Why play the Ruy Lopez?

our coach likes us to start out that way but i tend to consider bishops too valueable to trade off and that tends to lead me to the four knights game.doesn't it seem more advantageous to have bishops rather than knights considering you can force mate with bishops?

ChessCaiisa,

The reason why it's okay for White to move his light Bishop around is two-fold. The first is that even though the Bishop moved so much, it still attacks very relevant diagonals where it is finally placed. The much more subtle but powerful reason why it's okay is that the Bishop moves constantly is because while Black develops all his pieces, they are awkwardly placed and do not attack the right squares. They are developed well, but still, White is able to control the center much more effectively. Black has to resort to moves like Na5 in order to advance his position, while White has a lot more options available and more space to work with. If GMs couldn't count on a slight advantage with the Ruy Lopez, they probably wouldn't play it.

Military_efficiency,

I think you're right in saying that the Bishops are more powerful than the Knights. Unless trading Bishop for Knight comes with an added bonus, i.e. an extra pawn or superior position, I'd probably want the Bishop nine times out of ten. In the Ruy, you'll often see the Bishop planted on b3 or c2 because Black is often smart enough not to give up an extra pawn. But when he does offer up Knight and pawn for Bishop, take it :)

In general, when a lot of pawns are on the board, i.e. 7 or 8, I like to keep a Knight around or both Knights as I feel I can blunt the opposing Bishops with my pawn structure and use my Knights to effectively hop around the board. But when the game is more open, Bishops all the way!

I play the ruy lopez as white generally, the steinitz defense if it's used against me (:

I have good results with both colors and Marshall attack scores 75%. Dan Heisman says:  "In the Ruy Lopez, the play is rich enough that the better player almost always wins".

 Two of the legends of chess were fond of the exchange variation of the Ruy , everyone knows one was Fischer, who was the other? I wouldnt underestimate its value.

 That well-known patzer Emanuel Lasker trotted the Exchange out on occasion against his fellow patzers, like Capablanca.

I'm aware that far better players than myself have essayed the Exchange variation, and done well with it.  I'm referring to my personal distaste for it, and my opinion that it makes for a strategically boring game compared to the main lines.  I always feel a little bit robbed when someone plays the Ruy Lopez against me, and then plays 4.Bxc6.

Spiffe - I completely understand you, I feel the same, that's why I never play Exchange with White. In case of 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. O-O I now try 5. ... Qd6 - Bronstein variation, could be quite sharp. 

I used to play Ruy Lopez almost exclusively when my opponents would play e5.  It is indeed, a really great opening and helps you to really understand positional concepts.  When I used to study Chess more seriously, my favorite book was called "Mastering the Spanish."  Outstanding book for teaching you ideas without rote memorization. 

However, I ran into a pretty interesting problem. 

Throughout all of my tournament play, in any symmetrical king pawn openings, my opponents simply would NOT allow me to get into any major lines that I had painstakingly spent hours studying.  It would be Alekhine's....or Marshall Gambits.  I'd even encounter Schliemann's (spelling) more often than the major lines.  Needless to say, it was very frustrating.  For the amount of time studying the main lines, I simply was not getting enough bang for my buck. 

I played at the World Open many years ago, and was in contention for a pretty decent prize in the under 1400 section when in the 7th or 8th round, my opponent played a Marshall Gambit against me and practically blew me off the board after 20 moves.  (Incidentally, I saved the game when he blundered an exchange....).  With a heavy heart, I finally decided to give up the Ruy Lopez in tournaments.

Do I like the Ruy Lopez?  I do...a lot.  It was great studying Fischer's games.  But studying the Spanish was no longer a pragmatic option for me after a while.  Who knows...maybe I'm just lazy. 

So I began to devote more time to studying the system known as the King's Indian Attack (primarily starting with Nf3), an early favorite of Bobby Fischer...and even Tigran Petrosian.  A lot less study time, but still a lot of dynamic play.  I remember one tournament, after a hard fought draw, my opponent said "why do you play the King's Indian attack?  It's boring and not really in vogue right now."  He was right.  I was studying from a book that was 20 years old, but I didn't care.  The ideas still largely remain the same.

Theoretically, is the KIA as strong as the Ruy Lopez?  Most certainly not.  But I'm not playing IMs or GMs.  Any master worth his salt is probably going to wipe the floor with me no matter what opening I play.  And I probably get more bang for my buck studing it. 

Would I pick up the Ruy again?  For tournament play, sadly, the answer is no.  Most of my opponents probably have more time to study than I do...so I have to "even" the opening a bit by playing something that's flexible.  for blitz and casual Chess, I'd absolutely play it.  It's a beautiful opening...and can teach you a lot about Chess.

I like the Spanish Game, but not a fan of the exchange variation as White.

I really like playing against the Marshall Gambit.  I read a book on it and I learned a lot.  I play it with confidence and usually win.  However, it got tiring booking up so much on just a couple of lines, so I switched to the Modern Positional Giuoco Piano.  That ends up like a Ruy frequently