Stefan Buecker wrote on 07/29/10 at 17:24:31:

Znosko-Borovsky wrote an article on it in Deutsche Schachblätter 7/1950, calling the system "Pesis Pariser Verteidigung [Pesi's Paris Defence]". Before him, Tartakower had named it "Paris Defence", Z-B added the name of the "inventor", the Parisian amateur Pesi. In Kaissiber 14 (2000) Gerolf Unger contributed a longer article (18 pp.) on the line, with many original ideas. I accepted the name "Paris Defence", also as a reminder of Morphy's victory against Anderssen in the French capital. - There was a follow-up in issue 15 and the uncommented, but critical Palciauskas - Siewert, corr. 2001 (1-0, 33) in #18, p.75. [/quote]

Very interesting - thanks Stefan. There must be much gold hidden in the old magazines.

I think the Russians say "All is new that is well forgotten" or something like that.

Markovich wrote on 07/25/10 at 15:17:15:


Well Mark, I guess "Neo-Archangel" is the sort of name that chess writers give to an opening when they don't know anything more suitable to call it! 

It can be argued that this line has more in common with the Classical defence than the Archangel (although admittedly it can transpose to the latter if Black plays ...Bb7). Or you could say that it is a modern interpretation of the Moeller defence, an early Alekhine favourite (generally played without ...b5).

There is definitely a case for calling it after Tkachiev though. Practically the earliest game with this by a modern strong play is his game against Bologan from Tilburg 1994. Wedburg's annotation at move 6 reads "Not the Arkhangelsk variation"! Very helpful.

On the other hand, historical purists could equally argue that it should be named the "Morphy defence" (Loewenthal-Morphy, game 1 of their match in London 1859)!

The conclusion is that this is now a good system for Black after all?

Quote:


the other 15% of the games features other variations like the exchange?

I must say i'm not terribly impressed with this DVD.  85% of the presentation is on the position after these moves:

1. e4 e5   2. Nf3 Nc6   3. Bb5 a6   4. Ba4 Nf6   5. O-O b5   6. Bb3 Bc5  7.a4 Rb8.   

This is the move that differentiates what Shirov refers to as the Tkachiev systerm.  This seems odd given he makes many references to this as "my lopez".  Unfortunately, there is very little disussion of black or white deviations.  In a roundabout way, it becomes clear that his intention is rarely to play Bb7.  Presumably if white doesn't play an early a4, he would aim for a quick Bg4, giving him more direct attacking chances against white's center than the solid Bb7 lines.

The video was insightfull at first, as he shared many thoughts about GM prep, especially the impact of modern computers.  However, he rambled a lot and seemingly did little preparation for the lecture.  Frankly, i feel he glossed over black's best moves (although he would vaguely mention them) and spent too much time on the difficult positions black ended up in.  

I don't need an opening video to "sell" me the variation with brilliant wins from the black side, but this video lacked any sort of enthusaism or "hope" from a presenter who has made this his primary defense for over a decade!   I got the impression he was trying to avoid giving away too many secrets.  I often sat twiddling my thumbs while our hero mumbled "uhh",  "ermm", and "i forget" as he tried to solve tactical problems in non-critical positions without the use of a computer.  

This is basically no more than an interesting games collection - too incomplete to form the basis of a repertoire, and too narrow in focus for a state of the art theory survey.  Sadly, none of these games impressed me with black's supposed "counterplay".  There is very little strategical explanation which indicates any logical motivation behind his choice of lines.   Most of the video is spent demonstrating that black can usually draw after dropping his b5 pawn, and that the Nxe5 fork trick doesnt necessarilly win for white.  I'm left wondering why bother playing the Rb8 system at all.  

FYI, the Chesslecture.com 3 part lecture series on this exact same opening is certainly a more suitable introduction for the 1600-2000 crowd.  Humorously, the most usefull thing i gained from Shirov's video was a hint that he could possibly play 7... Bb7 in the futre.

Ametanoitos wrote on 06/11/10 at 20:27:27:

If statistics are to be trusted, 6.d4 is pretty strong; White wins more than 70% of the games.

Just a question that came now on my head. Is it possible to play 3...a6 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 Nf6 justo to avoid some sidelines like the delayed exch var? Given that 6.Ng5 d5 7.exd5 Nd4 is equal according to what i know, can White benefit from this move order?

Göran wrote on 06/11/10 at 12:50:19:


I'd guess that it's the title of this thread. 

Göran wrote on 06/08/10 at 03:54:26:

After 7...d5 8.d4 dxe4
Shirov-Ivantsjuk, 1998 1-0
Shirov-Onischuk, 2000 ½
Zhang Zhong-Onischuk, 2001 ½
Topalov-Anand, 2001 ½
Topalov-Shirov, 2001 ½
Svidler-Grisjuk, 2001 1-0
Lautier-Onischuk, 2004 ½
Svidler-Onischuk, 2005 ½
Hracek-Delchev, 2006 ½
Galkin-Lastin, 2008 ½

So I maintain that Onischuk is the man to beat. My question remains relevant: is there a way to an advantage for White?