Hi all, I have a question

I hate the Ruy Lopez. I never play it and never have to play against it. That said, is there any point in me learning it? By studying this particular opening, could I gain something that I could not gain by studying other openings (other than an understanding of the ruy lopez :P)?

Thanks in advance.

No. There is no point in studying the Ruy Lopez if you're never, ever going to see it on the board. Spend the precious study time you have on things that will be more beneficial to you.

Keres, Capablanca and others have said that you can't truly understand chess until you've mastered the subtleties of the Ruy Lopez.

The general gist being that the Ruy is like *the* opening for learning strategic play etc.

By the way, why would you hate an opening you've never even played?!

Never play it implies current, have never played is implies I have never played it, which is not so.

Does anyone else hold Marvels view?

Well, it wasn't my view, I was just regurtitating some moderately famous GMs' views.

That said, I do generally agree. The Ruy is fantastically complex and if you learnt to play the Ruy well (from both sides), I think your chess would improve considerably.

Apolgies for misreading your never play/never played.

I agree with marvellosity. The Ruy pawn structure and positional play are important stepping stones to understanding positional chess. Looking at Karpov play these positions is a thing of beauty. Understanding the Ruy is important for one's long term chess development.

However playing the Ruy as an opening opening is tricky as many times (as either White or Black) will not allow it to be played. 

Also the Ruy can be quite dynamic as there is the Marshall, the Schliemann and other ...f5 lines, plus there was a new pawn move (,,,d5) just found a few years ago.

Schliemann is a big pile of crap, 8.a4! anti-Marshall :D, what's this new pawn move you speak of?

I hate the Ruy Lopez to, I have never played it, and never played against it. I block it best I can.

The line  with ...d5 is in the main Chigorin after 9...Na5 10. Bc2 d5!? which was found in 2007

No problem at all Marvel. I used to play it as a boy, but I find it's lines dull and well over analised.

So it's looking like I would benefit quite greatly from studying it - that appears to be the general feeling...

Look at the Riga Variation--it is amazingly sharp and not well known. I had prepared to play it against Kasparov but he "chickened" out and killed me in an Italian game.

Yes I agree with marvel. In fact you could consider playing it a couple of times or at least study gm games in the closed variation (the open is not as important  because it's just a load of theory to learn for the ruy lopez players, but the marshall attack though technically starting from a closed is sharp and can also help you). If you think the closed ruy is boring, you probably don't like many closed games because the ruy lopez is one of the most interesting closed positions because of the flexibility of plans you can have. But it's important to master the closed game no matter what you play because it can always happen. The ruy is such a major opening that knowing stuff about it makes you better at understanding chess. For me to understand the differences between it and the (at first) seemingly similar italian game also playing for d4 and why there it has to be a sacrifice makes you better. To understand why it's ok to be a bit behind in development and have the pieces on the back rank. To understand the point behind the plans in the closed ruy mainline. And finally to see how and why that position comes about in the first place! Also the idea of trying to force ...b5 and probe it later with a4. Even the exchange ruy can help your strategic play.

I have some questions for you RainbowRising.

1) What is it about the Ruy Lopez that you hate so much?

2) Could it be because you lost playing it or against it earlier in life and have some bad feelings?

3) If you have never played the Ruy Lopez, then how could you truly know that you hate it?

I would appreciate it if you could answer these few simple questions. Thank you for your time.

My guess is he thinks it's boring.

I used to play the Ruy, and I still think it is a good opening for white to play.

True, it has been over analysed but in my opinion, as there are so many different variations, this analysis means nothing to us mere mortals (eg non chess masters) so we might as well just get on and play an opening we like and enjoy.

The reason I left the Ruy was to go back to an opening I missed dearly... the scotch game (particularly the scotch gambit). This is because it is a sharper game for white, and I have better results with it than the Ruy.

But seriously, give it a try in a few unrated games... you never know, you may just like it!

Maybe you are right Joses, maybe I do have some bad memories of it and that's why I don't play it.

 I hate it because a lot of the lines are closed. I don't like closed, positional games which take forever to get going. This is probably due to the fact I'm naturally not very good with closed positions - have always been better with tactics. I have played the Ruy, lots of times, but now I play the Vienna with 3.f4 and it's much more exciting.

Are you suggesting I would enjoy the Ruy more if I took the time to study it? I haven't studied the Vienna, only learnt through experiance, but there is a differnece - the Vienna is keeping me entertained, the Ruy is not.

Ok, apparently it's extremely strategical, both sides employ the whole board, et cetera. I accept that understanding more about the Ruy probably improves your chess.

But we have limited time for chess study. Would studying the Ruy (when you dont play it) for say a hundred hours do more for your chess than studying something else, like an opening you actually play, typical middlegames arising from it, endgames, or something like that for a hundred hours?

This is what you could get out of it -- an understanding of how to manuever in strategically complex positions where both sides have options for play in all sectors of the board, and the potential for opening up tactically at any time is constantly present.

I do think you learn a lot about chess in general from that experience.  As to whether or not the Ruy is the only way to get it, I don't feel qualified to say.  Do you have a counterexample in mind?  The closest I could think of would be the King's Indian, but most variations of that feature White attacking down one side and Black down the other, so I don't think it quite fits the bill.

I play Ruy with both colors and I love it. For me any closed Ruy position is much more open than many of 1. d4 openings. If you will win a couple of blitz games by Marshall attack (with both colors) you will never say again "it's dull". I played quite a few Vienna gambits and frankly it can't compete with Ruy, how many times you use that "f" line before getting bored. And Vienna is not  a serious opening for OTB play, I think. If you want to progress, you have to play Ruy. I can only tell you that just a year ago I hated French, never played it as Black and as White played Exchange variation, since didn't like problems I was getting into with other variations. Then at one moment I thought that it's a shame that I play Exchange variation, why don't I learn something more decent? I started to play Tarrash, then played French with Black and you know what - I liked it. It was something that I didn't know, never tried, original positions, sharp play. I looked at Korchnoi's games and I was amazed by his counterattacks. Since then I played a lot of French, including OTB. So, try it, but try it seriously, look at the great GM games, find a variation that suits you.