italian game or ruy lopez? - Chess Forums - Page 3

charliewalker2 · 2023-03-24T13:21:09-07:00

for anyone with a lot of experience with both of these openings, which do you find more useful? the only difference in the opening is playing 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 instead of 3. Bb4, so why is ruy lopez considered more theoretical? any advice is appreciated

ssctk

Mar 28, 2023

0

#41

Ethan_Brollier wrote:

ssctk wrote:

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.

It's possible to play the d3 Ruy to avoid the nature of some of these lines, it's also possible to play the d3 Italian, they're both quality and with a similar goal, first play d3, and then later play c2-c3 and d3-d4.

ssctk

Mar 28, 2023

0

#42

SamuelAjedrez95 wrote:

ssctk wrote:

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 is a matter of precise knowledge vs intuition. The way you talk about learning openings is that you have to learn exact memorised lines to be able to play an opening. This is a substitute for simply playing well and understanding the opening.

There's no need to complicate it.

In regards to all the variations you mentioned, this can be learned in under an hour: You don't even have to learn the Marshall Attack or the Berlin as you can play anti marshall and anti-Berlin lines.

I arranged this in a under a minute.

For some of these you do need memorised lines, eg the Marshall.

It's possible to play an anti Marshall, it's also possible to play an Italian, neither promises an advantage and both are good openings.

Preparing for the Marshall in under an hour is a false assumption. One can probably watch a couple of YouTube videos in that timeframe but that's different to preparing for it.

magipi

Mar 28, 2023

0

#43

ssctk wrote:

For some of these you do need memorised lines, eg the Marshall.

When a 600-rated player asks for openings (like in this thread), the last thing he needs is memorized lines in the Marshall (or everywhere else).

ssctk

Mar 28, 2023

0

#44

magipi wrote:

ssctk wrote:

For some of these you do need memorised lines, eg the Marshall.

When a 600-rated player asks for openings (like in this thread), the last thing he needs is memorized lines in the Marshall (or everywhere else).

I agree, so they should avoid entering the Marshall, hence my suggestion to play the Italian instead.

magipi

Mar 28, 2023

0

#45

ssctk wrote:

magipi wrote:

ssctk wrote:

For some of these you do need memorised lines, eg the Marshall.

When a 600-rated player asks for openings (like in this thread), the last thing he needs is memorized lines in the Marshall (or everywhere else).

I agree, so they should avoid entering the Marshall, hence my suggestion to play the Italian instead.

Or they can play the Ruy Lopez instead and not worry about the Marshall. The chance of the Marshall happening in a 600 Elo game is exactly 0%.

All this talk about opening variations is incredibly futile. A 600-rated player should use opening principles and move on. There are more important things to think about.

ssctk

Mar 28, 2023

0

#46

magipi wrote:

ssctk wrote:

magipi wrote:

ssctk wrote:

For some of these you do need memorised lines, eg the Marshall.

When a 600-rated player asks for openings (like in this thread), the last thing he needs is memorized lines in the Marshall (or everywhere else).

I agree, so they should avoid entering the Marshall, hence my suggestion to play the Italian instead.

Or they can play the Ruy Lopez instead and not worry about the Marshall. The chance of the Marshall happening in a 600 Elo game is exactly 0%.

All this talk about opening variations is incredibly futile. A 600-rated player should use opening principles and move on. There are more important things to think about.

Why play an opening they cannot learn instead of an opening they can understand to its entirety? There's the open too, the Zaitsev as well, very theoretical lines.

Plus, there's nothing wrong with playing the Italian. There are FMs and even IMs whose main weapons are the Italian or the Scotch, why is it bad for a beginner to play the Italian l?

Exactly because there are more important things, one should avoid openings with long theoretical lines, at all levels tbh.

SamuelAjedrez95

Mar 29, 2023

0

#47

SamuelAjedrez95 wrote:

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.

ssctk, you can't avoid what doesn't exist. Any good opening has established theory and any bad opening which is unexplored will develop theory. Italian and Ruy Lopez are both heavily analysed and therefore "theoretical" but that's only relevant to those who know the theory.

The suggestion that someone lower rated shouldn't play this or that opening as there's too much theory is totally void as it makes the false assumption that all opponents will know all that theory. This varies depending on the opponent. You could play someone who knows long, prepared lines of theory in the Italian but doesn't know the Ruy Lopez. In this case, the Ruy Lopez would be used to avoid theory.

Maybe you play an opening frequently to avoid theory but as a result have developed an extensive knowledge of the theory of that opening. Opponent could avoid your opening on the grounds that you've revised long 40 move deep lines in that "non-theoretical" opening. Alternatively, they could also outprepare you by studying all the theory of your opening whereas you didn't think to as it's "non-theoretical".

The only reason that this or that opening is considered theoretical is because the grandmasters know the theory. We are not playing against grandmasters.

Alchessblitz

Mar 29, 2023

0

#48

it reminds me of the story related to Queen's Gambit and the London system.

a : 1) d4 d5 2) c4 is the main line the not very debatable thing that White should play and "will come" 1) d4 d5 2) Bf4 it quibble with guys who will say it's not really good it's opening called equal etc. and other guys who think it's better than Queen's Gambit etc.

b : 1) e4 e5 2) Nf3 Nc6 3) Bb5 is the main line the not very debatable thing that White should play an "will come" 1) e4 e5 2) Bc4 Nc6 (or 2...Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6) 3) Nf3 it quibble with guys who will say it's not really good it's opening called equal etc. and other guys who think it's better than Ruy Lopez etc.

Italian Game is rather played in move order 1) e4 e5 2) Nf3 Nc6 3) Bc4 but it doesn't change much with 1) e4 e5 2) Bc4 Nc6 3) Nf3 and I find it funny "the similar way of playing" between

1) d4 d5 2) Bf4

and 1) e4 e5 2) Bc4

ssctk

Mar 29, 2023

0

#49

SamuelAjedrez95 wrote:

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.

ssctk, you can't avoid what doesn't exist. Any good opening has established theory and any bad opening which is unexplored will develop theory. Italian and Ruy Lopez are both heavily analysed and therefore "theoretical" but that's only relevant to those who know the theory.

The suggestion that someone lower rated shouldn't play this or that opening as there's too much theory is totally void as it makes the false assumption that all opponents will know all that theory. This varies depending on the opponent. You could play someone who knows long, prepared lines of theory in the Italian but doesn't know the Ruy Lopez. In this case, the Ruy Lopez would be used to avoid theory.

Maybe you play an opening frequently to avoid theory but as a result have developed an extensive knowledge of the theory of that opening. Opponent could avoid your opening on the grounds that you've revised long 40 move deep lines in that "non-theoretical" opening. Alternatively, they could also outprepare you by studying all the theory of your opening whereas you didn't think to as it's "non-theoretical".

The only reason that this or that opening is considered theoretical is because the grandmasters know the theory. We are not playing against grandmasters.

The Italian has less theory than the Ruy, it's as simple as that.

To make preparation in the Ruy have comparable amounts of theory one needs to go the d3 route ( this route is also fine ), or the Worrall ( where one is better off with the Italian to be honest ).

The Sielecki video you posted actually says the same thing, he proposes d3 Ruy so that theory is manageable, he also considers the Italian in the same class as d3 Ruy, the reason he went for the Ruy is that he felt it's a better combo with the Bb5 sicilians in his repertoire.

There's nothing wrong with bringing the amount of theory to a manageable level btw, it's a good thing actually, as there are more important things than openings and one is better off keeping the amount of tabiyas they play at a number which allows to built pattern knowledge and play well all of them, instead of broadening the repertoire too much and not knowing how to play key tabiyas in it.

ssctk

Mar 29, 2023

0

#50

Alchessblitz wrote:

it reminds me of the story related to Queen's Gambit and the London system.

a : 1) d4 d5 2) c4 is the main line the not very debatable thing that White should play and "will come" 1) d4 d5 2) Bf4 it quibble with guys who will say it's not really good it's opening called equal etc. and other guys who think it's better than Queen's Gambit etc.

b : 1) e4 e5 2) Nf3 Nc6 3) Bb5 is the main line the not very debatable thing that White should play an "will come" 1) e4 e5 2) Bc4 Nc6 (or 2...Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6) 3) Nf3 it quibble with guys who will say it's not really good it's opening called equal etc. and other guys who think it's better than Ruy Lopez etc.

Italian Game is rather played in move order 1) e4 e5 2) Nf3 Nc6 3) Bc4 but it doesn't change much with 1) e4 e5 2) Bc4 Nc6 3) Nf3 and I find it funny "the similar way of playing" between

1) d4 d5 2) Bf4

and 1) e4 e5 2) Bc4

I feel the nature of this debate is different.

The London was "accused" of being boring or unambitious by some members ( don't agree ), in the Italian Vs Ruy debate, it's a question of repertoire size and complexity.

Tbh I've seen FMs and IMs employ several non-Ruy open games as their main weapon, even though some play 1. ..e5 as their main defence to 1.e4 so they even know very well at least 1-2 lines in the Ruy.

Tbh I don't understand the approach where anything but a Ruy, Najdorf and Nimzoindian repertoire is substandard and honestly wonder how many from those who propose it have gone through the effort of maintaining such a repertoire for OTB play. These are of course very good openings but the combined repertoire, with all three openings being there, I've only seen GMs maintain due to the maintenance efforts required.

SamuelAjedrez95

Mar 29, 2023

0

#51

ssctk wrote:

The Italian has less theory than the Ruy, it's as simple as that.

To make preparation in the Ruy have comparable amounts of theory one needs to go the d3 route ( this route is also fine ), or the Worrall ( where one is better off with the Italian to be honest ).

The Sielecki video you posted actually says the same thing, he proposes d3 Ruy so that theory is manageable, he also considers the Italian in the same class as d3 Ruy, the reason he went for the Ruy is that he felt it's a better combo with the Bb5 sicilians in his repertoire.

There's nothing wrong with bringing the amount of theory to a manageable level btw, it's a good thing actually, as there are more important things than openings and one is better off keeping the amount of tabiyas they play at a number which allows to built pattern knowledge and play well all of them, instead of broadening the repertoire too much and not knowing how to play key tabiyas in it.

Not if the opponent knows more Italian theory than Ruy Lopez theory.

You can play how you want. There's nothing wrong with playing quietly.

However, it's better in the long run to play more ambitiously. It's better to play something which is actually interesting and aggressive than play passive moves because you want to take shortcuts. Instead of playing something which is just "good enough", you can learn to actually play very well and beautifully.

Being lazy doesn't pay off.

SamuelAjedrez95

Mar 29, 2023

0

#52

ssctk wrote:

I feel the nature of this debate is different.

The London was "accused" of being boring or unambitious by some members ( don't agree ), in the Italian Vs Ruy debate, it's a question of repertoire size and complexity.

Tbh I've seen FMs and IMs employ several non-Ruy open games as their main weapon, even though some play 1. ..e5 as their main defence to 1.e4 so they even know very well at least 1-2 lines in the Ruy.

Tbh I don't understand the approach where anything but a Ruy, Najdorf and Nimzoindian repertoire is substandard and honestly wonder how many from those who propose it have gone through the effort of maintaining such a repertoire for OTB play. These are of course very good openings but the combined repertoire, with all three openings being there, I've only seen GMs maintain due to the maintenance efforts required.

It's because you massively exaggerate the relevance of theory at the amateur level. No one is playing all these long lines of theory you talk about. That's a complete misunderstanding. We just play the opening and play the game and figure it out like you would do in any other opening.

It's actually you who is saying the same thing about these openings. "How could you play Ruy Lopez? How could you play Najdorf? There's SO MUCH THEORY. It's SO BORING."

You talk about it requiring so much maintenance but that's actually total bs and you have no idea what you're talking about. Just because you personally don't like these openings and can't be bothered to learn them doesn't mean that applies to others.

SamuelAjedrez95

Mar 29, 2023

0

#53

I don't understand this mentality of people who act like learning chess is such a chore to them or even boring. If it's your hobby, then why don't you enjoy it? Learning Najdorf is boring to you? Learning Ruy Lopez is boring to you? Really? That's a shame that you think that way.

ssctk

Mar 29, 2023

0

#54

SamuelAjedrez95 wrote:

ssctk wrote:

I feel the nature of this debate is different.

The London was "accused" of being boring or unambitious by some members ( don't agree ), in the Italian Vs Ruy debate, it's a question of repertoire size and complexity.

Tbh I've seen FMs and IMs employ several non-Ruy open games as their main weapon, even though some play 1. ..e5 as their main defence to 1.e4 so they even know very well at least 1-2 lines in the Ruy.

Tbh I don't understand the approach where anything but a Ruy, Najdorf and Nimzoindian repertoire is substandard and honestly wonder how many from those who propose it have gone through the effort of maintaining such a repertoire for OTB play. These are of course very good openings but the combined repertoire, with all three openings being there, I've only seen GMs maintain due to the maintenance efforts required.

It's because you massively exaggerate the relevance of theory at the amateur level. No one is playing all these long lines of theory you talk about. That's a complete misunderstanding. We just play the opening and play the game and figure it out like you would do in any other opening.

It's actually you who is saying the same thing about these openings. "How could you play Ruy Lopez? How could you play Najdorf? There's SO MUCH THEORY. It's SO BORING."

You talk about it requiring so much maintenance but that's actually total bs and you have no idea what you're talking about. Just because you personally don't like these openings and can't be bothered to learn them doesn't mean that applies to others.

Well, your assumptions on why I say this happen to be false.

I'm making proposals based on my experience and also how amateurs I know, who were better than me, that reached FMs and IMs I know created their repertoires. I designed my repertoire back in the day together with an IM who is also a published author and I'll be excused for taking his advice, which tbh practice has proven to be excellent, instead of someone who writes about any opening that has ever been played and at the same time doesn't know to which Benoni structure to go for.

Maybe this doesn't end up matching the openings you appear to admire so much, but for me it's more important to pass a message that will be useful than repeat someone's favourite openings.

SamuelAjedrez95

Mar 29, 2023

0

#55

ssctk wrote:

It's not just someone's favourite opening. They are established as the most respected and crucial openings in chess.

Your message about chess isn't important or useful. You promote an incredibly pessimistic and uninspirational view of chess. You act like learning chess is boring and a chore and try to convince others of how boring and terrible it is for them to learn these openings.

ssctk

Mar 29, 2023

0

#56

SamuelAjedrez95 wrote:

ssctk wrote:

Well, your assumptions on why I say this happen to be false.

I'm making proposals based on my experience and also how amateurs I know, who were better than me, that reached FMs and IMs I know created their repertoires. I designed my repertoire back in the day together with an IM who is also a published author and I'll be excused for taking his advice, which tbh practice has proven to be excellent, instead of someone who writes about any opening that has ever been played and at the same time doesn't know to which Benoni structure to go for.

Maybe this doesn't end up matching the openings you appear to admire so much, but for me it's more important to pass a message that will be useful than repeat someone's favourite openings.

It's not just someone's favourite opening. They are established as the most respected and crucial openings in chess.

Your message about chess isn't important or useful. You promote an incredibly pessimistic and uninspirational view of chess. You act like learning chess is boring and a chore and try to convince others of how boring and terrible it is for them to learn these openings.

Established by you is what you mean ?

Because at the top level at the moment e.g. 1. ..e5 is all the rage, not the Najdorf, and the Italian is gradually becoming popular, partly because of the Berlin and Marshall lines in the Ruy.

Of course other openings are fine, including the Najdorf and all major defences actually and this is quite independent of your assumption to be saying something established.

Sea_TurtIe

Mar 29, 2023

0

#57

maybe early ruy players could just play the exchange variation, bright his other knight and bishop out. and castle, but he would still have to learn how to play it other than that because black has a lot of options other than a Bc5-f6-Nd7 type setup

BOWTOTHETOAST

Mar 29, 2023

0

#58

SamuelAjedrez95 wrote:

ssctk wrote:

It's not just someone's favourite opening. They are established as the most respected and crucial openings in chess.

Your message about chess isn't important or useful. You promote an incredibly pessimistic and uninspirational view of chess. You act like learning chess is boring and a chore and try to convince others of how boring and terrible it is for them to learn these openings.

Chess is fun. My favourite opening is the ruy lopez because I win so many games with it.

SamuelAjedrez95

Mar 29, 2023

0

#59

ssctk wrote:

Established by you is what you mean ?

Because at the top level at the moment e.g. 1. ..e5 is all the rage, not the Najdorf, and the Italian is gradually becoming popular, partly because of the Berlin and Marshall lines in the Ruy.

Of course other openings are fine, including the Najdorf and all major defences actually and this is quite independent of your assumption to be saying something established.

That is, the majority of the top grandmasters consider these to be amongst the best openings. e5 and the Italian are also major openings as well as the Najdorf and Ruy Lopez.

I'm checking the master's database for the past year 2022-2023. This is following all the most played moves:

e4 is the most popular 1st move
c5 is the most popular response
2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 is still the most popular
the Najdorf is the most popular Sicilian Defence
After 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6, Bb5 the Ruy Lopez is the most popular being played more than double the number of Bc4 the Italian

Chessflyfisher

Mar 29, 2023

0

#60

A friend of mine says that the Ruy Lopez is "more manly". I never thought about it that way.