Ruy López Opening: Marshall Attack

How often does this opening actually occur? Being it takes 8 moves to reach it, at a lower level it seems like it’d pretty rare that anyone actually knows what It is and execute. Compared to the Berlin defense which can be reached in 3. All in all I’d like to learn it but I’m not sure if it would be in vain.

Once you get to about 1500-1600 rapid some of your oponents will be playing main line theory ruy Lopez, but I wouldn't expect it to happen outside of very rare occasions before that rating mark. It's a very fun opening and it's worth learning just to get a sense of attacking principles.

I don't know why you would want to learn it anyways, even if White accepts the Gambit it's a really one-sided opening. It makes no sense to play for a draw in online games

#1
"How often does this opening actually occur?" ++ At the lowest levels not at all. At the highest levels once in 309 games: grandmasters now avoid 8 c3.

"Compared to the Berlin defense which can be reached in 3."
++ In the Berlin there also are deviations on moves 4-8.

"All in all I’d like to learn it but I’m not sure if it would be in vain." ++ You do not have to learn first. Just play it if you want. Then analyse your lost games and correct accordingly for future games. Thus you will become armed with experience for what is actually played. Because it is based on real experience in games you have played, you will remember better.

the Marshall Accepted with 8. c3 is probably much better than its reputation, Dominguez is currently using it against Vahap and he's winning now. I don't know why it isn't played more often (after all the Anti-Marshalls don't give White an easy time either) because It's principled and I guess most Black players forgot many details of theory now. Worst case scenario for White is that after you defuse the attack you play Bxd5 and you enjoy a 2 results endgame

#5
"Dominguez is currently using it against Vahap and he's winning now."
++ Yes, Dominguez-Perez won against Sanal. He played an interesting sideline 15 g3.
"I don't know why it isn't played more often"
++ While it are lots of deep forcing lines, ending in draws
"I guess most Black players forgot many details of theory now"
++ Playing Marshall and forgetting is a bad combination.

While it's a draw with best play, White is on a tightrope for a handful of moves. Online players may often miss a move of theory and it can quickly devolve for them. Almost all of the most reputable gambits are at best drawn and at worst dead lost for the side playing the gambit, but that doesn't stop them from being very dangerous weapons. The Stafford for example, one of the most popular gambits online, is +2 or more for White right out of the gate; by your logic playing it would make no sense because you'd be playing to lose.

If you play the Stafford, you are hoping for White to slip up, otherwise you are just lost out of the opening.  That is why Fabiano could not bring himself to play it in a Titled Tuesday after telling Eric Rosen he would.  He analyzed the lines and they were all just terrible for Black.

The Marshall is a drawing weapon at the top levels, but at the lower levels Black often gets wins as it is difficult to navigate if you do not know the theory (especially in blitz).

Regarding if it is worth it to learn from the Black side: it depends.  The OP is 1100 in rapid, so I would lean towards no (on both the Marshall and the Berlin) as they are both rather theory intensive.  Rather, the Archangelsk, Breyer, or Zaitzev (all of which have a good amount of theory, but you can play them more easily without knowing it) would be better options for meeting the Ruy Lopez right now.  You can focus on the ideas instead of getting lost in move order nuances.

Yeah that's... exactly my point. I even acknowledged most of the arguments you made in my initial comment. Of course you wouldn't see them at the highest level where everyone knows the refutations like the back of their hand, but generally speaking online chess is not the highest level. You're not running across Fabi in your 10 min rapid games or playing in titled tuesday either; the things which apply to that caliber of play do not apply at all here.

The main thing I was getting at is the Stafford is not a good comparison.  With the Marshall, you are playing for a draw, with chances for a win if White doesn't know his stuff.  With the Stafford, you are lost and hoping White doesn't know his stuff so you can turn it around.

A closer comparison for the Stafford would be the Grob.  Objectively, White is almost lost on move 3, and is hoping Black walks into some tricks.  The problem with both of these openings: you give a 1500-level player 10 minutes of prep time and they get a winning (or close to winning) advantage out of the opening.

A closer comparison for the Marshall is the Evan's, where White gives up a pawn for some activity.  Objectively, the position is roughly equal, but White has some ways to pose questions for Black.

And while I agree an 1100 is not going to run across many world-class players, playing openings that are objectively bad makes improving difficult in the long run.  When I was younger, I loved the Halosar Trap and would try to transpose every Scandinavian into a Ryder Gambit in an effort to get it.  I was successful a handful of times, but the remainder left me in a horrible position, where it was difficult to play even against much weaker players.  Playing for tricks can be fun, but as you get stronger, those tricks work less and less.

The reason I gave the Stafford was precisely that- because it's completely lost whereas the Marshall is just drawn. It's to show that basing your view of an opening off of solely the engines evaluation and perfect play does not take into account the practical danger that it poses. Since the prior observation is true whether an opening is lost or just drawn with perfect play, that difference between the Marshall and Stafford does not cause a disanalogy.

Fair enough, though I stand by my recommendation to not bother with the Marshall nor Berlin at the OP's current level.  The other  variations of the Ruy Lopez will serve him better in the long run (in terms of developing middlegame skills).

That we can agree on, though mostly because I don't expect any games to go 8+ moves of mainline theory to begin with at 1100 lol. 

In my previous life I often had the Marshall Attack play'd,, both with black and white. It probably Is the most funny variation of Ruy Lopez, and the one that requires the highest accuracy.... Get fun in It!

I've played both sides of the Marshall in OTB tournaments. My experience:  It is **much much easier and more fun** to play the black side. The black side almost plays itself so there is little to memorize. If I knew I'd get to play the Marshall I'd go into 1. e4 e5 every time possible!

To play the white side needs 'home cooking' against 3 main lines for black: the one Spassky played, the old main line and the one where black doubles rooks  on the king file. Right now I only have 1  that I'm satisfied with so I'll likely try an anti-Marshall next time.

Can confirm, my first time playing it OTB (and at all) my opponent made one move I knew was off right out of the opening and I just started sacrificing pieces because it's so easy to bring more to the attack quickly with Black. Like I mentioned, White is the one on the tightrope.

Extremley rarelly, to the point of learning it pointles. I have a good book on it.

But evey time I can play it, I always discover I have completaly forgotten the theory since the last re-reading. Unless you are consistently playing on a pretty high level, You schould stick to something else - a quiater, more principle-based line, and less concrete-calculation based one, where independent play starts much earlierl.

Myself, I seriously think of switching to open Ruy Lopez as black.