Alekhine may have given a reply to this. He says in his annotations to the game Alekhine vs Rubinstein, 1921 <An extraordinary position after the thirteenth move of a Queen's Gambit! During the first thirteen moves White has played his c-pawn thrice, his h-pawn thrice and his dark-squared bishop four times, after which he has obtained a position in sight of a win, if not actually a winning one. It is especially with respect to the original opening of this game that people often speak of a 'hyper-modern technique', a 'neo-romantic school', etc.

The question is, in reality, much simpler. Black has given himself over to several eccentricities in the opening (3...a6, 5...Nge7, 6...Ng6) which, without the reaction of his opponent (for example, 7.e3 instead of 7.Be3 or 9.g3 instead of 9.h4) would in the end have given him a good game. It is, therefore, as a necessity, and not with a preconceived idea, that I decided upon the advance of the h-pawn, preventing Black from securing an advantage in the centre. But, as a rule, in the opening stages of a game such eccentricities are in accordance neither with my temperament nor my style, as the reader can see from the perusal of this book.>

If Alekhine's remarks apply to this game, The move 7...Nh5 is an eccentricity which will however give Black in the end a good game unless White finds the right way to react.

One alternative is 8 Be5 Nxe5 9 Nxe5 with a lead in development after eg 9...Nf6 10 f4 at the cost however of the bishop pair.

If after Bg5 white has to move the bishop a second time to e3 in reply to ...f6 this suggests 8 Be3 at once, and this is the move given by the computer.

After 8 Be3 the pawn structure is similar to that in the game Fischer vs Petrosian, 1970 and this suggests that White can consider the pawn advance g2-g4! as could have occurred in one variation of the game Fischer vs Petrosian, 1970

Alekhine may have given a reply to this. He says in his annotations to the game Alekhine vs Rubinstein, 1921 <An extraordinary position after the thirteenth move of a Queen's Gambit! During the first thirteen moves White has played his c-pawn thrice, his h-pawn thrice and his dark-squared bishop four times, after which he has obtained a position in sight of a win, if not actually a winning one. It is especially with respect to the original opening of this game that people often speak of a 'hyper-modern technique', a 'neo-romantic school', etc.

The question is, in reality, much simpler. Black has given himself over to several eccentricities in the opening (3...a6, 5...Nge7, 6...Ng6) which, without the reaction of his opponent (for example, 7.e3 instead of 7.Be3 or 9.g3 instead of 9.h4) would in the end have given him a good game. It is, therefore, as a necessity, and not with a preconceived idea, that I decided upon the advance of the h-pawn, preventing Black from securing an advantage in the centre. But, as a rule, in the opening stages of a game such eccentricities are in accordance neither with my temperament nor my style, as the reader can see from the perusal of this book.>

If Alekhine's remarks apply to this game, The move 7...Nh5 is an eccentricity which will however give Black in the end a good game unless White finds the right way to react.

One alternative is 8 Be5 Nxe5 9 Nxe5 with a lead in development after eg 9...Nf6 10 f4 at the cost however of the bishop pair.

If after Bg5 white has to move the bishop a second time to e3 in reply to ...f6 this suggests 8 Be3 at once, and this is the move given by the computer.

After 8 Be3 the pawn structure is similar to that in the game Fischer vs Petrosian, 1970 and this suggests that White can consider the pawn advance g2-g4! as could have occurred in one variation of the game Fischer vs Petrosian, 1970