the scotch

I know the ruy can also be equalized against but it is most difficult to. I also prefer the closed positions from it and I feel that in the scotch there could be many trades where in the ruy the attack comes slower but probably won't go away because trades are limited there.

i still think the scotch is harder to equalize against

I don't

thats your choice to make but in my belief the scotch is better in capable hands

2 questions. 1 what are you basing that statement on and 2 how then do you explain the fact that most GM's disagree with you? The scotch is not seen at GM tournaments while the Ruy lopez is still favored. If it were as you say "better in capable" hands then certainly the GM's classify as much more capable hands. So wouldn't they have picked up on this hidden power rather than largely dismissing it and moving on to other openings, most common being the Ruy Lopez.

We are not playing at GM level.

Some openings when played below GM level will have more pitfalls then other openings that are favored at GM level. I always got the feeling that the Scotch is more unforgiving then the Ruy when your opponent makes mistakes. I've played both. Also add to the fact that players handle different positions better then other positions depending on opening and type of play, that 5 centi pawn (or whatever) edge of the Ruy Lopez is really nothing in comparison to the other factors.

Well personally I think the Ruy is more practical because you will always have a nice buildup if you play good moves no matter what black plays where in the scotch black can liquidate the center and just simplify the position. I don't think you understand that black is perfectly fine in the scotch; it gives potential for attack but black has a comfortable himself.

The scotch is very unforgiving for black. I have had lots of success with it, and I actually prefer the bc5 lines... It's great to have the tension build in the center, many people break under pressure :)

So it has lost some popularity at the grandmaster level? Mainly a fashion issue, the scotch built a great amount of theory in the 90s. I've seen the  Ruy lopez utilized well, but I certainly would not take anything away from the power of the scotch, in my experience (not much) it is not a draw opening.

Elubas, black can only "liquidate" the center at the expense of his development.

In conclusion, the scotch is not worth learning, I definately recommend you stay away from any theory of this opening. Muhahahah!

Any advantage is an advantage, period, whether you want to dismiss it or not. I too have played both, and like them both, but statisticaly speaking the Ruy is stronger.

It's basically liquidation followed by very smooth development. After ...Nf6 black can put alot of pressure on the center so the only real try for advantage is Nxc6 followed by e5 but black will be able to counter with ...d5 or just get rid of the e5 pawn with a solid k side fianchetto for the king. In any case black is perfectly fine. Not saying it's a bad choice for white, but it's not like black can't equalize.

That's baloney. In the Ruy you need to know MUCH more theory than in the Scotch, and furthermore, I still haven't seen what's being suggested to avoid black's drawing lines in the Ruy (the Berlin and the Marshall being the two main ones I can think of). Of course, by playing 2...Nc6 instead of the Petroff, black is somewhat signalling that he's playing somewhat for a win (though then why not play 1...e6 or 1...c5?) but this may play well into the hands of the Scotch player for white from a psychological perspective, because black is probably expecting a Ruy and doesn't like the feel of Scotches as much because he has less chances for advantage. Basically, it seems to me that White gets better winning chances in the Ruy but so does black. I prefer the Scotch to the Ruy, probably mostly because I never bothered learning all the ultra-deep theory of the Ruy, but have since eschewed them both for 3. Bc4, which I find does well for me, mostly because I've studied it much more deeply than my typical opponents.

Ummm that doesn't make sense. White has better chance of winning in the RL, so black has LESS chance of winning. It's simple percentages.

It makes perfect sense when you don't forget about draws, the peaceful result being the most common one. Basically I was calling the Scotch more drawish than the Ruy, which is in a way weird considering the variations of the Ruy that have been analysed out to forced draws, which are for some reason unkown to me nevertheless not very popular right now.

But sa draw counts equally for both sides, so wont effect the WIN percentage. A better way to say that is the Scotch affords Black less chance of losing. They still have less of a chance of winning, but now more of a chance of not losing outright, which is true.

The only way that draws don't affect win percentage is if you take the ridiculous position that draws don't count at all, which you really can't do in chess except in certain matches (understand that that's different from games), the latest of which (at high levels) was the first Kasparov-Karpov World Championship. In your basic score percentage calculation, draws count equally for both players, yes, but that brings the score closer to 50% for each. Furthermore, if you mean the percentage that each side actually wins, which could easily be called win percentage, then this statistic goes down for both players as the draw ratio goes up. But even if you take the narrow view which makes draws not effect win percentage, so what? Your statistic isn't really meaningful any more, since the draw is just as important a part of chess as a win. In fact, there are many cases, especially for black, where you play for a draw. Basically, the sctoch, being more drawish, is a safer opening, which suits certain players' styles and furthermore can be very beneficial situationally.

There are three stats for a reason. If you want to lump al the draws to blacks side or whites side then immediatly that side wil have the advantage. What you are talking about is drawing for points, if I am a point ahead in a match then all i have to do is not lose, no matter which side I am playing.

Draws (being a seperate category from wins or losses) have their own statistic if not then they would always get lumped in with black giving black the advantage in almost every opening. Would you play an opening with a 30% win ratio if it had a 20% draw? just because it gives you a 5% chance to NOT LOSE. you still only have a 30% win chance while white has a 50%.....im just saying math doesn't lie but I'm sure that my math is to "simplistic" to count towards anything. Al I wil say before leaving this topic is I hope to  see more people devoting time to the scotch and less to the RL...make my job as black easier.

You just seem to not be getting something. I don't mean to denegrate your math skills, because I'm almost certain that math isn't your issue here. Basically, it seems to me that you're saying that because draws don't favour one player or the other, then they can be discounted. While you are of course right to say that draws don't favour one player or the other score-wise, look at it this way. If there are four hundred games in a variation, and three hundred white wins and one hundred black wins, then white is scoring 75% and black is scoring 25%. But add in six hundred draws. By your logic, since draws score equally for white and black, then this won't change the statistics. But it's pretty simple to see that if you add the draws in, you now have 1000 games, 300 white wins + (1/2)(600) draws = 600 points for white, or 60%. Black now has 100 black wins + (1/2)(600) = 400 points for black. Clearly draws make a big difference.

It wouldnt change the WIN percentage. In my above example of a 30% win rate plus a 20%draw rate you say Black would have a 50% chance of not losing, but then by the same chance White has a 70% of not losing. I am not saying discount draws I am saying they do not effect win percentage, which obviously they don't or they would be included in the win column. I think you are forgetting that even in the 600 draws from your example that that does not constitue a loss for white.

Out of 1,000 games if White wins 500 times there are 200 draws and  and 300 wins for Black, you cannot say Black has a good chance of winning. Because even if they draw they didn't win so white still has the advantage in that they have a 70% chance of not losing. You cannot dispute that....with any amount of logic anyway.

If that's what you're going to call win percentage then win percentage doesn't mean anything. A statisitic which discounts draws is essentially meaningless. And your example first of all has an abnormally low drawing rate (which doesn't really matter), BUT black never really has good winning chances. The only thing that matters is the performance of a move in comparison to other moves. However, percentages can never really tell teh whole story, and in fact never even really paint a very good picture at all. Really, analysis of resultant positions and plans is what's most important.

WHAT?! you can't be serious. you are actually saying that out of 1,000 games how many white wins how many draws and how many black wins does not matter? I did not define what a win percentage is, it's just a percentage. I think you are confused as to how they apply to actual games. I am still absolutly amazed that you just said they don't matter....really.