Italian Game vs Ruy Lopez

I feel like the Italian game leads to better position for white, as Ruy Lopez either makes you lose momentum or sacrifice a tastey white bishop for a black double pawn.

So theory-wise, what is the advantage of playing a Ruy Lopez as compared to an Italian Game? What is white's goal for playing the Ruy Lopez?

the ruy is seen as the better of the two, with white having a greater chance at having the advantage out of the opening. it is more stratigical in the mainlines though, which is why a lot of lower rated players (such as myself) play the Italian for tactics

The truth is, that, with correct play from both sides, black will obtain equality.  The Ruy will make it more difficult for black to obtain equality, but there is far too much theory for it to be a viable option for most club players (some lines will still be very much in theory after 30 moves!). Of course, one must also take style into account!

One point is that on the Bishop often has to retreat to b3, but a6 and b5 aren't developing moves either, and can be considered weaknesses, targeted by a future a5 pawn break. Also, on b3, the bishop is actually better placed than on c4. It isn't as exposed as it would be on c4, and it can go to c2, where it controls the same diagonal as it would on d3, but it doesn't get in the way of white's other pieces.

Here's an example of how the placement of White's Bishop on c4 is not optimal.

I like Ruy Lopez more, since people tend to evade Evans gambit if I play the Italian (3. Bc4). I have one friend that I play frequently with, and as much as I want to practice some Ruy Lopez strategical ideas, he plays the Steinitz defense (3. ...d6) which leads to boring positions. So my conclusion so far, from my humble experience with both openings is that if you play blitz game, Evans rocks, if you want slower game play the Ruy Lopez.

From experience I can say that the Ruy gives a more lasting advantage, but at less than Master level it can be very tricky to play. It has alot of theory and the problem is that if you don't study it black will get a nice position and that would deafeat the whole point of playing the Ruy. So my advice is if you can tolerate hours upon hours of mindbending opening study definately go for the Ruy, if not stick with the Italian it has alot of cool gambit lines and such to keep the game interesting for white even if your not an opening expert.

If you think the ruy lopez is passive then you don't understand it's subtleties well enough. Yes, the bishop is less active, yes it can get pushed around, but with the ruy lopez white is not trying to mate black in 25 moves, he's playing for the strategic goal of both controlling the center, and trying to use the pin to make black weaken his queenside. The pin puts pressure on black's center, so it makes it more likely for white to take control of it, and in the main lines, he indeed gets the two pawn center. And by making black weaken his queenside white gets potential targets there, not that the pawns can't be useful for black either, but it's not something black would want to commit to.

In the italian though, white can't play d4 without sacrificing a pawn.

Who said white needs to play c3? White can play b4, the Evans gambit, which, you may say is unsound, but it has, at one time or another been played by Kasparov, Morozevich, Short, Shirov, Nunn, Blackburne, Chigorin, Spielmann and many more. He can also play d3, which you may argue is boring but no more positional in nature than the main lines of the Ruy.  Instead of 5. d4 he can also play 5. b4 and 7. Nc3 has been played by more top grandmasters than 7. Bd2.

Chessvids, when did he say c3 was the only move? It was an example. Yes clearly the italian is the better one for a direct attacking player which includes gambits like the evans, but those attacks tend not to work against top GM's. The real problem with the evans by the way is that black can give the pawn back when white can't get any advantage early on.

From my experience, the Italian gives you the strongest pieces, but the Ruy Lopez gives you the strongest center.  It is just a matter of taste.  Black can equalize in both openings.  I say that they are equally difficult to equalize with best play because they are built on sound principles.  The Ruy Lopez takes a while to equalize for black, but he will not be blown off the board by a mistake.  In the Italian, black may equalize sooner, but he must play accurately to keep from being overwelmed.

Some examples to illustrate my point.

The Chigorian Variation of the Ruy Lopez- After several move black eventually gets adequate play and a big queenside initiative.  White has a difficult middlegame to play compared to black.

The 4.Ng5 variation in the Two Knights Defence- Black can equalize with the main line, but must be very careful to not run out of counterplay for the pawn.  

I find the pin to be somewhat important in the first 20 moves, but immediately loses effect because black activates the queen and the pin is off, could black still not gain the center?

@chessvids, I think the WC Paul Morphy was the grandmaster who played Evan's Gambit the most (including beating it). Perhaps it was a thing in the 1800s, to do Evan's Gambit, and nowadays it looks like top level GMs, do Reti System, KID, KIA, and Sicilian, and the occasional Ruy Lopez--all which seem very strategical and positional, but I cannot turn them into some sort of leading advantage myself.

Yes, Morphy did use the Evans as his main weapon as white, and Anderssen played it at about the same frequency that he played the King's Gambit. But I was using the others as examples since they did not play in the Romantic era.

You know, if you are looking for a good opening versus club strength players, then bust out the King's Gambit - I get plenty of wins in blitz and correspondence chess with it versus those under 1800 and it is fun to play and remarkably sound regardless of the general consensus.  We need to remember that we are not generally playing GMs or GM level chess (at least most of us).  Who cares if Ivanchuck or Carlson play XYZ system?  I am not them, nor will I ever be in all likelihood.  I play what gets me wins, including the French, Dutch, King's Gambit... most of us do not have the time to memorize all the variations, so I like the ones that let me play principles rather than theory.

Yes, but he's claiming that the Italian Game is inferior to the Ruy. In order to claim something you must give all possible lines.

This question seems to come up quite often. It's not long ago when there was a similar thread.

Now, I am not going to say that Ruy is better than Italian or vice versa. However, it seems that many people are worried about the fact that black can chase white's bishop around in the Ruy. There's no need for this. Compare this Italian position

to this position from Ruy Lopez

The positions are very similar (white's king bishop is on the same diagonal). In the Ruy black has gotten in the extra moves a6+b5 so does this mean he stands better? No, it doesn't! This particular Ruy Lopez position is almost certainly better for white than the standard Italian position. Only possible bonus for black is that in some cases he might be able to develop his bishop to b7. On the other hand b5 might also turn out to be a weakness: white can later play a4 when he gains possibility to open the a-file and attack the weak b5 pawn. Most important difference favouring white is however the fact that the bishop is much more stable in b3 than in c4. In particular white doesn't have to worry about blacks d5-break anymore. Please compare the variations above to see how important this d5-resource is in the Italian.

Kasparov: 'After 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6, only The Scotch and The Ruy offer white any lasting advantage'.

Therefore we are left with a choice, we can either play The Ruy, and spend our lives memorising a plerotha of tricky sidelines, only for our opponent to play the Berlin, and easily hold a draw.

Or a much better decision at club level or below, and even at SGM level is to play the Scotch, Carlsen and Kasparov have both used the scotch with success, mainly because the lack of theory makes it easy to prepare novelties.

At a lower level the advantage is much more clear, club players don't know how to play the scotch, so end up with a worse position out of the opening. For more information on the scotch click here.

http://www.chess.com/groups/view/the-scotch-fans-team

I mix up my play between 1.e4 and 1.d4.  While I have played both the Ruy and the Italian Game, I'd be the first to admit I found Ruy Lopez theory exhausting to study.  This is particularly true if you play anything close to mainline Sicilians, as this gives you TWO major complexes you're trying to keep on top of.

While the Italian theory is a lot less subject to change, it can lead to some rather sterile positions, a nuisance if white is playing for a win against a lower-rated opponent.  Consequently, I've found two 1. e4 e5 openings for white that produce winning percentages without a lot of theoretical coverage. 

They are:

1.   The Bishop's opening, focusing on the setup with 2. Bc4, 3. d3, 4. Nc3 and, if allowed, 5. f4, 6. Nf3 and (again, if allowed) 7. O-O.  Sometimes, of course, white castles queenside in this setup. 

2. The Center Game, occuring after 2. d4 ed 3. Qxd4 Nc6 4. Qe3.  White gets a fairly easy attacking game after 5. Nc3, 6. Bd2, 7. O-O-O.  This is followed by getting his queen to g3 (off of the tender e-file) and either a strategic advance of his kingside pawns (if black has placed pieces in the center) or activating his remaining pieces with Ng1-e2-f4, Nh3-g5 (...h6 would normally be met by h4!).  It's fairly mechanical and straightforward, often leaving black searching for counterplay.

I started off playing the Italian and loved the max lange attack, fried liver and evans gambit , etc. Once I broke 1800 and was a little fish in the big pond, instead of a big fish in the little pond, such crude attacks consistently failed and I "graduated" to the Spanish/Ruy. Today I can play either and while the Ruy is certainly more reliable for me ( especially against strong players ) I confess I still enjoy going for some goring gambit or revert back to my max lange days....... such games are more fun, to me, even though they may be less productive.

::looking up this Max Lange Attack::