italian game or ruy lopez?

Don't listen to yourself. Listen to ssctk. ssctk is telling us that we are suffering the horrible torment of Ruy Lopez theory and he is here to save us.

Stastically, that's just not true. With the two main anti-Marshall moves (8. a4 and 8. h3), White scores a good ten points better than Black at both the master and amateur levels, per the lichess database. White scores slightly better in the Italian too, but only by about half that margin.

Contrary to the perception that these Anti-Marshalls are ways of "settling," White really does still have the better chances on account of the space advantage and the active b3 bishop.

SamuelAjedrez95, lots of good points here. I'm amused, though, by a funny goof in the Jaenisch line you gave way back on p. 1 (6. Kf1?!?)

The d3 lines aren't my preference, but are a perfectly fine way to play the Ruy.

Here's the Open:

I'd like to get into these openings but I feel it's alot of theory, lemme ask you high rated players how do you guys study openings?

I think I did play a few italian games on my acc but I can't remember how well I did or if I just Botez gambitted all of em😂

There is a rather large difference between the d3 Ruy Lopez and the d3 Italian.
In the Ruy Lopez, Black either has to commit to playing b5, allowing White to play a4 with a strong idea, or allow White to play the Duras, where White will have much more space in the center and thus nullify the more 'passive' style of the d3 Ruy Lopez. White also has ideas of playing c3, transposing to the Pilnik Variation of the Closed Morphy, and learning a more traditional Ruy Lopez once they've mastered the d3 system.

Omg, I didn't see that 🙈 Of course it's supposed to be 6. 0-0.

On that note, I would actually like to bring up a variation of the Ruy Lopez where Kf1 is the best move and refutes a certain line.

Believe it or not after 3. ...Bc5 4. c3 d6, black is dead lost. Why? 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Bb4+...

I make a study and look at the analysis board for the most played moves. I learn why the moves are played and find the main tabiya positions.

I play the opening to gain experience and learn from mistakes. I analyse each of my games in the opening to see what I did wrong or could've done better.

It really helps to play correspondence games too. After playing daily games I was much more confident in timed ones, especially in the opening.

One practical advantage to Ruy is that even at the 1600 level or so, you see a *lot* of Steinitz variations. Not even the deferred Steinitz, the old 3. ... d6 version, where it's fairly easy to get a nice advantage (4. d4 is good and easy to play).

Yes, this is the way I've learned a lot of theory. Do it with a book, so you can learn as you work through actual positions. This is much more effective for learning than just studying in abstraction. Theoretically, you could accomplish something similar by being studious about checking your books after every blitz game you play, but nobody remembers to do that. And it's more satisfying in daily games where you actually get to play the right moves and not just wish you had!

very true, people even at 1700 level play lines that give white a good advantage i will post them

Yeah, I see more Old Steinitz than Morphy, and I hardly ever see Berlin, and I never see Berlin with 4... Nxe4. It's great.

searching a master DB to see what the top ( super GMs ) prefer makes little sense unfortunately. At the top only MLV consistently employs the Najdorf which you've established as the most respected.

But anyhow this discussion makes little sense, I'm sure with or without it you are fully capable of pasting lines that often do not make any sense for every opening that exists and also give recommendations on them.

The exchange is also a reasonable option

The difference is the number of games to build pattern knowledge and what is "lost" during that time, whether this is correspondence or with peers on a physical board.

You could play corr and play eg a lot of slow Berlin games and a lot of slow open Ruy games and a lot of slow Breyer games and a lot of slow Zaitsev games and a lot of slow Chingorin games, a lot of slow Marshall games plus a few for the sidelines.

The alternative is to spend that time in technical endgames, visualisation and calculation, tactics, high quality training material eg Dvoretsky. Playing a d3 Ruy or an Italian frees up this time.

The later being the more likely to improve your game than spending this time on the Ruy.

A coach I know personally, himself a well regarded author of a couple of opening monographs ( targeting 2200+ audience) had told me that two of his students broke 2000 ( fide, not chess.com ) with zero opening knowledge, they were playing really just developing moves.

Most of his students, esp those above 2000 typically do have a defined repertoire but it's one that allows them to focus on the important part of the game and not on repertoire maintenance nor theoretical lines.

None of them play the Ruy actually, some are FMs, there are a couple of IMs there too, so this time is probably better invested on the Dvoretskys, and well annotated games instead of going after theoretical openings. 

Italian is much easier than the Ruy Lopez/Spanish. With the Ruy Lopez, there are many variations that are really good. At the 100-1800 level (such as 900 where I am), I recommend the Italian game, Scotch game, or the Ponziani.

also post 100 pog

Yes I think the debate is of another nature

First on 1) d4 d5 there are not two but at least three variants "subject to debate " i.e. Queen's Gambit, London system and Colle system. On Queen's Gambit, Black doesn't have I think a problematic variant giving rise to a debate so the London system and the Colle system are not in themselves necessary but just different weapons about the position 1.d4 d5

On 1) e4 e5 2) Nf3 (with rather idea to play Ruy Lopez) there is two problematics variants :

1 : Petrov Defense 1) e4 e5 2) Nf3 Nf6 3) Nxe5 d6 4) Nf3 Nxe4 5) d4 d5 in short I think it's a bit like playing a French Defense Exchange variant

2 : Berlin Defense 1) e4 e5 2) Nf3 Nc6 3) Bb5 Nf6 4) o-o Nxe4 5) d4 Nd6 6) Bxc6 dxc6 7) dxe5 Nf5 8) Qxd8+ Kxd8 in short I suppose even worse than a French Defense Exchange variant

so giving rise to a debate and I think Italian Game can become or maybe is an option as strong as Ruy Lopez (a main line option) because Petrov Defense problem "can be solved" by 1) e4 e5 2) Nf3 Nf6 3) Bc4 and the Italian Game can be annoying ["when you know nothing with White"] with for example the Max Lange Attack which is not the same kind of annoyance with the London system I think

For 1.d4 d5, there's certainly the Catalan as well and the Colle is really two systems, Colle-Koltanowsky (which I've never faced to be honest) and Colle-Zukertort, the later was also played by Yusupov. In the QGD ( which I play with both colors ), perhaps there's no "official" equaliser but for all practical purposes there's also no trouble for Black to equalise.

For all practical purposes play depends on how well one knows the positions, the themes and the lines, so indeed all these options make sense, as long as White is in familiar territory and has dragged Black outside their comfort zone.

For 1.e4 e5

In the line you mention , 1) e4 e5 2) Nf3 Nf6 3) Bc4  , isn't ..Nxe4 an option ? I wouldn't say the Italian solves the Petrov.

I don't view it from a theoretical point of view btw, i.e. along the lines of the Ruy has two equalisers, so let's switch to the Italian. While this may be a consideration, and likely a core reason super GMs are playing the Italian again, I view it from the practical point of view.

The Ruy has the open, the berlin, the marshall, breyer, chigorin, zaitsev and so on, all these have well developed theory and especially in the marshall, you don't play your opponent, you play their preparation.

To be able to use it against competition who has been playing one of these lines for years and knows them really well, let's say you need 10 slow training games in each line to learn patterns, plans, subtleties plus theoretical lines, then of course you need to analyse these games too, so the total amount is let's say 50-80 hours per line.

Multiply that by 6-7 and you're at the 350 hours mark, if you have 10 hours per week for chess study, that's 35 weeks on the Ruy, almost of 9 months, as it has a lot of tabiyas ( discussing the case without d3 or worrall etc to cut down the repertoire size ).

In isolation as a 1-off it may be ok, but then start adding open sicilians, a sharp sicilian with Black, a KID with Black, etc.

In all this time one could had finished the Yusupov volumes, Dvoretskys, worked on opposite color bishop endgames, improved calculation, tactics etc. Typically the folks that do this sort of exercise that benefit the most from their training.

Also important is stability in the repertoire, one FM I have in mind that has most stable repertoire of all the players I have in mind, plays the Scotch vs ..e5 and the closed Sicilian since the 90s. He's played literally hundreds of OTB games in these openings, has analysed a lot of endings and knows the subtleties of the positions inside out. Building this level of expertise over time, as long as the opening is sound and rich, matters way more than what the opening is. He doesn't play the Ruy btw because the effort to build equivalent expertise in the Ruy would be orders of magnitude more than the Scotch, and he's realistic about it.