Well, he's talking about an opening, not a variant.
why is ruy lopez considered the strongest
Sort:
Just a side note...the Ponziani is busted. In engine vs. engine play, black will win or draw playing the Fraser Defense. See: BFG vs. Ponziani Power (votechess) for a good example, both teams used engines until at least move 30 or so...
This game was a key point of discussion in the now moribund 100+ page votechess league cheating scandal thread.
Fiveofswords wrote:
ive switched my double king pawn openings a great deal. started with the ruy actually...made sense to play the most popular opening. played the italian...played the scotch...and now the vienna. in every opening i studied with better than human gm computers i did find various lines here and there which are annoyingly equal. and this should be logically obvious if you accept that perfect play chess should be drawn...sooner or later you would need to get equality. the only real difference is how likely black is to know how to do it in whatever particular line you play..or how likely it is for black to find it on his own in the time constraint of your game. lots of openings give black difficult problems to solve. the ruy is not the only one. the dogma about the ruy is really just something perpetuated by small minded fms like reb here. ive never heard a gm insist on the ruy being necessarily the best.
You are still with a provisional rating OTB so what do you know? You have practically no OTB experience . Yet you insist on arguing with chess players who are stronger than you and more experienced in chess . You have never even played any titled players in otb tourney chess and you argue here with IMs and other titled players ?! Do you really think tinkering around with your engine(s) and playing online gives you that right ? Why bother studying chess at all when you dont play OTB tourney chess ?! It makes no sense .
Fiveofswords wrote:
of course...i have a right to debate all i want about chess. i wouldnt even need to be good. and im sure you may have guessed this but i dont even think you are better than me at the game :p in my perspective you are actually weaker than me and understand less. and maybe you would understand more if you tinkered with computers more...but probably your foolishness would hold you back. i study chess just because i need a mental outlet...i dont need to go to tournaments and i dont get anything from it. I dont really expect you to understand...the concept of a mental outlet is probably totally bizarre to you
This is hilarious that you have such a high opinion of yourself ! You live in Georgia ... when were you ever state champion ? I was in 87 and 96 .... you can look it up to verify it if you dont believe me . I have won more tournies than you have even played in . I have played more titled players in one tourney than you have played total . If you are gonna give chess advice , argue with titled players and pose as a strong player I suggest you get busy OTB and earn some real chess credentials . Online exploits dont mean anything , for obvious reasons . Here are your " credentials " as it stands :
| USCF ID | |
| Regular Quick Blitz Online Quick Online Blitz All | |
| By Opponent's Pre-Event Rating By Opponent's Post-Event Rating Top 30 Opponents Record by Year | |
| Name | CHARLES M THOMPSON |
Record vs Opponent's Rating (Pre-event)
| Lifetime (since 1991) Record | Last 12 Months | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rating | Games | Wins | Draws | Losses | % score | Rating | Games | Wins | Draws | Losses | % score | ||||
| 1100 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 83.3 | 1100 | ||||||||||
| 1200 | 2 | 2 | 100.0 | 1200 | |||||||||||
| 1300 | 4 | 4 | 100.0 | 1300 | |||||||||||
| 1400 | 3 | 3 | 100.0 | 1400 | |||||||||||
| 1500 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 50.0 | 1500 | |||||||||
| 1700 | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 1700 | |||||||||||
| 1800 | 1 | 1 | 100.0 | 1800 | |||||||||||
| 1900 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 50.0 | 1900 | ||||||||||
| 2000 | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 2000 | |||||||||||
| 20 | 14 | 2 | 4 | 75.0 | |||||||||||
| Search for Players | |||||||||||||||
| MSA Home Page | |||||||||||||||
| Note: Color information, when shown, is only present if provided by the TD for events rated since January 1, 2012. |
|||||||||||||||
Garrus_Vakarian wrote:
The Ruy Lopez is not the best,and many strong players use other openings.
Do I really have to remember you all that Garry Kasparov loved and used regularly the Scotch game?
Do I really have to say that Paul Morphy,Adolf Anderssen and a bunch of other legends of the XIX century basically only played the King's Gambit and the Evans' Gambit with incredible scores and awesome and immortal games?
The Vienna Game is regularly played by a lot of strong Grandmasters,just search their games.
The Ruy is an option,but none can tell it's the best.
He played the Scotch 22 times in his career and the Ruy over 100 times . It appears he loved the Ruy more . 
I am not claiming the Ruy is the best but I dont believe there is anything better than the Ruy after 1 e4 e5 available to white . Are you claiming some opening is better ?
I don't want to interfere in to your fight and I don't care to prove anything for my self, just to ask something and maybe clear this mess about Ruy Lopez. I know that Bb5 puts immediate pressure on e5, I know that black has resources to counter this first fight for the center but I have heard and understand that the power of the opening is whites further expectation to play for the big center ( d4 ) and poses the square with out give black compensation for it. Of course there are besides strategies around this and tactical issues but isn't this what make the opening powerful for white? After 1.e4 e5 what other opening idea gives the same opportunity besides Ruy Lopez?
I am playing a game right now as black against a anti-Marshall d4 line. What other game can give so strong d4 brake in the 8th move for white? Even if it considered inferior compare to h3 and a4.
Jul 28, 2015
0
#29
Fiveofswords wrote:
Reb wrote:
Its not about rating but chess understanding . You don't seem to get that but I am not surprised . Its not what a GM plays once in a blue moon but about what they play most often and against their peers in critical games that indicates what they believe to be " best " . Mandy GMs will play inferior stuff against weaker players just to get them out of " book " and make them play chess .... confident that their chess understanding is superior to their weaker opponents . If you played more OTB chess you would learn/understand these things . Your " superior intellect " doesnt seem to help you much where chess is concerned .
and why would they want to get weaker players out of book...what would they have to fear being the better player with the best opening. again your inferior intellect exposes itself and how it corrupts your chess understanding because contrary to the point you attempted to make gms do not only play the italian against weaker players.
Wow! You really are clueless!
Many weaker players, like Class B players that run their mouth on here and rarely play over the board, are clueless about what to do when their opponent goes out of book because if you look at what the peewees post on here, it's all about memorization. Openings is not about memorizing. It's about understanding. If you understand, you will start to appreciate it when your opponent plays something offbeat.
I played in the NY International, and in round 2, I played Black, and faced 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6, and now White proceeds to play 4.e4?!
A B player would start squirming in his seat because all he understands is what to do the first 15 moves of the Stonewall Dutch. You go outside his comfort zone, he breaks.
Then you take Experts, Masters, GMs, etc, and we don't memorize, we understand what we are playing. I faced 4.e4, and was just gushing with joy that White, a 2001 player, played such an inferior move, and proceeded to destroy him so bad that he ended up resigning after my 30th move, which is a pretty quick win by Black standards, given that Black goes second.
So say whatever you want about your "intellect bullsh*t". Intellect means nothing in this case. You could have the best intellect in the world, but if you don't know what the problem is with 4.e4?!, you'll die quickly on the chess board!
lol fiveofswords you really know nothing about otb chess earlier you said, "Why would gms get weaker players out of book they're already stronger" the obvious reason being any player can memorize lines of theory up too an easily drawn position so too avoid such a situation the play an out of book move.
Gunvald123 wrote:
NM Reb, you must have suffered a lot of painful losses OTB to spend so much time arguing with somebody you consider vastly inferior. Or where does that frustration come from that makes you so adamant on showing off your superiority to fiveofswords?
at least he's arguing with people who are rated higher than him. he's fighting an uphill battle, maybe his rebellious ways aren't the most effective but clearly he's moving forward. you on the other hand just seem like a grumpy old man trying to put down a young punk. you are just going down hill in this and the sad part is that you somehow think it's worth your efforts. I just hope to never become like you when I'm old.
have fun with your dick swinging contest guys!
Wow... This is so harsh and unjustified!
P.S. Garrus. What are you talking about? Does the word "best" not translate well into Italian or something? You're being completely retarded.
P.P.S. I agree with everybody that is calling FOS out on that statement about GMs going out of book. What a stupid thing to say.
Best play after 1.e4 e5 is 2. Ke2!! of course. You'll ruin your opponent homework and tedious line memorizations ;).
Jul 28, 2015
0
#34
So if I understand correctly, a 1700 OTB player, who has played 20 games is arguing with a 2200+ National Master who has played 100 times more... (2 400 games ! That's like 10 000 hrs of OTB chess).
If the class B player understands so much, you have to wonder why he doesn't want to prove his point in competitions ? As for him claiming he is stronger than Reb, well, what's the word above 'ridiculous' in English ?
However, I agree that Reb shouldn't lose his time arguing with this person. He is kind enough to share his knowledge. Some will be wise enough to hear him, some won't.
Jul 28, 2015
0
#35
Anyways given that the trend in Ruy lopez's at top level is to play d3 lines, isn't the difference with d3 Italien lines pretty subtle. Sometimes they might even transpose. Personally find what white is trying to acheive in these lines very hard to understand.
For me what might be objectively best is an academic question, because I haven't the skill set to play these lines, or the Berlin endgames either. So play the scotch or when risk the Ruy Lopez the exchange variation because even if objectively drawish, understand what white is trying to acheive.
Jul 28, 2015
0
#36
Considering chess is a draw with best play, and theory extends further and further, I would assume 'best' is what gives you better practical winning chances at your level. It may very well be Ruy Lopez at GM level and Vienna or Ponziani at class level.
Everybody is entitled his opinion here, but a NM probably knows a little more on this matter than most of us...
FiveofSwords wrote: "and why would they want to get weaker players out of book...what would they have to fear being the better player with the best opening. again your inferior intellect exposes itselt [...]"
Getting a weaker player out of book means forcing him to find his own moves instead of letting him play preparation/theory. Your posting demonstrates nothing but ignorance, GMs do that all the time. This is common knowledge of anyone who frequently sees the inside of a tournament hall. In my last 4 games against GMs, two went for obscure openings and one improvised rare move in a well-known position from the Slav.
Garrus, just on case you are not trolling: no grandmaster plays always the same opening, for practical reasons. Kasparov and his team found new paths in the Scotch due to a hard analyzing work, and considered it could be a useful weapon against Karpov. He even played once the Petrov, wich he didn't like, against Karpov just for see what would be his answer.
Jul 28, 2015
0
#39
hicetnunc wrote:
So if I understand correctly, a 1700 OTB player, who has played 20 games is arguing with a 2200+ National Master who has played 100 times more... (2 400 games ! That's like 10 000 hrs of OTB chess).
If the class B player understands so much, you have to wonder why he doesn't want to prove his point in competitions ? As for him claiming he is stronger than Reb, well, what's the word above 'ridiculous' in English ?
However, I agree that Reb shouldn't lose his time arguing with this person. He is kind enough to share his knowledge. Some will be wise enough to hear him, some won't.
Well, not quite. The 2400 games statistics is mine, not Reb's, so not sure if he's played 2400 games or not, but upper half of expert (in the 2100s) with over 2400 games, yes, he argues all the time claining he knows so much more than a National Master like Reb or a rock solid expert like me.
He'll tell you it's all about "intellect"!
Its not about rating but chess understanding . You don't seem to get that but I am not surprised . Its not what a GM plays once in a blue moon but about what they play most often and against their peers in critical games that indicates what they believe to be " best " . Mandy GMs will play inferior stuff against weaker players just to get them out of " book " and make them play chess .... confident that their chess understanding is superior to their weaker opponents . If you played more OTB chess you would learn/understand these things . Your " superior intellect " doesnt seem to help you much where chess is concerned .
if you are talking about me well then let me inform to you i play it more than "once in a blue moon"....... many times. i believe it to be better (style personally) than the spanish. my results proved it.
and this was before they started avoiding berlins, way before
I am sorry , that post of mine was directed at fiveofswords , the B class OTB know-it-all . I should have been clearer . Silly me ...