Why is this "Ruy-Lopez-CC-Sequence" so "Popular?"

Hello Everyone, and Good Evening(!!!),

   *From 'My Notes'*
(18) Repeats of the {e4e5Nf3Nc6Bb5a6} Introductory Chess Codon from the "Fischer/AlphaZero/Stockfish Chess Codon Study" I recently linked on "my notes." ... Does this "Chess Codon Sequence" look familiar to anyone?

Would anyone be willing to share their thoughts as to WHY this CC-Sequence is to "popular"?

(Link to the "Fischer/AlphaZero/Stockfish Chess Codon Study" : https://docs.google.com/document/d/13rp8QOXxyuh39gcsegVnh7VWVCDOZYKvpHHPCAmzCBU/edit?usp=sharing)

Thank You for your Comments(!!!), and Best of Luck in Your Games(!!!),

Emilio A.

It is perhaps of interest to note that the virtue of these moves went without much recognition for most of the 19th century. Considering the quality of some of the players in those days, it seems safe to say that it is not immediately obvious why one would want to play that way. To a large extent, it seems that it is a matter of the experience of a lot of games demonstrating the effectiveness of those moves.

Hello @Kindaspongey,

   thank you for your comment! really appreciate it!!!

   Would you mind elaborating on "the quality of play in those days"   I would really love to hear your thoughts about this! Also, I like how you describe an element of "trial and error" for "figuring out" the "effectiveness" of this "Chess Codon Sequence." 

   In my going on three years of playing and "studying" chess, I have managed to "adopt" this opening (after taking a "chess personality test" cx haha), and find it to be "quiet effective." I am still wanting to develop my play style and study, and by "Studying Chess Codons," I think "my style" will "reveal itself."  I would like to think that I play chess "conscientiously" (trying to best reflect "my state of mind" when playing), however, I am aware that I play "very (for lack of a better term) weighted."

   Thank You again for your comment, my friend!!! I'm looking forward to developing this conversation with you! 

   OH!!! and as "a gift" for your comment... check this out!
... *conducting study on YOUR CHESS CODONS*...

KindaSpongey's Chess Codons - ... You have yet to play a single game... Very impressed by the puzzles! Well, no matter, this is o.k.. Eventually in the future, if you manage to play at least one game, I will be very happy to be able to share with you "Your Chess Codons" (as measured by the CCMA-Algorithm that Identifies and DisplaysChess Codons (CCs)). I'll keep you in mind as the days continue forward.

Take Care, My Friend. And Best of Luck in Your Games(!!!)!

Emilio A.

Perhaps of interest:

https://www.chess.com/article/view/were-players-in-the-1800s-terrible

https://www.chess.com/article/view/adolf-anderssen-mr-slice-and-dice

https://www.chess.com/article/view/adolf-anderssen-more-slicing-and-dicing

https://www.chess.com/article/view/behold-steinitz-the-austrian-morphy

https://www.chess.com/article/view/steinitz-changes-the-chess-world

... thank you for this. I'll get to reading before I go to bed tonight

in the mean time, do you think I could try and interest you in collaborating with me on a research project that I am working on! 

You guys both have ratings of 800.

Ask a strong player at a club to go through the logic of the first few moves of the Spanish or Ruy Lopez.

Getting stronger so you understand what's on the board is the answer, 

not 'academic' studies of old, dead players infinitely stronger than both of you.

You're calling the main line arbitrary but neither of you is strong enough to comment on that.

... then instead of "putting us both down," why didn't you comment your thoughts about the significance of this opening?
i see you are "a stronger player" than us both, so I would very much like to hear your thoughts about this.
... also, "calling the main line arbitrary?" what do you mean by this? 

My USCF rating is about 1500, but, to some degree, that is not relevant as I have not been “calling the main line arbitrary”. I have not claimed that “‘academic’ studies of old, dead players” are an “answer” to anything other than someone wondering about “the quality of play” “for most of the 19th century”. I agree that the “old, dead players” were “infinitely stronger than” me (well, maybe not “infinitely”), but that is the point. If those strong players largely failed to perceive the special merit of 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 for much of the 19th century, then it may be that the reason for this special merit is not likely to be immediately obvious to someone like me.

I don’t feel up to taking on a research project, but, if you post questions, I may be able to help from time to time.

 thank you for the offer! I'll be sure to keep you in mind, my friend!

   ... so, i think if i am understanding your comment, then something about the ability to recognize the significance of the "opening" (the {e4e5Nf3Nc6Bb5a6} CC-sequence), and the "level of chess playing" a player plays at? 
am i understanding what you were referring to in your comments? 
as "intended" as my response to you was, this response was made "under an assumption." Having recognized this, and remembering what it is i am supposed to be doing... I should have first asked what "you meant" with your comment. Excuse my forgetting to do this, and please know that i am very much interested in continuing a conversation with you about this (and other "questions" I will be posting)  

"i don't feel up to taking on a research project..." ? what do you mean by this? I hope i haven't "put up this front" between us.... Your thoughts and comments would be (and currently ARE) greatly appreciated, as well as "act as the guiding force" for "Our research project."

looking forward to your response, "@KindaSpongey"

by the way, I love your user name(!!!)! it's genius(!!!)!

If strong 19th century players largely failed to perceive the special merit of 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 for much of the 19th century, then it may be that the reason for this special merit is not likely to be immediately obvious to someone like me.

There is not going to be a research project that is ours. I am not going to be acting as a “guiding force”.

... how did we get fixated on "19th century Chess Players?"  ... I am having difficulties figuring out how to respond to your comments...

I do not know about “fixated”, but here is where I brought them up:

@KindaSpongey

   O.K., so then the "virtue of these moves [the ruy-lopez CC-Sequence]" went "unrecognized for most of the 19th century."  Given the "quality of their play style," it is "not obvious why they played how they played?" ... and with the more games that were played, since then, We (chess players) began to "notice" the "effectiveness of those moves (the ruy lopen CC-Sequence)?"
... am I following your line of thinking? ... I am trying to...

I appreciate your patience with me.  

Your efforts might be more successful if you used accurate quotes.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Emilio, I see you; have only done two lessons and your ratings are very low.

If you are enthusiastic about chess, I suggest not getting caught up in studying openings in detail. Instead you should be working mostly on tactcis plus some basic opening and endgame theory and some basic openings where the path to the middlegame is clear: a chess master who lectured to the high school state-3rd-ranked chess club I sponsored answered the question of "What's your favorite opening?" with "Anything that gets me to a playable middle game.

WHERE do you expect to get playing the Black Side of the Ruy Lopez?  If you play the Caro-Kann or French Defense you would know, in many games, that you need to play ...c5 at some point and launch a counter attack on the Q-side.  If you play the Bishop's Opening, you know you want to play f4 before playing Nf3 and launch a K-side attack.  Look for openings that show you what to do.

As far as tactics go, working tactics trainers here and at places like chesstempo.com are great for building tactical skills, especially if you review every puzzle and ask yourself: 1) which tactics were used, 2) why did it take me so long to see it (or miss it).

If you don't know the names of the tactics or can't state the differences and similarities between the Dovetail Mate and the Swallows Tail Mate or an X-Ray Attack and a Skewer, you've playing the game with partly empty toolbox.

I suggest taking some time and learning these tactics to the point where you can eventually demonstrate each of the them - knowing them by name allows for quicker mental recall:

https://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-tactics--definitions-and-examples

https://chesstempo.com/tactical-motifs.html

As Martin Weteschnik says in his very excellent Chess Tactics from Scratch, 2^nd Ed. (c.2012) (pp. 16-23):  "Solving tactical puzzles without fully understanding the underlying mechanisms is not the most efficient way to learn. Instead you must first understand the elements of combinations....[the patterns] might look...trivial...but might turn up in complicated situations. Only if you know these simple patterns by heart will you be able to recognize them in very difficult situations. Have you ever lost due to an unforeseen [tactic]? [From such] games,...put the positions on a board and try to figure out why these [tactics] came as surprises.  Don't be satisfied with just being able to pinpoint the exact mistakes. Always try to understand the underlying causes of your defeats. In some sense all defeats are caused by lack of understanding. So the question one must ask oneself after a loss is: What more do I need to understand to improve my chess?

Good luck!

What is a chess codon?

3 moves played (by both players). In biology, a "Codon" is a particular "Nucleotide Sequence" (1 Phosphate, 1 Sugar and 1 Nucleic Acid - Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine and Thymine... and also Uracil, but only during mRNA). The Nucleotide, when read in a grouping of 3 (for example, the "Start Codon" {AUG} is one of the most common "opening lines" when "writing DNA"), is referred to as "A Codon."
   So, as my way of trying to mimic this Natural Behavior and Pattern into the world of chess, i began to formulate a way to "measure for 'Chess Codons'," when reading chess notation. By looking at grouping of 3 chess moves, the formula... as best as can describe "my process" for "noticing this"... began to "write itself" from then on.

Thank you for the question! Looking forward to developing a conversation with you about this idea!!!

Emilio A.