Look at www.chessbase.com (Svidler-Topalov; Linares round 1; 1-0) for a good example of white's chances to demolish the berlin wall

Why is loosing castling rights not mentioned? THAT is the difference white has in favour in the Berlin.

What I find difficult is the white square control black has on the kingside. The manouevre Bb4-c3 (removing white knight) is played by Black as a means of increasing the grip on the white squares. Of course white moves the knight....

The winning chances black has come from the b6 Kc8-b7-c6 set up, the weakness of the e5 pawn and the pressure on the white pawns placed on white squares on the Q-side (typically a2-b3-c4). This is implemented by a Be6 and a well timed b5 and/or a5-a4....

I play the Ruy Lopez Exchange myself, just to cut down the amount of stuff I have to study on top of the other main lines in other openings I play.

Anyway, back to the Berlin Defence, can anyone point or provide us with a sample of critical games?

TimS wrote on 02/06/06 at 11:30:10:


A good question. 

In both lines, with only the queens and one minor piece each exchanged, it could be argued that we are still in a queenless middlegame, in which therefore some middlegame themes still apply.

After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.d4 exd4 6.Qxd4 Qxd4 7.Nxd4 it is Black to move, so he is only the usual one half-move behind in development and, being able to castle, is able to connect his rooks and coordinate his forces rather quickly and easily.

But after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0–0 Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 Nf5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 it is White to move, so White is two tempi ahead in development. In addition, Black finds it difficult to coordinate his forces and connect his rooks, since he cannot castle. Also the Nf5 is not ideally placed and often needs to move again. Finally Black often needs to consume more time with ...h6 to control g5 and protect his bishop pair from harassment. IMHO compared with the Exchange Variation, in the Berlin Wall it takes a strong player to be able to coordinate Black's forces and make good use of the bishop pair 

PS Isn't it interesting how chess theory is so often cyclical? Tarrasch and Pillsbury both played and thought highly of the Berlin Wall. For instance, in Tarrasch's "The Game of Chess" he wrote after Black's 8th move: "The play has brought about an end-game in which the chances are approximately equal. White's king's pawn is not well placed, and Black's two bishops ensure him a good game."

I think it would be a mistake to choose the Berlin Wall because of it's recent popularity in
grandmaster-chess. A strong grandmaster might judge a draw with black fully acceptable and have the technique to make it so. For club-level players things might be a little different. To spend your whole evening defending a slightly inferior endgame without winning-chances is not everyone's idea of enjoying his/hers chess-evening.
I know, i defended the ruy-lopez exchange queenless endgame twice against players of master-strength.
Result:  0.5/2 while both games ran over 80 moves; it was just pure torture for me!

I wouldn't agree. The theorie also gives a slightly advantage to white. In the book of Kinderman is some analysis.

One way of getting to know the Berlin endgame might be to look at the typical endgames arising from other Spanish main lines. 

The exchange variation is very similar - except that the Berlin should be the better version due to white having a pawn on e5 blocking his bishop and black having played Nf6 instead of a6. 

In the Steinitz deferred I saw some Keres game where black's bishops did very well despite having his queenside split. 

Suggested sources: Mastering the Endgame: Open Games, or game collections by Keres, Fischer and others who've played the Ruy consistently.