Khalifman can tell this to his grandma. Archangel very much alive just look at the games from US Championship

Slightly off subject, but the following line of the Archangel "proper" seems to be doing well for White - see Svidler-Christiansen 2003:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bb7 7.c3 Nxe4 8. d4 Na5 9.Bc2 exd4 10.Nxd4 c5 11.Nf5 Qf6 12.Nd2 d5 13.Nxe4 dxe4 14.Ng3 Be7 15.Nxe4 Qc6 16.Qh5 g6 and now, instead of the old 17.Qe5, the strange-looking 17.Qh3 seems to set black some problems. At any rate Christiansen seemed to run into trouble after 17...0-0 (what else?) 18.b3 Rfe8 19.Re1 Bf8 20.Bf4. Now in contrast to the older line with 17 Qe5, the white bishop is quite active and Black's q-side pieces seem out of play, particularly he knight on a5. Black tried 20...h5 and lost rapidly.

Does anyone have any good suggestions for Black or is he in trouble here? I came across this line in a recent e-mail game and didn't come up with anything convincing. The point of the Archangel is to get attacking chances as Black, but in this position I can only see attacking chances for White!

Interestingly, the very recent Ramesh-Ganguly also continued 15. Bc2 Nxe4 16.h3 Bh5 17.g4 Bg6 18.Nh4 f5! when White's King is exposed. Nigel Short annotates this game in last Sunday's Telegraph. I wonder why these strong GMs are avoiding 15.Ra3?

Like Alumbrado, I'm also puzzled by the recession in the Moller & New Archangel defences. My perception is that the Archangel Proper has been waning in popularity since the 1990s when it appeared in quite a few top level games (I remember lots of Anand-Kamsky clashes in WCh. candidates matches circa 1995). The New Archangel (6...Bc5) seemed to take over, particularly with the influence of Adams, but there seems to be an emerging consensus that 7.a4 is the most promising line for White. Maybe this has been sufficient to discourage it at the top level?

I've played the Archangel proper for a long time now. My results have been quite poor but that might be because only "strong" players (>2100) seem to play the Lopez against 1...e5! Despite this I like the opening and it seems to give Black a good combination of attacking chances coupled with soundness. "Archangel & New Atrchangel" by Kryzstzof Panczyk & John Emms is a complete and fairly recent overview of all these lines, and makes a good case that they're pretty viable for Black.

So I suspect this is "fashion" speaking once more, combined with the demands of an every increasing load of theory in a sharp variation. At high level perhaps it's no longer an easy way to avoid lots of theory!?

The Archangel 'complex' of defences to the Spanish (Archangel, New Archangel, Møller) went through a period of being very fashionable a few years back, but they seem to have disappeared from the scene recently.

Does anybody know if there is a particular reason for this, or is it just the passing whims of fashion at work again?

Just to be clear what I am talking about:

The Archangel 'proper' arises after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 and now 6...Bb7;

The New Archangel deviates with 6...Bc5 (aiming to preserve the option of ...Bg4 at some point, at the cost of putting less immediate pressure on the e4-pawn);

The Møller avoids 5...b5 immediately and meets 5.0-0 with 5...Bc5 straight away (a sort of deferred Classical variation).