If I play the Italian, Evans Gambit all the way. If it's good enough for Fischer it's good enough for me, and Fischer didn't play unsound openings very often. I'm concerned the most about the Nf6 line of the scotch because it looks scary for white in many variations
Alternative to the Ruy
Sort:
It is hard to give advice when you don't have a problem with playing the Ruy Lopez
lolurspammed wrote:
If I play the Italian, Evans Gambit all the way.
What would you play against 3...Nf6 ?
Would you consider starting with 1. d4 or are you just looking for 1. e4 e5 games. I'm more of a 1. e4 e5 player myself, but 1. d4 can give rise to some very aggressive games.
Just be aware that
A) if you play 4 Ng5, you have to be ready to defend in a number of lines
B) if you play 4 d3, you might as well meet 3...Bc5 with c3/d3 too, because Black can transpose to those lines after 4...Bc5
lolurspammed wrote:
I'm concerned the most about the Nf6 line of the scotch because it looks scary for white in many variations
so Scotch Nf6, one game against young master, elo 2210 from tournament this summer;
it is easy to say in analyze that white most likely does not get too much, but see, even with very easy variation Nb1-d2 black found himself in some troubles -weak c6 pawn after early d7-d6, which become clear with 9th move Nd2-c4, but black was not aware of it.
Nov 22, 2014
0
#69
Fiveofswords wrote:
Fixing_A_Hole wrote:
Just get your practice at that place called chess.com, lol. Obviously it's your choice on what you make your main choice vs 1..e5 in your repertoire, but the Ruy is the best and strategically deepest choice, as has been known for decades.
i dont agree with this. I think the ruy is objectively no better than other tries by white. And really decades ago chess had become much too dogmatic...modern computers have really refuted a lot of those old ideas about how there are no options in the opening...now people know better. The ruy is still fashionable but that could simply be tradition and the fact that other things by white are not necessarily better, either.
See I think the Ruy is objectively better than any other option against 1...e5(I think almost every GM would agree with this). Now if you're talking about practicality, that is entirely different. If that was my main goal in the opening I'd probably still pick the Guioco Pianissimo(actually I wouldn't even play 1.e4...why play e4 if you aren't going to go for the throat?). But that isnt my goal in the opening, so I'll play 3.Bb5 until I'm dead. 
Nov 22, 2014
0
#70
Vienna..meh..I like it after nc6 from black, but after Nf6 I don't get as good of a Kings Gambit because of d5, the party killer :(
Nov 22, 2014
0
#71
Fiveofswords wrote:
'objectively' even something stupid like 1.h3 is just as good as the ruy. They both would draw with perfect play. Its not necessarilly relevant, but almost every GM will admit that.
Come on man, really? Try 1.h3 in centaur chess and tell me its just as good as the Ruy objectively. Perfect play is exactly what it implies...impossible, even with the very best engine, very best computer, and very best human combined.
Fixing_A_Hole wrote:
Come on man, really? Try 1.h3 in centaur chess and tell me its just as good as the Ruy objectively. Perfect play is exactly what it implies...impossible, even with the very best engine, very best computer, and very best human combined.
it is like playing black pieces with tempo (h6!)
Nov 22, 2014
0
#73
I beat a master in a blitz game with the Czech Benoni therefore it is superior. ;)
Nov 22, 2014
0
#74
Fiveofswords wrote:
Fixing_A_Hole wrote:
Fiveofswords wrote:
'objectively' even something stupid like 1.h3 is just as good as the ruy. They both would draw with perfect play. Its not necessarilly relevant, but almost every GM will admit that.
Come on man, really? Try 1.h3 in centaur chess and tell me its just as good as the Ruy objectively. Perfect play is exactly what it implies...impossible, even with the very best engine, very best computer, and very best human combined.
not sure you understand the meaning of the word objective. you think the ruy is 'objectively' best but admit that based on practical/circumstantial considerations other openings may be fine. If perfect play is what you say it is then you are being inconsistent with the use of the word objective.
I don't see how any of that is contradictory, or indicative of me not knowing what "objective" means. Yes, the Ruy is objectively best, meaning that it is the most sound try for advantage against e4 e5 nf3 nc6, regardless of what positions one may enjoy, or of how much memorization is required, or how complex the position is, or how strong or prepared your opponent is, or any other personal type opinion. This is supported by a)Human theory/advocacy for decades(hundreds of years actually) and b)Engines. Sounds like the definition of "objectively best" to me.
Of course other openings are "fine." I'm not talking about fine, as with white I am not okay with equality(there is nothing wrong with that opinion of the game, its just not shared by me). I'm advocating for what I said...that the Ruy is the "best and most strategically deep" option.
Perfect play isn't really applicable in the opening either, and I didn't mean it as such.
Nov 22, 2014
0
#75
Fiveofswords wrote:
well i simply dont agree. People were also saying the sicilian is unplayable for hundreds of years. Advocacy means little. Engines also do not have any clear preference for the ruy. Theres nothing special about the ruy that sets it apart from other openings by white such as the scotch or italian or vienna or danish gambit. Absolutely nothing. It doesnt win more often in practice, nor is there any clear logical reason to prefer it.
You're completely welcome to your opinion, and I hope I am to mine as well. I think the logical/human reason to prefer the Ruy complex is simply that it is the most efficient way to build and control the center. I think controlling the center and developing based upon it gives the most potential for winning the game of chess.
And Nimzowitch would disagree with both of you. About controlling the center.
Nov 22, 2014
0
#77
Fiveofswords wrote:
steve_bute wrote:
And Nimzowitch would disagree with both of you. About controlling the center.
well no...nimzowitch also took the center quite seriously
Exactly...just with different methods.
You'd think I had no idea who Nimzo was.
someone early in the thread mentioned the King's Gambit....
Very double edged, you will win many games and you will loose many games. Draws will be the rareity.