BobbyDigital80 wrote on 09/27/12 at 15:25:32:


Yes, it says so on my copy as welll 

But just wanted to mention another book which may be of historic interest; "Ruy Lopez, Arkhangel System", by FM Konikowski, s1Editrice 1995. An italian publisher, seated in Bologna. Dont know if they still exist, though. 

Of course this is pre computer time. But the book consist of 206 selected games games as well as theory sections. I think its worth a second hand buy if you can find it somewhere.

And:
Its high time that a new Arkhangel/New Arkhangel/Møller system book is written.

Ben 

PANFR wrote on 08/14/12 at 22:58:58:


If you're referring to 7.d3 Be7 8.Re1 0-0 9.a4, then no, you're absolutely wrong as it concerns CC. For one, if black wants, simply 9...Bc5 and white has nothing better than 10.Nc3 and black just plays 10...Na5 to reach the same drawish structures again. But, black doesn't even have to go for that. After 9.a4 d6 10.Nbd2:

10...Re8 11.Nf1 h6  -----50% performance for black.
10...Qd7 11.Nf1 Nd8 12.axb5 axb5 13.Rxa8 Bxa8 14.Ng3 Ne6 15.c3 c5 16.Ng5 Nxg5 17.Bxg5 g6 18.Qf3 Kg7------50% performance for black.

You have to understand in CC, it's either ultra-complicated to have some semblance of chances to win, or it draws. Small, lasting advantages are actually just mundane draws in CC.

Well we're obviously not going to find a forced win for white against this defense, but the main thing is to find something that is complicated to the point where black cannot find the easy draw.

I just get frustrated with lines that are supposed to be really good for white (like Shirov says), yet when I play them in CC, black very simply plays the best-performing book moves and trades the game down to a draw with no troubles. I want black to actually have to work for a living 

My suggestion was 9.Nc3, not 8.Nc3. The rook needs to be on e1 first.

I think in the Be7 version, I'd go for:

9. Nc3 d6 10. Nd5 Na5 11. Nxe7+ Qxe7 12. Nh4

Black has lost nearly every game according to my archives, but none of the games attempted 12...Bc8. This is the same move that works so well in the Bc5 version, but here the difference is the game is much more complicated with white having the bishop pair. So this is definitely the line I'd try.

Speaking of the Arkhangelsk, I'm trying to find the best possible line to play against it for white in CC. My research has shown it's very difficult for white to muster much more than a draw when engines are added into the mix. Here's what I've been looking at so far:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O b5 6. Bb3 Bb7 7. d3 Bc5 8. Nc3 d6 9. a4 b4 10. Nd5 Na5:

White has the choice of 11. Nxf6+ or 11. Bg5. While Nxf6+ has enjoyed a handful of wins, black can nullify this line as follows:

11. Nxf6+ Qxf6 12. Ba2 Bc8!

13. Bg5 Qg6 14. Be3 Bxe3 15. fxe3 O-O 16. Qd2
Rb8 17. Rf2 Be6 and black is perfectly fine here.

So I'm thinking a more complicated try is 11.Bg5 as follows:

11. Bg5 Nxb3 12. Bxf6 gxf6 13. cxb3 f5 14. Rc1 Rg8

Houdini wants to play 15. Rc4, but that line has already been established as a draw as well. I'm thinking this is the critical point where something new must be found to give white more hopes for a win. Otherwise, black can at least expect a draw using this defense in CC.

another interesting approach is playing 5. ... Bc5. Often it will transpose into the Arkhangelsk proper but there are some independent lines. The 2000 Arkhangelsk book has some decent material on this by Emms (who oddly isn't included as co-author on the cover).

Yes it is. Shirov labels it "The Tkachiev variation".