Talk:Ruy Lopez

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Purpose of the Ruy Lopez 2 pronunciation 3 Steinitz Defence 4 Berlin Defence variations 5 Name of the opening outside the Anglosaxon world 6 Understanding Chess-Speak 7 too technical 8 Open Defence - a mistake? 9 Too many board layouts 10 In the Marshall 11 Mammoth Book?

[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)]

[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.

[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)

[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

[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

[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? Mister.Manticore 00:37, 27 November 2006 (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)