Losing Nearly Every Game in an Opening I've been Studying for a Year

Hello,

I was wondering if someone could help me analyze my Ruy Lopez games (rapid games, I don't care about blitz much) and help me identify what I'm doing wrong. For context, I'm a 2000 rapid player who has been studying the Ruy Lopez for over a year. Despite this, I've been losing nearly every game I play in the Spanish, regardless of whether my opponent plays theory or plays garbage like Qf6. I know I should probably change to a different opening, but I don't want my hours of studying this opening to have gone to nothing.

If someone could please help, I'd appreciate it. Thanks to you all ♥

I can glance through a few of your Ruy Lopez games, but without even seeing them yet, it sounds to me like this opening just isn't your optimal opening preference. Sure, it can be a good opening, but are you enjoying the positions? Are you getting results with it? If you aren't getting optimal results and it isn't often enjoyable, then it's time for another opening.

I experienced similar. Like most people learning chess, I used to play 1. e4 e5 with both white or black. Shortly after, I swapped to playing 1. d4 (and the queen's gambit if they played 1...d5), but everything else I kept with 1. e4 e5 for black. I continued this for the most part of my journey to cross 2000 chess.com rapid... I was doing fine and I loved ...e5 against e4, but I just wasn't getting the best results against certain variations. I knew this opening choice was an area I could improve on, but I didn't want to swap openings with the black pieces and "lose" all of the e4 e5 theory I knew as black. I eventually did switch to the Caro-Kann and I feel this much better fits my playstyle. I score better with it and I feel comfortable with it's positions even better than I did with ...e5.

I'm still slightly saddened that I don't get to see the Ruy Lopez, or the Italian Game, or other openings which ...e5 could play into, but I still play them in unrated games on occasion and even though my opening repertoire choice has changed, my theory wasn't completely wasted because I still kept the patterns in mind that those openings taught me and every now and then, I'll still encounter a position where one of those patterns (or same pawn structure) shows up and then I know what to do.

Although it may seem scary to abandon literally years of opening prep like I did... this change may benefit you better in the long-term.

Hello, I appreciate your response.

I feel that my problem in this opening is that I often either get to good positions and blunder them away, or my opponent plays some sideline of a sideline (like the deferred Steinitz) and I kind of blank. Other times, I straight up just get outplayed.

Regarding an opening switch, I've considered it but I haven't found anything else I like/ am fascinated with as much as the Spanish. Sure, I scored well with 3. Bc4, but I didn't necessarily find playing trappy central gambits interesting or beneficial to my chess in the long run. I've tried 1. d4 as well, but I find d4 positions far too dry. I could consider the King's Gambit, but that's a bit too wild for me.

I'm kind of contemplating, right now, therefore, whether I should just go all in with the Ruy Lopez (not just learn theory, but look at model games and watch videos, etc) and try to be successful with it. That's kind of just where I'm at. Given/knowing your experience (thanks for sharing), however, I'm starting to reconsider.

Update: I glanced through some of your Ruy Lopez games and your openings seem okay; keeping in mind, I was never a Ruy Lopez player with white and my opening choice against it was usually the Two Knights Defense and the Berlin Defense if allowed, but I played it fighting for a win and not just a draw.

I'm sure you probably know what I know for this opening if not more, but perhaps my thoughts on the Berlin Defense may bring a different perspective into your game and then you could improve because of it; I still stand by my earlier post and not being afraid to consider changing opening repertoire choice though:

I looked at your game history for one year, Ruy Lopez as White, rapid.

• 2024 Sep 15 to 2024 Sep 24 : (13) +6 =0 -7
• 2024 Sep 24 to 2025 Jan 09 : (5) +1 =1 -3
• 2025 Jan 11 to 2025 May 17 : (14) +9 =0 -5
• 2025 May 24 to 2025 Jul 23 : (23) +12 =4 -7
• 2025 Jul 23 to 2025 Aug 13 : (17) +9 =2 -6

Seems like the Ruy Lopez is doing okay for you.

At your level the reality is that the people who enter the Ruy Lopez have been studying it just as long as you if not longer, you are just banging your head against a brick wall playing that opening. My advice is stop banging your head against the wall. It may be painful to stop since you've become numb to it and the pain starts to set in, but you have to stop.

Heres an example to prove my point: I get great positions, then just lose all my pieces. https://www.chess.com/game/live/142007061638

It just feels like a joke at this point. I studied the opening to get the good positions, but i don't even know how I fumble these good positions in the worst possible ways. That being said, converting advantages has never been a strength of mine, so maybe the opening is irrelevant. It just seems to me that this always happens specifically when I play the Spanish.

I appreciate the suggestion. 5. Qe2 is an interesting line but I've already learned every mainline of the Closed Ruy Lopez (Breyer, Chigorin, Khomlov, Zaitsev, Karpov, etc) so I'll probably just stick with that.

Thank you for the response. The Berlin is a tough nut indeed. I prefer to play 5. Re1 over the mainline 5. d4 because it sets some interesting traps. That being said, black can likely get close to an equal position if they play safetly and confidently.

I'm more concerned about moves like Bc5 and d6 instead of the mainline Nxe4. Bc5 is well met with the center fork (Nxe5 followed by d4!) but I always seem to lose those positions by blundering later in the game. Similarly, d6 is so solid and annoying; its kind of like the Old Steinitz in that despite the fact that it's passive and should theoretically give white a noticable advantage, it's so solid that it's hard for an intermediate like me to chop down.

Could you elaborate?

Elaborate on what part?

He said "I like it #2". I'm not sure what that means.

I think "#2" meant liked the post that was written second in this thread (my post), but I admit their wording could have been better.

"Already learned every mainline" suggests a dubious way of learning openings. Do you mean memorising some lines? A lifetime isn't enough to properly learn the mainlines of the Lopez. Have you carefully played through a large number of GM games? I recommend those of Capablanca, Smyslov, Fischer, Karpov (especially 1970s), Kasparov (especially the 1986 match games 14 and 16, two of the most incredible games ever played, and the 1990 match) and Anand.

It doesn't look like you are losing every game as white with the Ruy Lopez, and your games are mostly not decided by an error in the opening phase.

I have no idea how you studied the opening, but you are making quite a few mistakes in it- for some odd reason you are following typical patterns even when there is absolutely no reason to do so.

Just one example out of many:

- Since your opponent wasted a move on ...h6, there is absolutely no need to play 12.Bc2 to protect the e4 pawn, as it is not under attack. Just 12.Nf1 is good, and strong.

- You do play 13.Nf1 in the next move, and this time it is a positional mistake. You should first play something like a3 to keep out moves like ...Nb4 which attack your precious c2 bishop.

I could show several more games where you do know the basic opening ideas, but you apply them thoughtlessly. Did you ever care to analyse the games you have played seriously? And by "seriously" I do not mean pathetically looking at the computer's output, but analysing on your own (and it does not matter so much if your own analysis is very wrong) or interactively working on the computer's analysis?

I appreciate it. I've since updated my repertoire to play 5. d4 against the mainline, as it is quite tricky and hard for black to equalize against. It's been working well in 10 minute online chess at the 2000ish level, but its hard to say how well itd work at 1500-1600 OTB in official 25+5 tournaments

I have played the 5.d4 variation many times in the past. Nigel Short used to employ it regularly too.

Black should be careful, but objectively speaking white has nothing against precise play, and he must not allow Black dominating the middlegame with his bishop pair.

Still, it's a sane choice at the amateur level.