"Going to a4 with the bishop just leads to a drawish game anyways..."
"The closed ruy lopez does not offer white an advantage because the position becomes very closed hense having a very high draw tendency...."
Did you check the last date I played a game on this account? I'm rated 1700 on Lichess in 10 minute games. Also your response was off topic which is violating the purpose of this thread.
Indeed. Weird. Just why would an IM point out your stats & quotes in relation to your proclamation? Could it just be your assertion that ... Nf6 is superior to Morphy's ... a6 is just superficial? (I would say, "yeah"~but nevermind me). You are basically questioning Decades & Centuries of distilled theory; not unlike comparing Advanced Calculus to calculator math. Your presumptions of how you view Chess Theory vs Established Theory. Cool, you notice the subtle differences strategically between (using your examples) the Exchange Variation & the "Closed" Berlin but it is ultimately flawed reasoning; Looking to draw vs dynamic mutual chances (advantageous pawn structure with initiative vs the 2 bishops) are at the core. And even then with the Berlin, the securing of a draw isn't a trivial matter; it involves one's technique and experience. Not everyone has the benefits of trainers & seconds to work and re-work positions emanating from them. Finally, and most importantly, my friend... this would be a great thread if and when you have more credibility in your stats and information, substance to back up your claims to our community. ✌🏽
Indeed. Weird. Just why would an IM point out your stats & quotes in relation to your proclamation? Could it just be your assertion that ... Nf6 is superior to Morphy's ... a6 is just superficial? (I would say, "yeah"~but nevermind me). You are basically questioning Decades & Centuries of distilled theory; not unlike comparing Advanced Calculus to calculator math. Your presumptions of how you view Chess Theory vs Established Theory. Cool, you notice the subtle differences strategically between (using your examples) the Exchange Variation & the "Closed" Berlin but it is ultimately flawed reasoning; Looking to draw vs dynamic mutual chances (advantageous pawn structure with initiative vs the 2 bishops) are at the core. And even then with the Berlin, the securing of a draw isn't a trivial matter; it involves one's technique and experience. Not everyone has the benefits of trainers & seconds to work and re-work positions emanating from them. Finally, and most importantly, my friend... this would be a great thread if and when you have more credibility in your stats and information, substance to back up your claims to our community. ✌🏽
I don't think alphazero plays the berlin for a draw, just saying. Also Nf6 develoups a piece while a6 doesn't contribute to piece activity when you can simply develoup a piece. And a6 renders the bishop to e7 while It's more active in the berlin. You may think the berlin is drawish given the position, but if you continue to play the most accurate move and your.opponent makes inaccuracies it is possible to push for an advantage.
"... [After 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Bxc5 dxc6,] as compensation for his doubled pawns, Black has the bishop pair, which prevents White opening the position too much in the middlegame and can also be important in the endgame, especially if exchanges have led to an ending with bishop against knight and pawns on both flanks; …" - Pietro Ponzetto and GM Daniel King (1993)
I'm aware you part with the bishop pair. I'd rather give up the bishop pair than have a passive bishop on c2. Going to the queenside doesn't even make any sense now that I think about it, it might be stronger on g2.
"... Equalising against the Exchange Variation seems to be an easier task than against 4 Ba4 but this remains a sensible system for players who like endings or have little time or inclination to study theory. …" - IM John Shaw (2003)
You might want to look into the Glek System.
"... 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6 4 0-0 Nxe4 5 d4 Nd6 6 Bxc6 dxc6 7 dxe5 Nf5 8 Qxd8+ Kxd8 9 Nc3 This is the starting point of the Berlin main line. … The position may appear similar to a technical Exchange Variation ending but the advanced e-pawn makes a huge difference ..." - IM John Shaw (2003)
"... The Ruy Lopez variation with 3...Nf6 … has a reputation for being a solid and reliable defence thanks to the sensational World Championship match in 2000 where Kasparov's loss of the crown was largely attributed to his failure to break down Kramnik's stubborn resistance with the Berlin. … Kramnik's success has inspired others among the world's elite to take up the line, including Grischuk, Karjakin, Shirov and Topalov. … The downside for club players of such a sophisticated opening is that the subtle manoeuvring required of Black to avoid a passive position requires exceptionally good technique. ..." - IM Gary Lane (2005)
"... For most of the 20th Century 3...a6 held unchallenged sway. But will the 21st Century be a new age of the Berlin Defence? …" - GM Neil McDonald (2011)
"... Equalising against the Exchange Variation seems to be an easier task than against 4 Ba4 but this remains a sensible system for players who like endings or have little time or inclination to study theory. …" - IM John Shaw (2003)
You might want to look into the Glek System.
WOW I have never seen this opening before! I was considering picking up the catalan but I really want to play e4 to bank off of sicilian players and that answers my problem perfectly. It even opens the position and uses the e pawn where in the english your e pawn is backwards.
I think you have a very big misconception that closed games are drawish. If anything, closed games are less likely to be drawish because open games are sharper and therefore have a lot more theory figured out and once you know the theory you usually end up with a huge simplification into some drawish endgame.
Closed games, on the other hand allow for more freedom to make moves that are not forcing but help accumulate consequences that will only come into play later down the road. Positional mistakes are much more difficult to avoid simply by memorizing a lot of theory and these positional mistakes eventually add up to first give one a player a strategically un-losable position and eventually sufficient initiative to push for a win.
If you look at that chess.com database you will see that Black's 3 .. Nf6 leads to more draws than 3 .. a6 as does White's 4 Bxc6 in response to 3 .. a6.
While I have teached a couple of my students to play the Ruy exchange, the truth is that it is just simpler, and gives white quite fewer chances to fight for an advantage.
The claim that the closed Spanish is drawish is outright stupid. A draw with 32 pieces on the board?
The resulting positions are extremely complex, and very rich in strategical and positional elements.
… My response is exactly on topic. Another low rated player trying to sound like a GM. Openings do not decide your games, and claiming an opening is "drawish" is ridiculous. ...
Rebrvwd was asking questions. That does not seem like an attempt to sound like a GM to me. If anything, it seems like a recognition of some lack of understanding. Where does rebrvwd say anything about openings deciding games? What is so "ridiculous" about saying an opening is drawish? These days, aren't just about all of the major openings drawish to some degree or other? Rebrvwd isn't the first one to think that a player might do better with 4 Bxc6 instead of 4 Ba4. Did you ever see that 2004 opening repertoire book by IM Larry Kaufman?
https://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/in-the-beginning-there-was-theory
"The resulting positions are extremely complex, and very rich in strategical and positional elements."
That's why the OP called it drawish. It's complex and rich, which confuses and bores him
"The resulting positions are extremely complex, and very rich in strategical and positional elements."
That's why the OP called it drawish. It's complex and rich, which confuses and bores him
Yea, but hes 1700 at 10 min. chess. So that must make hm qualified.
Do you see a qualification claim by rebrvwd?
Why is the closed ruy lopez considered better than the exchange variation? In the berlin defense whites most popular move is to part with the bishop pair to get a past pawn on the kingside. This is the same strategy in the exchange variation of the ruy lopez. Going to a4 with the bishop just leads to a drawish game anyways, so why not try to play against blacks pawns and get a past pawn? Also I don't understand why a6 is more popular than Nf6 in the ruy lopez when a6 does not prevent black from ruining the pawns and getting a past pawn like in the berlin defense, you're getting the bishop pair in the exchange ruy lopez and the berlin defense but have a past pawn to deal with anyways, so why not just develoup the knight to F6? The closed ruy lopez does not offer white an advantage because the position becomes very closed hense having a very high draw tendency.