why not blacklist the Ruy Lopez?

That's true about all double-edged positions, not only about the Ruy Lopez. That's why they are said to be double-edged.

I have never claimed this is the reason White has to maintain pressure. The reason is that passivity from White allows Black to take the initiative.

I gave them as an example that there are options for Black to go into such positions by avoiding 1...e5 and playing another move instead.

What I mean in short is that both players can choose their moves, and if they don't want to go into a certain opening they can avoid it. But they should expect their opponent to drive the game into any opening they allow him to, because he also chooses to accept or refuse the options he's allowed according to his preferences. In this case, if Black likes the resulting from the Ruy Lopez positions, he should allow going into it; otherwise he should stray away earlier into an opening he prefers. The answer to theunderground702's question "Why would Black ever allow the Ruy Lopez?" is "Because who would allow it as Black is comfortable with it. Otherwise he shouldn't allow it".

Thanks for your input as always, Glex. When I created this topic, I had already decided to make the ruy lopez my opening of choice (when black lets me play it of course - e4 e5 nf3 nc6..), and I really enjoy it. Of course, since I'm very new to chess, I am also playing it as black, so I can learn it from the opponent's perspective as well. I don't mind playing it as black so far, but what I do know is that I am always 1 tempo behind!!! It's so frustrating to have to wait for your opponent to finally waste a tempo.

By the way, of all the popular defenses, I still find morphy defence as being the the most enjoyable to play for both sides. I personally find most of the popular variations of the berlin defence to be ridiculous.

When you have decided with 1.e4 as your first move, nothing is better than the Ruy Lopez. There will be a lot of homeworks, but the knowledge will be useable up until Grandmaster level. As a comparison, you can choose Italian game. It has a lot of theory, but once you reach above 2000 it will be hard to get a full point and you have to discard it.

Actually it is White who must play flawlessly to maintain a slight edge.  There are many defenses to the Ruy that are easier to play for Black since he gets good piece play.

Why allow the Ruy Lopez as black? The Marshall!

I've learned a lot more about the lopez in the past weeks and now I definitely understand how wrong I was. There are really so many ways for white to go wrong!

Beyer Defence and Chigorin are amazing.

Getting pretty fed up with this ruy lopez

as for me, i just dont like open boards for the reasons of too many complications,,(just like the F thematic tourney i mistakenly entered, but at least i manage to win some games) i've read somewhere that 1. e4 and black answers e5 the superior player wins.. this is mostly the case in open games since tactics (and mistakes) are there all over the board and the one to first recognize it is in advantage,.

you dont need to torture yourself studying ruy.. as you said black is the one choosing the defense each game.. if you're more comfortable playing 1...c5 then be it.. i don't think there will be a decent player that will criticize you for playing c5 each time they play 1. e4.. (is there?)

play a defense you're more comfortable with and you're game goes okey..

and i just want to add though unrelated that i always play 1. d4 as white which lowers the chance of my defeat due to tactical blunders (as i love to play against 200-300 ratings higher than me).. i think, as my low-rated mind can process, it is more subtler than e4 openings..

so if you're fed up of e4-e5 openings, try 1. d4, win a pawn, proceed in the endgame and win 30-40moves later..

I feel that you are incorrect here.  In symmetrical openings such as the ruy, if white wants to play for a draw he has an easier time than in a non-symmetrical or semi-open sicilian.  Furthermore, I feel as a chess player it is important to impose your will on the position.  When you are playing e5 with the black pieces its hard for you to force white down a certain line of your choosing.  And why on earth would you want to handle four theoretical monsters after e5 with ruy, scotch, vienna, and italian and even kings gambit let alone all the side variations.  Thus, I believe sicilian produces dynamic chances for both sides and is more favorable for black to learn at any level because it gives black more flexibility with the position.  He is able to impose his will with his variation from the starting moves and usually if white doesnt comply with the open sicilian then black easily equalizes.

 Finally, my last point entails the idea of opening fear.  I strongly believe that when black responds with e5 after e4 white is very happy as its easy for white to play.  The lines are more logical in the e4-e5 open complex.  In the sicilian complexes the lines are less logical and thus, specific preparation can generate painful problems for white.

Ultimately, e5 does score better than sicilian, but with the black pieces you are hardly imposing your will on white.  DO you really want to give white more options? thats the thing.  Personally, with the sicilian I find it easy to steer the game into the direction I want and this is where preparation in a particular line helps.  So bottom line is: Do you really want to give white more options with 1....e5 or impose your will with sicilian.

You are correct. Did I say the opposite??

I think I have also mentioned it, as the risk of choosing 1...e5. You are basically correct. But at high enough level, some players are more than willing to go into theoretical monster openings. They know the compensation they will have.

Correct that the Sicilian produces dynamic chances for both sides, that's why I mentioned that above 2400, the Sicilian is better than 1...e5 or the Ruy, because at almost perfect level it is hard to get more than a draw from a simple symmetrical openings.

Correct that by 1...c5 you bypass many other possibilities (or White preparation). That's why many prefer to play as Black, because it usually mean you will get into your favourite opening.

I disagree that the Sicilian is more favourable to learn at any level. It subjectively depends on the objective of learning, of course, but to me where future advancement is important, the logic is:

People learn autodidactically through practice. You learn something from experience or lessons that you understand. You (almost) don't learn anything from experience or lesson you don't understand. Sicilian is just too advanced for all level to understand (imo 1700 is the minimum). You can ask yourself, how much you have learnt from playing the Sicilian, and compare it to other openings that you have used.

I prefer playing against the Sicilian, because I feel I have a theoretical advantage there than against 1...e5. But of course I have prepared myself to become a Sicilian Killer  (read my blog for the important reason).

The sicilian is a pure double-edged opening. I don't think I need to worry about opening preparation (because I have my preparation also against every variations). It is more about who can play the typical middlegame position better.

You have to be more specific. It is usually useless trying to understand the winning percentage of 1...e5 compared to 1...c5. You have to look into deeper line, excluding blundered games and games with unfavorable lines. And skill level does matter.

Here for you to think about:

Compared the Marshall Attack to the Sicilian Najdorf. At 2200-2400, Marshall Attack is better. At 2400 above, the Sicilian is better (Chessbase Mega Database 2009). Can you relate this to what I have explained?

I don't get why you are saying you need to be passed a certain level to play sicilian.  It got me to approx 1850 uscf...Also you say you prefer playing the white side of the sicilian...well i can also say that black players are happy to be on the black side of sicilian.  The thing is when you are playing e5 you are also saying that you are happy to draw. While with sicilian you are saying you want to win.  Also you are saying that at a certain level people want to fight theoretical monsters of e5, but thats because they are okay with a draw.  Honestly, in overtheboard tournaments im getting more draws than wins/losses with sharp openings derived from sicilian.  If i played e5 my draw % would just increase more.  What it comes down to is that in money tournaments i want to play for a win no matter what and the sicilian is the best way to do it and not e5.

White has no problems playing for a draw against the Sicilian.  If White plays the c3 Sicilian Black has a very difficult time playing for a win (2..d5 may be his best shot)  I find that most White players are better prepared to play against the Sicilian than the Spanish.  There are so many variations of the Spanish that give Black a much easier game because he can get active piece play which below the level of master is worth more than a slight positonal edge.  One has to have encyclopedical knowledge to be able to play the White side of the Spanish.

I have mentioned the reason. It's for future advancement. I picked openings that will allow me to progress.

When I proposed the 1700 number, may be it is more towards a chessdotcom rating because I'm not familiar with the "strength" of 1700 uscf myself. The idea is you don't want to play positions you can't understand because you'll learn a little. The middlegame of the sicilians is too advanced, and for sure you don't learn endgame here. If you can understand the Sicilian middlegame well since you were 1400, then I belive it is your special case.

Yes, I think I know why Sicilian players will be happy playing the Black side. When I analyzed my opponent games, I often found they play the Sicilian not as good as I do, and I thought it would be beneficial for me to contest their Sicilian skill and play the Sicilian myself against their 1.e4, but because I don't play just for a win, I prefer to develop myself and play the Caro-Kann instead.

My preference for the White side of the Sicilian is based on theory, statistics, and my own preparation for the opening. If Black players have their reason to prefer the Sicilian, I have exactly the same reason. But they don't have my other reasons to prefer the White side of it.

Please be aware of the importance of playing level when discussing this. I have underlined this previously by putting (imaginary) numbers.

At my level for sure, I cannot see that 1.e4 e5 equates to draw. Almost any opening variations have their own drawish lines as well as sharp lines. If I played 1...e5 I will choose the sharpest (but reliable) line. King's Gambit? Every GMs will smile happily playing against it. Even at my level, because I play the KG myself, I will be very happy playing the Black side of the KG.

I'm really not sure at what level 1...e5 start to equal with draw. I have found many low rated players agree on a draw prematurely. I don't think they will get the draw if they play till the end. Please tell me, at what uscf level, most players start to think that 1.e4 e5 is too drawish.

My reason for saying "okay against monster" was because some players will be ready to put a lot of theoretical work (when they have time and access to chess engine and database) when they see the benefit from doing so.

I think you need to improve certain skill associated with playing sharp positions. I'm not teaching you how to do things (as you may be a better player than I am). I just see the logic.

Of course the Sicilian is theoretically the best to achieve what you want to achieve. But didn't I tell you that below 2200 or 2400 things do not always work as suggested by theory?

If you get too many draw even if you have played sharp positions, something must be wrong. You are the one who has to find the real reason, may be from analyzing your own games.

I agree with all of these.

at top level the ruy lopez berlin wall seems to be a drawing weapon , its doing just fine, i dont even recall reviewing a loss from black on super gm level in the ruy

You seem to love to take advantage from anyone's mistake hehe

Yes, yes, yes, you are right. Your explanation is correct. I have mentioned exactly the same thing in my previous posts. It's all about context. One has to have encyclopedical knowledge to be able to play the White side of the Spanish. That is an open statement with many posible interpretation. Please pay attention to the word "impact" in my next explanation.

I myself prefer to play against the Sicilian even if my theoretical opening knowledge is not deep, because I found that this opening knowledge is not that important (has little impact on performing at the game as White). More important is the ability to play the middlegame positions (or to know the middlegame strategy), which is quite typical no matter what line you choose. And because White has space advantage.

But playing against the Spanish (of course not the closed or passive lines with d2-d3), even tho it is quite intuitive so can be played without knowing the theory, I believe that the effect of not knowing the so many theory in the Spanish has greater impact than not knowing the Sicilian (from White perspective).

So, what is theory, exactly? Does Sicilian has more theory than the Bongcloud? NO. So my focus was not on the amount which is too imaginary, but on the impact. That is the reason I agreed on a statement that one has to have encyclopedical knowledge to be able to play the White side of the Spanish.

Najdorf too. So much theory there.

Just want to make sure, IF, if I have a good idea about the opening differences between Ruy Lopez and Sicilian (at least as good as you do), does that mean that your interpretation is wrong, or your perspective is wrong?

Of course you are right, everybody know this. But you didn't address or get my point.

Basically you believe that as a White player, not knowing the Sicilian "theory" has more negative impact than not knowing the Ruy Lopez theory, and I believe the opposite is true for me.

Notice that in previous post I have referred my judgement to my own situation, because I can see very very clearly some subjectivity issue here

So, every particular position has theory? If so, Bongcloud has theory, Pirc has theory, what not?

Why it has to be "comparable"? Comparing the Sicilian to the Bongcloud is sensible because it made my point clear.

I prefer to say that one has to have the required Sicilian middlegame skill and knowledge (incl. strategy) to be able to play the White/Black side of the Sicilian (well).

Which one has more theory, Sicilian or Spanish, I don't really care, as I prefer to understand things, not to remember things.

Of course. Why you always mention the obvious?

How about: understand the position so you don't have to memorize moves?

In a tactical position you have to remember move sequences. In a positional position you have to remember the strategy, ideas, themes. And Sicilian positions are very positional.

Back to Ruy Lopez versus Sicilian, Being Black in Ruy Lopez to me is almost as fortunate as being White in the Sicilian.

Playing White in the Ruy Lopez, unless you have a passive pet line, you have to be prepared whether your opponent will play the Open defense, the Berlin, Marshall, Zaitsev, etc. Black almost control 90% of the variation to be played. And its so huge.

Compare to the Sicilian. Playing Black in the Sicilian without knowing the theory is like suicide, even when White also doesn't know the theory! If Black doesn't want to go to the mainline (Open Sicilian), which line that is so dangerous for White if he doesn't know the theory? I cannot see one.