Ruy Lopez opening

So is best to take knight or back up bishop for further development?

Just looking for a little guidance. lol

Thank you sir...I appreciate it.

Perhaps moving into that position your objective would be the swap? Like you said...I'm a very beginner player just trying to learn some different openings. But I can understand giving up white bishop early could pose a problem. 

Good instincts because it might pose a problem down the road (as White would obviously lose future influence over the light-squares). @IMBacon has some good insight in his posts here. One minor point I will contribute though is that in many positions like this, it is actually preferred to keep the tension and threaten the capture than to actually do it. Here in the Ruy Lopez Opening retreating with 4.Ba4 keeps the tension (in this case a pin on the Knight but in other situations "tension" may take the form of something else like a pawn break, or opposing Rooks on an open file. 

My instinct as White, for this opening, would be 4.Ba4: but as you well know, the exchange variation after 4.Bxc6 is also well-respected. The idea of retreating with 4.Ba4 is to preserve the Bishop pair and provoke Black to play b7-b5 if they want to break the pin on the Knight. Usually in the Ruy Lopez Opening, the Bishop (if not exchanged on c6 early on) ends up going to c2 via Bb5-a4-c2 and helping to support a Kingside attack along the b1-h7 diagonal. 

I wouldn't be critical of the exchange variation in the Ruy Lopez (it is a well-known mainline after all), but it is just not my personal instinct: so I figured I'd give some thoughts of the obvious alternative (Ba4). Of course, as Black, I used to play the Columbus Variation as a repertoire choice (as Black playing 3...a6 4.Ba4 and kicking the Bishop back soon after with ...b7-b5), but now I've recently been looking into the highly theoretical Berlin Defense (3...Nf6)

As @IMBacon said, "...it depends." It really involves what you are trying to achieve from the opening: what your goals are and hopefully choosing a line that you are comfortable with as it fits into your play-style. All that a chess player can do is step back and view the pros and cons the various lines offer, then decide which one they feel more comfortable playing. To this day, computers and GMs alike still debate opening theory such as 4.Ba4 versus 4.Bxc6 - truth be told, they are probably roughly equal alternatives  but some players may feel much more comfortable playing it one way than another.

I like this analogy

There is this famous line that was recommended in opening books for decades: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 0-0 Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 0-0 9 h3. The thing is that, along the way, there are many opportunities for Black to redirect the game into complicated alternatives. Even if Black cooperates and one gets the whole thing over the board, the result is a position that is often regarded as requiring a lot of experience to play properly. Some say that it is worth the educational experience to play for the line, but Grandmaster Soltis is reported to have said that he never worked up the nerve to go for the whole thing in a tournament game. Some books suggest alternatives for White that can avoid some of the lines that have already been intensely studied. One possibility is for White to play d3 at some early point. Another is 4 Bxc6, a move that is not seen to be as effective as 4 Ba4, although the difference is not likely to matter at the beginner level. Indeed, some players may have more success with 4 Bxc6. In addition to avoiding some well-studied complications, the main advantage of 4 Bxc6 is that, after 4...dxc6, Black might end up with serious endgame difficulties. Exploiting those difficulties might be hard for White if there is an absence of endgame experience. Also, it might be a serious problem for White in the middlegame if Black has experience using the advantage of the two bishops. A recent Ruy Lopez book, Ruy Lopez Move by Move,

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627022042/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen153.pdf

http://marshtowers.blogspot.com/2011/11/chess-reviews-190.html

discusses both 4 Bxc6 and 4 Ba4, but 4 Ba4 gets a lot more space. The author discusses the possibility that those with limited experience go for 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 d3 in order to avoid some of the more demanding possibilities that might arise from 5 0-0. By the way, if you do choose 4 Bxc6, the usual response is 4...dxc6. If one does encounter 4...bxc6, I think the usual suggested reaction is to go for 5 0-0 d6 6 d4, although I once saw a book that suggested 5 d4 exd4 6 Qxd4.

Wow a lot to digest here!

Introduction to the Ruy Lopez -

3...a6 is the Morphy Defense...

https://simplifychess.com/openings/the-ruy-lopez/index.html

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hanging+pawns+ruy+lopez

https://www.chessable.com/chess-openings/s/ruy%20lopez

more things to discover here....including openings....

https://simplifychess.com/blog.html

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell

As you can see, what you thought might be a simple (or easy) question was not. If you go to "Learn" (at left on my screen) then select openings, you can start to input these moves into the openings explorer and you will see a selection of "book" or "standard" replies with an approximation of wins/draws for White and Black in order of "most popular". Most openings books will review the different "lines" to show pros and cons for either side. Ruy Lopez is such a studied (and complex) opening I have never used it. It is popular with beginners, though.

When you get to your position, opening explorer shows Ba4 is favoured (69,400 masters made this move in this position); of the 6 choices it has the highest winning percentage for White at 38%. Does this make it the best move, or the move you want to make. Perhaps, perhaps not. As was noted above (for example post #2) what do you want from this position? Trade your Bishop for his Knight and disrupt his pawn structure? Keep your Bishop so retreat to a4, then likely retreat again? (Maybe not make that initial Bishop move at all?) You should know why you have made all of your moves to this point (other than they are good opening moves). The why is paramount.

Again, as noted above, when playing players of the same beginner level, they most likely won't be much more knowledgeable than you at this point. So, what's really important is to understand why you want to be making these moves - the general theory and tactics. When your opponent moves, be sure to see how this changes the position. Is this piece attacking you somewhere, or setting up an attack. Is it leaving something unprotected. Has it become vulnerable. Don't be too fixated on making moves by rote, be mindful of why they are being made, what you wish to accomplish.

And ALL of this, all of it, is so much easier said than done! Good luck.

Were you just recently telling some near-beginner to not use the Najdorf Sicilian? And were you telling someone else that it was bad advice to suggest the French? Were you once explaining why you prefer the English opening, the Taimanov Sicilian, and the Benko Gambit? Are you the one who told us about using opening wizard software and the book, Fundamental Chess Openings?

One possible compromise is to go for some sort of less-ambitious line such as 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 d3. While it is often regarded as beneficial for a near-beginner to play over an illustrative game, I do not think that it is often suggested that such a player will get much out of putting hours a day into opening study.

The Ruy Lopez is a lot to digest, period. That is why many amateurs choose to play the Italian or Scotch game instead. Less to digest.

I have always wondered about the exchange variation, my rationale is as follows.  It appears to me that if one gives up the LSB one should try to keep the position closed with d3.  I think I observed one Capablanca game where this was the case.  However other super strong players did not wish to keep the position closed and instead break in the centre with d4, opening the position, this has always confused me.  Of course specifics dictate but it appears to this patzer that if one is giving up the LSB, it makes sense to keep the centre closed and try for something on the Kingside, by getting in f4 at some point. 

Anyone, why give away your LSB and then seek to open the position?  Why is that not anti-positional?  Would not Nimzo give up his dark squared bishop and then place all his pawns on dark squares as compensation for the loss of his bishop?  Does not Silman himself state to keep the position closed as knights prove superior to bishops in closed positions? Ok fine, there is no room for dogmatism and specifics dictate, but Masters are always laying down principles that they themselves are willing to break with little or no explanation.

IM John Watson discusses this sort of thing at some length on pages 151-158 of Volume 1 of Mastering the Chess Openings. I can try to single out some helpful quotes, but there is not much point if you already have the book. Let me know if you do not have a handy copy. In the meantime, I can try to briefly describe some of what I get after briefly glancing over those pages. First of all, after

, White has a lead in development. Also, White has the prospect of establishing a passed pawn on the king side in the endgame, while Black does not have a matching prospect on the queen side.

I just wondered why white was willing to give up the LSB and then open the position with d4, (Actually I was looking at an earlier game where Lasker defeated Capablanca and played an immediate 5.d4)

However in retrospect the position is not entirely open, its semi open and there are other factors to be considered, the king side pawn majority for white by way of example which as the game progresses and pieces are exchanged may prove a valuable asset for white.  White also has easy development whereas black is sub standard, the Kings knight being forced to e7 instead of f6. 

What is whites long term plan in such a position?  If we can discover this then it will help to understand why the LSB was given up.   I dont play this myself but its of some interest never the less.

"The Exchange Variation is an 'endgame opening'. … The dream is a winning pawn ending - a later d4 will swap d- for e-pawn when White's healthy kingside majority will be able to create a passed pawn but Black's queenside will not. This is the traditional view of the Exchange Variation and there is a lot of truth in it but white players should not neglect the possibility of a successful middlegame attack. Black players frequently take risks with their king's safety to avoid the dreaded ending." - IM John Shaw (2003)

As I suspected, if white can create a passer it will lead black into passivity defending it where white can munch the queenside pawns.  Good for old guys that like the endgame to beat up young guys that think they are tactical geniuses.

what?