I gave examples to show that the line is playable.
In Fine's PCO he gave one column to the line with = (Analysis by Schlechter).
In the late 50's as mentioned in my post the Soviets players gave the line a try. See games by Taimonov in Chesslive.de.
One has to imagine, that Fischer on the Black side, or White side, he would have won anyway.
When White is playing 1.e4 and has a Ruy Lopez, and is thinking
Chigoran (Closed) game or a Tarrasch (Open) game and Black springs an unusual defense against White, White has to start eating up the clock to solve the problem.
Stats from Chessgames.com based on 378 games:
Number of games in database: 378
Years covered: 1845 to 2007
Overall record:
White wins 51.1%
Black wins 25.9%
Draws 23.0%

The lines that arise from this move order are no worse than the main line and may be better which is why white's best bet is to try to steer the game back into main lines. In his book On Modern Chess Part One: Revolution in the 70s Kasparov gives these lines (The Archangelesk specifically which black can transpose to quite easily with this move order by adding in Nf6 and 0-0 for white) his seal of approval and indicates that white has not been able to show any advantage. Kasparov gives 7.Ng5? d5 8.ed5 Nd4). Ng5 looks like a natural move to exploit black's play but it is just bad.

This move order as mentioned previously is one way for black to avoid having to deal with deferred exchange variations which reduces the necessity of preparing those lines. An added plus is that an inexperienced white player will often waste precious time trying to decide how to punish black over the board for his non-standard play. Steve Giddins, in his book "How to Build Your Chess Opening Repetoire" talks about how you can use such move order finesses to avoid having to play lines that you don't like in certain openings. "Paying careful attention to move-orders and transpositional tricks is an essential part of building a successful opening repetoire... By intelligent use of move-orders, one can often avoid particularly dangerous variations and restrict the opponent's choice of lines."

Crash

Kasporov seems to think that black is equal. He said that he spent a whole day analysing these variations in the 1988 USSR Championship while preparing for Malanyuk and after a day without being able to uncover any concrete advantage he played 1.d4 to avoid the whole thing.

Kasparov also says (by transposition) after 6.0-0 Bc5 "I myself have analysed the 6...Bc5 variation a great deal, and I can say that Black's possibilities here are far from exhausted." (p 263 Garry Kasparov on Modern Chess: Revolution in the 70s).

Crash

Yeah. I have some very specific concerns about some of the lines which combine ...Bc5 with an early ...b5. It seems that b5 can become a pretty big weakness.

Currently, i avoid this by playing the open variation, anyway. But when I play ...Bc5 in the Ruy (which I think is an excellent choice for most class players - better than Be7 by far in terms of practical results) I do so after playing ...a6 but not ...b5. (eg, I'm playing a Moller defense, not a New Arcarngel) although I may push ...b5 once the white QN has moved.

I have a lot of catching up to do on the decade of games that I missed in all of my openings.

Crash

i like the posts.. quite an eye opener.. thanx guys

In this case, I don't think that the problem can be solved over the board except maybe by a supergrandmaster. Kasparov and his second were not able to do it in a day of analysis.

Nunn and other grandmasters caution against relying on statistics to evaluate opening lines unless you look carefully at what was actually played in each individual game. Nunn cites the example of a line which might have been played for years with the consensus of grandmaster opinion being that White stands well, with years of results to support that view. Suddenly a game is played which overturns that assessment and Black wins by force. Because of the way that theory propagates with the internet everyone stops playing the line as White. Statistics will still show that the line is favourable to White although it is refuted.

Crash

It has been brought to my attention that taking the e-pawn is answered by 5... Qf6 when it appears that White is going to pay for his over-exuberance. I plead rust.

White's best choice may be to just transpose back into regular lines with 5.c3 Nc6 6.0-0 or (6.d4).

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Nxb4 5.Nxe5 Qf6 6.Bxf7+ Kf8 7.Qh5 Qxf2+
( 7...Nxc2+ 8.Kd1 Nxa1 9.Bb2 )
8.Kd1 Qxg2 9.Bxg8 Qxh1+ 10.Ke2 Qg2+ 11.Ke1 Qf2+ 12.Kd1 Qf1# )
6...Qxa1 7.c3 )
5...Nc6 6.O-O *

Sorry about that.

Crash