Sokolov's book has gotten pretty good reviews from quite a few people, so I'd go ahead and get it. I feel like a GM as strong as Sokolov could give you good stuff to chew on about nearly any topic in chess.

You could probably do a lot worse than to follow up the King book with the Ruy chapter of Vlastimil Jansa's "Dynamics of Chess Strategy."

Markovich,

Your post and some of the replies inspired me to give up my recent foray into the Scotch Game (having never played it in nearly 4 decades of playing the game and finding it a bit weird to play (see related post in this Forum) and to broadening my understanding of the closed Ruy.  To that end, I purchased from a used book seller Daniel King's Mastering the Spanish with the Read and Play Method (somewhat outdated, but the ideas aren't) in which he divides the Ruy up by pawn structure, rather than by variation.  I've read the first 40 or pages of the book and the ideas are clearly and thoroughly presented.  I also like the approach (a novel one, it seems).  I'll supplement it with the stuff available on ChessPub as well the ChessBase database. 

I prefer 13..Bd7 or 12..Bd7 13.Nf1 cxd4 14.cxd4  when play usually continues 14.. Rac8 15.Ne3 Nc6 16.d5 Nb4 17.Bb1 a5 18.a3 Na6 19.b4.  White may be slightly better here, but Black has a solid position with chances for active play.   

BobbyDigital80 wrote on 01/17/10 at 02:08:31:


I would think that its status is probably about the same as it has "always" been (quite playable, probably "+=" with best play).  There was a pretty interesting-looking article on it in the Yearbook a few volumes ago.

He made that announcement more than a year ago, so I am afraid nothing is coming from it. So if you have some detailed question, go ahead. I will look it up for you.

I have posted a number of threads about mainline, closed Spanish variations (Breyer, Gajewski, and others), but they rarely receive much attention.  I think the explanation for that has been touched on by others.  Playing correspondence chess, though, I have had to face alternatives to the Ruy Lopez a mere handful of times.  The overwhelming majority of my games have followed the mainline repertoires...

MNb wrote on 01/08/10 at 20:25:11:

Personally I find the open harder to play, but then again I just avoid the Marshall with h3, following my reasoning given earlier.
Quote:

Oh I didnt think you were arguing against it
I am not familiar with it (not being a subscriber), is it some repertoire he writes about? Might be interesting as I am still looking for some reference book on 1. e4 ..not e5/c5/c5/e6.

MNb wrote on 01/08/10 at 10:53:24:

No not really. The chance of making an inferior move is greater, but the move itself is usually not that bad. Ie in the Chigorin there are many points at which white has the option between one or two "best" moves, but also has 5 or 6 moves which aren't critical, but still keep the position decent (ie you can still play for an advantage). However play 1 such move in the 4knights and any chance for an advantage is directly gone. 
Not to mention that when you reach move 9 of the closed the plan is far easier (and familiar) than at any point in the 4knights at move 9
Quote:

Well against the offbeat, but sound, lines I usually play a safe line. Ie against the Schlieman I am not even going to bother about theory and play 4.d3. In other words I am not trying to punish the line, just to get a decent position where I feel I am better.
Against offbeat, more "idiotic", lines (ie the weirder forms of the modern or a move like 3..Bb4 in the Ruy) I just follow common sense and try to put as much pressure as possible. 
Basically I apply the following logic: If the line is weird, you can punish it (in more than one way). If the line is sound I dont bother and try to just play my normal game.

How did you formulate it again? You arguments are correct on their own but together they are a load of crap or something.  Anyhow a main line of the Ruy Lopez is strategically more difficult than say the Four Knights so the chance of making a bad move is considerably higher for the player with little theoretical knowledge.

Willempie wrote on 01/08/10 at 10:16:40:

Here you are connecting two things which have nothing to do with each other. I used to play the highly specialistic 3...f5 against the Ruy Lopez in the 80's and invariably was better after the opening - not because I avoided theory but had delved into the theory of that specialistic line deeper. I gave it up because I lost my faith - ie found good lines for White - and did not want to see my opponents catch up. Occasionally I still try it, especially against opponents that are somewhat stronger but don't have too much theoretical knowledge, with fine results.
The simple truth is this. Even as White you have to know something of several off-beat lines to avoid drifting into an inferior position rather quickly. And in the Vienna there are less of those.

As IM John Cox would surely say: " 3. Bb5 is a good move, Get it on board and be prepared to fight!"    

(Okay ..you have to have read hit Starting out 1.d4 to get this).  

I played in my first OTB tournament in several years last year and I played all mainline openings with both colours on very limited theoretical knowledge with good results. My rated opponents ranged from 1900 to 2150. I was pleasantly surprised that in spite of my lack of theoretical knowledge, with White I got a significant opening advantage in every single game scoring 4.5/5.  Okay, I played 1.d4, not 1. e4  - but my point is still relevant. 

With Black, I was not as impressive, but even then, I was able to hold two draws against higher rated opponents from inferior positions. My only loss was a one move blunder from a better position. 

In my previous sporadic  OTB tournament appearances, I had been too theory-phobic and had tried to avoid theory as White, playing sidelines and I fared terribly getting inferior positions often. 

I am more and more convinced that below 2200, fear of opponents' theoretical knowledge is a phantom fear. You play mainlines, you get better position and have a better chance of outplaying your opponent.

Quote:

Did you play me? 

Matemax wrote on 01/06/10 at 08:15:15:

If everybody is pragmatic/lazy it makes more sense to look at main lines - chancer are higher that the opponent will not know/understand them.
If I would meet the Ruy Lopez in less than 50% of my games I would meet 1.e4 with e5 all the time, that's for sure.

Quote:

Perhaps it is simply the same mistake everywhere? Or people are pragmatic nowadays (and I dare to say "chess lazy"). Nothing come from nothing - any result needs work.

Get out of your comfort zones guys and start analyzing the Ruy Lopez!

Quote:

Sounds more like birdwatching than chess 

Quote:

Playing 1...e5 demands a lot of knowledge - starting from the Danish over the Kings Gambit to Bishops Opening, Vienna, Scotch and finally the Ruy. 

I know that all 1.e4 openings demand respect and try to work out lines that are a good answer - and you easily find suggestions in "MCO" or "NCO" or on the lovely 1.e4e5 Chesspublishing site. Thats an advantage for Black  who can follow well known paths to equality (and then I accept that the better player will win - and if White is stronger then it's the way it is).

If White comes up with the Ruy things get more complicated - you cant learn all the variations by heart and you are not sure where equalitiy really is. And some point I feel you are left with your intution and positional understanding and your opponent will mostly feel the same (OK not if he is Leko). And at this very point I feel within the chess flow and simply enjoy making moves and seeing what happens.

Of course the Bishop Opening or the 4-Knights also may produce "look alike" Ruy positions - so Ruy Lopez Mainline studying is double worth its effort. 

If you want to learn chess play the Open Games (Markovich - and I fully agree) - but dont exclude the wonderful labyrinth of the Ruy Lopez. Since I started playing it with White as my mainline (before I also tried the Ponz, Scotch) I really feel I have improved (well my OTB rating does not reflect that fully (only slightly improving) - but that may also be a problem of too less games (around 15 a year)) and that's what it's all about for an amateur: self-improvement (I hope this word exists in English  ). What other goal could you have? You will never join the elite or even win a bigger tournament, but you notice that your known opponents seem to play weaker (Van Wely called this the proof that you improve!).

Schaakhamster wrote on 01/05/10 at 10:04:29:


Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I play that as white, not black. Noone ever knows how to play Bishops/Vienna properly as black. Cos they spend all their time remembering 20 moves of Chig/Zaitsev/Marshall/Arkh, but on their own after move 6/7 there. 
No piggybacking off the greats, just duffers on their own. Who go quickly astray.
Same reason I would never play down mainline Dragon as white.
For decent players, unlike me, with the same approach, see Tiviakov, I Rogers. Pragmatists.

Quote:

Most opening lines lead to positions with chances for both sides. Personally I don't like the Marshall Gambit because if White really knows what he is doing Black ends up in a pawn down ending with compensation due to his bishop pair. White also has some 8th move possibilities to avoid it alltogether and try to get back to positional waters - there was a recent Svidler game in Khansynsk I think where he showed how to play this "anti-Marschall" in a splendid way (if I am not wrong).

Quote:

The real question is personal improvement - thats why I still play chess after all those years: full time job, 3 kids, occassional amateur just the way you are (+ I started corr. chess 2,5 years ago to practise theoretical lines).
But working on the Ruy gives me a feeling that I learn something and get a deeper understanding of chess - and if only for 15 minutes a day 

And of course many players of the white side fear the Marshall Gambit. There has been some debate on this one in the past. It is my general impression that there is some consensus on it that Black can prove equality.

MartinC wrote on 01/04/10 at 18:39:21:


So how do your opponents choose to defend 3.Bb5?

I've played e5 for about 2 years against mainly 1800-2400 opposition and have gotten to play only 3 Open Ruy Lopez and only one mainline closed.  In fact, the closed was against an expert who followed theory for a while in the Chigorin and made me suffer.

It says something about this board that these don't get discussed here very much.  The board fills up with threads about the Latvian, Ponziani, the Schliemann, and all sorts of other minor systems, but very rarely the critical variations that determine the viability of 1...e5.

In the Open, discussions here rarely progress beyond the 9th move.  And discussions of the Closed are quite infrequent.  Are there really so few Whites that employ the indisputably best system after 1...e5?  Or is it only that they are so well booked up that they have no questions about it?  Or perhaps it is that only strong players play the Spanish, and strong players prefer to share nothing here?

There's a similar effect in the other sections of this forum (except maybe the Dragon), but it seems much more pronounced here.