My view on the history of the Ruy Lopez is correct. You do not believe chess players had any influence on the lines in which are named after them than that is an error in your logic that even an online program can not fix.
Really? Where did I say that?
Quotation from "Chess Openings" by H.E. Bird, probably a first edition circa 1880, which I have in front of me, p. 162:
"King's bishop's pawn game. This form of opening has become very popular during the past three or four years. It was frequently played in the 1873 match between Bird and Wisker. Anderssen favours this opening."
and
"In the very interesting and stoutly contested games bytween Messrs. Wisker and Bird at this opening, the former won games by the strength of his position on Queen's side; the latter about as often carried the day on his King's side."
Chicken: I like the Everyman books. If no one's mentioned them, Everyman has three on the Ruy:
John Emms - Easy Guide to the Ruy Lopez
John Shaw - Starting Out: The Ruy Lopez
Neil McDonald - The Ruy Lopez: Move by Move
I've only browsed these. None of them are theoretical manuals. They all look reasonable, though each comes at the opening from a different slant. The Emms and Shaw books are standard introductions. The McDonald book takes the form of lectures on specific games with questions and answers.
I think I'd start with McDonald.
I like the Ruy. I play it sometimes as White. I don't like 1...e5 though because of all the non-Ruy openings White may play.
@icpress12: Thanks for those suggestions. I understand 1...e5 is involved and why you don't use it. Part of why I want to use it is I think it is part of a good classical chess education and will help me long-term, even if I choose to drop it in favor of another defense to 1.e4. If people can learn the Open Sicilian, they can learn 1...e5 (right?). Also, one could make an argument that opening with 1.e4 is like opening Pandora's Box, yet so many people choose to use it as the first move. I very will may opt for the Caro-Kann or something else some day instead.
What do you like instead of 1...e5 these days?
My view on the history of the Ruy Lopez is correct. You do not believe chess players had any influence on the lines in which are named after them than that is an error in your logic that even an online program can not fix.
Really? Where did I say that?
Post 108 you didn't say it Jlconn said it and you said "good synopses".
The Definition of a synopsis is a brief summary or general survey of something.
You thought his summary's were good which means you agree with what he is saying. If you didn't agree with what he was saying than a grammar Nazi such as yourself would know to write the exception of where you disagreed with him.
For example:
Good synopsis but I disagree with the statement history isn't a factor of position's, openings, or maneuvers in chess.
You did not make such an exception where by leaving the read under the assumption you agree with his post. A Grammar Nazi such as yourself would know to do this.
The chess players in question are part of history. Chess history! They had everything to do with the positions, openings, and maneuvering of chess and have been rewarded for their hard work with line's named after them.
The Ruy Lopez was not invented by Ruy Lopez de Segura, and Ruy is not English, it is a shortened form of Rodrigo, like Bob instead of Robert, and was the name Rodrigo signed his book with, iirc.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 was in books before Lopez's, in the same way that Damiano didn't invent 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6, but actually was the first to conclusively refute the move.
I've read that Lopez thought that 3.Bb5 was so strong that he considered 2...Nc6 an error, and preferred instead 2...d6. I don't get that same conclusion from reading Lewis's work on Damiano, Lopez, and Salvio, but then that was rather a butchered presentation of their work. Lopez was the first to investigate 2...d6, though, from what I can tell, but that move bears Philidor's name, though we don't have a single game example showing that Philidor played it. And having come this far, it may as well be mentioned that Philidor's Legacy (the famous smothered mate) was known since at least Lucena, and Lucena's Position doesn't seem to have been known until Salvio.
In short, the names given to positions, openings, or maneuvers in chess rarely have anything to do with actual history.
Good synopsis.
Great to find that I'm not the only one who has looked at Lewis's book.
That's quite a bit different than:
"You do not believe chess players had any influence on the lines in which are named after them."
For the examples cites, jlconn's final generalization is warranted. Your effort to raise it to the level of a universal generalization is another matter.
There's is an error in my comment that is easily recognized by anyone who has read my other posts in this thread, however. How long will it take you to find that?
I would never be able to write: "Good synopsis but I disagree with the statement history isn't a factor of position's, openings, or maneuvers in chess."
See https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/621/01/ for an explanation.
I might have noted that "often do not" could stand in place of "rarely". That might have reduced your opportunity for misreading.
Just so we are clear. I am not seeking to attack you. I read your posts in many threads. They frustrate me because you seem to have decent understanding of chess, but your clarity of expression needs significant improvement.
I've suggested elsewhere that shortening some of the posts would improve your focus. Meanwhile, a five minute review of how plurals work in English would make you appear less illiterate.
Your whole "agruement" (I.e. argument) was based on misreading. Clever. Good luck at junior college.
What do you like instead of 1...e5 these days?
Chicken: I was trying out the hyper-accelerated Dragon for a while, then switched back to the French, my first love.
I like breaking symmetry right off the bat. I like the story of letting White establish a center then whacking into it from both sides. I like the mix of tactics and strategy you get in the French. Plus it's fairly manageable in terms of study for a major opening.
Actually, I have never before misunderstood XPLAYERJX, I think in this case he just lacks sufficient knowledge of the subject matter and is frustrated that we seem not to understand him.
And neither did I ever say anything that can be construed to mean "chess players who have their names attached to openings didn't have anything to do with their development." I understand your point, totally, XPLAYERJX, it's just that neither Ruy (Rodrigo) Lopez nor Petroff/Jaenisch, et al. were fortunate examples for you to have chosen, since in those cases, it is demontrably the case that neither opening was created by their namesakes, all the more so with the Spanish Opening, which owes essentially nothing to Lopez de Segura.
Otherwise, yes, it's 100% obvious that the development of openings through history has been affected by the names associated with them. Maybe Lopez's seemingly favorite 1.e4 e5 2.c3 would have retained some popularity post-Staunton if his name had been attached to it, instead of its being called the "Queen's Bishop's Pawn Opening".
Neither did I dispute that fact nor did I ever engage in any argument against XPLAYERJX. There's nothing to argue, the point was tautological and therefore vacuous.
What do you like instead of 1...e5 these days?
Chicken: I was trying out the hyper-accelerated Dragon for a while, then switched back to the French, my first love.
I like breaking symmetry right off the bat. I like the story of letting White establish a center then whacking into it from both sides. I like the mix of tactics and strategy you get in the French. Plus it's fairly manageable in terms of study for a major opening.
I believe it is relatively easy to learn from experts I have spoken to, but difficult (and rewarding) to master...often leading to bitter endgame battles. I think that may be one reason it is more popular that Caro...easier to learn quickly perhaps....but not necessarily easier if you want to become an expert with it and realize its full potential.
Do you agree or disagree?
But he didn't, that's been my point throughout. He copied pre-existing work. His claim to the opening, as batgirl correctly pointed out, is that he used 3.Bb5 as his argument to "prove" that 2...Nc6 (the move Damiano said was best) was inferior.
Because he made that argument, which was just all kinds of wrong in both its conclusion and its supporting evidence, his name was attached to 3.Bb5 - he did little else than cause the virtual death of the opening for 300 years. Recall that before the mid to late 1800s, the Spanish was almost never used - and never by the best players. This was in part because Ruy Lopez's "proof" was so bad that it had the opposite of the desired effect.
It is recorded that Ruy Lopez's analytical abilities were widely considered completely inferior to Damiano's, he was jealous, and he used his book to attack Damiano while stealing all of his work, and "correcting" some of it. His line of the Ruy Lopez that he used as proof to refute 2...Nc6 is completely unconvincing, even for his time.
But that in no way contradicts your larger point about names having influence, etc.
Chicken: I expect defending with the French will get harder as I play stronger opponents. But I'm so far from expert on any aspect of chess that I take it a day at a time.
However, there is a visceral sense of ease I have with the French that I can't explain or defend.
The Caro-Kann felt all wrong from the first moment I learned of 1...c6.
I make no claim these feelings have any bearing on chess reality.
If you find an opening that "feels" right from the start, don't give it up. Learn others as you wish, but never completely stop playing that opening.
You're lucky if you have that connection to your opening.
I understand it's common among French players.
Oui. C'est vrai.
Yo estudiano Ruy Lopez ahora...
Well, I'm not too stressed. I already know I will never be making my living playing chess. That is readily apparent. I don't care if I blow a game.
Again, Ruy Lopez did not make that argument out of any profound wisdom on his part. He simply wanted to say that Damiano was wrong. Essentially, his whole book can be summed up as "nuh uh!" He's the one who named 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6? as Damiano's Defense, when Damiano was the one who conclusively proved that 2...f6 was terrible. Ruy Lopez's entire book was devoted to subtly bashing Damiano. Half by saying Damiano was wrong, the other half by essentially plagiarizing Damiano.
I'd be astonished if there were even one GM in the world who thinks that 2...Nc6 is the weakest move after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3. Few GMs play 2...d6 because they consider it cramping, and few play 2...Nf6 because they consider it to offer few winning chances. If 2...Nc6 is not a good move, then what is a better one? If there is no better one, then 2...Nc6 is at least one of the best moves.
The Berlin nowadays has pretty much killed the decades old belief in "the Spanish torture", as well. You know this, you even mentioned Kramnik's championing the defense to win the WC from Kasparov.
I get your c pawn argument, but if you apply it consistently, you should either support the Ponziani or the Queen's Bishop's Pawn Opening, which is fine, but if you do, you're one of the few of us who do. Most GMs say that the Ponz "takes away the natural square from White's queen's knight". And their opinion of 1.e4 e5 2.c3 is even lower. Only Philidor said that knights shouldn't be placed on B3 before the BP had moved. That claim has been widely dismissed by modern GMs - except wrt the c pawn in queen's pawn openings.
So no, I cannot agree that 3.Bb5 exploits the weakness of 2...Nc6. That would be like saying 2.c4 exploits the weakness of 1...d5 after 1.d4. Does it make a threat? Yes. But the weakness of ...Nc6? No, the weakness of the otherwise undefended e5 pawn, which in any case still cannot be taken immediately even after 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 or even bxc6. Not to mention Black can ignore the threat and make one of his own (Berlin). I'm not saying the Spanish is not a good opening. What I am saying is that the fact it is good has nothing to do with Ruy Lopez, nor did he ever offer any evidence that it was good. Nor did he ever care, from the looks of things.
I'm really not debating anything here. I merely presented historical facts, I am not trying to make moral arguments from them. I don't dispute that Ruy Lopez was an important character. I do dispute that he had any actual bearing on making any real advances in chess understanding, most of all where it concerns his namesake opening. Of course, I'm ignoring the whole issue of lending his name to it - which may or may not have helped it to survive when 1.e4 e5 2.c3, unnamed, did not - which is a separate issue altogether.
That is simply not a true characterization of what happened, historically.
I don't care to interpret anything. You're not going to convince me of something I know to be factually untrue. I merely present facts. Take them or leave them.
I guess you'll be leaving them, and that's fine. But I never was nor ever will be arguing about anything - facts are facts - they either are, or are not. And if they are, they are either known and acknowledged, or not. It really doesn't hurt my feelings if you choose not to acknowledge what I put forth as facts - that's your prerogative.
It's ok, really. I have no hatred for or angst towards your Ruy (Rodrigo) Lopez de Segura. Because of him, and almost only because of him, we have a clear picture of what the rules of chess looked like in Spain during the latter half of the 16th century. Past giving him credit for that achievement and refusing to credit him for achievements he is known not to have made, I will not venture.
The opening is named after the 16th-century Spanish priest Ruy López de Segura, who made a systematic study of this and other openings in the 150-page book on chess Libro del Ajedrezwritten in 1561. Although it bears his name, this particular opening was included in the Göttingen manuscript, which dates from c. 1490. Popular use of the Ruy Lopez opening did not develop, however, until the mid-19th century when Carl Jaenisch, a Russian theoretician, "rediscovered" its potential. The opening remains the most commonly used amongst the open gamesin master play; it has been adopted by almost all players during their careers, many of whom have played it with both colours. Due to the difficulty for Black to achieve equality,[1] and the fact that Lopez was a priest during the Inquisition, a common nickname for the opening is "The Spanish Torture".
A few years ago I played in Zafra Spain in the only OTB theme tournament I have ever played in . Zafra is the birth place of " Ruy ( Rodrigo ) Lopez and there is a tournament held there annually to honor him and in this tournament all openings MUST begin : 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 . It was a very interesting experience for me and my wife and one I will always remember/cherish .
I would also like to point out that openings are often named after a player who works on it and makes it " playable/popular " at the higher levels . Many openings are named after players who are not the first to play the opening . The Benko gambit is a good example , this opening used to be called the Volga ( after a river ) gambit until Pal Benko did his thing with it and popularised the opening . Some people believe the sozin variation of the sicilian should be renamed after Fischer due to his contribution/work in this variation and Fischer does have a line in the nimzo indian named after him ....
The original Batsford book on the Vienna, written in the 1980s, was my bible in the years I played 1.e4. Forgotten who was the author. I didn't go for the Vienna Gambit but for the Vienna Game, only transposing into the Gambit if black made a weak move like ...d6, since d5 is standard.