Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

Thanks for the thoughts, guys.  I'm just diving in and playing the Ruy Yermo style.  Why not play the best?

It's not that I advocate against the Spanish Four Knights or a simple approach of the RL. I think that at this point switching from one to another opening will take a lot of time. That should be spend better. At the other hand the advantages of such a switch are questionable.
On a 1500 level the Scottish Four Knights is as good as any other Open Game: open positions, opportunities to tactics, chances to practice endgame skills. What more could Sharpplay ask?
Of course my favourite is the Danish/Göring stuff. Switching to this has exactly the same objection though.

MNb wrote on 01/17/10 at 19:58:30:


If you play the Ruy Lopez in a more straightforward manner then the big guys (chuck in a early d4 for example) I think one can do as well as with the scottish 4 knights at lower level. I believe there is a Dan Heisman column where he says that for below 1800 the pratical difference for a player between h3 and then d4 or d4 without h3 in the mainline RL is nonexistent due to lack of knowledge and the necessairy skills to exploit the difference. 

What I do find puzzleing is the amount of exchange RL you'll find at lower levels.     

On a 1500 level I don't think there is much advantage to be found in switching to the Ruy Lopez. Do you have the skills to foster your advantage after 3.Bb5 for a very long time? This advantage btw is disputed by all those people who play the Marshall - and the principled attitude is to allow it.
I'd say, take full benefit of the Scottish Four Knights first, by punishing your opponents for playing bad moves. On your level they will be there in abundance. As soon as you achieve nothing anymore (in terms of winning chances) with this opening it is time to switch - to the Ruy Lopez indeed. Because then you will have reached a stronger level. In the meantime make sure you don't study the SFK in detail; spend your time on tactics and endgames. These will come in very handy.

Markovich (and MnB):  Yes, you are right, 4 d4 is strong (and elementary).  I think my idea of 4 Na4 must have been some sort of residual image from the days when I played the Vienna and I usually played that move whenever black followed ...Bc5 by ...d6.  And this after I had just said earlier in the thread that I liked to play d4 whenever possible!

After more thought, it doesn't seem like 2 Nc3 is really any better than 2 Nf3  if you are heading to the 4 knights.  With 2 Nf3, you do have the Latvian and Elephant but it's easy enough to remember a decent line against each of those.  Against the Petroff you just play 3 Nc3.  

This brings me to another question, at the risk of hijacking my own thread.  I am really attempting (on perhaps a Higgs Boson type quest) to play absolute principled moves.  I'm in the 1500 range so in some ways playing something like the Scotch 4 knights makes a lot of sense.  It's simple and open.  However, it also doesn't put a lot of pressure on black (This is one reason I'm leaning toward 2 Nf3 instead of 2 Nc3).  But really, if I am going to play 1 e4 long term should I not just suck it up and play the Ruy Lopez?  I know from playing 1...e5 as black that the Ruy is the one variation that does seem to keep the most pressure on black.

Is there an archived thread someone can point me to with a discussion of the merits of an amateur taking up the Ruy as white?  It has a strong appeal to me because it is widely acknowledged to be the best way for white to keep an advantage after 1 e4 e5.  If I'm going to keep playing 1 e4 then why put it off if it will always be out there in front of me, beckoning?  On the other hand, the positions are much more closed and sophisticated than the Scotch 4 knights.  As Markovich said in one of his columns, would it be like me driving a Ferrari when I need to drive a Camry?  I have Greet's book (and if I played the Ruy I would probably want to take up the mainlines, not the Worral) and there are hundreds of pages on the sidelines and in these sidelines does white really get enough more of an advantage to make it a practical choice over the 4 knights?

Any suggestions or insights appreciated.

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 is Gufeld and Kalinichenko's recommended move order for reaching the Scotch Four Knights in "An Opening Repertoire for the Positional Player" (which is not a great book, BTW, but I have found it useful).  It definitely does cut down on your prep.

Tseitlin gives 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Bc5 3.Nf3 d6 (the logical move exactly because it rules out the pseudo-sac 4.Nxe5) 4.Na4 Nd7 5.d3 Ngf6 6.Be2 0-0 7.0-0 c6 8.Nxc5 Nxc5 9.Ne1 (Von Bardeleben) Ne6 10.c3 d5 =. The game Tseitlin-Janvarev, Budapest 1989 went 4.Na4 Bb6 5.Nxb6 axb6 6.d3! (acc. to Tseitlin 6.d4 gives nothing) Nf6 (Ne7!?) 7.Be2 Nc6 8.0-0 Ne7 9.Re1 Ng6 10.Bf1 0-0 11.c3 "with an edge."
All to be found in Tseitlin's book on the Vienna.