Talk:Ruy Lopez

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Chess Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Irrelevant World Championship match reference for Marshall Attack

The World Championship match reference previously in the Marshall Attack section was quite irrelevant. Firstly, it improperly assesses white as "succumbing to black's attack after 14... Qh3" (the position is actually still in opening theory at that point), and secondly, a lone game's result does not conclude definitely the quality of the opening.

[edit] Improving clarity of a sentence

Wikipedians, please read this sentence very carefully (it may be easier to understand reading it on the main page): White's most common reply is 4.c3 when Black may choose to play 4...f5, the Cordel Gambit.

I proposed to change it to; White's most common reply is 4.c3 and to this Black may choose to play 4...f5, the Cordel Gambit.

User:Quale disagreed with me and reverted it back to the original wording.

Third-party opinion(s) required please!

Prefer the original 'when' to be honest. ChessCreator (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose of the Ruy Lopez

This article does not mention the, to my mind primary, benefit of the Ruy Lopez which is the destruction of black pawn structure at such an early and tender stage in development. Not only does the Lopez trade double the pawn which takes the white bishop, but it is certain to draw off either the d or b pawns from their positions either event being highly detrimental to blacks game because if the d pawn is drawn off, blacks attack on the center is handicapped and if the b pawn is drawn off, castling is prevented on that side and the c and a file pawns are left to future exposure. Why is this not noted in the article? [[[User:Sir Tristram|Sir Tristram]] 01:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)]


Well, white doesn't ALWYAS exchange light-squared bishop for queen's knight on c6, only in certain variations (namely the EXCHANGE variation). Why dont you BE BOLD and do it yourself?66.245.231.63 07:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pronunciation

hey, can anyone tell me how the name Ruy is pronounced in English? -Lethe | Talk

I'd pronounce it "roo-ey" GCarty 11:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The British say rooey, Americans say roy, and Spanish say something in between.

WTF?? The British say 'Ruy' like Cry/Fry/Dry/Rye/Sigh/Bye. ChessCreator (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
No they don't! (I am one so I should know.) 91.105.37.63 (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steinitz Defence

I'm looking for suggestions on how to name the Steinitz variations.

  • 3...d6 Steinitz Defence (NCO) or Old Steinitz Defence (MCO, ECO)
  • 3...a6 4.Bh4 d6 Steinitz Defence Deferred (NCO) or Modern Steinitz Defence (MCO, ECO)
  • 3...a6 4.Bh4 Nf6 5.0-0 d6 Russian Defence or Steinitz Defence Deferred (ECO), not named by NCO or MCO
  • 3...Nf6 4.0-0 d6 (Steinitz by way of the Berlin?)

The key problem is that "Steinitz Defence Deferred" is applied to at least two distinct variations. Quale 19:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I would call the first variation the Steinitz Defense (or Defence, if you like) and the second variation the Steinitz Defense Deferred. The third and fourth to my mind aren't distinct variations, just ways of transposing to the Steinitz Deferred and the Steinitz, respectively. (Similarly, 1.c4 Nc6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5 4.d5 Ne7 5.Nf3 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Be2 Bg7 is just called a "King's Indian Defense" or "King's Indian Defense (by transposition)." It doesn't get a distinct name just because it arose by an unusual move-order.) Krakatoa 17:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Here's another reference: New in Chess calls the first line the Steinitz Defence and the second the Neo-Steinitz Defence. I think Modern Steinitz or Neo-Steinitz are preferable to Steinitz Deferred because they're more informative, but which one you use is up to you. Walter Chan 21:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the third variation, sometimes called the Russian Defence, may be a finesse in waiting to play ...d6 until after White has castled kingside. In some variations of the Steinitz Defence White has attacking possibilities associated with castling long. I'll try to do some research on this. Quale 07:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I dunno how many people play the Steinitz these days, even in this more sophisticated move order, but you're right that it does avoid certain lines with 0-0-0 by White, for example 3...d6 4.d4 exd4 5.Qxd4!? Bd7 6.Bxc6 Bxc6 7.Nc3 Nf6 8.Bg5 followed by 0-0-0. Krakatoa 18:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Berlin Defence variations

An anon added this to the Berlin Defence section. (After 3...Nf6 4.0-0)

Or, with a usual closed game, 4. ... Be7 5. Re1, with play such as (white) c3, a3 and d4 and (black) a6, b5, d6, c5.

Is this ever played? I took this out because it seems the only book moves are 4...Bc5 and 4...Nxe4. Quale 07:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

You're correct that it's not commonly played. After 5.Re1, White threatens 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.Nxe5, winning a pawn. 5...a6, the "usual closed game" move that the anon implied was possible, would just make White carry out his threat (this is why 3...a6 is most common: at that moment Bxc6, though playable, is no great shakes, but if Black waits a move or two to play ...a6 it will usually just lose his e-pawn). 5.Re1 d6 is possible, which would transpose to the "Modern Steinitz" or whatever one calls it that you discussed above. So it seems to me that 4...Be7 is playable, although most people would prefer to reach the same position with ...a6 thrown in (the main line Ruy Lopez), which gives Black the option of ...b5 when desired. Krakatoa 18:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"After 4.0-0, Black can play either the solid 4...Nxe4 or the more combative 4...Bc5 (the Berlin Classical Variation). After 4...Nxe4 5.d4 (5.Re1 Nd6 6.Nxe5 is also reasonable) Nd6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 Nf5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 White is usually considered to have a small advantage in light of his somewhat better pawn structure and Black's awkwardly placed king." After 5.d4 why does Black move 5...Nd6? Why not ...Nxd4 or ...exd4? How does White regain his TWO missing pawns? I can see how White recovers one, but not two. The preceding text says, "Black's third move doesn't really threaten the e-pawn and White will usually play 4.0-0." If Black is up a pawn after 4.0-0 then he really DOES threaten the e-pawn. Someone please explain. Thanks.Holy 20:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

After 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.d4 exd4 6.Re1 pins the e4 knight, which White can later win with Nxd4 and f3. Similar remarks apply to 5...Nxd4 6.Nxd4 exd4 7.Re1. 91.105.58.138 22:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of the opening outside the Anglosaxon world

The article claims that the Ruy López opening is called the Spanish Game outside the English speaking world. That is, in those countries where English is not talked. I'm from Spain and here it is called "Apertura Española". The translation of it would be "Spanish Opening". Wouldn't this option be more correct that "Spanish game"? MJGR 10:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC) Ruy López de Segura

Possibly, although everywhere I've seen the Ruy referred to as the Spanish in the English language it has always been "Spanish Game". We'd have to research how it is typically translated, even if the most popular translations aren't literal. My feeling is that "Ruy Lopez" is universal in older English chess writing, and that Ruy and "Spanish Game" both get used in English today. Spanish Game seems to be mostly used for translated works, for example Anatoly Karpov's The Open Game in Action. Quale 16:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Of the interwiki links, at least 12 call it "Spanish Game" (cs, de, el, fr, it, lt, pl, ro, ru, sk, fi, uk) while at least 6 call it "Spanish Opening" (es, eo, nl, no, pt, sv) – I don't understand Hebrew or Turkish well enough to tell. Also, at least in some places they are interchangeable: while the sv article is at "Spansk öppning", I have also often seen "Spanskt parti" (Spanish Game) in Swedish. I think we can mention that both versions exist. The important thing however, is that we point out that "Ruy Lopez" is specific to English and that it's some kind of "Spanish" in every single other language (at least the ones with interwiki links from this article). -- Jao 19:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I've made a change at least partly to that effect on the page. Although it was my impression that "Spanish Game" was more commonly used in English just from what I had personally encountered, a quick search of books on amazon.com shows more hits for "Spanish Opening". This doesn't speak to which is more common around the world. Books that are English translations might reflect the usage in the original language (which is most likely to be among the several with strong chess publishing traditions) rather than a representative sample of the entire world. Quale 19:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Understanding Chess-Speak

There needs to be included in the article (or more likely, a link to) a page on how to understand chess-speak, mainly how the grid-referencing system works. This could just be a single-line link that is included on all the chess-move pages? silvarbullet1 08:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

found this: eg. link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Game_Notation if this is indeed the notation used?? i don't know!

No, this is different, PNG is for computers. What you're looking for is : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_chess_notation

horyon 26 December 2006

Now at the top of the article is a link to algebraic chess notation. Bubba73 (talk), 02:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] too technical

After looking at the Chess openings Category, I became concerned when I saw over a dozen entries on this Ruy-Lopez opening and variants. I've got no problem with this article existing, it is valid enough on its face, but I'm concerned it is too technical, and that it is overwhelmed with content that is outside the interests of most people. And are so many other articles on it really necessary? Couldn't some of the material be condensed or removed? FrozenPurpleCube 00:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This editor is now gone. Bubba73 (talk), 02:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Open Defence - a mistake?

I'm looking at move number 8 in the open defence. 8. Nxd4 I've got a white pawn on d4 from move number 6, so white knight does not take white pawn. Chupichulo 15:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Another website I'm looking at now has.... 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Nxe4 6 d4 b5 7 Bb3 d5 8 dxe5 Be6 is this correct?

[edit] Too many board layouts

There probably is no need for a board layout for every single variation. It jumbles up the formatting and I think it looks horrible. Is it okay to trim out some of them and leave layouts for the most popular variations? MrHen. 00:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think some of them can be removed, especially for rarely played variations. Andreas Kaufmann 20:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In the Marshall

There is "edit edit edit", I think it's a mistake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.139.34.175 (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Mammoth Book?

The text seems lifted straight from the Mammoth Book of Chess. 74.225.130.13 21:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked into Mammoth Book and not found what could have been copied here. It is not a copyright violation to describe the same matter in another words. Can you please be more specific? Andreas Kaufmann 20:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The Dilworth attack, for one. Look harder before commenting. 72.144.198.53 07:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, feel free to remove any copyrighted content from the article. Thanks! Andreas Kaufmann 20:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't have the Mammoth Book with me at school, so I can't look up everything that's ripped from its pages. I know the Dilworth part is word-for-word - look it up in the Ruy section. 72.144.198.53 22:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked up Mammoth Book (p. 139-140). Actually, Dilworth part is not copied word-for-word - it describes the same matter with the different words (which is Ok). Andreas Kaufmann 18:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I won't actually have access to my copy for two months, but if I recall correctly, it says the Dilworth "leads to unbalanced endings which are difficult for both sides." Can you confirm that the entry simply expresses the same idea and does not use a mere formal use of synonyms and rearrangement to plagiarize the work? I thought that the wording was exact in many cases. 72.144.198.53 08:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Archangel

I apologize to the anon I reverted earlier who added the Modern Archangel name to 4...Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bc5. I said it didn't google, but my research was shoddy. Does anyone want to write a section for the Modern Archangel (probably right after Ruy Lopez#Arkhangelsk Defence)? Quale 15:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Also, this url may prove a useful source: http://beta.uschess.org/backend/tpl/magazine.php?sectionID=17&magazineID=266. Quale 15:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup of Ruy Lopez, Exchange Variation

The above article has been tagged for cleanup since April, and I see why: it reads like something that belongs in Wikibooks rather than here. I was thinking of cleaning it up, but then I thought I would just be reducing it to the summary that is already in this article (Ruy Lopez#Exchange Variation). Should we just redirect the article here, or should more of its contents be retained, although rewritten in a more encyclopedic style? -- Jao 20:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Berlin Defense winning the pawn on e5

Can somebody please explain why it says "Black's third move does not threaten the e-pawn (if Black captures it, White will win back the pawn on e5)" ? If White does that, Black can then respond with Nxe5, and then White's Qh5 could be met with g5, or Qe2 would win at least one of the knights but possibly after losing another pawn i.e. Nxf2 / Qxf2. If white played f3 or f4 before this then black would have a chance to get one of the knights out of the way. So as far as I can see white will still end up a pawn down if black takes the e-pawn. Silas S. Brown (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it should read "Black's third move does not threaten TO WIN the e-pawn (if Black captures it, White will win back the pawn on e5)"
By the way I don't like Qh5 suggested above, 3 Bb5 Nf6 4 O-O Nxe4 5 Nxe5 Nxe5 6 Qh5? Qf6 -+
White is unlikely to lose a pawn in this line as the pins on the e-file to the Black King means ultimately material is returned, perhaps best is 5 Nxe5 Nxe5 6 Qe2 Be7 [6..f5?! 7 d3 += c6 8 dxe4 cxb5 9 exf5 Qe7 10 Re1 d6 [10...Nc6? 11 Qh5+ +-] 11 f4 Bxf5 12 fxe5 += ] 7 Qxe4 Ng6 and it is equal. ChessCreator (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, "to win" is better wording. Bubba73 (talk), 01:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a reference for this, but say 4. 0-0 nxe4, then 5. Qe2 regains the pawn. Either black moves the knight and white can capture the pawn on e5, or if black protects the knight, 6. d3 forces the knight to move. Bubba73 (talk), 21:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I added a reference. Incidently, 5. d4 is better than 5. Qe2. Bubba73 (talk), 01:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another line

I think there should be at least a mention of the line 3...a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.d4. See for example this game: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4456 91.107.143.13 (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, this should go in. Actually none of the anti-Marshall lines are discussed adequately, as there is only a single sentence mentioning 8.a4 and 8.h3. Possibly these along with 8.d4 should go in a new Anti-Marshall lines sections.
  • Also we should mention 10...d5!? in the Chigorin V. (see http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4520). I didn't realize this gambit was playable when I reworked the article about 2½ years ago. Quale (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)