Talk:Ruy Lopez/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

I prefer the correction to the original. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.197.65 (talk) 06:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem is that this use of "when" is exceedingly common in chess literature, so it's not really a matter of personal preference: anyone familiar with the literature on opening theory will probably feel awkward with anything but "when", and anyone not familiar with it will probably feel awkward with "when". Wikipedia:Explain jargon and Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible pertain to terminology and do not really deal with situations where language constructs are used idiosyncratically within a field. I don't know what to make of this. -- Jao (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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?

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Marshall Attack

While looking for something completely different, I found Nigel Short on the Marshall :"It is my view that, when White, either one should have some interesting new ideas up one’s sleeve or avoid facing it altogether. When preparing for me back in 1993 Garry Kasparov entrusted the surveyal of this opening to Efim Geller. The renowned Soviet analyst, after a thorough perusal of the main lines of play, returned to Kasparov with the conclusion that that White had no real advantage anywhere. He advised ducking it by playing 8.a4, which the great man duly did – and most successfully too." Is there any way this amusing, relevant and WP:RS item can be included? -- Philcha (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you could probably place it somewhere in Ruy Lopez#Marshall Attack. Artichoker^[talk] 18:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the Ruy Lopez#Marshall Attack section currently has a problem. "The Marshall Attack is a very sharp opening system in which knowing all the variations is vital, and so White players, including Garry Kasparov, often avoid it by playing one of the anti-Marshall systems". It's true that Kasparov usually avoided the Marshall, but it's absurd to think he would avoid any variation because of the memorization and study required. Kasparov avoided the Marshall for precisely the same reason that a lot of GMs do when playing the White side of the Ruy—it's really hard to win against. The linked Silman article does support the text after a fashion, but I'm sure that Silman was referring to his student and not Kasparov. I'll look for a better reference to fix that up. If anyone else wants to do it and gets there first that would be even better. Quale (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Anand-Aronian Marshall Attack

The Marshall Attack section makes it seem like only Adams plays it in modern top-level chess. Levon Aronian, however, only recently played it against World CHampion Viswanathan Anand and won brilliantly. I'll try to find the game. 24.226.77.23 (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Right here. [1] 24.226.77.23 (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Cozio defense

Hi guys, can someone add a picture for the Cozio defense? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosswood40 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, can someone add a picture for the Cozio defense? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosswood40 (talk • contribs)

That (and some others) were done after the request on Sept 12. Bubba73 (talk), 21:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Thanks a bunch Bubba, sorry, I didn't see any response, so I didn't check to see if anyone has done it. Thanks again.

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)

Just pronounce it how you would pronounce it in your own country. "Lopez" is a common name in American English and is pronounced with a "z", not a Spanish lisp. This differs from words like "Ibiza", which aren't common and are therefore pronounced with the lisp. I took the pronunciation off of the main page because 1) it should be in IPA style if you're going to include it and 2) I've never heard it pronounced that way (ever) and it's not even attributed to a source. The most Spanish influence I've ever heard "Ruy Lopez" have is when people put the accent on the second syllable (i.e., Ruy Lopéz), which is in itself incorrect (his name was Ruy López; accent on the first syllable). --129.21.48.38 (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

When pages get too long

When pages get too long Older browsers can accommodate only 32KB in edit boxes, so anything larger can be too long for those who use them. Otherwise, a guideline to consider a page as long is when it exceeds 50 topics. Archive—do not delete: When a talk page has become too large or a particular subject is not discussed any more, do not delete the content—archive it. See Help:Archiving a talk page for details on why and how to. Summarize "refactor": See Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages for details on why and how to refactor talk pages. From InspectorPrussianDream (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I took the hint and added an archive option to this page. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Ruy Lopez"

Many Americans -- and even a few Canadians -- don't know how to pronounce "Ruy Lopez". They often pronounce it "Roy Loh-pezz", whereas in Spanish it should be pronounced "Roo-ee Loh-peth". I added this pronunciation guide to the article earlier, but it was deleted. Nevertheless, I do strongly urge that a pronunciation of "Ruy Lopez" be included in the article. Cwkmail (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in Spanish it's pronounced [ruj lopeθ]. This is the English wikipedia. The assumption that someone "doesn't know" how to pronounce a foreign name just because they use the English rather than the original-language pronunciation is, quite frankly, a little silly. See Fowler's Modern English Usage, entry "didacticism", for further information. 91.105.54.168 (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

They still don't know how to pronounce it because "Ruy Lopez" is a Spanish name and, thus, can only be pronounced in Spanish - as obvious as it may sound. What most English speakers produce is an approximation of the correct pronunciation. That approximation can range from acceptable to almost unintelligible - uneducated speakers tend to pronounce the latter. --Belchman (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian Defence

In the article, it says that Bxf7 can be defended by black. Can anyone tell me how to do this? I've gone through the line, and iit seems that Black stands to lose, no matter how he responds. My 2 Cents' Worth (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any current books that cover this line, but here are a couple possibilities from older general references. MCO-14 (1999) says on page 65 that the sacrifice is "tempting but dubious" and gives 6.Bxf7+ Kxf7 7.Nxe5+ Ke7 8.d4 Nf6 9.Qf3 Bb7 =+ (Black slightly better). MCO-15 is a newer edition that you could check to see if this has been revised. The line given in NCO (1999) on page 331 diverges at move 8 but is also evaluated as slightly better for Black: 8.Nc3 Qe8 =+. Quale (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

But what if for the first line you do 8.Qh5? If black responds 8...Nf6, you can do 9.Qf7+ Kd6 and then it seems difficult to dislodge the queen or the knight, and you can very quickly get a strong pawn centre and the dark sqare bishop out. It seems that white has sacrificed a bishop for two pawns, in return for a potentially very strong pawn structure and knight, with a queen that cannot be easily attacked. My 2 Cents' Worth (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Smyslov Defense

Hello, for the Smyslov defense it says to play: 4.c3 a6. Then says 4.d4 exd4 5.Bg5 gives White the advantage. But what about that Bishop? It's on b5, so the a6 pawn is threatening it, but the Bishop is completely ignored. There should, at least, be an explanation.--Dark Charles 23:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It might not be worded as clearly as it could be. Black is good after 4.c3 a6, so White should play 4.d4 instead of 4.c3. After 4.d4 Black continues 4...exd4 and the a-pawn hasn't moved so the white bishop on b5 is not threatened. Quale (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL, I'm sorry. It looks like it was mainly me. 4 twice... Well, thanks for clearing it up for me at least.--Dark Charles 05:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Berlin Defense, Fishing Pole Trap

Reading through the section on the Berlin Defense, I noticed there was no mention of the fishing pole trap. I am unfamiliar with the style of formating and am an amateur at chess, so I shouldn't dare write it myself, but I thought it was at least notable enough to deserve a mention. A famous game involving the fishing pole was the Baltier Browne upset in a 40 simul. NM Brian Wall is very familiar with the fishing pole as well, having used it many hundreds of times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daemonowner (talk • contribs) 08:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question, although the move leading up to it (4...Ng4) is considered dubious, so I'll leave it up to other Wikipedians to decide if it is worth including or not. The Fishing Pole trap is near-identical to a trap that Black can spring from lines that have been used frequently at GM level. 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.0-0 Bg4 6.h3 h5 (discussed in the Exchange Spanish article- if 7.hxg4 hxg4 8.Nxe5??, then 8...Qh4 9.f3 g3). The Deferred Steinitz piece sacrifice line 4.Ba4 d6 5.0-0 Bg4 6.h3 h5 also gives White the opportunity to err with 7.hxg4 hxg4 8.Nh2 Qh4. I've had the pleasure of catching opponents out in both of those lines in casual games.Tws45 (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

In additioin, the Fishing Pole type trap can arise in various lines of Bird's Defence, e.g. 3...Nd4 4.Nxd4 exd4 5.0-0 h5!? (which has also been played at GM level), sometimes with ...Ng4 to follow. Tws45 (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Where are the two white knights?

Is it something wrong with my browser? I see no white knights on the board. They should be at b1 and f3. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I see them. Sometimes in the past I've seen some of the chess piece images disappear for a while. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

retreat variation

Is the retreat variation (3...Nb8) for real? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Trivial. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 22:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there any reference that calls it that? Should it remain in the article? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't find any. Now removed it. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 11:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

A joke, right!? ("Gosh, I developed my knight only on condition you weren't gonna play Bb5. Damn!") Funny!! :) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Morphy Defence

Can someone explain why 4...b5 is not usually played after 3...a6 4. Ba4? It's usually the king's knight then b5 or something. I mean explain Black's options at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthhalfdick (talk • contribs) 21:43, 15 December 2012‎

This Talk page is to improve the article. Your Q is for the Reference Desk (or something). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

3...Bd6

This move is weird enough, but claiming that 4.Bd3 is a reasonable reply is absurd. Is this some hoax? I'd play 4.c3 or 4.0-0. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Sub topic

This article is to long. It could do with some subtopics, but i'm not sure what it suitable sections? Any idea for how this article could be split. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 16:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, could you explain further? (The variations seem to be highly organized into sections/subsections already, as shown in the TOC. Do you mean break this article up into mutiple articles? Or?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Summarise and move sections out, such as Open Ruy Lopez. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 18:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

In North America, I don't think I've heard a single person pronounce Lopez with a lisp, as implied in the IPA given. That isn't even standard across all varieties of Spanish. Cobblet (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Me either, although I have heard different pronunciations of Ruy. The same thing applies to Lucena. I've heard Lu-see-na and Lu-chain-a (more correct) but there is a reference saying Lu-the-na. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There are at least three English pronunciations, the lisp, -s and -z, leaving Ruy aside. I suggest removing English altogether, and adding an alternative -s to the Spanish for those anglophones who really care. Rothorpe (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Rothorpe (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Archangel Image

The Image for the Archangel Defence shows black having played d6, which it shouldn't. This looks like an accident, as black has played 7 moves in the image, while white has played 6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.230.63 (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made the fix. Quale (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Morphy Defence usage percentage

I just corrected the usage percentage of Morphy Defence mentioned in the main article (from over 75 percent to over 65 percent) and added a citation, since the previous one had a "Citation Needed" notice. I couldn't find though any original content on the Web to cite, so I cited the pages of three major online chess databases. I know that this does not comply with Wikipedia's policy of "no original research", so I hope that someone can find a reliable source for this. Otherwise it should probably be removed. Tdiamantidis (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring behaviour

User:Bosley John Bosley is clearly in violation of WP:3RR, having made 3 reverts in the past 24 hours ([2] [3] & [4]). Two editors have expressed the opinion that a scene from a movie does not belong in an article about a chess opening. Editor is advised to restore the previous version of the page and engage in discussion, or else a case will be raised at the edit warring noticeboard. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC) ...Er there was clearly no violation of WP:3RR...the games people play Bosley John Bosley (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)