Interesting. I think the logic and manuevering of it appeal to me, but I'm weary of trying to grapple with so much theory if I'm not going to stick with it. I also don't know if I learn the more positional variations (what I'm better at) or the sharp stuff (a bit more fun, and I should work on the sharp stuff to round out my game). Archangel I will look in to
Frank Marshall, Wilhelm Steinitz and a priest walk into a bar
Sort:
What's the priest doing at a bar?
Jan 16, 2016
0
#5
I've always avoided playing 1...e5 - too theory heavy although it may be the best reply objectively.
If you're serious about learning both sides of the Ruy Lopez then I wish you well. Just keep the meds handy...
Fiveofswords wrote:
the archangel is a genuinely sharp line, as opposed to the marshall gambit which might look sharp, but really its jsut forcing...and blacks intentions arent to mate (considered a pipe dream at high level play) but rather to force a 'difficult-but-should-be-drawn-with-correct-technique' endgame, much like the berlin. If you like manouvering the breyer may be mroe to your taste. the chigorin has the stamp of centuries of dogma approval but frankly with some experience in that line i decided i really jsut do not trust it. Black jsut gets a knight out of play and if there is any point to prefer that to zaistev/breyer/smyslov lines then its utterly beyond my grasp to understand. And i dont normally struggle to understand that sort of stuff.
Archangel looks interesting, but the percentages in the opening explorer are pretty ugly when white picks good lines. Marshall gambit I just want to avoid the deep theory. Breyer looks nice, Chigorin what you say makes sense, Zaitsev looks nice too. Smyslov looks very nice! What is the disadvantage of 3. ...g7? Can it possibly be played like King's Indian for black? Smyslov I think I will learn unless I hear something nasty about it
Sorry about the joke everyone, I worked really hard on it but I think it's not very funny 
My first Ruy Lopez game
Marshall was great. I loved his attacking style.
I believe the Archangel is still holding.
It is not played alot.
However, I remember they introduced a new 7th move by black a while back.
Which I think is a nice move.
I have yet to hear anyone claim the archangel is doing terrible.
I think databases show white with some edge which is understandable.
The percentages white is getting in the Archangel look no different than the percentages seen in some of the mainlines of the Ruy Lopez.
I'd do Marshall's, it is a great attacking style.
Marshall, Steinitz, and a priest walk into a bar; Marshall drinks too much, misses his game. On the return walk the priest absolves Steinitz for having won the match in such underhanded fashion by exposing Marshall to his worst vice, the demon alcohol. Priest says, "But Steiney ole boy, ya drank justs much as Frankie, but cha ain't narly half as tipsy, whatsyer secret?" Steinster: "Well I ate before I drank, thus fortifying my center."
Ya, Kasparov said this one last year at Sinquefeld. Great joke.
LOL did he really? That joke is way better than mine!!
lol
Frank Marshall, Wilhelm Steinitz and a priest walk into a bar. The bartender says, "I'm learning the Ruy Lopez and I don't know which variations to study, can you guys help me out?"
Marshall: "Learn the Marshall Attack--my openings are the best!"
Steinitz: "Fortify the center! Play ...d6 for the Steinitz Defense, not that wild and terrible move ...d5!"
Priest: "You've got to learn all the variations of the Ruy Lopez - what a wonderful opening, the Ruy Lopez!"
I am studying both sides of Ruy Lopez, what should I focus on??