GameKnot: Chess related, Ruy Lopez etc

« TAP TO LOG IN

Chess related: Ruy Lopez etc

From	Message
billyjaxin 26-Oct-09, 18:02	Ruy Lopez etc I'm not sold on the B-K4 move. I don't understand why it's so common; most of the time it just offers your opponent a free developmental move. What am I missing?
kingdawar 26-Oct-09, 19:34	B-K4 move? Don't you mean B-N5?
billyjaxin 27-Oct-09, 04:48	Of course, sorry. I was thinking white B to black's (K)night 4. Don't know why I got so confused on the notatation.
blake78613 27-Oct-09, 07:53	The Ruy Lopez is an example of perfect coordination of the White pieces. The knight on f3 is working with the bishop on b5 to put pressure on Black's center, specifically the Black pawn on e5. The bishop is also threatening to weaken Black's pawn structure with Bxc6 after which White would have a won game in a pure pawn endgame. The Lopez is very flexible and White can chose from a variety of plans ranging from attacks to subtle positional play. It's hard to ask more from an opening.
ganstaman 27-Oct-09, 17:46	"most of the time it just offers your opponent a free developmental move" What do you mean by this? It's hard to give you a good answer without knowing what 'free developmental move' you are talking about.
yusuf_prasojo 30-Oct-09, 08:48	A free developmental move I guess it is about the queen-side pawn development. Indeed, the queen-side attack is the Black's share in Ruy Lopez. Anyone who doesn't know the theory, will be annoyed by the pawn storm. blake78613 already explained some motif behind Bb5. And, what other move do you think is preferable after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 ? Italian Game (3.Bc4) is weaker imo. I myself prefer the Scotch Game (3.d4), with an assumption that my opponent knows the Ruy Lopez theory as well as I do.
ganstaman 30-Oct-09, 13:54	If it is about QS pawns, then I actually asked a similar question some time ago on chessgames.com. Go to my September 3, 2006 post: www.chessgames.com I asked why the Ruy Lopez is any better than the Italian. There were some good responses, IMO, on that page.
blake78613 31-Oct-09, 09:22	In the Italian Game Black is very often successful in trading a knight for White's light squared bishop and obtaining queenside counter play. In the Spanish after Black invests moves on queenside counter play with moves like ...a6, ...b5 and ...Na5; and White then puts pretty much puts a stop to Black's queenside counter play with a4 a moves his bishop to the safe c2 where it will ultimately play a part in White's kingside play.
baronderkilt 31-Oct-09, 09:43	I see it this way ... The Ruy offers WT great chances (for eg 70% of decisive Ruy games in 1975 or 76 Chess Life, I forget which now, were won by WT.) without great risk. Whereas Bc4 may face the 2 Knights defense, which I feel is riskier to WT. And WT playing the Giuoco Piano is seen as drawish. (It was Very heavily used in the 1800's to early 1900's.) Which does not necessarily mean it is so, but may just be that no one wants to look for improvements there now, well into the opening, since they Do have the Ruy. But look how Gary Kasparov renovated the Scotch from the same "Drawish" reputative, and you have to say "hmmm!" }8-)
greenrat777 02-Nov-09, 17:08	win loss draw % one site i went to called chess openings statistics . gave white a 40 % win 27 % loss and 33 % draw when playing the Ruy Lopez . that's from over 2 million matches for lots of different chess openings .
billyjaxin 03-Nov-09, 18:52	Thank you all for your input so far. First off, I didn't mean to ask only about the Ruy opening, but about the bishop position, whether used by white or black, and on either the b file or g file. Yes, I was referring to the pawn development and also the enemy bishop. It looks to my uneducated eye as if it assists the opponent's pawn development (if on the non-castelling side) and/or brings the opposing bishop out from behing the pawns. I was aware that I was missing the point somewhere. There must obviously be strong advantages or the Ruy wouldn't be such a standard opening, and also my opponents very frequently put their bishops in that position when I see no advantage in it for them. Statistical analysis of successful openings from masters games means little to me, by the way. Masters build on subtleties that players at my level would never see. I'm more interested in learning to see and understand for myself, than in learning patterns of moves proven to work for masters.
billyjaxin 03-Nov-09, 19:58	clarification to my above post. I went off topic from my own question, but just to clarify my last comment I do not mean that I don't think the patterns are worth studying and learning, of course they are. I mean that I'm more interested in learning to see than I am in copying the moves of master players. I'm also (slightly) more interested in learning from a game than in winning it. Just sayin'
fmgaijin 04-Nov-09, 14:43	The confusion here is that billy is calling moving a6 (and later b5) "development." Development is a concept that only applied directly to pieces, not pawns. Aside from the P moves required to develop B or Q and those needed to give a R an open line, extra P (especially ones like a6/a5 and h6/h5) do not count towards development and, in many open or semi-open positions, may lead to serious weaknesses that the better-developed player can take advantage of. Thus, in the Ruy Lopez, a6 does not gain time even though White must move the B again because it is not itself a developing move. If White retreats Ba4 after a6, Black can HOPE to gain time with b5 at some point followed by the development of the B to b7. Unfortunately for Black, the pressure on e5 usually forces Black to play d6 later anyway, thus rendering the time "gained" by b5 moot once more . . . and in the meantime, Black has created some weaknesses in his Qside P's that might be exposed by a4 in some variations. Therefore, the RL is completely consistent with the principles of good opening development and is one of the hardest openings for Black to meet. On the other hand, as billy also notes, the advantages of the RL are mostly ones that require strong play to exploit, so if you're not play Masters, you probably need not fear it if, as he says, you understand it.
yusuf_prasojo 05-Nov-09, 04:14	Billy, 1. To be realistic, in opening stage you cannot just understand the value of every moves without knowing the resulting position many moves ahead. Bb5 in RL for example, is “not” considered strong simply because of the theoretical explanation you can find in books. Rather, it is strong because people already analyze and know what positions it may lead to. Of course, basic principles can explain to some extent. 2. The bishop move to b5/b4/g4/g5 IS an attack/threat to opponent’s King or Queen, sometimes in the form of a pin. 3. A single a3/a6/h3/h6 move does not release the threat against King/Queen because the Bishop will stay on the same diagonal unless a3/a6/h3/h6 is followed by b4/b5/g4/g5, which has its own WEAKNESS. 4. a3/a6/h3/h6 followed by b4/b5/g4/g5 creates small positional weakness. And you cannot retreat pawns. So this kind of maneuver should comply with your long-term plan, that is what you will do next on that flank. Without clear long term plan this kind of pawn maneuver is dangerous. 5. Taking out the Bishop, “anywhere”, is often good. Not necessarily because of the function of the Bishop itself, but the clearance of the back rank for castling etc. And especially for Black, taking out the Bishop from pawn chain, either followed by exchange or not, will reduce the possibility of having a cramped position. 6. The diagonal controlled by Bc4 (or Bc5/Bg4/Bg5) is often more important than that controlled by Bb5. But usually c4 square is not good or safe from pawn threat. The b3 or a2 square is better. Often, there is a good purpose to have a tactical maneuver to go to b3 through b5 and a4. 7. If you want to move your Bishop from f1 to, say, e2, sometimes you can see a “temporary move” to b5 expecting your opponent will make a reply that will weaken his own position. For example pawn move (e6) that occupies a potential square for the Knight. And sometimes you can expect an weakening a3 move when you see opponents King has castled queen-side, or has intention to castle queenside (if you have done 0-0, sometimes you fear opponent’s 0-0-0, and you will make sure that 0-0-0 is not save for him). That's what I can think of, when I do such bishop move.
yusuf_prasojo 05-Nov-09, 04:23	Typo Point 6 should be "The diagonal controlled by Bc4 (or Bc5/Bf4/Bf5)"
baronderkilt 05-Nov-09, 05:36	Deleted by baronderkilt on 05-Nov-09, 05:39.
baronderkilt 05-Nov-09, 05:39	Great Point ... from fmgaijin about piece moves being development. And that the B moves in the Ruy not making WT less developed. When WT does become less developed looking later, it comes largely from taking time to play the supportive pawn moves h3 & c3 and the common N maneuver Nd2/Nf1 then Ne3 or Ng3 ... using three moves. But there is an important point to that as well. That being "It doesn't Matter". imo * The reason it doesn't matter comes from a generalization which usually applies to the Ruy Lopez. In OPEN POSITIONS (such as often come from Bc4 openings) it counts more How Much/Many Development you have. In CLOSED POSITIONS with a fixed center it quite often counts more WHERE your pieces are developed to, that ARE developed. Because in closed positions it can take many more moves to correct a badly developed piece, due to less squares available to use for repositioning. aka Less Mobility is inherent. And in fact it may sometimes even be IMPOSSIBLE to relocate a badly placed piece to where it "should be". Or at least take a longer route to get it there, knights especially. Also Quantity of Development tends to be less important in closed positions simply due to less likelihood that the opp can quickly rip it open and attack. * And that is why in the Ruy WT does not fear getting a bit behind in development, since he has the option to CLOSE the position, in most cases. {Except for EG facing the Marshall Attack, but even there his resources and mobility are more than sufficient to meet it.} Or at WT's option, he may chose to play the d-file in a semi-open game. Or chose a more fluid center. Once it IS closed, then his K-side attack Will score unless BL knows how to react energetically enough on the Q-side to distract WT from straight pursuit of using his K-side space advantage and preponderance of pieces available there to win. * Consider the fearsome reputation for K-side attack by the BL side in a King's Indian. And compare the WT position of a Closed Ruy. You will notice that the King's Bishop is better placed in the Ruy by the eventual Bc2, where it supports not only his e4 pawn but also the attack thru the f5-h7 diagonal. In the KI the KB (Bg7) is much less important generally in the lines where BL is attacking K-side. Also in the Ruy WT has a cramping influence from his d5 pawn that helps restrict BLs defensive responsiveness. * So Bc4 openings are more Open positions as we expect e4 games To Be. Whereas the Ruy, when it is a Closed Ruy may well resemble more the characteristics of a d4 opening. I once had a friend ask me if I was "holding back", "taking it easy on her" when she could last longer vs my d4 opening that I used instead of my usual e4. I told her "no", it is not a matter of holding back, it may take longer but I feel more certain of winning this way. And I think that is probably the outlook that applies when the Ruy is used in top flight games where defensive techniques and analytical abilities are less likely to be flawed in execution during a Chess game. Naturally if one side is deficient in such skills, or one opponent greatly superior in them, then an open position is Delightful~! ... }8-)
fmgaijin 05-Nov-09, 15:19	Open Positions and CC If you peruse the games of the top GK players or top OTB, you will find very few true "open positions." Instead, you will see lots of Sicilians and other semi-open or semi-closed positions. I believe that at the highest levels, defense technique generally suffices to stop direct attacks and makes fully open positions rather drawish through exchanges and simple counter-levers. The exceptions, as the Baron notes, occur when one player outrates the other significantly and that defensive weakness leads to a quick demise.

« Back to forum