well for starters any one that plays the lopez well wouldnt play Bxc6 line and if the did they would never take on e5 end of story but for your line insted of the horrible f4 white plays Ng4 with a slightly worse game

4. Bxc6 is perfectly playable, if you know the lines. Unfortunately, the remainder of White's moves were not.

I think that Qg5 is stronger than Qd4.

It isn't for me, what's your reason?

Bxc6 really is bad.  That's why I play Bc4 instead and taking on e5 is just asking for trouble.

The problem is on Nxe5 not on Bxc6 so no, you can't kill the ruy lopez as black -.-

Why not just play the Italian game to start with?

Sometimes I wish you had to have some sort of minimum rating to post new topics in this forum.

Yep :)

Not everybody plays a6.  If the play continues Ba4 b5 The bishop ends on the diagonal anyway.  Then there's the Marshall attack as well.

Taking the e5 pawn is an old, well-known dud.

You know, if the Ruy Lopez was busted, why is it one of the most popular openings in the world, strange, considering that its busted.

We should really create Theory on the Parham, or the BGD!

I never play the exchange variation of the Ruy Lopez. If i see a6 which is the Morphy defense if i remember the name, i play ba4.

How to kill one of the most popular openings by providing a line of nonsense moves.

That may be going a little to far, but you should have at least a FIDE rating of 2400 (or chess.com rating of 2600) before you should be allowed to claim you have refuted a major opening.

I think this is maybe meant to be similar to a book called Traps and Zaps! It would show a game and someone would play a move like taking the pawn and the book would show why it does not work.

This example is very similar to the style of that book.