Ruy Lopez

Hey everyone, I've got a question about the Ruy Lopez opening.
From my research it has come to my attention that the exchange variation of the ruy lopez is much less effective and strong, it essentially gives black some easy play with an open file for the queen and diagonal for the bishop.
However, every time I play the non-exchange variation I end up with doubled pawns and my light squared bishop missing anyways as per the diagram. Any tips as to how I cn avoid the exchange of the light squared bishop without being too passive and retreating it. Thanks!

c3 has been the antidote since forever - I'm not a really huge student of the traditional Morphy line - I'm a d4 player and go with the Berlin as black (because I'm wicked and hate fun), but, as it happens, I did prepare a Marshall repertoire recently for an opponent who knows my openings - so here's the theory which has been the main main line Spanish for over 100 years: 

Players on the live server will probably not oblige you by playing those exact moves - because they simply don't know them - but the central way to fight against Na5 has been c3 (making a pocket) since the hunter-gatherers played chess with stones and nutshells on the savannahs of Africa. 

Incidentally 8.a4 is an anti-Marshall that is kind of obscure but pretty dangerous, and it too creates an escape route for the bishop. 

@Zstephen: As is already pointed out here black played some pretty awefull moves. However you are not making good use of it. In order to make good use of it you have to first learn how to develop and how to punish non developing moves. 

1. The opening is about 2 things. Fast deployment of all the troops (development, castle, connection of the rooks) and winning the center. 

2. White if he has the change tries to make a strong center with e4/d4/c3 and get this center rolling. This is good because the power of pieces behind the strong center is massive specially if you open it. 

2a. Actually this is the main reason why the Ruy Lopez is considered stronger then the italian game. Because in the italian game the bishop is placed on c4 it is easy for black to fight against the strong white center (e4/d4) because of the counter strike d5 (attacking both c4 and e4 and this forcing white to give up the strong center by either allowing dxe4 or taking on d5 himself. 

3. While white is trying to build up a stong center black is fighting against this. In general this is done by putting pressure on the e4 and d4 squares so that white cannot build his strong center. 

Knowing this stuff gives you a good idea what went wrong in your game. 

• 4. ... f6 is not a development move. Even worse it takes away the normal development square of the knight (why .. ? because from f6 is puts pressure on e4). This should trigger you into forming the strong center (e4/d4) and open it 
• 5. Nc3 while a developming move and certainly not a bad move does not realy help in your plan to build a strong center. It defends e4 but because black played f6 there is no pressure on e4 thus better would be either d4 (opening the center directly) or castling (development, and making the possible center even stronger)

Thanks for the advice everyone, c3 is definitely something I will keep in mind. Also, while on the topic. Moves such as f6 or other poor developing moves; how can this be taken advantage of and capitalized on in the event that my opponent plays these moves? I can recognize that the move is not optimal but often struggle trying to find how to punish my opponent for these mistakes. Thanks again!

Another scenario of this sort.

Black is lacking developement big time by chasing down the bishop, are there any common themes to take advantage of this?

Yes---you can take the free pawn on e5.

It's not really a free pawn, black will win it back with Qe7.

@zstephen: Don't despair .. making use of your oponents mistakes is one of the hardest parts of chess and everybody can learn and improve. A good way to learn how to punish bad development is looking at the games of Paul Morphy  he as a master in it.

Yes I would like to know about that, too

@wubberz: I never said black is better. Actually i think white is better but it is not as easy as it seems because the white lead in development is not that big. You can either go for active play and try to open the game (something that is good if you have a lead in development) but there is a risk there, if you open the game and you do not capitalize on your development lead then blacks bishop pair can become strong.

I cannot really make it easier than: development is good en open the game if you have a big lead. There are plenty of examples how to do this by playing trough games of the great Paul Morphy. 

@moonnie 1st: you're telling us how black is better here and mainly what black can do. Grats, I don't wanna be rude but dude that's entirely the opposite of the point here. Still thanks for the educational input. 2nd: Can you dumb your statement down a bit? It's a bit too abstract for me and probably most weaker players with a lesser understanding of the game as yours.

Thanks

@Roofslovepizza Thanks, after trading knight for bishop and developing on white's advantage becomes visible

What I don't understand is this last part of the sixth move:

"Since white has castled Nxe4 is now a threat since Qe7 is very dangerous. "

I don't get it since there is no knight to take e4 at the moment and even if the night was brought out there is an easy counter. plus Qe7? I bet it would make sense if you'd explain it but on first sight I don't fully get it

In that particular variation (which the database informs me is the Norwegian), you will indeed lose the bishop pair by force and suffer structural damage, but it appears that the edge in development and central control should be enough for white to claim a small advantage.....nothing earth-shattering (particuarly for those of us who are NOT experts), but an advantage nonetheless. 

What Moonie is trying to say is that pawn moves and moves with developed pieces are less valuable in the opening than true developing moves (introducing a new piece from its starting square into the action). White's rook is developed without needing to move! Not only that, white has more pieces in the game - just count the number of pieces off their starting squares and you'll quickly see the truth of this statement. 

As to the suggestion to look at Paul Morphy's games, I can't say that it's a bad idea - since Morphy is amazing - but I always feel like one should be cautious recommending someone with such a romantic style. Players of a certain level (and I count myself here) aren't able to use piece sacrifices the way Morphy does - I see a ton of players throwing away their minors in the opening just to see if breaking something open will lead to checkmate....for now, it's probably better to try and see your way to an advantage without tossing all of your material. Garry Kasparov is a nice middle ground - an attacking style but without the deep sacrificial themes present in Morphy's chess. 

@Wubberz: Where do you get the impression that i said black is better. I never said it. I only said that the lead in development is not as big as it might seem (3 tempi) and that black has the bishop pair as compensation.

If you have a lead in development the best action normaly is to open the game (as in roofs example) however precise play is needed because by nature lead in development is a temporary advantage (if you do nothing active black will catch up) and the black bishoppair is a long term advantage.

If you want to understand how to play active while having a lead in development my advice is to play trough games of the great Paul Morphy who was a very very strong with a lead in development

I cannot really explain it simpler than that in one post.

@Alison: Kasparov is one of the greatest attacking players of all times. And playing trough his games is certainly much fun.

However in my opinion Morphys games are better to study because first of all his opponents make much less subtle mistakes then the opponents of Kasparov. Morphy's oppponent would make pawn moves, move with the queen and all kinds of other stuff where Kasparovs opponents were all strong GM's.

Also his sacrafices are actually not that difficult if you know there is something in there (finding them behind the board is ofcourse a complete diffenent matter !) they are very logical and relatively short term. Moprhy was the ultimate bad development punisher

That's called the Norwegian variation, and is frowned upon by Graham Burgess in "the Mammoth Book of Chess". He produces the following game as an example of how black is left with weak development by move 9:

Notice that Anand does play Nc3 here, not c3...

I guess that the Norwegians were so unhappy with what Anand did to their variation that they trained up a special player to get him