why is ruy lopez considered the strongest

Your hubris knows no bounds.

Kasparov has played the Ruy 5x as many times as the Scotch , what does that suggest to you ? In any event I am answering the OPs question , you are not . You continue with your childish insults and I am not insulting you . Try addressing the OP's question : WHY IS THE RUY LOPEZ CONSIDERED THE STRONGEST ?  He didnt ask if it is the strongest or if there are other openings equal to it , it seems that despite your supposed intelligence your reading comprehension isnt quite up to snuff !  

Your mental. You've spent the last 10 pages desperately trying to get Reb back into an argument, and he's totally ignored you. Despite your constant irrational, childish and pathetic comments. You've insulted so many people, often in the most puerile way possible. You've still then had so little self-awareness that you've actually subsequently belittled other people for using childish, ad hominen insults.

You're obviously a better chess player than me, but your ability to use English and understand English is definitely at the patzer level.

Even an idiot who knew nothing about chess (me, perhaps) could acknowledge one opening, used consistently for a hundred years, and favoured time and again by Grandmasters at the expense of every other opening (not to say they don't also employ other openings), is suggestive that it has some objective advantages to all the other openings. Maybe it isn't better, maybe it is, but to suggest it's almost ubiquitous use isn't at least suggestive of it being better is absurd.

You've claimed it's largely about fashion, and questioned why would someone use another opening - as they on occasions - when that's the best one. Many people explained the reason, their explanations seemed logical to me. Yet you're still, right now, claiming Reb "maybe he will repeat his idea that kasparov only played the scotch to toy with patzers".

Why are you saying that? I read what Reb, and others wrote, and it was pretty clear and not open to interpretation. Out of book, the better player is more likely to win, nothing to do with playing with weaker opponents. Surely you have a logical brain, and can't disagree with that. But you're still pretending he said, or even suggested, Kasparov played the Scotch to toy with patzers. Delusional!

Also fashions tend to change, why hasn't this fashion changed? Maybe chess has stood still for a hundred years, which would really be the only explanation how a fashion would remain the same.

Finally, there's a reason almost everybody is arguing against you and it's not because everybody else is either stupid or just seeking to lick the ass of titled players. Everybody has repeated themselves at you too, so don't see why you're complaining about that.

@ FOS

Kasparov played the Scotch because he or better he's team of analyst discovered some new ideas to trap the black side but that not means that the opening by it self as a theory have become equal to Ruy Lopez.

The closed Spanish has an opening theory where in some variations give the initiative to white for over than thirty moves with out black side being able to deviate by not entering a worst position.

Where in hell did you see such a thing in Vienna or Scotch ?

It has already been explained to you why he played the Scotch twice in his match with Karpov but you don't listen . He wanted to catch Karpov unprepared and he did !  The fact that he only played it twice in that match also indicates that he knew that Karpov ( and his team )  would be better prepared in subsequent games . He won 1 game with the Scotch in that match and 3 with the Ruy but the Scotch did better % wise for him with 1.5/2 .   In any event , why not answer the OP's question ? 

Please reread the thread title . 

Is there anything that you don't already know?

Kasparov playing something other then the Ruy is not a valid argument for the Ruy not being the best. Many GMs play "inferior" openings for better winning chances and to avoid mass theory. The KID was long considered inferior to many QP black openings, yet so many GMs play it because it's fun to play and it gives black lots of winning chances.

For example..we know you love the alapin and you have said before anything other than 2..d5 and 2..Nf6 is inferior, yet they are played by strong players. Now why would strong players play inferior moves? Maybe 2..d6 isn't inferior hmm...

lol I noticed that too. It seemed earlier in the thread he was unclear as to why Kasparov employed the Scotch. Come to find out he knew it all along. 

Sorry I've tried to keep it civil but that just cracked me up.

The KID also gives better white chances to win. It was long considered to be better for white. Kramnik showed how faulty it can be, yet is still employed regularly. An opening being inferior in it's ideas doesn't mean it won't be played...that being said I don't think the Italian and Scotch are worse openings and I think white can fight for advantage in both. Heck I play the KG to fight for advantage too, but on top level play, the Ruy is harder to equalize against because of how complex it's ideas are.

FOS @

No you are wrong in this too. Karpov didn't lost because the opening ( Scotch ) offered to Kasparov an attacking opportunity that was not possible being refuted. He lost because he couldn't find the answer in a trick that is possible to been solve from theory.

The difference from Ruy Lopez is that the theory here creates for the white side opportunities that is impossible to refute them positionally. The Spanish it's not a trick generator, it's a masterpiece for those who understand its difference from the others.

No 5oS black can play 2..d6 or 2..b6 and be fine. 2..d6 can transpose into a type of KID, which I've had some success with.

He's trying hard to agree with some of the things Reb tried to tell him three days ago. Perhaps he's oblivious to the fact that readers can access the whole thread.

Where did I say this or give you this idea ?  I know that top players often try to catch other top players by surprise and play openings that are unusual ( for them ) in an attempt to catch them in something they may not be prepared for .  Carlsen playing the Ponziani for example . 

After playing it, a few rounds later he was laughing because Hou Yifan played it against him.

I played the Ponziani a month later in my two Whites in a weekend tournament. Both games were against weaker players. In both games my position was worse sometime in the first ten moves. Luckily, I won both games and did well enough on the Black side to have a decent tournament.

Are you denying that GMs do that ?  You have taken that and assumed that I am implying that they never also try to take their peers " out of their preparations/book " , but thats not what I said or meant to imply .  I dont believe Carlsen believes the Ponziani is as good as the Ruy but he has used it and even against his peer(s) .  I could be wrong , we would have to ask him to know for sure . 

You know, of course, that the memory starts to fade after you turn 40. Maybe you should reread the whole thread so that you can remember what you wrote. I'm sure that you also know that Socrates had something to say about this forgetting. I don't need to remind you of Phaedrus since you memorized it when you were 13.

Did you also memorize the Oedipus trilogy? Did you memorize it in Greek?

Of course the in-between does exist. What does not exist is evaluation symbols for it.

Let's just assume that you are talking to a person who, in his life, looked at a 5-digits number of chess games and game fragments annotated by grandmasters. Do you really think you could educate him on this subject by quoting Wikipedia?

It is rather common knowledge that in the starting position, white has better chances than black. If the opening is a success for white, most of the time the annotator places a +/= at some point. If it's a success for black, the most common sight is a =.

That's how grandmasters have been annotating games over and over again, for decades. You will find this use of the annotation symbols in informants, in chess books, in databases.

Are you referring to Hou Yifan's decision to play the Ponziani against Carlsen? Of course you remember Carlsen's comments in the press conference after the game.