8...exd4 is Riazantsev's idea, and is looking good at the moment according to Mikhalchishin.  A sample line might go: 9. Re1 d5 10. Ng5 Qd7 11. Rxe4+ dxe4 12. Nxf7 and now either 12...Rg8 with a draw by repetition (13. Ng5 Rh8 etc.) or 12...dxc3 when black's doing fine.

Ametanoitos wrote on 02/27/11 at 00:24:16:

As an appetizer I can offer you:

Bromberger, S. (2510)    --    Jaracz, P. (2539)
6th Open  (4)   Kalamaria GRE
2009.08.24     1-0     C78

1.e4 e5 2.Sf3 Sc6 3.Lb5 a6 4.La4 Sf6 5.O-O b5 6.Lb3 Lb7 7.c3 Sxe4 8.d4 exd4 9.Te1 d5 10.Sg5 Dd7 



11.Txe4+ dxe4 12.Lxf7+ Ke7 13.Le6 Dd6 14.Dh5 Sd8 15.cxd4 Dxd4 16.Sc3 g6 17.Dg4 h5 18.Df4 Dd6 19.Dh4 Ke8 20.Lf4 De7 21.Sd5 Lxd5 22.Lxd5 c6 23.Lxe4 Df6 24.Te1 Le7 25.Le5 Dxg5 26.Dxg5 Lxg5 27.Lxg6+ Kd7 28.Lxh8 Se6 29.Le5 h4 30.Lf5 Te8 31.f4 Ld8 32.Td1+ Ke7 33.Td6 Lb6+ 34.Kf1 1-0

Meat wrote on 02/14/11 at 09:33:54:

7.c3 Ne4 8.d4 Na5 9.Bc2 ed4 10.b4 Nc4 11.Be4 Be4 12.Re1 d5 13.Nd4 c5 14.bc5 Bc5 15.f3
You may have a look at Shirov-Tomashevsky, 2009 to see what's going on in this piece sac line

The Archangelsk looks very interesting and I would like to try it out sometime. What deters me a little is the gambit line with 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. 0-0 b5 6. Bb3 Bb7 7. c3
The positions are very messy and I don't know what's going on, but it looks very uncomfortable for black. 
Or am I mistaken here? Is this considered dangerous for black?

Of course the Neo-Archangelsk with Bc5 first would avoid that, but I somehow think that one's development should follow the development of theory and hence you first need to play the Archangelsk before trying its modern incarnations.

I am very flattered, but also amazed. Why exactly are you addressing to me? I haven posted nothing in this thread to deserve that honour! 

emary wrote on 02/12/10 at 09:19:29:


I used to play 3..Bc5 with the intention of playing the Cordel Gambit after 4.c3 f5, but convinced myself it probably isn't sound.  If you don't mind me asking, what do you do after 4.c3?

Hello, 

the german magazine Kaissiber No. 14 
(www.kaissiber.com) has a theoretical article 
(18 pages) by Unger about the archangelsk. 
It is called "Pariser Verteidigung" there. 
Kaissiber No 15 has some reactions called 
"Nachlese zur Pariser Verteidigung". 

Unger gives a Black repertoire based on the formation 
Bc5, a6, b5, Bb7 with some original analysis  
not mentioned in "Khalifman: Opening According to Anand" 
Therefore it should have surprise value at least. 

Myself I have not yet tried the Archangelsk, 
but 3...Bc5 has served me well. 
 
Btw: 
You certainly should be prepared for  
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 
5. Qe2!?, because Andrew Greet has written 
a very detailed White Ruy Lopez repertoire based on this line. 
Most Black repertoire books recommend setups with 
Be7 for practical reasons (5.0-0 Be7 6.Qe2 will come to the same thing if you want to play the closed Lopez with Black). 
Of course 5...Bc5 or 5...b5 6.Bb3 Bc5 are more consistent with the Archangelsk and might be the best replies anyway. 
The only coverage of 5... Bc5 which I know 
can be found in Greet's book. 

"Marin: Beating the Open Games" could also be interesting for you. It gives a complete Black repertoire based on 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3...
and the Ruy Lopez Exchange variation, too. 

Quote:


Ivanchuk played it against Svidler in Nalchik 2009. He lost on time and used a half-forgotten choice, 7.d3 Be7 8.a4 0-0 9.Re1 d6 10.Nbd2 Re8 (more popular are 10...Na5 11.Ba2 c5 12.Nf1 Linares 2006), 11.Nf1 h6 (insted 11...Na512.Ba2 c5 is possible). 
GM Ronen Har-Zvi line is interesting.