I love playing the King's Gambit against low rated players that don't play g5 to defend their pawn..then I get the center AND equal material :D
Alternative to the Ruy
Sort:
@keighley
13 Bd5 Na5 14 Bxb7 Nxb7 15 Nxe5 Re8 16 Nf3 +-
The Ponziani is pretty much busted by the Fraser Defense (and I don't mean busted as in "barely equal or slightly worse", but busted as in "worse and possibly losing entirely"), but OTB in the sub-master sections, nobody is going to know how to play the Fraser Defense perfectly, so...
Keighley schreef:
@Vortex Surfer,
Not only does your sequence of moves make no sense, it kind of misses the point of my post.
Yes now I see it
You played Bd2 INSTEAD of the Bb2
Well my line is a response to your line but with Bb2(superior) instead of Bd2
Keighley wrote:
I was interested to see the h3 d5 gambit in the Marshall being discussed. I try to play the Marshall as my main defense against the spanish these days and bought Jan Gustaffsons Chessbase series on it. Interestingly he included a chapter on this gambit but felt that ultimately he had to reccomend d6 instead of d5 because of the following line. Any comments would be welcome:
The right approach for Black actually is 11...Nxe5 12.Rxe5 Qd6! when Black has fine, Marshall-like compensation for the pawn.
There are some one hundred games played like that, including two of mine (both CC). Unfortunately, I was unable to win either of them.
If the players understand what they are doing, the Marshall in ICCF and LSS correspondence (engines allowed, plenty of time for both) is almost certainly a draw. Actually it is an "easy" draw, as the positions are strategically quite simple, and engines can understand them thorougly.
At OTB play, good memorization is required, since the existing theory on the Marshall extends over move 30.
Levon Aronian says he plays the Marshall to draw, and the Berlin to win. I could suggest the Arkhangelsk instead of the Berlin, which is less technical.
petrosianpupil wrote:
I see Adams lost to Howells recently to a4 in the anti Marshall. Sure Howells was very well prepared as Hebden, Nunn and Adams are renowned for their Marshall skills. Is it a better way to go than h3? Have a good annotated game where Aronian was beaten by Caruana playing d3 which he described as having surprising venom even if he criticised his over ambitious play that followed. He described the more orthodox plan of Nf1 supporting kingside. So is d3 worth an anti Marshall plan?
GM Negi has written a nice article in chess.com's bulletin September issue, specifically on the a4 anti-Marshall. While some of his ideas are remarkable, I wouldn't be terribly scared as Black.
Fixing_A_Hole wrote:
It's pointless to play 1.e4 if you aren't going to play the Ruy. Better off playing 1.d4.
what
If you're okay with equality than you shouldn't be playing 1.e4.
I still don't really understand why the Ruy is supposed to give more chances for an edge than the Scotch...if White's looking for a theoretical edge, 1 d4 is probably his best chance..
CrazyJae wrote:
Alternative to Ruy? How 'bout d4?
On move 3? Yeah! 
MainlineNovelty wrote:
I still don't really understand why the Ruy is supposed to give more chances for an edge than the Scotch...if White's looking for a theoretical edge, 1 d4 is probably his best chance..
The path to equality is just easier against other options, ask the superGM's...there is a reason 19 outta 20 open games end up in the Ruy with the oddball Scotch every once in a while.
Fixing_A_Hole wrote:
MainlineNovelty wrote:
I still don't really understand why the Ruy is supposed to give more chances for an edge than the Scotch...if White's looking for a theoretical edge, 1 d4 is probably his best chance..
The path to equality is just easier against other options, ask the superGM's...there is a reason 19 outta 20 open games end up in the Ruy with the oddball Scotch every once in a while.
Right but below Super GM level the path to equality is often more difficult in the Scotch, because Black is faced with rather irregular positins which he is less familiar with than White.
MainlineNovelty wrote:
Fixing_A_Hole wrote:
MainlineNovelty wrote:
I still don't really understand why the Ruy is supposed to give more chances for an edge than the Scotch...if White's looking for a theoretical edge, 1 d4 is probably his best chance..
The path to equality is just easier against other options, ask the superGM's...there is a reason 19 outta 20 open games end up in the Ruy with the oddball Scotch every once in a while.
Right but below Super GM level the path to equality is often more difficult in the Scotch, because Black is faced with rather irregular positins which he is less familiar with than White.
But if you're going to factor in practical matters such as your opponents familiarity with a line or position, than this is another reason not to play 1.e4. e4 is played the most and has a more forcing nature, so opponents are always more prepared for 1.e4, more comfortable against 1.e4, and can also computer prep against you, even in sub-NM levels.
Fiveofswords wrote:
"The path to equality is just easier against other options, ask the superGM's...there is a reason 19 outta 20 open games end up in the Ruy with the oddball Scotch every once in a while. "
did you ask them?
look for a long time the 'superGMs' of the world felt like various openings were blunders which are now mainline...for example the QID. They are not always so correct.
I have access to an engine which would easily crush any supergm. THis engine doesnt see much of a difference between the critical positions of any of these openings.
SuperGMs have actualyl recently been changing their view of openings quite a lot. THe more modern idea is that most openings are equally good and should not really promise white an advantage, assuming black knows how to play. It comes down to personal preference. ANd if you asked them, i think they would say exactly that. Apparently many of the superGMs have a preference for the ruy. Well its in fashion. Its an opening with a strong tradition behind it, and lots of study around it. That really doesnt mean its better...it doesnt even mean that the superGMs playing it think its necessarily better.
Yeah I talk to them regularly, they contact for me for theoretical advice 
. Nah but seriously, why would you play the Ruy Lopez at that level if you didn't believe it to be best? They all know the theory is mammoth, everyone is constantly improving on each other's games, if anything I would be very hesitant to play into such waters unless I was 100% confident it was giving me the best positions. Fashion is one thing, but its not just superficial...their meal ticket is driven by rating points. They all have reached largely the same conclusion...
the most likely fact is that basically any main opening and likely most others are draws.
That does not mean that the ruy is objectively the same as 1 e4 e5 2 d3
The ruy obviously is better at creating a complex position where a human player as black is likely to go wrong. The problem is one I have already stated. The ruy has been studied intensively by every good chessplayer for over 100 years, so yeah at this point you may as well play 2 d3 or the vienna because you might be more likely to catch someone in a place they trip up.
You may even be a good player and think that these openings are just as good because of personal experience or what number your computer tells you.
Before everything was played out players like capablanca, tal, and fischer knew what their best try to create complications that the person on the other side of the chess board would find difficult.
Fixing_A_Hole wrote:
Yeah I talk to them regularly, they contact for me for theoretical advice . Nah but seriously, why would you play the Ruy Lopez at that level if you didn't believe it to be best? They all know the theory is mammoth, everyone is constantly improving on each other's games, if anything I would be very hesitant to play into such waters unless I was 100% confident it was giving me the best positions. Fashion is one thing, but its not just superficial...their meal ticket is driven by rating points. They all have reached largely the same conclusion...
I agree, you are talking about people who play for money. You think these people haven't thought about what early options give white the best try to win.
If you want to argue semantics about it being objectively equal then you can win that arguement, Yes everyone gets that chess is a draw.
It is still the best try to win.
Fair enough. I understand what your point is and it is good for non masters to look at openings in this way.
To me it is easy to see why someone like caruana or carlsen uses the ruy more often then something like the vienna even though they are certainly both draws and thus equal.
Its like saying tic tac toe is a cats game so there is no point to put the first mark in the center.
Yeah it is a cats game no matter what but that doesnt mean that putting the mark in the center is not the best way to try for the win. You could of course pretend that it is equal to start in a corner and on one level of thinking you would be correct.
Actually, for those that "know" how to draw Tic-Tac-Toe, playing the corner first is the best way to sometimes trip those people up. Play one corner, they will of course play the center...then play the diagonally opposite corner; if they are on autopilot they will choose a corner, because everyone knows that choosing a middle side square is bad ;).
If they then choose a corner square, you win...
Alternative to Ruy? How 'bout d4?