I was interested in these lines a while ago so did some digging. Following is what I remember, no access to my files at the moment:

The feeling I got was that in the Yurtaev 5...b5 6.Bb3 Bc5 7.a4 was the real challenge and if you go 7...Rb8 Svidler is a good summary and was ahead of theory at the time. The Karjakin-Carlsen WCh match line is fairly critical and Svidler was just showing how to hold for black (which Carlsen didn't know...) but IIRC my engine was suggesting a improvement at the critical point there. Or maybe that was the same as Svidler's but in any case with these lines it's all about remembering the long lines of a analysis, which Carlsen failed to do in the WCh match so I decided I wasn't too happy with that.

In blitz I've experimented a bit with 7.a4 Bb7 when after 8.d3 there are some pluses and minuses over 6...Bb7 7.d3 where I wasn't too comfortable but didn't look too carefully.

The Moller looked most promising as with 5...Bc5 6.c3 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.a4 black can avoid transposing with 8...Rb8 with 8...Bg4 which looked interesting - Adhiban had an article in YB123 that I thought might cover this but some real life stuff put chess on the backburner for a while. If someone has that YB and can let me know if it covers exactly that it would be nice

Instead 7.Bc2 d5!? was covered in some recent YB article (YB112 by Van der Tak?). When white just goes 8.0-0 and 9.d4 then Svidler covers these positions well via the Yurtaev move order.

Pawnpusher wrote on 07/02/18 at 00:31:17:


Hmm, I recognized part of that from a note in Alekhine's Deux cent parties d'échecs ("Intéressant est [5...Lf8-c5 6. c2-c3 Fc5-a7] 7. Tf1-e1 Cf6-g4! 8. d2-d4 e5xd4 9. c3xd4 Cc6xd4! 10. Cf3xd4 Dd8-h4! avec une attaque gagnante.") ...but is it really winning?  (I notice that a much later book gave only 7...d6.)

Stigma wrote on 07/01/18 at 19:04:11:


Well, I know that his 6. c3 Ba7 7. d4 Nxe4 has been considered good for White in a number of books going back at least to Fine in the '40s.

Bibs wrote on 07/01/18 at 11:07:36:


Well, here you have Møller writing about it in Danish in a Swedish magazine ...
http://www.schack.se/tfsarkiv/history/1903/tfs_1903_04.pdf

Now a bit in English about an ostensible case of the Møller transposing to the Yurtaev.  (White eschews 8. de as in e.g. Karjakin-Carlsen, alluded to by Stigma.)
https://www.chesspublishing.com/content/1/may18.htm#spa

Regarding sources about the Møller there is a chapter about it in "Dangerous Weapons 1.e4 e5" written by Glen Flear. The chapter is called "Twenty years of obscurity" so don´t be fooled if you look at the table of content.

Bibs wrote on 07/01/18 at 11:07:36:

You're welcome.

I can't be of much help when it comes to Møller sources. This entire complex has always interested me, but I've never gotten around to actually taking up 1.e4 e5 for Black. But playing through any games by strong specialists like Alexander Alekhine (!), Tamir Nabaty, Alexander Onischuk, Xiangzhi Bu, Mateusz Bartel etc. must be a good start. In the database there is a pattern of Chinese top GMs going 5...Bc5 6.c3 b5, while as mentioned many Polish players in particular go 5...Bc5 6.c3 0-0.

Going by the nomenclature established in this thread, Svidler's video series on Chess24, "Svidler's Archangels", is really about the Yurtaev move order (5...b5 6.Bb3 Bc5). I have only skimmed this, but I think I recall Svidler concluding that Black got interesting, sharp play, but at the time of filming he thought White could get an edge in some critical lines.

Seeley wrote on 07/01/18 at 10:22:05:

No problem. I actually caught the first misnumbering but then somehow didn't connect the dots and realize it applied to 5...Bc5/6..Bc5 as well.

You were closer than me Seeley - no probs eh!

I've been reading around. Seems Yurtaev is often called 'New Archangel' but if Yurtaev invented the thing, I'd say to call it that, yeah. Respect and credit where it is due.

Møller interests me. Resources? Yearbook articles?
I looked around and just saw an old Davies video. Not guaranteed to be the most thorough. Any language is okay.

Is there much gained on the Cordel (3..Bc5) that the bishop is on a4 not b5? Certainly an interesting idea. That a4 weaker than b3, and that pawn b5 is a weakness (see a4, Na3xb5 in main line Yurtaev) That said, the c8 bishop not seeing daylight yet.

Thanks everyone. Thanks Stigma particularly for the clarity there. "Ah, now I see!" Epiphany.

Seeley wrote on 06/30/18 at 09:34:47:

This is my understanding as well. So we have two clearly named move orders and one move order with a confusing variety of names in use:

5...Bc5 (without ...b5 first or even ever): Clearly the Møller variation

5...b5 6.Bb3 Bb7: Clearly the Arkhangelsk variation

5...b5 6.Bb3 Bc5: The Yurtaev [correct according to Tkachiev and Kosten], Tkachiev, New Arkhangelsk... any others?!

What then do we do with positions that could have been reached from two or all three of these? I guess people will either trust the ECO classification's placement (which may not be very logical or current) or classify them as the currently most popular variation. It seems this has lead to a lot of naming confusion.

Seeley wrote on 06/30/18 at 09:34:47:

I see what you mean, and when people play the Møller today it's usually because they are trying to avoid some concrete problems with the Arkhangelsk and Yurtaev move orders; respectively after 5...b5 6.Bb3 Bb7 7.d3 and 5...b5 6.Bb3 Bc5 7.a4. But since Jørgen Møller was a much earlier player than the originators of the Arkhangelsk, calling his variation a "refinement" sounds a bit strange.

It's interesting to try playing the Møller (5...Bc5) while avoiding the move ...b5 entirely. Black can just get on with his development and argue that the bishop is potentially out of play on a4, so why spend a tempo on chasing it back into play? I associate this way of playing it with Israeli GM Nabaty, and it seems to have been popular in Poland and tried by several of the top players there. Carlsen even tried it recently (5...Bc5 6.c3 0-0).

Now I'm just waiting for some history buff to point out that this was indeed Møller's original idea (if in fact it was), complete with the correct reference.