It seems that, like BOSTER having a continual pop at me, you've got yourself a nice little hobby going there. I am sure it gives you a real sense of achievement and pride.

The absurd thing here is hunting through AJ's games to try to pick fault. It smacks of desperation and pettiness. It's playground stuff lke chanting "liar, liar, pants on fire."

And before AJ reacts angrily (and with some justification), I am going to react calmly. To help you see exactly who is being hypocritical here.

Three e-mails and one or two people here said they enjoyed the web page.

I looked at your webpage and have some corrections for you:

the opening is not an Arkhangelsk but the Møller variation;

Leko innovated with 10.axb5 here Leko vs Adams, 1998 Nothing particularly unusual about the opening.

13. Qd3 in the GOTD was a suggestion of Bologan's. In the Leko-Adams game 13. d5 saw 13...Ne7; Leko suggested 13...Na7 in his notes. (You only mention 13...Na5)

John Emms "Easy Guide to the Ruy Lopez" is one standard reference which names 5...b5/6...Bc5 or 5...Bc5 the Møller Variation.

The reason for differentiating between the two is precisely because Black hasn't played ...Bb7. They are two different systems.

They are closely related because in the latter play can go 6...Bb7 7. Re1 Bc5. Whilst, 6...Bc5 7. c3 d6 8. a4 Rb8 9. d4 Bb6 10. axb5 axb5 11. Na3 0-0 12. Nxb5 Bg4 has been tested at the highest levels for years.

The first time I saw the name for 5...Bc5 was in <Modern Chess Opening Strategy> by Harry Golombek (first published in 1959), who called it the Moller or Classical Defence Deferred .

For me (and MOST people - who have told me REPEATEDLY that they come here for chess) ... this is a CHESS site. I shall honor that by trying to stick to chess.

I am discussing chess.

You mention 13. d5 Na5 on your webpage, unaware that 13. d5 Ne7 was seen in a top GM game; also Leko suggested 13...Na7 as better than your move; 13. Qd3 was an untested suggestion of Bologan before this Carlsen game.

The Møller Defence and Arkhangelsk <are> different systems due to the placement/development of the c8 bishop.

I am just mentioning this because you have used some notes discussing the opening. The problem is I think they are woefully inadequate. Just take this:

<One popular reference gives the following continuation: 6...Bb7; 7.Re1 Bc5; 8.c3 d6; 9.d4 Bb6; 10.Be3 0-0; 11.Nbd2 h6; 12.h3, " " 12...Rb8; and while White may have a small edge here, Black's position is very playable.>

That line is utterly harmless. Most attention in the past 20 odd years has gone to 10. Bg5 or 10. a4 0-0 11. Bg5, in both cases with sharp, unclear play. If you have 30-50 books on the Lopez you ought to know that.

Funny that you always quote MCO despite your shelves of books -- with all due respect to Nick de Firmian, he does a good job as editor, MCO can hardly be considered a serious reference book (although it, like NCO and BCO, has sufficient coverage for club players). ECO has decidedly more; the Khalifman series is useful; NIC Yearbook is always good, e.g. the <neo>-Archangel, as the Møller (5...b5 6. Bb3 Bc5) also seems to be called more often, is looked at in surveys in YBs 50, 58, 71, 89....

In your game analysis, I noticed this:

<Or Black could have tried: RR19...Ng6!; 20.Qe2 Qc6; "/+" with a clear edge>

"RR19...Ng6!" How curious. RR is standard Informator code for Editor's comment. How did that RR slip in since you surely haven't stolen somebody's work, have you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruy_Lo...

Premature attackulation (laughs)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymF...