At club level the Schliemann is lethal!!

Thanks for the replies everyone. I've decided to focus on the Archangel (original Archangel with 6...Bb7) and Berlin. I feel these lines offer both solidity and extreme activity (in certain lines).

I'm in much the same boat as the OP. I've played 1...e5 off an on over the past decade, with experience in the Moeller, Zaitsev, Breyer, Cozio, and a couple of S.O.S. lines. I'm thinking of returning to 1...e5 for the foreseeable future, and it's a challenge locking down a full-time defense. I like the looks of the Archangel, with similar themes to the Moeller. I've also been telling myself I should learn the Berlin, if not for the sole benefit of its chess educational value. Now may be a better time than ever. the 5.Re1 lines were always uninteresting to me in the past. Since books like Cox's have come out maybe that'll be the way to go.

From the standpoint of competing at 2300 level, needing to play for wins against 1900-2200 opposition while having a reliable setup against 2200-2400, I get the impression that the Berlin would be the better way to go.

JEH wrote on 11/17/13 at 11:20:15:


For many years, I've wondered whether it was worth provoking an Anti-Marshall by playing 0-0 before d6. The premise is that the Anti-Marshall lines are less forcing, thereby giving Black a wider choice of moves or a better chance of going wrong.

These days, d3 is played before you get anywhere near threatening a Marshall, so do you stay in solid territory by playing Be7, or try to be more active with Bc5? If White plays the d3 system against Be7 with c3, then the advance d3 to d4 is always on the cards, so Black will still need to know the defensive ideas and formations associated with the names of Chigorin, Breyer, Keres, Smyslov, Zaitsev etc.

In a recent game, I even managed to reach a traditional Chigorin position from the Bishop's Opening.

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nc6 3. Nf3 Be7 4. 0-0 Nf6 5. Re1 0-0 6. c3 d6 7. h3 Na5 8. Bb5 a6 9. Ba4 b5 10. Bc2 c5 11. d4 Qc7

kylemeister wrote on 11/23/13 at 15:28:48:


Well Black has choices there, but anyway from a practical perspective, this isn't a problem anyway (in my experience, at least).

MartinC wrote on 11/23/13 at 11:27:31:


Indeed, after 5.Re1 Nd6 6.Nxe5 Be7 7.Bf1 Nf5 there's plenty of scope for either side to play for a win. Just look at Carlsen's games for proof. From a practical viewpoint Black's even better off in the 7.Bf1 system as he can choose between keeping the pieces on the board and playing for a win with 7...Nf5 or steering the game towards a draw with 7...Nxe5 (so long as he is well prepared). Meanwhile the 7.Bd3 variation is hardly a problem for a player needing a win with Black.

lnn2 wrote on 11/23/13 at 03:02:04:


This is not my experience after several years of playing the Berlin against opponents from 1900 to 2200.

I'm a big fan of the Berlin. It's particularly cool that the top 3 (Carlsen, Aronian and Kramnik (I rate Kramnik ahead of Aronian regardless of rating)) employ it regularly, so there's plenty of WCh calibre games to learn from.

Viking wrote on 11/17/13 at 21:03:23:

After 3...Nge7
"4.Nc3 is very unpleasant for Black ... and the main reason why I have at some stage quit playing the Cozio with Black."
Ivan Sokolov in  Ruy Lopez Revisited

i.e. 4...g6 5.d4! exd4 6.Nd5! is not much fun for Black
or 4...d6 5.d4 Bd7 and then 6.Bc4, 6.dxe5 and 6.d5 all lead to advantage to White according to Sokolov

TN wrote on 11/17/13 at 13:40:47:


Occult?!   


I agree with the painful losses thing.  I've had a couple of awful defeats with The Wall.  Which is not to say, I actually understand it now.  On the upside, my opponents don't either.  I don't think I've ever left the opening worse - limited sample size admittedly - and I've quite often got a (small) advantage out of the opening.

If you intend to play 4..Nge7, why not play 3..Nge7? (unless you like to face the exchange of course). Are there any reason not to play 3..Nge7 followed by 4..a6 if you want to play the aronian variation

My own preference would be Marshall, Archangel, or Breyer. The Berlin I know is fascinating but instead of the main-line White has the Re1 and Nxe5 line, where he plays it safe. Of course if you like it go for it!!

BobbyDigital80 wrote on 11/17/13 at 09:47:44:


It doesn't particularly matter, since in many of your games you won't get to play your special system: your opponents will deviate first, such as with an early d3. However I'd suggest that you just pick one and start playing it. You'll then remember and understand the theory a lot better after experiencing the line for yourself first. All of the systems you mentioned can bring you excellent results if you specialise in the typical middlegames. 

The Breyer has the advantage of being very solid yet flexible enough that you can play a different sub-variation easily to avoid possible preparation. The Graf is unfashionable meaning your opponents are less likely to know how to meet it, but you absolutely have to know what you're doing or you risk getting crushed. The Archangel has the plus of being the most active, and gives you an easy system against the d3 Lopez, but the theory is developing quite quickly, and it's not so easy to win against a 7.Nxe5 player bent on drawing the game. Finally the Berlin is perhaps the most solid and occult of the four, but you'll probably need to have quite a few painful losses before you really understand it. But when you do, it's a weapon that can defeat even a reigning World Champion. Plus it is very easy to expand your repertoire within the Berlin.

If I had to pick one to recommend I'd suggest the Archangel, because it is the most active line. 

There are several lines against the Ruy Lopez that I like to play, but I can't decide on one! The lines I'm interested in are the Berlin, Breyer, Archangel, and Graf. Does anyone else here play any of these lines? Which one do you like better and why?