bishop on b5 on 3rd move?

I've been reading Purdy who suggests that after e4-e5, Nf3-Nc6, you should move your bishop to c4 not b5.

When I play B-b5, black's pawn on a7 always makes me want to retreat when they move from  a7 to a6 so that my B moves back to a4 or c4  OR B takes a6 and gets taken with their b pawn. (Poor exchange.)

But before that, I have a choice. Take their N on c6 with my bishop (and they then take my bishop with their pawn on d7 or b7.) At any rate, it seems that move does break up their pawns on the king side. ANd the swap is a N for a B.

Purdy suggests not moving your men up into their territory so soon. (beyond the 4th rank)

What do you think?

stwils

Why dont you just check out spanish and italian games

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruy_Lopez

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 gives you more options

Well, I think stwils is asking proper questions. There are a lot of important stuff to really think about before deciding what opening to try/learn/memorize.

I have been reading Mednins "How to Play Good Opening Moves". The book is plagued by typos but I find it to be very inspirational. The Mednis book is another gentle step towards better understanding of Opening Play.

I think Purdy's advice is very much in line with his overall theory for improving players: Try to steer the opening phase of the game into a playable middlegame and do not try too hard to squeece out too much out of the opening

(That is at least my interpretation of Purdy) 

They are both valid options. Bb5 is good because it puts pressure on the knight that wants to cover the attacked pawn.

Bc4 is good because it put pressure on the f7 square making a kingside attack possible.

Both are equally viable.

Then what kind of  response should white expect black to give to B b5?

stwils

Purdy's advice was intended for learners, he advocated Bc4 as easier to play without having to know the complex theory that is associated with Bb5. I have read that playing 3 Bc4 (Italian Game) is regarded as good preparation for playing 3 Bb5 (Ruy Lopez) as many of the positions reached contain similar strategy/tactics.

It also fits with Purdy's general opening advice to beginners, nothing beyond the 4th rank. Once you have learnt a little, by all means take on the complex openings, you will soon adopt a repertoire that you like.

God sound advices for the openings are not meant to fit everything. There are always exceptions. The good advices includes a reason for the advice. It is that reason which is imprtant to understand so that you get educated in the ideas which lies behind. When you understand reasons and ideas you are well on your way.

Anyway, 3. Bb5 (after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6) is, as has been mentioned, "Ruy Lopez" or "Spanish". It is a very popular opening and it certainly has proved its value.

Both the Italian Game ( 3 Bc4) and the Ruy Lopez ( 3 Bb5) are very good opening to play and it is a matter of preference which one to choose. There is no correct answer. I play and also teach people the 3. Bc4 ideas as I know them better. I think it makes the game a little more simple as there are few Black alternatives as well as the fact the positions can be forced to be very much the same against almost anything Black plays. 

Bc4 is less ambitious, puts slightly less pressure than Bb5, but avoids giving black any special options.

Bb5 on the other hand puts enough pressure to build significant imbalances in the position quickly (even in the Berlin). 

But that's just in general ... the two knights defense creates crazy complications (and that's a Bc4 line) ... and the berlin (Bb5) is one of the most drawish lines in chess!

Guess it just depends on what you choose to learn.  I play neither :P

I'm reading now in Purdy's The Search for Chess Perfection, and he says "The Ruy Lopez Opening is pointless unless backed by much study."  I always thought it must be easy as so many people use it. Apparently not.

Now if you are black, and white opens with 1. e4   e5   2.Nf3  Nc6 3. Bb5  Nf6 Purdy quotes someone as saying "black's usual reply 3...a6 tends to obscure the deficiences of white's plan."

And  then he goes on and on. I have MUCH to learn. Seems like Nf6 is preferable. Is that preferable for white or black?

So if I am black would I play 3...a6 or 3...Nf6? And if I am white, which would  be a stronger play against me? (quote above - "a6 tends to obscure the deficiences of white's plan." ) What are those deficiences?

I never knew there are so many things involved in every move you make in chess.

stwils

If you play Bb5, and Black challenges your bishop with a7-a6, you can play Ba4. Then if he plays b7-b5, you play Bb3. Now your bishop is on the same diagonal as after 3.Bc4, but a little further from the action so it is a little safer (it isn't attacked if Black plays d7-d5 later). Also, Black's advanced pawns on a6 and b5 may prove to be a weakness later on.

How can you say Bc4 is less ambitious than Bb5--that is just plain wrong. Both moves have their own merit and both can lead to either very active or passive game. Both are very solid openings for beginners as well as masters and the choice is a matter of style

I think that if we're talking about "ambitious" in regard to openings, it is about which opening gives the best chances of an opening advantage, given all the existing opening theory. In that sense 3.Bb5 is more ambitious, since the lines after 3.Bc4 lead to equality pretty quickly (more like 15 moves than 25), whereas after 3.Bb5 there are plenty of systems where the issue is still being fought over at top level.

Of course, that is irrelevant for non-professionals, let alone beginners.

Scarbiac I agree with your last comment--the goal for all people under 2200 (or even 2400) is get an opening they are comfortable and familiar with. The latest "theory" of forced draws on the improvements in the Anti-marshall on move 17 are not important for non-professionals. I am still not sure what is "more" ambitious about Bb5 as opposed to Bc4 in fact the argument could be made the Bc4 is more aggressive since it attacks the f7 square. In terms of general openings there are many deviations that lead to more attacking play with Bc4 than The Ruy Bishop

FM Eric Schiller, talks about the target at f7 in many of his lessons on openings for white. With Bc4 there are a large amount of attacking chances. To say that it's a passive place for the bishop to be is wrong. Considering he (being an FM) teaches it as a great way to attack for beginners. I don't know enough theory to play the Ruy Bb5 so I always play the italian game for White.

Sure, but attacks aren't everything. Many quick attacks from the opening peter out to bland equality once the opponent finds the correct defence, while a bad weakness can be permanent.

Besides, in most Ruy Lopez lines the bishop ends up at b3, also eyeing f7.  Watson has discussed natural-looking lines like 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nbd2 d5! to explain why the Ruy is more popular. If only the White bishop was on b3 instead of c4, it wouldn't have been attacked and White could play for an advantage here. As it is, White has to play exd5 and it's dead equal.

Well, from someone whose rating has dropped to 996 I surely can't speak with authority. But from I have read about opening "rules" ( get all your pieces out, try not to move any twice, cover the center, etc) it seems B5 for white's 3rd move in the Ruy does not go along with any of this.

Usually when I am white and have played B5, I have had to back track several moves (black's pawn coming after me) and that looks like it is not progress to me. I have not only moved the same piece "twice" but several times and back tracking.

Since reading Purdy I usually play B4 on the 3rd move.

When I am black, I think white's bishop on B5 sometimes took my Knight only to have me take the bishop with a pawn.

When I am black in the Ruy and white plays B5 I am tempted to ignore that whole side of the board and play N f6 to cover my e5 pawn in case I lose the other N to white's B.

This Ruy Lopez opening does not seem to me to be ideal for either black or white. What do you think? I had always heard it was the easiest!

stwils

It's not easy at all! But it IS the most popular e4 e5 opening, and has been for a century or so.

Having to move your bishop a few more times may seem bad, but it's only in reaction to Black's pawn moves -- he's not developing pieces for two moves either. So that's not as bad as you think.

Besides, take those rules with a grain of salt, there are plenty of positions where one side makes a lot of beautiful developing moves, and the other side only pawn moves -- but ending up better. If it works, it works. The "rules" are only for positions where you don't know what works and need a guessing guideline:-) They're rules of thumb, not laws.

White can take your knight, sure. You take back with the d pawn, and have doubled pawns. That's a disadvantage, but you also have the two bishops, and that's an advantage. White can't take your pawn e5 because you win it back with advantage (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.Nxe5? and then Qd4 or Qg5 both attack two pawns, win one back and lead to a better position for Black).

The many complex tactical lines of the Guico Piano and Ruy Lopez openings, along with the depth of positional play required for the Lopez, is exactly what leads most players to cultivate a defense to avoid them: that is why so many people play the Sicilian, or the French, or the Caro-Kann, or the Alekhine, anything to get away from the complex books of the two openings historically most played and analyzed. Still there are to be found some players willing to play the black side of these openings, so best be prepared if you are a 1. e4 man. In general the Lopez is more sophisticated, and in that regard Purdy has a point. I've been playing the Lopez by preference for several years in an attempt to understand it, and I don't get it yet. I lose with it frequently.