The Ruy is a lot more fun to play as I do like how Black and White have a common struggle and go on these complex maneuvers just to get their pieces in the right place to gain the advantage. Here is an example of what I mean which I got from Mastering the Spanish by Daniel King and Pietro Ponzetto
I Disagree.... u won't be able to play it properly as a beginner or intermediate player unless u know what's ur objective... it's a hella lot confusing ...if u just know the first 10moves as a beginner and think u are fine,then u are absolutely wrong.Even i don't know what to do after i open the centre with d4 becoz there's just no direct plan.U have a fusion of ideas that u have to use depending on the situation
The ideas of the Ruy Lopez are simple.
Even if you don't know theory, these plans are just very intuitive and you can get a strong mating attack. If you play Italian and you can't play the Fried Liver Attack then you are playing a similar positional struggle to the Ruy Lopez except it's harder to play c3-d4 because of this d5 move.
It's not so easy dude....play against a good player and u will see that how difficult it is to execute the plans....u need to be very patient...one mistake and ur opponent gets counterplay and u are done.I have had several games like that.
"Play against a good player" is an absolutely horrific argument. And besides, he's right, the ideas in the Ruy Lopez are simple and natural. The ideas in the Italian are weird and counter-intuitive. In the Ruy Lopez there are easy squares to put things on and rather common targets, whereas in the Italian lines are weird. Polerio forces White to accept a gambit, Giuoco Pianissimo sees both sides try to outlast the other side with waiting moves, so neither are good for beginner players and at the top level White is better off playing the Ruy Lopez, so the only times that the Italian is really better than the Ruy Lopez are the U1200 bracket where Fried Liver is the most common opening (I'd still recommend Ruy Lopez, as Fried Liver doesn't teach players anything) and the 1900-2100 bracket where the average e5 player knows about as much theory in both the Italian and the Ruy Lopez and so there isn't a big difference (which means I'd still recommend Ruy Lopez, as it'll serve players better as they progress).
I don't want to argue anymore about that.What i mean by good player is someone who is booked up.Italian isn't just a beginner opening.Its good all the way uptil master level.
The thing is that a good player (in your case, someone who knows extensive theory) will be able to punish Italian theory much more easily than Ruy Lopez theory, as the Italian is a more passive opening. And the Italian may be 'good' all the way until master level, but the Ruy Lopez is one of the best even beyond master level. The Italian is still a good opening, but it just isn't as good as Ruy Lopez.
For the Ruy you need
something for the Marshall
to learn to play the Open
to learn to play the Berlin endgame
to have something for each of Chingorin, Zaitsev, Breyer
To have something for sidelines ( cozio, Schliemann etc etc ).
That's a lot more compared to the Italian. I'd say start with the Italian, which is simpler, and then later migrate to the Ruy ( e.g. you can start playing a Ruy here and there when you know what your opponent plays and have already prepared for it ).
This isn't entirely true. White can also just learn the d3 Ruy Lopezzes instead of unique setups against every different Black plan.
4. d3 avoids the Berlin endgame and is a decent setup against the Schliemann.
The Anderssen (5. d3) avoids the Open Morphy, and the Duras is a unique plan in case Black doesn't immediately play b5, and if Black does play 5... b5, then this transposes to the Martinez (6. d3), which will usually transpose either to an Arkhangelsk or a Closed Morphy. The omission of an early c3 allows White to play an early a4 or to play h3 before h3 and limit Black's counterplay, while coming at the small cost of losing a tempo if White decides to play the d4 push later in the position.
You canot play d3 against the Bird. And 4.d3 in the Jaenisch is theory heavy
You are going to need to learn some theory anyway. Also, d3 is probably the best move with Nc3 being a good alternative. Also, no one is going to go down 40 moves of theory anyway and usually all you need to win is understand what the middlegame plan is an execute it. Also, d3 is Caruana’s recommendation in his book and he tends to avoid super theoretical variations if he can for the book.
Here is a video that helped me understand this topic when I was a class E-D type player back in the day. The presenter is not necessarily the strongest player, I think he's an NM like me (?), but you don't need to be in order to be a great teacher. I watched a lot of his videos in the past and I think he usually does a great job of breaking things down for beginners.
The only thing I mildly disagree with in this video is maybe I'd word some of the comments about 5...Nxe4 in the Ruy a bit differently, since I think the Open Spanish is a very legitimate opening. But nevertheless this might give you some ideas, not just about the differences between the openings, but also about how to play them 
You canot play d3 against the Bird. And 4.d3 in the Jaenisch is theory heavy
The theory thing has just become name calling for any opening that the individual doesn't like. "Don't play that! There's theory!" You know every opening has theory? Chess is a game of pure information so there is no such thing as an opening which is more or less theoretical. It's just about how much you know.
I've actually heard some people say the same thing about the Giuoco Piano, that there's so many long theoretical lines, to try to convince people to play the London instead.
Giuoco Piano and Two Knights have loads of theory and long deep lines of preparation. You probably never studied that though and still play it. It's all the same.
Other way around for me. I used to play the Italian as it was like the basic beginner opening.
I switched to Ruy Lopez to play serious positional ideas and aggressive mating attacks on the kingside. I find this more fun. That's my opinion.
Yep but you need to learn at least the bird.
Also when you play mostly d3 you may will always pre move that in the game which could be very bad
Say we know compare
You have to at least d3 in spain to most systems which is a lot of theory and different ideas and to learn how to play againt the birds defence
In the italian the only response out of the book is b5 which is not that mutch theory. Against any other aproaches to Bc4 you can always respond d3 and d4 which my even are more trasnposable as in the spanish
You don't need to know any theory against the Bird's.
4. d3 is no less theory dense in the Jaenisch than 4. Nc3, although I'd recommend 4. Nc3 in both the Jaenisch and the Cozio.
Never premove unless you have less than 5 seconds left.
The Bird's Defense is a lot less common than you'd expect, I haven't seen a single one in my last 200 Ruy Lopez games or so, the Old Steinitz is much more common, and 4. 0-0 Nf6 5. d3 works incredibly well as a counter to the Old Steinitz.
So, necessary d3 Ruy Lopez Variations in a repertoire: Closed Morphy/Arkhangelsk (Steinitz, Morphy, Berlin), Cozio, Schliemann. That's only 3 or 4, very little theory necessary.
Necessary Italian Variations in a repertoire: 1 for Giuoco Piano, 1 for Two Knights, 1 for Hungarian. That's still only 3 or 4, but if you play Knight Attack against Two Knights, you have to learn the Polerio, the Fritz, the Traxler, and the Ulvestad. If you play Modern Bishop's Opening/Giuoco Pianissimo, why would you not just play the Pilnik Closed Morphy? It's a similar position, but Black scores remarkably well in the Giuoco Pianissimo compared to the Closed Morphy, and positionally, Black's gameplan is much simpler, easier, and more intuitive to play out.
You canot play d3 against the Bird. And 4.d3 in the Jaenisch is theory heavy
The theory thing has just become name calling for any opening that the individual doesn't like. "Don't play that! There's theory!" You know every opening has theory? Chess is a game of pure information so there is no such thing as an opening which is more or less theoretical. It's just about how much you know.
I've actually heard some people say the same thing about the Giuoco Piano, that there's so many long theoretical lines, to try to convince people to play the London instead.
Giuoco Piano and Two Knights have loads of theory and long deep lines of preparation. You probably never studied that though and still play it. It's all the same.
ts not that a opening has no theory. It the difference in the count of lines and how mutch bad it is too bypass the main lines and more correct site lines
For example systems like London maybe easier for some because bypassing known routes is only a littel bit punishable than for example Anti-Gruendfeld
The Italian is less punishable for bypasing than the Spanish (exept for some advanced lines like traxler, Knights atack or Max Lange which are mostly chossen activly buy white) only Evans is unavoidable.
In Spanish you cannot avoid Bird or Jaenisch
The thing is that White doesn't want to avoid these things. If I could get a Bird's Defense every single time I played 1. e4, I'd probably be 1900+ by now.
ts not that a opening has no theory. It the difference in the count of lines and how mutch bad it is too bypass the main lines and more correct site lines
For example systems like London maybe easier for some because bypassing known routes is only a littel bit punishable than for example Anti-Gruendfeld
The Italian is less punishable for bypasing than the Spanish (exept for some advanced lines like traxler, Knights atack or Max Lange which are mostly chossen activly buy white) only Evans is unavoidable.
In Spanish you cannot avoid Bird or Jaenisch
The Bird is nothing. This is mostly an opening that beginners play because they don't know what else to do so they just attack the bishop impulsively. It's like playing the Qe5+ Scandi. I crushed people who played this without knowing anything.
With the Jaenisch this setup is super solid and easy to learn:
Playing all these different lines is fun. I think saying there's too much theory is an excuse. It's just saying "I can't play chess without looking at engine lines." If there's something you don't know you just play the game, try to make good moves and learn from mistakes. The better player will win.
The thing is that White doesn't want to avoid these things. If I could get a Bird's Defense every single time I played 1. e4, I'd probably be 1900+ by now.
Yeah haha exactly. Avoid the Bird and Jaenisch? Why would I want to avoid the Bird and Jaenisch?
The you have either not met a good bird player or you are a prodigy.
Bird is a weapon i mostly crush spanish players. For longer games i use jaenisch more often
The Bird is a patzer opening. It has no critical ideas. It's just that you haven't played against anyone who's good enough to punish you for it.
Then why do you want to avoid Traxler, Evans, Max Lange, Fritz, Ulvestad etc?
Because I like the Spanish more.
Italian game for white, because you get to castle quicker.
Italian game for white, because you get to castle quicker.
Hm? You can castle on move four in the Spanish, unless they play 3...a6, which also costs them a tempo too
Italian game for white, because you get to castle quicker.
Not true in all cases. Against pretty much any move other than a6, white castles on move 4 in the Ruy Lopez. In the Italian, if black plays the Two Knights then you have to defend the pawn first. You could gambit the pawn but it's not good.
Also castling quicker isn't always an advantage in itself as there can be more useful moves to be made.
The thing is that White doesn't want to avoid these things. If I could get a Bird's Defense every single time I played 1. e4, I'd probably be 1900+ by now.
Yeah haha exactly. Avoid the Bird and Jaenisch? Why would I want to avoid the Bird and Jaenisch?
Then why do you want to avoid Traxler, Evans, Max Lange, Fritz, Ulvestad etc?
I don't. I play Evans Gambit against Giuoco Piano and I'll play any of those variations against Two Knights. I main Ruy Lopez but I'll occasionally play Italian.
It's not so easy dude....play against a good player and u will see that how difficult it is to execute the plans....u need to be very patient...one mistake and ur opponent gets counterplay and u are done.I have had several games like that.
If you play better than them then you will be able to execute those plans. If they play better than you then they'll probably outplay you in the Italian as well.
I'm not sure what it is that you see in this position
over this position
I would actually say the Ruy Lopez plans are far more concrete.