485919).

so, it has at least decent objective value. i'm not a huge alekhine defense fan, but "tier 2" openings are very well playable below elite level and blaming your losses in the opening is taking the easy way out.

the fact that my analysis got to a drawish structure should rather be considered as a failure for white.
also, as jones mentioned, it's drawish because black chose so - he could have played 4..cxd6, which would have been my choice as well. there's no voronezh in this move order.

Thanks for your comments, in particular the pointer to the Alekhine statistics in the lichess amateur database. I still have some concerns.

It's true that some GMs sometimes play the Alekhine, but it's equally true (as far as I know) that none of them use it as their primary weapon. And as you admit, it's objectively not quite as good at the Big 4. According to chessgames.com, when (for example) Carlsen plays the Alekhine, he loses more than he wins. That's not a good sign.

In light of that, it seems strange to recommend it as a primary defense, even at the sub-elite level. Why accept an unnecessary handicap? Without (apparently) knowing any book, the white player in the featured game got quite a nice advantage out of the opening just playing natural moves. Of course, the game was later decided by blunders in the middle- and endgame, but at the same time, over the long run it seems likely someone will have better results playing something more sound. If every time you played black, you could pick white being +0.1 or +0.5 out of the opening, which would you choose? I realize this question is complicated by the nature of the position (maybe you'd prefer the +0.5 position if you get active counterplay and good practical chances for a win), but the all else equal the basic point stands. And there are certainly sounder ways to reach dynamic positions, if that's what you want.

My comment about the drawish structure was more about the OP's comment about feeling in charge, but I think your suggestion to play 4...cxd6 is a good one and I would suggest the OP look at this variation if he wants more active play.

usually you play a "tier 2" opening either for surprise value, to create more winning chances, or both.
even in the masters database you can see that white wins more, but black wins more as well (though white still gets the better of these "extra wins". 1..g6 is great fun for all, though)

tier 2 openings are tier 2 because they make some kind of concession.
the problem about hypermodern openings (like the alekhine) is that you are conceding space, so if you (or both players) don't play accurately, the one playing "classically" will end up better.
in this game, OP didn't play accurately at all, so when both players did their natural moves white ended up standing better.

but yeah, i see your point - why would you even play these lines at all and not go straight for the najdorfs and stuff?
it depends. maybe you don't have a lot of time to invest into preparation, maybe you want to psych out the opponents.. a lot of people have some weird attitude like "oh my opponent played something weird i deserve a free win", or they don't study these lines and feel uncomfortable.

or maybe.. it's fun?
for most of us, above all else, playing chess should be fun. and if you're having fun, it's easier to find good moves :o

Yes, I basically agree with everything you just said.

But regarding preparation, I wouldn't exactly call the Alekhine an opening that requires little preparation, especially if you desire a decent position out the opening!

Markovich on the chesspub forums (the late USCF Senior Master Mark Morss) had this to say:

"I don't agree that Black can avoid theory with this defense. White can force a theoretical battle if he plays the 4 Pawns Attack. Black had better be booked up on at least one good answer (ha-ha, if there is one) to that system. Also, depending on how Black plays against 4. Nf3, the struggle can become theoretical. E.g. 4...Nc6, and I also doubt that 4...Bg4 can be played without some knowledge of theory. Finally, the Chase Variation is very sharp, and I would want to be booked up there, as well.

Although I regularly play this defense, I don't consider it a very good weapon for someone coming new to serious play. Better to play in classical fashion, striving for space and mobility, until you understand how to do that. Only then take a look at this defense, which in many ways is the opposite of chess."

play is so concrete now in the computer age that it's literally impossible to avoid the theory workload.
still, the alekhine compares favourably to the Big 4, and the strategical themes are similar throughout the variations (though their execution can be very different)

and yeah, he's right. but can't you feel how much fun he has playing it by these words in the last paragraph?

I recommend 5...c5.
Alekhine's defence is no worse than Sicilian. Fischer played it 7 times to evade preparation against his Naydorf Sicilian.
Alburt and Bagirov played it regularly.