why is ruy lopez considered the strongest

It was a 10-0 game at the end it was bullet madness

As a class B player (as I've read 5oS is but I don't think I'll ever get anywhere near his online standard rating on here) I hate facing the Italian:

3...Nf6 amounts to a pawn sacrifice
3...Bc5 varies from too wild to too dull
3...d6 and 3...Be7 are solid but somewhat lifeless
3...h6, 3...f5, 3...Nd4 are garbage
3...Rb8 is a (garbage) TN I dreamed up 40 years ago that I dub "la torre nera"

Now let me state that *despite* hating to face the Italian, I acknowledge the Spanish as the better opening.  Indeed, I played the Vienna for White for decades and switched to the Ruy 3 years ago, though I did love the flexibility the Vienna gave me on move three, after 2...Nf6 (there are of course alternatives)

3. f4
3. Bc4
3. g3
3. a3 

Ha!  Now that's funny!

You could play the Sicilian or some weak opening like the French.

Yes, in that "XJX immortal Vienna Game" it seems that white has a slight advantage being just one rook and one bishop down... 

I prefer the two knights defense, probably because I'm not a fan of the bc5 systems as black. If white plays d3 then I would either put my bishop on e7 or g7.

I have to quit going to sleep on this thread !  Dang !  Too much catching up to do .  

It is a good thing I'm following this thread. Might come in handy in my games coming up at sinquefeld cup.

Of the current top 10 players in the world all 10 of them have the Ruy in their repertoire and 5 of them play it from both sides !  Ofcourse I am sure this is just about " fashion " and they arent intelligent enough to choose the opening that they believe gives them their best chances to win ( or at least draw ) .  This fashion has been going on now for at least 100 years and EVERY world champion has used the Ruy in their repertoire with white or black and quite a few of them also played it from both sides !  There is no other opening after 1 e4  e5  that even comes close to this " pedigree " !  To answer the OP's original question this is one of several reasons why so many do consider the Ruy as the strongest . 

“Be steady and well-ordered in your life so that you can be fierce and original in your work.” 

― Gustave Flaubert

I don't think the Nimzo should be played by people on this thread even though it has been played by almost every world champion ever. Lower rated players don't understand it enough to make use of black's quick development and instead often succumb to whites bishop pair advantage later.

Starting with zingers early, in post #10...

Mixing metaphors with aplomb...

This Thread Has It All.  

Meds for your personal life ?  Meth for your work life ?

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 .