Spanish vs Italian

Hey. I've been playing the Spanish basically since I started chess.. Have over 600 games on this site in the Spanish (many just blitz games).  Lately I've taken up the Italian with just under 200 games played. 

I love the Italian!  Taking aim at the weak f7 square right from the start, makes a fun game.. it seems to present way more tactical opportunities. After the 2 most popular responses to the Italian 3. ...Bc5 and 3. ...Nf6, white has the choice to play very aggressive games! First the Evan's Gambit, and if 3. ...Nf6, white can try 4.

 d4 trying for the Max Lange attack. I found the Spanish to be slower, and often becomes a very positional game full of knight moves. 

Who else has tried both these games?? Thoughts?

I also started out by playing the Spanish and then moved on to playing the Italian ... not the most recommended order of adoption, by the way, but we can't change the past.

The Spanish has one thing going for it that the Italian does not, namely, that nagging pressure against e5 that severely limits Black's freedom of choice for the first half dozen moves, while in the Italian, both sides need to be mindful of possible early tactical skirmishes. That's the only difference in general between the two openings. Nowadays I think the old lie that only the Spanish offers White any chance for advantage after 1.e4 e5 can be laid to rest; every opening - with best play by both sides - will reach equality, just that they do so by different routes, so what matters is to choose the route you like best.

I've played every variation of the Italian, and I love it all. but then I also like the Spanish, the Scotch, the Four Knights, and even the Ponziani.

I noticed a while back you played the Italian often, but didn't know you started with the Spanish.  Thats cool.  I'll have to look up the Ponziani... no idea what that one is!   Any particular variation of the Italian you prefer?  As well as the two I listed above, often answer 3. ...Bc5 with 4. c3.  Felt it would be a poor choice to only know the Evans Gambit... 

The very first thing I learned about chess in any formal way was the move order and reasons for each of the moves of the long, closed variation of the Ruy Lopez, I think mainly because my father wanted to learn it and practice it.

Later on, I remember seeing 5.Qe2 in a book on traps, and I liked it, so I started playing it, but without really understanding it, and then I played the Exchange Variation for about a year.

Then I became acquainted with Harding's Evans Gambit and a System Vs The Two Knights Defense, and I was an Evans player, even though I didn't really actually read much of the book beyond the introduction. From there I branched out into the classical main lines of the Giuoco Piano, and I particularly liked Greco's Variation, and have earned some nice wins with it against some pretty strong players in offhand games. I learned about the Italian Four Knights and began playing that ... there's a lot to explore in both the Italian and the Spanish, but since I have more experience with the Italian now, and since I can and do play it just like a Spanish, I'll be sticking with it as my main weapon.

I can't really recommend the Ponziani (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3), if you already have a preferred open game, but it's nowhere near as bad as its reputation and almost no one knows it well enough as Black, so you can get some really quick wins if you've done a little homework and have some understanding.

yes they are all good

hard to choose !?

hard to choose !?

Italian

I've played them both, although nowadays I play 1. d4 only. The Spanish is difficult and very positional. Obviously, since I'm a 1.d4 player, I like positional chess, but the Italian is much more fun. The trouble is that with Italian, a weaker player can draw with you just by knowing some moves.

I learned the Moeller Attack and the Max Lange. They're great. I think the Max Lange is more positional so I eventually learned that suited me better than the extremely tactical Moeller. Not the Evans .... it's too easy to play against.

wtf?

When you speak of the Spanish, you speak of RUY LOPEZ? 

Clarification 

Start your own thread

Ruy, Italian, Scotch, 4 knights are all fine ways to meet 1...e5. What is best? The usual stuff: Whatever you know and understand best.

Believe it or not, I have played the last couple of years at internet Correspondence Chess (where engine & database/ tablebase aid  is allowed) the odd opening that I have named Giri's Folly (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.h3) half a dozen of times, and I also employed it once OTB against an IM rated some 140 points higher than me. The aim is (of course) getting out of book early, and playing chess- and that was all regarding my ambitions. Is the opening great? Certainly not, but it's not bad at all, either.

Guess what? My score so far is 100%- seven wins, no losses, no draws. I wish I had such a performance with Ruy, or Italian...

The problem with both the ruy and the italian is that the lines considered to be the best for white all lead to rather slow manouvering games with a closed nature of the game. They should no longer belong to the family of the open games just because they start with e4-e5.

Great. H3 protects against the common knight trap, bg4. Quite an interesting development. 

Nope. It's more like declaring that you want to play Black with half a tempo gain.

@Godsoriginalfool  The Moeller Attack, Max Lange, and Evans Gambit are all variations of The Italian. The comment was quite valid.   Plus you commented on a different opening in the Four Knights opening right after.  Haha, all good, just stay friendly  

I am an idiot. I apologize to you and optimissed