Why are the Ruy Lopez and Sicilian always recommended?

hartofgoldrubinstein

Strange comments by Play_e5. He doesn't understand that White has a space advantage due to his pawn structure and is therefore better. Every strong player understands this. His plan of closing the position gives away the advantage and gives away the ideal pawn center and is based on a weak understanding of chess and the center.

Fixedthx

1. e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cd Nd4 nf6 Nc3 god i love the ruy lopez

hartofgoldrubinstein

Play_e5, No, closing the position with d5 gives you a worse version of a normal King's Indian. Weak chess engines in the late 2000s suggested your plan. I can see you're clearly a weak chess player who doesn't even know what the theory is. You are aware that 90% of GM games continue exactly how the IM suggested they should be played with Bb5? It's so weird how you random guys have these bizarre conspiracy theories and don't have enough positional understanding to understand why main lines are main lines and what constitutes a += pawn structure

kindaspongey
Play_e5  wrote:

… With Bb5 you are just giving equality as black can just trade minors:

[1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nc6 4. Bb5 exd4 5. Nxd4 (5. Qxd4 Bd7 Giving up the bishop pair? 6. Bxc6 Bxc6) 5... Bd7 6. Bf4 Nf6 Black can trade whenever he wants as white didn't play for an advantage on the opening]

Nunn's Chess Openings (1999) indicates that "White is slightly better" after

 

Ashvapathi
Play_e5 wrote:
hartofgoldrubinstein escribió:

Play_e5, No, closing the position with d5 gives you a worse version of a normal King's Indian. Weak chess engines in the late 2000s suggested your plan. I can see you're clearly a weak chess player who doesn't even know what the theory is. You are aware that 90% of GM games continue exactly how the IM suggested they should be played with Bb5? It's so weird how you random guys have these bizarre conspiracy theories and don't have enough positional understanding to understand why main lines are main lines and what constitutes a += pawn structure

You have 'here to learn' in your profile and damn you have things to learn as your understanding of such a position is very weak. The engine says my move is better at depth 41.

 

 

how do u go about from that final position? what is the White's plan? 

poucin

I guess Play-e5 would go into this kind of bad game :

Sure white's play was cooperative.

Ashvapathi

wow. That was cool sac.

poucin
Play_e5 a écrit :
poucin escribió:

I guess Play-e5 would go into this kind of bad game :

Sure white's play was cooperative.

Black outplayed white in that game but what is your argument? Do you I have to show a game of white wining in the Old Steinitz Ruy to be right now?  In this game white lost a tempo by playing e3 then e4 also white underestimated black's attack, it has nothing to do with the opening.

 

Every time i gave arguments, u didnt read/listen and continue your own thinking (based on engine's evaluation and your knowledge which seems limited).

So i won't give argumentation any more for u, no need to lose time for that because useless.

U should listen and try to understand what other tell, instead of staying blocked with your certitudes.

hartofgoldrubinstein

IM poucin is correct, and he is just repeating what chess theory says. Playing 4. d5 is known to be a mistake in a wide range of positions, closing the position when you have a lead in development. Even if Black can trade one or two pairs of minor pieces after 4. Bb5, he still has less space and a much worse position. Every strong player knows this. After 4. d5 Nce7 5. c4 like that weak idiot Play_e5 said, the engine score is already very close to equal after 5. ...g6. Now at depth 33 on the latest Stockfish version it has already dropped to +.15, with only equality. See, this is what happens when you don't understand a position at all and recite some weak engine line Play_e5. There is no logic in closing the position and allowing Black a pawn break with ...f5 when you have a lead in development like this. There IS logic in playing for a space advantage, a Maroczy Bind pawn structure, and increasing your lead in development. Chess is a logical game. You don't get it.

VladimirPopov1

to learn how to defeat

FlyingSandal
ThrillerFan wrote:

Poucin is only half right!

The Sicilian is way too complicated and theoretical for a beginner.

The Ruy Lopez and the Queen's Gambit Declined are the first two openings that you should study when you reach the stage of being ready to study opening theory.  This is usually about 1600 or so.  Before that, yoh should focus strictly on opening concepts.

The reason your first two openings studied should be the Ruy Lopez and Queens Gambit Declined is because they are the two openings that follow opening concepts to the letter.  If you don't know what I mean when I say "Opening Concepts", then you are by no means ready for opening theory and have no business researching anything with a name tied to it!

Double ditto. Play these. And learn a bit about the Sicilian playing as White since you will see it.

 

kindaspongey
kindaspongey wrote:

"Alekhine advised beginners not to play the Spanish game. We also recommend you get some experience first by playing relatively simple openings - the Scotch and Italian games - and only then move on to the Spanish one." - Journey to the Chess Kingdom by Yuri Averbakh and Mikhail Beilin

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

hartofgoldrubinstein

Shameful comment there Play_e5. I taught you a lesson in positional understanding and explained very clearly what you do not understand and what IM poucin explained, and you have no response, but "wah, wah, wah, I am going to report this guy because he agreed with an IM that I challenged as an arrogant 1900 player." Learn to have some humility, fella. You don't understand chess well. Take a deep breath and try to understand why this French IM told you what he did. He knows what he is talking about. You do not. Learn something useful from this experience and learn to actually get something out of your errors and mistakes rather than just trying to report people for correcting your lack of understanding.

hartofgoldrubinstein

That's hilarious play_e5. You childishly insulted an International Master and talked down to him, which is typical for a low IQ, arrogant person. Then you understood nothing about the position or typical positions. After I explained that you understood nothing about the position, in your broken, low IQ brain, all you can do is say "you understand nothing." Except it was just you who clearly did not understand anything. You started a spate of insults, so you definitely cannot claim any kind of moral victory or moral high ground. You just appear to be an arrogant and stupid person who has very little chess knowledge. You should learn some humility you low IQ roach.

And yes, you should learn to have some humility when someone 500 points stronger than you explains basic understanding to you. I explained very clearly why you were wrong and all you can do in your stupid 70 IQ brain is say, "You don't know what you're talking about." You're too stupid to even realize you can't say that unless you refute the person's argument. I refuted what you said clearly and all you can do is drool here like a sad loser.

Botvinnik4Ever

Brutal. Brutal stuff. Play_e5, you truly embarrassed yourself here. Our IM friend in this forum explained something valuable to you about pawn structures, then you started insulting everyone. Someone else here kindly explained why you were wrong, and then you tried to report him (he was telling you to stop insulting people). You are a really childish and sad person. 1. Insult random professionals. 2. Insult everyone else. 3. Start reporting people when you lose the argument... 4. Keep digging your heels in deeper.

 

It is just sad, man. Really sad. Like, we get it. You have your random opinion based on nothing. Keep it to yourself and learn to communicate without attacking everyone, especially those hundreds of points better than you. Have some humility in how you present your ideas, because what you presented was not even CLOSE to fact. It was just some low depth computer analysis. Rookie mistake kid, rookie mistake for a stupid person.

Botvinnik4Ever

Well, I enjoyed the discussion here a lot. The Spanish player who was insulting everyone seems to have left and deleted his comments. I think having a strong feeling about a position backed up by low depth engine moves shouldn't make someone act so hostile and insulting towards IMs like poucin...