Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

Main

Date: 17 Nov 2005 03:19:18
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

Let's see:

This is supposedly White's "only" try for an advantage, yet he has to book
out for about 35 moves, after which he usually gets barely more than
equality, and he has to face such nastiness as the shall Attack along the
way.

With so many alternatives, could it be possible that the Scotch or the
Bishop's opening offer an advantage? The Scotch in particular looks a lot
like the Sicilian. Perhaps Kasparov was onto something when he played it.

Date: 04 Dec 2005 15:02:03
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

Ray Gordon wrote:
> This is supposedly White's "only" try for an advantage, yet he has to book
> out for about 35 moves, after which he usually gets barely more than
> equality, and he has to face such nastiness as the shall Attack
> along the way.

In his recent book (published in November 2005), 'Play 1 e4 e5!: A
Complete Repetoire for Black in the Open Games', GM Nigel Davies
writes of 'the dreaded Ruy Lopez', meaning 'dreaded' by Black.

GM Nigel Davies recommends the Keres Variation for Black
(1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Be7 6 Re1 b5
7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 O-O 9 h3 Na5 10 Bc2 c5 11 d4 Nd7).

--Nick

Date: 20 Nov 2005 01:32:40
From: David Ames
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

David Richerby wrote:
> Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
> > David Richerby wrote:
> >> I forget who it is who believes that, if White does have a forced win,
> >> it's with the Vienna.
> >
> > It sounds like you're thinking of Weaver W. Adams (1901-1963), [...]
> > In the 1940s he advertised, under the heading "THE GAME OF CHESS
> > SOLVED!", analysis he claimed to show a forced advantage for White in
> > the Vienna. The price of this Holy Grail was a mere $1.00.
>
> That sounds like the one, yes.
>
>
> > Earlier he had made the claim for the Bishop's Opening.
>
[snip]

Weaver Adams was once invited to the Hastings Congress. Someone
purchased several current copies of his tract and distributed them to
the other participants in advance. You may surmise the rest.

David Ames

Date: 25 Nov 2005 01:41:53
From: No Spam Please
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

In my opinion, there are some very good alternatives for White to playing
the Ruy Lopez. Someone has already mentioned the Scotch, but then White had
better be very well prepared to face the Steinitz Variation: 4...Qh4. My
objection to the Scotch is that I find it hard to get an unbalanced game
sometimes as White for which to strive for a win.

Also possible is the King's Gambit (complicated) and the Vienna. If you take
up the Vienna, I would recommend planning to play it with an early f4 in
mind. Steinitz's games bear close study if you want to get a feel for the
potentials of these ideas.

These days, my main weapon as a Correspondence (server based) player is 1.e4
e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4. This third move is vastly under-rated, I think. The
beauty of it is that between 30 and 50 percent of the time Black plays the
Two Knights Defense, 3...Nf6, which is simply an unsound gambit of a pawn
after 4.Ng5. It amazes me how few people know that the Two Knights is all
but dead. How can Black expect to give away a central pawn and have any real
chances?

But at least half the time you will see 3...Bc5. Here, I avoid the Guioco
Piano (4.c3) because the resulting critical lines have all been analyzed out
to a draw. Instead, the Evans Gambit (4.b4!?) is still very much alive and
has unexplored, unanalyzed, hidden strengths. Steinitz's and Morphy's record
on the White side is so outstanding that it boggles the mind why they did
not play it more. My record on the White side of the opening is so top-notch
and on the Black side so abysmal that it is quite beyond me why this opening
does not see more action at top levels.

Here is just one example of me getting squashed in very quick order, a
painful lesson indeed:

sturkington (2275) - DanQuigley (2500) (C52)
www.ChessWorld.net server game www.ChessWorld.net , 27.07.2003

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3
Qf6 9.e5 Qf5? 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Ng6 12.Nd5 Ngxe5 13.Nxe5 Qxe5 14.f4 Black
resigned 1-0

Date: 28 Nov 2005 10:37:25
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

No Spam Please <[email protected] > wrote:
> My objection to the Scotch is that I find it hard to get an unbalanced
> game sometimes as White for which to strive for a win.

Yes, I found that, too. On the other hand, the variations with Nxc6 dxc6
give something akin to an exchange Lopez pawn structure (which we know to
be better for White) without giving up the bishop pair so maybe there's
something in it after all.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Unholy Cheese (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ brick of cheese but it's also a crime
against nature!

Date: 28 Nov 2005 10:26:25
From: David Richerby
Subject: was Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

No Spam Please <[email protected] > wrote:
> My objection to the Scotch is that I find it hard to get an unbalanced
> game sometimes as White for which to strive for a win.

Yes, I found that, too. On the other hand, the variations with Nxc6 dxc6
give something akin to an exchange Lopez pawn structure (which we know to
be better for White) without giving up the bishop pair so maybe there's
something in it after all.

--
David Richerby Flammable Slimy Hi-Fi (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a music system but it's covered in
goo and it burns really easily!

Date: 27 Nov 2005 23:08:51
From: John J.
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

Dan:
Maybe Qf5 wasn't so bad.
Instead of 12..... Ngxe5 maybe 12......Qh5 would have been better. That e
pawn is 'poisoned' !!

Just a thought.

John
"No Spam Please" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In my opinion, there are some very good alternatives for White to playing
> the Ruy Lopez. Someone has already mentioned the Scotch, but then White
> had better be very well prepared to face the Steinitz Variation: 4...Qh4.
> My objection to the Scotch is that I find it hard to get an unbalanced
> game sometimes as White for which to strive for a win.
>
> Also possible is the King's Gambit (complicated) and the Vienna. If you
> take up the Vienna, I would recommend planning to play it with an early f4
> in mind. Steinitz's games bear close study if you want to get a feel for
> the potentials of these ideas.
>
> These days, my main weapon as a Correspondence (server based) player is
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4. This third move is vastly under-rated, I think.
> The beauty of it is that between 30 and 50 percent of the time Black plays
> the Two Knights Defense, 3...Nf6, which is simply an unsound gambit of a
> pawn after 4.Ng5. It amazes me how few people know that the Two Knights is
> all but dead. How can Black expect to give away a central pawn and have
> any real chances?
>
> But at least half the time you will see 3...Bc5. Here, I avoid the Guioco
> Piano (4.c3) because the resulting critical lines have all been analyzed
> out to a draw. Instead, the Evans Gambit (4.b4!?) is still very much alive
> and has unexplored, unanalyzed, hidden strengths. Steinitz's and Morphy's
> record on the White side is so outstanding that it boggles the mind why
> they did not play it more. My record on the White side of the opening is
> so top-notch and on the Black side so abysmal that it is quite beyond me
> why this opening does not see more action at top levels.
>
> Here is just one example of me getting squashed in very quick order, a
> painful lesson indeed:
>
> sturkington (2275) - DanQuigley (2500) (C52)
> www.ChessWorld.net server game www.ChessWorld.net , 27.07.2003
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3
> Qf6 9.e5 Qf5? 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Ng6 12.Nd5 Ngxe5 13.Nxe5 Qxe5 14.f4
> Black resigned 1-0
>
>

Date: 27 Nov 2005 22:29:30
From: Dan Quigley
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

"John J." <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dan:
> Maybe Qf5 wasn't so bad.
> Instead of 12..... Ngxe5 maybe 12......Qh5 would have been better. That e
> pawn is 'poisoned' !!
>
> Just a thought.
>
> John

>> sturkington (2275) - DanQuigley (2500) (C52)
>> www.ChessWorld.net server game www.ChessWorld.net , 27.07.2003
>> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3
>> Qf6 9.e5 Qf5? 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Ng6 12.Nd5 Ngxe5 13.Nxe5 Qxe5 14.f4
>> Black resigned 1-0
>>

I remember doing some analysis and concluding after the game that once I had
played 9...Qf5? rather than the more traditional 9...Qg6 that I was lost in
all lines. My analysis was not that extensive because the loss was quite
painful to me at the time, and I couldn't bring myself to dwell on it. Now
that you raise the question again, and I am over it, time for another look.

After 10.Nc3, I played 10...Nge7 because it threatens White's e-pawn. I no
longer have to worry about a Re1 pinning my Queen to my King. It also
prepares castling and then a later ...Ng6 to add force to the threatened e5
pawn capture. Finally, the database shows it was preferred 27 out of 31
times this position was reached. Nevertheless, 10...Bb6, a la Lasker or
10...Bxc3 to reduce White's attacking material seem like more viable
alternatives for Black.

11.Ba3 A nice thematic Evans Gambit move that prevents 11...Nxe5 since the
Re1 skewer nets the e7 Knight.

11...Ng6 continuing with my plan. 11...Bb6 is another possibility and may be
better for Black. White sure has a lot of activity for his two pawns'
investment.

12.Nd5! An unpleasant surprise I should have better anticipated. White has
won this position 8 of the 10 times he has reached it, a draw and a loss
being the other two results.

After 12...Ngxe5, as has been noted Black's position is quite lost. Still, I
will not give this move a question k since I am unable to find a viable
alternative. I believe Black is already lost by force. I never really
considered your 12...Qh5 suggestion, despite that it is the only move Black
has ever later won a game with from in this position (against an inaccurate
player of the White pieces). I could not positionally see the sense of
moving further away from the center and abandoning f7. I think the following
game I just found lends support to my positional judgement:

[Event "POR CPXE corr"]
[Site "Portugal"]
[Date "1998.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Simoes,Vitor"]
[Black "Gomes,Diogo"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "C52"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3
Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Ng6 12.Nd5 Qh5 13.Nxc7+ Bxc7 14.Bxf7+ Kd8
15.e6 Qg4 16.Rfe1 d6 17.h3 Qf4 18.Rad1 Nge7 19.Qc3 Qf6 20.Bxd6 Bxd6 21.Rxd6+
Kc7 22.Nd4 Qg5 23.Nxc6 Nxc6 24.Rdd1 Bxe6 25.Rxe6 Rhd8 26.Rb1 Rac8 27.g4 1-0

Also, 12...Nf4 to trade off the Knight on d5 looks like it should provide
Black defensive chances, but I am skeptical, e.g.: 13.Nxf4 Qxf4 14.Bd5 Nd8
15.Rac1 Ne6 16.Rc4 Qf5 17.g4 1-0 Lukas - Reichardt, Germany Corr. 1999.

To be really honest, I am not comfortable with this entire line of play as
Black, not even with 9...Qg6 rather than 9...Qf5. Against an accurate White
attacker, Black is going to have a very tough time. This is just one of many
reasons why I recommend the Evans Gambit for White.

Dan Quigley

> "No Spam Please" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In my opinion, there are some very good alternatives for White to playing
>> the Ruy Lopez. Someone has already mentioned the Scotch, but then White
>> had better be very well prepared to face the Steinitz Variation: 4...Qh4.
>> My objection to the Scotch is that I find it hard to get an unbalanced
>> game sometimes as White for which to strive for a win.
>>
>> Also possible is the King's Gambit (complicated) and the Vienna. If you
>> take up the Vienna, I would recommend planning to play it with an early
>> f4 in mind. Steinitz's games bear close study if you want to get a feel
>> for the potentials of these ideas.
>>
>> These days, my main weapon as a Correspondence (server based) player is
>> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4. This third move is vastly under-rated, I think.
>> The beauty of it is that between 30 and 50 percent of the time Black
>> plays the Two Knights Defense, 3...Nf6, which is simply an unsound gambit
>> of a pawn after 4.Ng5. It amazes me how few people know that the Two
>> Knights is all but dead. How can Black expect to give away a central pawn
>> and have any real chances?
>>
>> But at least half the time you will see 3...Bc5. Here, I avoid the Guioco
>> Piano (4.c3) because the resulting critical lines have all been analyzed
>> out to a draw. Instead, the Evans Gambit (4.b4!?) is still very much
>> alive and has unexplored, unanalyzed, hidden strengths. Steinitz's and
>> Morphy's record on the White side is so outstanding that it boggles the
>> mind why they did not play it more. My record on the White side of the
>> opening is so top-notch and on the Black side so abysmal that it is quite
>> beyond me why this opening does not see more action at top levels.
>>
>> Here is just one example of me getting squashed in very quick order, a
>> painful lesson indeed:
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Date: 28 Nov 2005 05:25:25
From: John J.
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

Thanks Dan. I have been looking for something as white against black's
attempted Ruy Lopez and it looks like I may have found it because of you!

John

"Dan Quigley" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "John J." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Dan:
>> Maybe Qf5 wasn't so bad.
>> Instead of 12..... Ngxe5 maybe 12......Qh5 would have been better. That e
>> pawn is 'poisoned' !!
>>
>> Just a thought.
>>
>> John
>
>>> sturkington (2275) - DanQuigley (2500) (C52)
>>> www.ChessWorld.net server game www.ChessWorld.net , 27.07.2003
>>> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3
>>> 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5? 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Ng6 12.Nd5 Ngxe5 13.Nxe5 Qxe5
>>> 14.f4 Black resigned 1-0
>>>
>
> I remember doing some analysis and concluding after the game that once I
> had played 9...Qf5? rather than the more traditional 9...Qg6 that I was
> lost in all lines. My analysis was not that extensive because the loss was
> quite painful to me at the time, and I couldn't bring myself to dwell on
> it. Now that you raise the question again, and I am over it, time for
> another look.
>
> After 10.Nc3, I played 10...Nge7 because it threatens White's e-pawn. I no
> longer have to worry about a Re1 pinning my Queen to my King. It also
> prepares castling and then a later ...Ng6 to add force to the threatened
> e5 pawn capture. Finally, the database shows it was preferred 27 out of 31
> times this position was reached. Nevertheless, 10...Bb6, a la Lasker or
> 10...Bxc3 to reduce White's attacking material seem like more viable
> alternatives for Black.
>
> 11.Ba3 A nice thematic Evans Gambit move that prevents 11...Nxe5 since the
> Re1 skewer nets the e7 Knight.
>
> 11...Ng6 continuing with my plan. 11...Bb6 is another possibility and may
> be better for Black. White sure has a lot of activity for his two pawns'
> investment.
>
> 12.Nd5! An unpleasant surprise I should have better anticipated. White has
> won this position 8 of the 10 times he has reached it, a draw and a loss
> being the other two results.
>
> After 12...Ngxe5, as has been noted Black's position is quite lost. Still,
> I will not give this move a question k since I am unable to find a
> viable alternative. I believe Black is already lost by force. I never
> really considered your 12...Qh5 suggestion, despite that it is the only
> move Black has ever later won a game with from in this position (against
> an inaccurate player of the White pieces). I could not positionally see
> the sense of moving further away from the center and abandoning f7. I
> think the following game I just found lends support to my positional
> judgement:
>
> [Event "POR CPXE corr"]
> [Site "Portugal"]
> [Date "1998.??.??"]
> [Round "0"]
> [White "Simoes,Vitor"]
> [Black "Gomes,Diogo"]
> [Result "1-0"]
> [Eco "C52"]
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3
> Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Ng6 12.Nd5 Qh5 13.Nxc7+ Bxc7 14.Bxf7+ Kd8
> 15.e6 Qg4 16.Rfe1 d6 17.h3 Qf4 18.Rad1 Nge7 19.Qc3 Qf6 20.Bxd6 Bxd6
> 21.Rxd6+ Kc7 22.Nd4 Qg5 23.Nxc6 Nxc6 24.Rdd1 Bxe6 25.Rxe6 Rhd8 26.Rb1 Rac8
> 27.g4 1-0
>
> Also, 12...Nf4 to trade off the Knight on d5 looks like it should provide
> Black defensive chances, but I am skeptical, e.g.: 13.Nxf4 Qxf4 14.Bd5 Nd8
> 15.Rac1 Ne6 16.Rc4 Qf5 17.g4 1-0 Lukas - Reichardt, Germany Corr. 1999.
>
> To be really honest, I am not comfortable with this entire line of play as
> Black, not even with 9...Qg6 rather than 9...Qf5. Against an accurate
> White attacker, Black is going to have a very tough time. This is just one
> of many reasons why I recommend the Evans Gambit for White.
>
> Dan Quigley
>
>
>
>
>> "No Spam Please" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> In my opinion, there are some very good alternatives for White to
>>> playing the Ruy Lopez. Someone has already mentioned the Scotch, but
>>> then White had better be very well prepared to face the Steinitz
>>> Variation: 4...Qh4. My objection to the Scotch is that I find it hard to
>>> get an unbalanced game sometimes as White for which to strive for a win.
>>>
>>> Also possible is the King's Gambit (complicated) and the Vienna. If you
>>> take up the Vienna, I would recommend planning to play it with an early
>>> f4 in mind. Steinitz's games bear close study if you want to get a feel
>>> for the potentials of these ideas.
>>>
>>> These days, my main weapon as a Correspondence (server based) player is
>>> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4. This third move is vastly under-rated, I think.
>>> The beauty of it is that between 30 and 50 percent of the time Black
>>> plays the Two Knights Defense, 3...Nf6, which is simply an unsound
>>> gambit of a pawn after 4.Ng5. It amazes me how few people know that the
>>> Two Knights is all but dead. How can Black expect to give away a central
>>> pawn and have any real chances?
>>>
>>> But at least half the time you will see 3...Bc5. Here, I avoid the
>>> Guioco Piano (4.c3) because the resulting critical lines have all been
>>> analyzed out to a draw. Instead, the Evans Gambit (4.b4!?) is still very
>>> much alive and has unexplored, unanalyzed, hidden strengths. Steinitz's
>>> and Morphy's record on the White side is so outstanding that it boggles
>>> the mind why they did not play it more. My record on the White side of
>>> the opening is so top-notch and on the Black side so abysmal that it is
>>> quite beyond me why this opening does not see more action at top levels.
>>>
>>> Here is just one example of me getting squashed in very quick order, a
>>> painful lesson indeed:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Date: 28 Nov 2005 11:22:39
From: Dan Quigley
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

Good luck with the Evans, John. I am sure you'll have a lot of fun with it.

As discussed in another branch of this topic though you will also have to be
prepared to face the Two Knights Defense by Black, a gambit with some real
bite. From what I see, after 4.Ng5 White has to play accurately just to
ensure a draw. I am thinking I might switch to one of the fourth move
alternatives to 4.Ng5 rather than continue to accept the gambit.

Cheers,
Dan Quigley

"John J." <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thanks Dan. I have been looking for something as white against black's
> attempted Ruy Lopez and it looks like I may have found it because of you!
>
> John

Date: 29 Nov 2005 02:42:45
From: John J.
Subject: Hey Dan!

How did you get that rating(2500)? Is that FIDE or correspondance or
something?

John
"Dan Quigley" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Good luck with the Evans, John. I am sure you'll have a lot of fun with
> it.
>
> As discussed in another branch of this topic though you will also have to
> be prepared to face the Two Knights Defense by Black, a gambit with some
> real bite. From what I see, after 4.Ng5 White has to play accurately just
> to ensure a draw. I am thinking I might switch to one of the fourth move
> alternatives to 4.Ng5 rather than continue to accept the gambit.
>
> Cheers,
> Dan Quigley
>
> "John J." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Thanks Dan. I have been looking for something as white against black's
>> attempted Ruy Lopez and it looks like I may have found it because of you!
>>
>> John
>
>

Date: 29 Nov 2005 22:15:34
From: Dan Quigley
Subject: Re: Hey Dan!

"John J." <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> How did you get that rating(2500)? Is that FIDE or correspondance or
> something?
>
> John

It is a website rating (www.chessworld.net) and inflated by approximately
500 points. The top player there, for example, is rated in the 3100s. My
peak there was in the 2700s. If you're curious about my games, I found a lot
of them in the database at www.chessbase.com. I was surprised to find,
considering my limited chess ability, that even New In Chess
http://www.newinchess.com/NICBase/Default.aspx?PageID=400 had two of my
games, both well selected by whoever does their editing. The QGA game has
theoretical significance for that opening, and my Petrov game against
Harabor I have long considered one of the best I ever played. It is still my
personal model game for how to take down the Petrov.

Cheers,
Dan Quigley

Date: 30 Nov 2005 16:31:36
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Hey Dan!

En/na Dan Quigley ha escrit:
> "John J." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>How did you get that rating(2500)? Is that FIDE or correspondance or
>>something?
>>
>>John
>
> It is a website rating (www.chessworld.net) and inflated by approximately
> 500 points. The top player there, for example, is rated in the 3100s. My
> peak there was in the 2700s. If you're curious about my games, I found a lot
> of them in the database at www.chessbase.com. I was surprised to find,
> considering my limited chess ability, that even New In Chess
> http://www.newinchess.com/NICBase/Default.aspx?PageID=400 had two of my
> games, both well selected by whoever does their editing. The QGA game has
> theoretical significance for that opening, and my Petrov game against
> Harabor I have long considered one of the best I ever played. It is still my
> personal model game for how to take down the Petrov.
>
> Cheers,
> Dan Quigley

Just curious, in my database there are 102 games (most of them cr or
email games) played by Dan, DJ, or Daniel J Quigley.

AT

Date: 28 Nov 2005 22:47:10
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

En/na Dan Quigley ha escrit:
> Good luck with the Evans, John. I am sure you'll have a lot of fun with it.
>
> As discussed in another branch of this topic though you will also have to be
> prepared to face the Two Knights Defense by Black, a gambit with some real
> bite. From what I see, after 4.Ng5 White has to play accurately just to
> ensure a draw. I am thinking I might switch to one of the fourth move
> alternatives to 4.Ng5 rather than continue to accept the gambit.
>
> Cheers,
> Dan Quigley
>
> "John J." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>Thanks Dan. I have been looking for something as white against black's
>>attempted Ruy Lopez and it looks like I may have found it because of you!
>>
>>John

Hello again Dan,

When we study a chess line we seldom discover there are many resources
for both sides, and when we revisite many years later our first
experiences, those initial games can be seen as "innocent". I mean that
repeating a line does not mean repeating idees or plans but improving them.

I would regret you not playing more games with that fascinating lines.

I have a friend who likes very much that 4.Ng5 line and likes to play
the following line: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5
6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Be2 h6 9.Nh3!? (original from Steinitz, I think)
but 9.Nf3 can be played too (no matter black has resources too).

In my opinion people need not to stop playing a line until He knows
exactly why He lost a particular game. Retourning to your Evans game,
... you should discover if you missed saving opportunities in some
moments and what was your actual losing mistake.

Antonio T.
Ps: Sure that if you change to 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4, you
will find difficulties too from black opposition but chess is a fight!
... do not abandon (resign? drop?) any line with no actual fight!

Date: 07 Dec 2005 23:32:01
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

Ten days ago I suggested to Dan studying a concrete line to play versus
2 knights defence:

Dan, if you are interested in it, there is a new article about it
written by Gary Lane in chesscafe:

http://www.chesscafe.com/lane/lane.htm

Search for the following text:
"Well, White�s position might look odd, but it is difficult to refute
such play. Indeed, the legendary Bobby Fischer included such a game in
his classic book My 60 Memorable Games and he played the white pieces.
Therefore, I will just suggest a modern approach:

Andri Gretarsson-Vasily Yemelin Saint Vincent 2005
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5 Na5 6 Bb5+ c6 7 dxc6 bxc6 8
Be2 h6 9 Nh3 (...)"

Antonio T.

En/na Antonio Torrecillas ha escrit:
> Hello again Dan,
>
> When we study a chess line we seldom discover there are many resources
> for both sides, and when we revisite many years later our first
> experiences, those initial games can be seen as "innocent". I mean that
> repeating a line does not mean repeating idees or plans but improving them.
>
> I would regret you not playing more games with that fascinating lines.
>
> I have a friend who likes very much that 4.Ng5 line and likes to play
> the following line: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5
> 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Be2 h6 9.Nh3!? (original from Steinitz, I think)
> but 9.Nf3 can be played too (no matter black has resources too).
>
> Antonio T.

Date: 08 Dec 2005 13:39:23
From: =?windows-1252?Q?Claus-J=FCrgen_Heigl?=
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
> Ten days ago I suggested to Dan studying a concrete line to play versus
> 2 knights defence:
> http://www.chesscafe.com/lane/lane.htm
>
> Andri Gretarsson-Vasily Yemelin Saint Vincent 2005
> 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5 Na5 6 Bb5+ c6 7 dxc6 bxc6 8
> Be2 h6 9 Nh3 (...)"

Hello Antonio,

which installment is it? I couldn't find the quoted text in the recent
issues back until August 2005. The current issue covers the delayed
Schliemann in the Ruy Lopez, Queen Pawn game and Dutch Defense. The
current Kibitzer at the chess cafe has an article about the Two Knights
where some sidelines are discussed, but not the line in question.

Claus-Juergen

Date: 08 Dec 2005 14:34:55
From: =?windows-1252?Q?Claus-J=FCrgen_Heigl?=
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

Claus-J=FCrgen Heigl wrote:
> which installment is it?=20

Just discovered that I had the november issue still in my browser's=20
cache. I found the line in the december issue.

Claus-Juergen

Date: 25 Nov 2005 19:33:57
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

En/na No Spam Please ha escrit:

> These days, my main weapon as a Correspondence (server based) player is 1.e4
> e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4. This third move is vastly under-rated, I think. The
> beauty of it is that between 30 and 50 percent of the time Black plays the
> Two Knights Defense, 3...Nf6, which is simply an unsound gambit of a pawn
> after 4.Ng5. It amazes me how few people know that the Two Knights is all
> but dead. How can Black expect to give away a central pawn and have any real
> chances?

I did not know 3...Nf6 was really as bad, ... can you explain a little
more about the basis (concrete lines and possible sources) of your
evaluation?

thanks
Antonio T.

Date: 25 Nov 2005 15:17:30
From: bellatori
Subject: I have enjoyed this thread

I have truly enjoyed this thread. Apart from the fact that it started with
a provocative and rather silly premise, the heat and abuse it engendered
was most amusing.

As Salvor Hardin is reputed to have said (Isaac Asimov - Foundation
Trilogy) "Violence is th elast refuge of the incompetent" to which I would
include verbal violence.

Bottom line is it is a meaningless premise but hey... we all enjoyed
ourselves!

Bellatori

Date: 25 Nov 2005 15:14:24
From: Dan Quigley
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

"Antonio Torrecillas" <[email protected] > wrote

> I did not know 3...Nf6 was really as bad, ... can you explain a little
> more about the basis (concrete lines and possible sources) of your
> evaluation?

My evaluation is based on just looking at the lines myself (carefully and
objectively) and not on anything I have read by say grandmasters. My praxis
bears out my analysis. I'll show games I played against good competition in
which I don't think Black was ever in the game:

Here's a Fried Liver, actually one of the tougher games to win:

Quigley,D - canker (C57)
www.itsyourturn.com

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Nxf7 Kxf7 7.Qf3+ Ke6
8.Nc3 Ncb4 9.Qe4 c6 10.a3 Na6 11.d4 Qd6 12.Bf4 Kd7 13.dxe5 Nc5 14.Qf3 Qg6
15.0-0-0 Ke8 16.Nxd5 cxd5 17.Bb5+ Kf7 18.Be3+ Qf5 19.Rxd5 Qxf3 20.gxf3 Ne6
21.Rhd1 Be7 22.Bc4 Ke8 23.Bb5+ Kf7 24.Bd3 Nc7 25.Rd4 b5 26.Be4 Rb8 27.R4d2
Be6 28.Bxa7 Rbd8 29.Rxd8 Bxd8 30.f4 g6 31.Bc6 Bc4 32.Rd7+ Ke6 33.Bb6 Bd5
34.Bxc7 Bxc6 35.Rd6+ Kf5 36.Bxd8 Be4 37.e6 Re8 38.e7 Kxf4 39.Rb6 Kf3 40.Rxb5
Kxf2 41.Rb3 Kg2 42.Re3 Bf5 43.Bc7 Bd7 44.Kd2 h5 45.h4 Rc8 46.Rc3 Be8 47.b3
g5 48.hxg5 h4 49.a4 h3 50.g6 h2 51.Bxh2 Rxc3 52.Kxc3 Bxg6 53.Bc7 Kf3 54.a5
Be8 55.a6 Bc6 56.a7 Ke3 57.a8Q Bxa8 58.e8Q+ Be4 59.Qf7 Ke2 60.Bb6 Bf3 61.Qf4
Ke1 62.Qd2+ 1-0

These two games are still ongoing, but clearly Black is just his gambit pawn
down and having a tough time in both:

DanQuigley - DuttonChess (C58)
www.ChessWorld.net server game www.ChessWorld.net, 09.11.2005

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3
Qd5 9.Qxd5 Nxd5 10.Ba4 Nb6 11.Bb3 f6 12.Ne4 f5 13.Nec3 Nxb3 14.axb3 e4
15.0-0 Bd6 16.Rd1 0-0 17.d3 exd3 18.Rxd3 Bc7 19.Ne2 Nd5 20.Bd2 Re8 21.Nd4
Bd7 22.Na3 f4 23.Nc4 Nb6 24.Bb4 a5 25.Bc5 Nxc4 26.bxc4 Be5 27.Rad1 g5 28.h3
h5 29.b3 g4 30.hxg4 hxg4 31.Re1 Kf7 32.Ra1 +/-

DanQuigley - pacemque (C59)
www.ChessWorld.net server game www.ChessWorld.net, 09.11.2005

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Be2
h6 9.Nf3 e4 10.Ne5 Bd6 11.d4 exd3 12.Nxd3 Qe7 13.0-0 Qc7 14.h3 0-0 15.b3
Bh2+ 16.Kh1 +/-

It's necessary to be careful how one plays with White and not get
overconfident though. In my final game against the Two Knights (I am a
recent convert to 3.Bc4) my clever opponent did manage to find a perpetual
against me:

Quigley,D - camembert (C57)
www.itsyourturn.com

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kxf2 Nxe4+ 7.Kg1 Qh4
8.g3 Nxg3 9.Nxh8 Nd4 10.Bf7+ Ke7 11.hxg3 Qxg3+ 12.Kf1 d6 13.Qh5 Qf4+ 14.Kg2
1/2-1/2

Cheers,

Dan Quigley

Date: 25 Nov 2005 23:23:56
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: 3 knights ... as bad for black?

(It was Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?)

Hello Dan,

Your games are interesting but in my humble opinion they are not very
conclusive because your opponents did not play the most critical lines.

I will try to explain me after each game.

yours,
Antonio T.

En/na Dan Quigley ha escrit:

> "Antonio Torrecillas" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>I did not know 3...Nf6 was really as bad, ... can you explain a little
>>more about the basis (concrete lines and possible sources) of your
>>evaluation?
>
> My evaluation is based on just looking at the lines myself (carefully and
> objectively) and not on anything I have read by say grandmasters. My praxis
> bears out my analysis. I'll show games I played against good competition in
> which I don't think Black was ever in the game:
>
> Here's a Fried Liver, actually one of the tougher games to win:
>
> Quigley,D - canker (C57)
> www.itsyourturn.com
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Nxf7 Kxf7 7.Qf3+ Ke6
> 8.Nc3 Ncb4 9.Qe4 c6 10.a3 Na6 11.d4 Qd6 12.Bf4 Kd7 13.dxe5 Nc5 14.Qf3 Qg6
> (..) 62.Qd2+ 1-0

I thought that 5...Nxd5 is not the critical line and, after it, 6.d4 is
a good answer (as 6.Nxf7 can be)
I have read somewhere that there are some people trying to defend this
5...Nxd5 with lines like 6.d4 Bb4 7.c3 Be7 but that seems dubious to me.

> These two games are still ongoing, but clearly Black is just his gambit pawn
> down and having a tough time in both:
>
> DanQuigley - DuttonChess (C58)
> www.ChessWorld.net server game www.ChessWorld.net, 09.11.2005
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3
> Qd5 (...) 32.Ra1 +/-

I allways thought that 8.Qf3 was dubious. I knew 8...Rb8 as main line
(in my database black score is a 57%) and 8...cxb5 as interesting.

> DanQuigley - pacemque (C59)
> www.ChessWorld.net server game www.ChessWorld.net, 09.11.2005
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Be2
> h6 9.Nf3 e4 10.Ne5 Bd6 11.d4 exd3 12.Nxd3 Qe7 13.0-0 Qc7 14.h3 0-0 15.b3
> Bh2+ 16.Kh1 +/-

I had the sensation that in 8.Be2 line black had an strong compensation
with active pieces, ... in your game 12...Qe7 followed by 13...Qc7 has
not much sense.

> It's necessary to be careful how one plays with White and not get
> overconfident though. In my final game against the Two Knights (I am a
> recent convert to 3.Bc4) my clever opponent did manage to find a perpetual
> against me:
>
> Quigley,D - camembert (C57)
> www.itsyourturn.com
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kxf2 Nxe4+ 7.Kg1 Qh4
> 8.g3 Nxg3 9.Nxh8 Nd4 10.Bf7+ Ke7 11.hxg3 Qxg3+ 12.Kf1 d6 13.Qh5 Qf4+ 14.Kg2
> 1/2-1/2

Curiously here we have a line I have read to be better for white.
After 4...Bc5 ?! white has better game with 5.Bxf7! Ke7 6.Bb3! Rf8 7.d3
as IdontRemeberWho wrote in some NIC publication.
After 5.Nxf7 Bxf2 I thought that most ambitious move was 6.Kf1

> Cheers,
> Dan Quigley

Date: 27 Nov 2005 01:40:00
From: Dan Quigley
Subject: Re: 3 knights ... as bad for black?

"Antonio Torrecillas" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Hello Dan,
>
> Your games are interesting but in my humble opinion they are not very
> conclusive because your opponents did not play the most critical lines.
> I will try to explain me after each game.

Thank you very much for sharing your opinions on these lines, Antonio.

>> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Nxf7 Kxf7 7.Qf3+ Ke6
>> 8.Nc3 Ncb4 9.Qe4 c6 10.a3 Na6 11.d4 Qd6 12.Bf4 Kd7 13.dxe5 Nc5 14.Qf3 Qg6
>> (..) 62.Qd2+ 1-0
>
> I thought that 5...Nxd5 is not the critical line and, after it, 6.d4 is a
> good answer (as 6.Nxf7 can be)
> I have read somewhere that there are some people trying to defend this
> 5...Nxd5 with lines like 6.d4 Bb4 7.c3 Be7 but that seems dubious to me.

Since it took me 62 moves to win with 6.Nxf7, I will give 6.d4 a closer look
next time.

>> These two games are still ongoing, but clearly Black is just his gambit
>> pawn down and having a tough time in both:
>>
>> DanQuigley - DuttonChess (C58)
>> www.ChessWorld.net server game www.ChessWorld.net, 09.11.2005
>>
>> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6
>> 8.Qf3 Qd5 (...) 32.Ra1 +/-
>
> I allways thought that 8.Qf3 was dubious. I knew 8...Rb8 as main line (in
> my database black score is a 57%) and 8...cxb5 as interesting.

I tried hard to crack the analysis and database games stemming from 8...Rb8.
It's a tougher nut than it looks to be at first. I agree that after the
somewhat old-fashioned 8.Qf3, with 8...Rb8 Black is slightly more than okay.
Unless I see something in the meantime to change my mind, I won't be playing
8.Qf3 again.

>> DanQuigley - pacemque (C59)
>> www.ChessWorld.net server game www.ChessWorld.net, 09.11.2005
>>
>> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6
>> 8.Be2 h6 9.Nf3 e4 10.Ne5 Bd6 11.d4 exd3 12.Nxd3 Qe7 13.0-0 Qc7 14.h3 0-0
>> 15.b3 Bh2+ 16.Kh1 +/-
>
> I had the sensation that in 8.Be2 line black had an strong compensation
> with active pieces, ... in your game 12...Qe7 followed by 13...Qc7 has not
> much sense.

Again, I agree that 12...Qe7 is pretty silly. Even still, in the position
after 12.Nxd3 it's initially hard to believe that Black's one tempo ahead of
White in development is worth the pawn he has sacrificed. However, upon
close examination of the lines, I have to conclude you may be right. Nunn
calls it unclear in NCO. To follow one of his lines a little ways and
continue similarly as I did in the game I cited myself as playing, 13.h3 0-0
14.0-0 Bf5 15.Nd2 (Here databases can be misleading. After 15.b3, they show
White has 4 wins, 1 draw, and 1 loss, but 15...Be5! is awkward for White to
face.) 15...Rad8 16.b3 (since 16...Be5 can now be answered with 17.Bb2) and
I must concede that Black does have some serious compensation. The most
recent game played in this line is a particularly well-played example:

[Event "WC.2005.P.00007"]
[Site "IECG email"]
[Date "2002.01.29"]
[Round "0"]
[White "McDonald,Graham R"]
[Black "Steele,Scott"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "C59"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Be2
h6
9.Nf3 e4 10.Ne5 Bd6 11.d4 exd3 12.Nxd3 0-0 13.0-0 Qc7 14.h3 Bf5 15.Nd2 Rad8
16.b3 Nd5
17.Bb2 Rfe8 18.Bg4 Bxd3 19.cxd3 Nf4 20.d4 c5 21.dxc5 Bxc5 22.Rc1 Nd3 23.Rc2
Qb6 24.Qf3 Ne1
25.Qd1 Nxc2 26.Qxc2 Nc6 27.Nc4 Qa6 28.a3 0-1

I therefore find it necessary to retract my disparaging reks regarding
the Two Knights Defense. Thanks for helping me to take a closer look at my
assumptions, Antonio.

Date: 27 Nov 2005 11:06:01
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: 3 knights ... as bad for black?

En/na Dan Quigley ha escrit:
> Thanks for helping me to take a closer look at my
> assumptions, Antonio.

Hello Dan, one more comment ...

Once you have played that lines and you have a better understanding
(than before having playing them) you can use your knowledge in more games.

The line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 is know as "Traxler". I
only recently (in last years) read about that 5.Bxf7! Ke7 6.Bb3! Rf8
7.d3! "possible refutation" (maybe in following years some player will
find improvements for black) but before being published it, many strong
players have played 5.Nxf7 (top cc players included Estrin).

I myself played two games before knowing that. The games are not
specially instructive (the second one is hardly a true game) but you can
see that I have never played the "refutation" I wrote:

- First one with black is a blitz game with many mistakes from both
players (I wrote NN because I did not know his name when I introduced
the moves in my database).

[Event "Barcelona blitz"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1993.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "NN"]
[Black "Torrecillas tinez, Antonio"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C57"]
[PlyCount "40"]
[EventDate "1993.??.??"]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. Ng5 Bc5 5. Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6. Kf1 Qe7 7.
Nxh8 Bb6 8. Nf7 d5 9. exd5 Nd4 10. d6 cxd6 11. Ng5 d5 12. Bb3 Bg4 13.
Nf3 e4 14. h3 Bh5 15. g4 Nxf3 16. gxh5 Nxh5 17. Bxd5 Qc5 18. Qe2 Ng3+
19. Kg2 Nxe2 20. Bxe4 Qf2# 0-1

- Second one is a serious old game where black (a 2200 player -local
rating at that time) played a big blunder losing one tempo and the game.

[Event "Manresa open"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1987.??.??"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Torrecillas tinez, Antonio"]
[Black "Ledo"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C57"]
[PlyCount "17"]
[EventDate "1987.??.??"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5 5. Nxf7 Qe7?? 6. Nxh8 Bxf2+
7.Kxf2! Nxe4+ 8. Kf1 Qh4 9. Qf3 1-0

yours
Antonio T.

Date: 18 Nov 2005 21:02:59
From:
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

The point (if there is one) of the Ruy seems to be that White gets a
better Pawn structure vs Black's better development (in the main lines,
anyway.) This imbalance leads to more interesting games (usually) than
the exchange variation of the Slav.

Date: 19 Nov 2005 05:49:00
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

> The point (if there is one) of the Ruy seems to be that White gets a
> better Pawn structure vs Black's better development (in the main lines,
> anyway.) This imbalance leads to more interesting games (usually) than
> the exchange variation of the Slav.

All well and good, but you could say the same for many other double
king-pawn games.

Date: 19 Nov 2005 14:02:07
From: Henri H. Arsenault
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

The problem with the Ruy Lopez is not that it is inferior for one side
or the other, it is that it is analyzed over 20 moves deep for most
lines, and an opponent playing it against you is likely to know these
moves.

The average player is better to try less-known openings.

Henri

Date: 19 Nov 2005 07:34:12
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

In article <[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:

> All well and good, but you could say the same for many other double
> king-pawn games.

Computers are lousy at analyzing openings, Ray. I'd think somebody who
spent so much time with them would know that by now.

-Ron

Date: 20 Nov 2005 13:52:05
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

>> All well and good, but you could say the same for many other double
>> king-pawn games.
>
> Computers are lousy at analyzing openings, Ray.

Yet they are great tools for a human to use in aiding opening analysis.

>I'd think somebody who
> spent so much time with them would know that by now.

I do know that, and that's another reason I study openings so intensely:
it's possible to get an edge against them in that phase of the game.

Date: 20 Nov 2005 22:09:56
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>>>All well and good, but you could say the same for many other double
>>>king-pawn games.
>>
>>Computers are lousy at analyzing openings, Ray.
>
> Yet they are great tools for a human to use in aiding opening analysis.
>
>>I'd think somebody who
>>spent so much time with them would know that by now.
>
> I do know that, and that's another reason I study openings so intensely:
> it's possible to get an edge against them in that phase of the game.

It has no sense to "study" Ruy Lopez opening in the "supposed" Ray way:
imagine playing Ruy Lopez, for example exchange variation, and "knowing"
it until move 20 but reaching a won ending and losing it a cause of
maximum ignorance in that basis ending.

First I'm sure Ray knows much less than He wrote here. I'm sure because
He only wrote He knows much but He has not shown any knowledge in all
his comemnts here in RGCA.

Second: that "suposed" study is no sense: you can not memorice moves you
do not understand. For example in Ruy Lopez exchange white, before tryig
to know tones of theory, need to do related matters like:
- Should know how to win the easy pawn ending.
- Should know what are the most favourable exchanges of pieces
- Shold know how strong can be black pair of bihops and how to play
versus that.
- ...

All this is not my invention, ... it is known from many many years. For
example Reti in "Los grandes maestros del tablero" wrote that to know a
sharp opening like the Kings Gambit white need to know first basis ideas
like:
- The attack by "f" file to f7 (after f4 "f2 line is open).
- The power of the center of pawns (after exf4 white has that kind of
center).
- The tactical possibilities of a weak king wing (when black tries to
keep closed the "f" file with exf4 and g5 He has many weakneses).

This is the first step to understand an opening and to enjoy chess
because that kind of work is not difficult and produces satisfaction not
only in points but in chess perception.

AT

Date: 20 Nov 2005 23:06:51
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

>> Yet they are great tools for a human to use in aiding opening analysis.
>>
>>>I'd think somebody who
>>>spent so much time with them would know that by now.
>>
>> I do know that, and that's another reason I study openings so intensely:
>> it's possible to get an edge against them in that phase of the game.
>
> It has no sense to "study" Ruy Lopez opening in the "supposed" Ray way:
> imagine playing Ruy Lopez, for example exchange variation, and "knowing"
> it until move 20 but reaching a won ending and losing it a cause of
> maximum ignorance in that basis ending.

That's like saying that a tennis player shouldn't perfect their serve
because they can't play the net on the followup.

> First I'm sure Ray knows much less than He wrote here. I'm sure because He
> only wrote He knows much but He has not shown any knowledge in all his
> comemnts here in RGCA.
>
> Second: that "suposed" study is no sense: you can not memorice moves you
> do not understand.

Again, we see a false premise: memorizing openings doesn't mean that one has
to not understand them.

>For example in Ruy Lopez exchange white, before tryig to know tones of
>theory, need to do related matters like:
> - Should know how to win the easy pawn ending.
> - Should know what are the most favourable exchanges of pieces
> - Shold know how strong can be black pair of bihops and how to play versus
> that.

Anyone with half a brain about the opening should know that the Exchange
Lopez is weak to begin with.

> All this is not my invention, ... it is known from many many years. For
> example Reti in "Los grandes maestros del tablero" wrote that to know a
> sharp opening like the Kings Gambit white need to know first basis ideas
> like:
> - The attack by "f" file to f7 (after f4 "f2 line is open).
> - The power of the center of pawns (after exf4 white has that kind of
> center).
> - The tactical possibilities of a weak king wing (when black tries to keep
> closed the "f" file with exf4 and g5 He has many weakneses).
>
> This is the first step to understand an opening and to enjoy chess because
> that kind of work is not difficult and produces satisfaction not only in
> points but in chess perception.

The only way to gain understanding of an opening is to PLAY it.

Date: 21 Nov 2005 06:50:09
From: Terry
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> Yet they are great tools for a human to use in aiding opening analysis.
>>>
>>>>I'd think somebody who
>>>>spent so much time with them would know that by now.
>>>
>>> I do know that, and that's another reason I study openings so intensely:
>>> it's possible to get an edge against them in that phase of the game.
>>
>> It has no sense to "study" Ruy Lopez opening in the "supposed" Ray way:
>> imagine playing Ruy Lopez, for example exchange variation, and "knowing"
>> it until move 20 but reaching a won ending and losing it a cause of
>> maximum ignorance in that basis ending.
>
> That's like saying that a tennis player shouldn't perfect their serve
> because they can't play the net on the followup.
>
>
>> First I'm sure Ray knows much less than He wrote here. I'm sure because
>> He only wrote He knows much but He has not shown any knowledge in all his
>> comemnts here in RGCA.
>>
>> Second: that "suposed" study is no sense: you can not memorice moves you
>> do not understand.
>
> Again, we see a false premise: memorizing openings doesn't mean that one
> has to not understand them.
>
>>For example in Ruy Lopez exchange white, before tryig to know tones of
>>theory, need to do related matters like:
>> - Should know how to win the easy pawn ending.
>> - Should know what are the most favourable exchanges of pieces
>> - Shold know how strong can be black pair of bihops and how to play
>> versus that.
>
> Anyone with half a brain about the opening should know that the Exchange
> Lopez is weak to begin with.
>
>> All this is not my invention, ... it is known from many many years. For
>> example Reti in "Los grandes maestros del tablero" wrote that to know a
>> sharp opening like the Kings Gambit white need to know first basis ideas
>> like:
>> - The attack by "f" file to f7 (after f4 "f2 line is open).
>> - The power of the center of pawns (after exf4 white has that kind of
>> center).
>> - The tactical possibilities of a weak king wing (when black tries to
>> keep closed the "f" file with exf4 and g5 He has many weakneses).
>>
>> This is the first step to understand an opening and to enjoy chess
>> because that kind of work is not difficult and produces satisfaction not
>> only in points but in chess perception.
>
> The only way to gain understanding of an opening is to PLAY it.
>
>
>

This is a 1500 player calling a 2200 player weak. LOL

Regards

Date: 21 Nov 2005 17:08:23
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

>> The only way to gain understanding of an opening is to PLAY it.
>>
>>
>>
>
> This is a 1500 player calling a 2200 player weak. >LOL

I'm rated 1900, peaked at 2000.

Date: 21 Nov 2005 21:11:31
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>>>The only way to gain understanding of an opening is to PLAY it.
>>
>>This is a 1500 player calling a 2200 player weak. >LOL
>
> I'm rated 1900, peaked at 2000.

Well, .. there is no much difference, I have been rated 2370-2400 FIDE
in the last ten years. And your comments show me (from my humble point
of view) that you play maybe less than 1900.

But there is no problem playing 1900 or 1700 or 2700, the problem is
your attitude. You wrote statements with no logic and opposite to wide
knowledge, claiming to be a revolutionary genius but when someone try to
discuss with logic and with examples you stop discussing or use empty
words as we have seen in this thread.

When discusing chess rating mean nothing if people write constructively.
People can write his thoughts with logic and nice lines and examples and
we only debate those arguments. In those cases any player no matter his
rating (and maybe with the help of a computer, maybe not) can write
arguments to convince higher rated player.

A group a players in my chessclub try to meet once a week to enjoy
chess. There are people stronger than me in that group and I assure you
that a GM rated 150 points higher than me never used his rating as
argument (as I never use it with other people there) and his attitude is
very different to those who claim a 1/x rule with empty arguments.

You can enjoy chess here and help others to enjoy chess, please try to
do it, ... and forget ratings!

AT

Pd: I said I will not write more lines to you personally, but it seem
that my blockade examples were interesting for you no matter you did not
say any word about that directly. (you wrote later "I'm saying that it's
not a foregone conclusion in every possible position of that type,
especially if the board is locked up.")

Date: 21 Nov 2005 21:10:13
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

>> I'm rated 1900, peaked at 2000.
>
> Well, .. there is no much difference, I have been rated 2370-2400 FIDE
> in the last ten years. And your comments show me (from my humble point
> of view) that you play maybe less than 1900.

This man's comments show me he's an obsessed freak.

> But there is no problem playing 1900 or 1700 or 2700, the problem is your
> attitude.

Actually, this man's problem is that he thinks I need his approval.

> You wrote statements with no logic and opposite to wide
> knowledge, claiming to be a revolutionary genius

Note the false claim about me. Straw man.

>but when someone try to discuss with logic and with examples you stop
>discussing or use empty words as we have seen in this thread.
>
> When discusing chess rating mean nothing if people write constructively.
> People can write his thoughts with logic and nice lines and examples and
> we only debate those arguments. In those cases any player no matter his
> rating (and maybe with the help of a computer, maybe not) can write
> arguments to convince higher rated player.

Someone called an endgame a "trivial" win with a broad statement that I took
issue with. Maybe it is a forced win, but that doesn't mean it's "trivial."

> A group a players in my chessclub try to meet once a week to enjoy chess.
> There are people stronger than me in that group and I assure you that a GM
> rated 150 points higher than me never used his rating as argument (as I
> never use it with other people there) and his attitude is very different
> to those who claim a 1/x rule with empty arguments.

Hydra does fine with 1/x. Ever see it play an endgame OTB?

> You can enjoy chess here and help others to enjoy chess, please try to do
> it, ... and forget ratings!

If someone doesn't like what I write, they are free to ignore it.

Date: 22 Nov 2005 07:11:12
From: Terry
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> I'm rated 1900, peaked at 2000.
>>
>> Well, .. there is no much difference, I have been rated 2370-2400 FIDE
>> in the last ten years. And your comments show me (from my humble point
>> of view) that you play maybe less than 1900.
>
> This man's comments show me he's an obsessed freak.
>
>
>> But there is no problem playing 1900 or 1700 or 2700, the problem is your
>> attitude.
>
> Actually, this man's problem is that he thinks I need his approval.
>
>> You wrote statements with no logic and opposite to wide
>> knowledge, claiming to be a revolutionary genius
>
> Note the false claim about me. Straw man.
>

He fights logic with insults. There is not much hope for him as
a chess player.

Regards

Date: 21 Nov 2005 01:38:11
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

In article <[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:

> That's like saying that a tennis player shouldn't perfect their serve
> because they can't play the net on the followup.

But, in fact, that's the right advice to give a tennis player.

You don't focus only on your serve when you're learning to play tennis.
In fact, tennis players spend most of their time working on their
groundstrokes and net play. Only once those are solid do most people
start working on their serve.

If you only have a limited amount of practice time, and your net play
sucks, then you'd be a fool to spend that practice time on your serve.

-Ron

Date: 21 Nov 2005 03:27:16
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

>> That's like saying that a tennis player shouldn't perfect their serve
>> because they can't play the net on the followup.
>
> But, in fact, that's the right advice to give a tennis player.

As long as he doesn't want to make a living on the pro tour, it is.

> You don't focus only on your serve when you're learning to play tennis.

Nor do you neglect it.

> In fact, tennis players spend most of their time working on their
> groundstrokes and net play. Only once those are solid do most people
> start working on their serve.

In chess, specific positions arise from certain openings. The better the
opening, the better the middlegame to study.

> If you only have a limited amount of practice time,

Pros don't. If practice time is limited, one has already conceded that they
won't be a champion.

>and your net play
> sucks, then you'd be a fool to spend that practice time on your serve.

Unless you wanted to have more practice playing the net in games, which is
going to happen with better serves.

Date: 21 Nov 2005 01:06:42
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>>For example in Ruy Lopez exchange white, before tryig to know tones of
>>theory, need to do related matters like:
>>- Should know how to win the easy pawn ending.
>>- Should know what are the most favourable exchanges of pieces
>>- Shold know how strong can be black pair of bihops and how to play versus
>>that.
>
> Anyone with half a brain about the opening should know that the Exchange
> Lopez is weak to begin with.

People with half brain in chess ... by Ray Gordon:
Alekhine, Capablanca, Lasker, Smyslov, Petrosian, Spasski, Fischer,
Anand, Karpov, Kasimjanov, Kasparov, Khalifman, Topalov, ...
(most part of world champions are wrong, ... but Ray ir right)

I suppose that, as allways when have no more argument after showing you
have no idea ..., you will change thread!!

> (...)
> The only way to gain understanding of an opening is to PLAY it.

That's debatable, ... and more for you who afirmed not to play serious
chess at all (only 1 minute chess in ICC).

AT

Date: 21 Nov 2005 03:25:41
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

>> Anyone with half a brain about the opening should know that the Exchange
>> Lopez is weak to begin with.
>
> People with half brain in chess ... by Ray Gordon:
> Alekhine, Capablanca, Lasker, Smyslov, Petrosian, Spasski, Fischer, Anand,
> Karpov, Kasimjanov, Kasparov, Khalifman, Topalov, ...
> (most part of world champions are wrong, ... but Ray ir right)

Not a single player from the above group used that line as their main weapon
as white.

> I suppose that, as allways when have no more argument after showing you
> have no idea ..., you will change thread!!

This man is SO obsessed with me it's not even funny. Is he gay?

>> (...)4>> The only way to gain understanding of an opening is to PLAY it.
>
> That's debatable, ... and more for you who afirmed not to play serious
> chess at all (only 1 minute chess in ICC).

That IS serious chess. Giving someone two hours to figure out how to
continue an opening is a joke.

Date: 21 Nov 2005 10:00:22
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>>>Anyone with half a brain about the opening should know that the Exchange
>>>Lopez is weak to begin with.
>>
>>People with half brain in chess ... by Ray Gordon:
>>Alekhine, Capablanca, Lasker, Smyslov, Petrosian, Spasski, Fischer, Anand,
>>Karpov, Kasimjanov, Kasparov, Khalifman, Topalov, ...
>>(most part of world champions are wrong, ... but Ray is right)
>
> Not a single player from the above group used that line as their main weapon
> as white.

As allways, you wrote from complete ignorance, ...
... and changing the sense of the words (first a line is weak to begin
with, then is not main weapon -no matter it is a good option-)

When I wrote that statement I do not put those names without
confirmation, ... I searched in my database all world champions and I
wrote the results of my search (no matter I knew many decisive games
with that line from some of them).

And now your reply is as nonsense as allways, ... any medium level
player would know that Fischer and Lasker played that line in some of
his more important games of their lives (that can mean to be a main
weapon at that time?), but I will check to be sure in my database:

Lasker: two games in wch match of 1894, two in the match of 1896, two in
wch 1908, and some of the decisive games in mst important tournaments.

Fischer, ... one in his WCH match in 1972 (where Ruy Lopez appeared in 2
games) and two more in the match with Spasski in 1992.

What game of those would you like to see for first time?

I think I will stop writing to you here in RGCA in order not to lose the
time of RGCA readers. When you wrote some stupid advice to someone here,
I will try to correct it but writing to the reader, ... to write to you
has no sense In Spain we wrote "It has no sense to give honey to pigs".
(I know you are not a pig, it's a metaphor, ok?)

AT

Date: 18 Nov 2005 07:55:45
From:
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

David Richerby wrote:
> I forget who it is who believes that, if White does have a forced win,
> it's with the Vienna.

It sounds like you're thinking of Weaver W. Adams (1901-1963), an
American master who, if I recall correctly, competed in a few US
Championships and won the 1948 US Open. In the 1940s he advertised,
under the heading "THE GAME OF CHESS SOLVED!", analysis he claimed to
show a forced advantage for White in the Vienna. The price of this Holy
Grail was a mere $1.00. Earlier he had made the claim for the Bishop's
Opening.
I believe much of Adams' analysis was hotly disputed and debunked by
Larry Evans.
A sort of latter-day Adams is Hans Berliner, former world
correspondence champion. In his book "The System" (Gambit, 1999), he
claims that White should have a forced win after 1.d4. His view has not
gathered widespread acceptance, though some of his analysis is
interesting, especially on the Gr=FCnfeld Defense.

Date: 18 Nov 2005 16:22:01
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> I forget who it is who believes that, if White does have a forced win,
>> it's with the Vienna.
>
> It sounds like you're thinking of Weaver W. Adams (1901-1963), [...]
> In the 1940s he advertised, under the heading "THE GAME OF CHESS
> SOLVED!", analysis he claimed to show a forced advantage for White in
> the Vienna. The price of this Holy Grail was a mere $1.00.

That sounds like the one, yes.

> Earlier he had made the claim for the Bishop's Opening.

Ah, like these people who submit their seventh proof that P=NP to the
mathematical / CS journals.

> A sort of latter-day Adams is Hans Berliner, former world correspondence
> champion. In his book "The System" (Gambit, 1999), he claims that White
> should have a forced win after 1.d4. His view has not gathered
> widespread acceptance

Probably because his book is much more expensive than Adams's. :-)

Dave.

--
David Richerby Moistened Shack (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ house in the woods but it's moist!

Date: 18 Nov 2005 16:58:08
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

In article <zzi*[email protected] >,
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:

> > Earlier he had made the claim for the Bishop's Opening.
>
> Ah, like these people who submit their seventh proof that P=NP to the
> mathematical / CS journals.

Well, the Vienna and Bishops opening are very closely related,
transposing in some variations. If he found a defense in the Bishops
opening, it is entirely reasonable that he would look for a way to
move-order himself around it with the Vienna.

The Vienna is a lot more dangerous that most people give it credit for.
I can't speak for master-level players, but at the club level it's got a
lot of sting.

Date: 18 Nov 2005 17:41:12
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

>> > Earlier he had made the claim for the Bishop's Opening.
>>
>> Ah, like these people who submit their seventh proof that P=NP to the
>> mathematical / CS journals.
>
> Well, the Vienna and Bishops opening are very closely related,
> transposing in some variations. If he found a defense in the Bishops
> opening, it is entirely reasonable that he would look for a way to
> move-order himself around it with the Vienna.
>
> The Vienna is a lot more dangerous that most people give it credit for.
> I can't speak for master-level players, but at the club level it's got a
> lot of sting.

I know when I analyze variations of the Lopez on the computers, they don't
turn up any more of an edge for White than in the other King Pawn games.

If Black's going to equalize anyway, that takes away the main reason for
playing the Lopez.

Date: 18 Nov 2005 15:34:07
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Is it time to give up on the Lopez for White?

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> This is supposedly White's "only" try for an advantage, yet he has to
> book out for about 35 moves, after which he usually gets barely more
> than equality, and he has to face such nastiness as the shall Attack
> along the way.

Well, the shall is fairly easy to avoid by playing one of the various
anti-shall systems, which seem to perform fairly well for White.

But I did once look at the Lopez and my main thought was, ``OK, so White
has played Bf1-b5-a4-b3-c2-b1 and his only pieces off the first rank are
the knights on f3 and d2. Black, meanwhile, seems to have something of a
queenside space advantage. How is this supposed to be good, exactly?''

> With so many alternatives, could it be possible that the Scotch or the
> Bishop's opening offer an advantage? The Scotch in particular looks a
> lot like the Sicilian. Perhaps Kasparov was onto something when he
> played it.

I forget who it is who believes that, if White does have a forced win,
it's with the Vienna.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Addictive Mouldy Chair (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a chair but it's starting to
grow mushrooms and you can never put
it down!