Learning 1.e4 e5 thoroughly

Lopez recommended the line that bears his name to try to discredit Damiano, but his analysis was poor and pithy and the popularization of the Spanish Game probably was dependant on people overlooking Lopez's original lines.

Here's what the OCC had to say:

It's always been called Ruy Lopez throughout Great Britain and I believe France as well. It's just that recently, everyone seems to be changing the old names. I think a lot has to do with the slow adoption of the Soviet nomenclature, beginning when they dominated chess after Alekhine, and only now making a dent here in the USA.

I much prefer to call it the Spanish. I am less happy to call Petroff's Defense the Russian Defense, but I do prefer that openings not be named after people, but that's just my own caprice.

Does anyone know of any English language chess book written with DN that refers to the opening primarily as the "Spanish"? I'd like to say there isn't one, but I'd set myself up for the existence proof trap.

Hey chicken monster.

I cannot believe all the comments you have gotten. Some of them have been kind of derisive. I think people take the OP and see it as an aggressive goal- having an evolved understanding of all possible continuations of 1. E4,e5. I am paraphrasing. I kind of agree with them.

But I feel your pain. I am an adult, semi serious chess player that learned as a child, and i have similar, slightly lower chess.com rating. I certainly want a deep understanding of opening theory. But the Ruy Lopez (alone) has been actively studied since the 1500's and people can still debate who is better in the exchange variation.

Personally, i am playing a lot of vienna games as white with 3.f4 variation (kind of like a kings gambit) once e4, e5 are played, i quickly decide we are playing a vienna and i decide we are playing a sharp line with 3.f4. And as black,i play petroff which i can force by not choosing to defend with 3...Nc6 or i play a sicillian...again, i force this by playing 2...c5.

Youtube Yasser Sierrawan, accelerated dragon. He lectures at a chess club at St. Louis. He explains it so well i began playing it. He did not talk about lines too much. He broke down blacks opening goals: develop their peices, fight for their share of the center and have a safe king. It sounds simple, but i keep to these principals when i am in an opening i don't know (like an english or a rat).

Another comment i would make is, most people at our level dont stick to theory for too long. I read one comment that said he prepped for a closed Ruy Lopez, got a chance to play it 3 times in a tournament and lost 2 and drew 1! What a crazy game we have gotten into our veins.

@Fiveofswords: Have you ever considered writing a blog post or article or better yet a series of the same about your adventures in the open games?

I'd love to read about real battles by a real afficianado of the open games.

In France we use "L'espagnole" or "La partie Espagnole" - no "Ruy" or "Ruy Lopez" as far as I can remember.

Right - currently. Likewise with modern English books - usually always "Spanish" instead of "Ruy Lopez" - but the change has been mainly in the last decade or two over here.

Has that always been the case, though? I thought I'd read some old books referring to "l'ouverture de Ruy Lopez" or somesuch. Is it possible that that could have been from a Belgian source?

I know the continent's naming changed before anywhere else, and of course we on this side of the Atlantic - at least in North America - are always the last, and USA last of all.

"La Española" o "Ruy Lopez" in South America.

I'm not sure one can say that so glibly. The earliest mention of opening we call the "Ruy Lopez" was given in the Gottingen manuscript.  Some people had attributed this work to Lucena, indeed a Spaniard.  But Murray wasn't so easily convinced.  Lucena published his most notable work "Repeticion de Amores y Arte de Ajedrez" in 1497 and it contained games/position in both the old and new chess (chess was still in transition at this time). The Gottingen manuscript, which some date earlier while others date later than 1497,  contains new chess exclusively. Murray sepculated they both drew on the same sources as they contain some similar material.  Since the Gottingen manuscript is, of course, in Latin and unsigned, it's all pretty much speculation and educated guesses.  However it's all seems vague enough to deny any blanket statements about where the earliest mention of the moves of the Ruy Lopez originated.

Not only is all of this completely off topic, it has devolved into unintelligible insanity. My apologies to the OP for derailing the train.

If I recall, your specialty is the Petrov Defense as Black. You don't venture into the Ruy Lopez, correct? I'm assuming this is to cut down on the theory. That's probably why you chose the Alapin instead of Open Sicilian I would imagine. That's certainly one way to go.

No worries. The history part is interesting. I like batgirl's input and invited her to join the party once it turned into a history debate.

From a pragmatic standpoint, I think I kind of know what to do now to learn 1.e4 e5...or at least enough of it to be able to hold my own. It will just take some work and some time. It seems many feel it is worth the effort for overall chess improvement, though. Plenty of resources out there. I just need to wrap my head around them.

DEFINITELY worth it. I am currently suffering from skipping real work on the open games myself - I've had to go back and fill in the gaps.

And the reason is ... all positions open up at some point.

Luck my friend.

Are you playing 1.e4 e5 now?

The clearest possible word for this poster's comments.

I'll live. I don't remember saying "all possible continuations."  If I did say it, I don't recall saying it. People may have inferred it.

I would like to eventually know a bit about each major opening likely to arise from 1.e4 e5. This isn't going to happen overnight.

Let's say I am White. I'm not always going to go into the Scotch, but I might sometime. I also want to be able to handle the Petrov etc.

Let's say I am Black. I want to be able to play some lines in the Spanish, Italian etc. Things like that. Nothing unreasonable. As I said, take the word "thoroughly" with a big grain of salt.

Anyway, it's good practice and will help my game evolve holistically over time. It might hurt me in the short run (hurt my rating). Big deal.

Most of the time I open with 1.d4, but I will hurt myself in the long run if I don't play a variety of openings. I totally disagree with Till_98 and others who say only play one opening....that's bad long-term advice for someone an inexperienced as i am (although it would probably give me a better short-term rating). Now in a tournament setting OTB, I might want to stick with my best weapons...but this is my training ground. Limiting yourself to 1.d4 ONLY is going to hurt you in the long run, from everything I have read.

Maybe I can check out some of your games, like Vienna etc. you mentioned?

To whom is this question directed? Me?

How many hours have you spent actually studying chess today monster ?  Be honest .  How many hours do you study per day ?  In a week ?  Do you work ? Still in school ?  Retired ?  

I asked you to go away and stop harassing me. This will be my last request.

Why not answer the question ?  If you dont want to answer just say so and I will drop it .  I will NOT go away ... grow up .