21 Oct 05
Hello, I have a silly question. I'm starting to study openings, specifically the Rui Lopez (exchange variation).
Well here is the question: IF the white bishop takes the knight, then the black pawn takes the bishop. But then, why doesnt (in ANY game iv seen), the white knight evertake the center black pawn (KP)?
Isnt getting the middle an important goal? Wouldnt taking the black center king's pawn free the center considerably?
Thanks for replying and please forgive my amatureness!
21 Oct 05
Originally posted by soulis1.e4 e5
Hello, I have a silly question. I'm starting to study openings, specifically the Rui Lopez (exchange variation).
Well here is the question: IF the white bishop takes the knight, then the black pawn takes the bishop. But then, why doesnt (in ANY game iv seen), the white knight evertake the center black pawn (KP)?
Isnt getting the middle an important go ...[text shortened]... 's pawn free the center considerably?
Thanks for replying and please forgive my amatureness!
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 a6
4. Bxc6 dxc6
5. Nxe5? Qd4!
or 5. ...Qg5!
and black wins the pawn back.
21 Oct 05
Originally posted by soulisWhite doesn't necessarily want to "free" the center, he wants to control it. And taking the pawn has the opposite effect, because Black just plays Qd4 (or Qe7 if he had recaptured bxc6 a move earlier), wins back the pawn, and now has full equality. What White is actually trying to do in the Exchange Variation, is to steer the middlegame into an endgame where he'll have a healthy 4-3 pawn majority on the kingside, vs. Black's clump of pawns on the queenside.
Hello, I have a silly question. I'm starting to study openings, specifically the Rui Lopez (exchange variation).
Well here is the question: IF the white bishop takes the knight, then the black pawn takes the bishop. But then, why doesnt (in ANY game iv seen), the white knight evertake the center black pawn (KP)?
Isnt getting the middle an important go ...[text shortened]... 's pawn free the center considerably?
Thanks for replying and please forgive my amatureness!
21 Oct 05
Originally posted by soulisWell, black has a comfortable game, and it's sure that white doesn't have an advantage. I thought the point of the Ruy Lopez Exchange was to get a lead in development, but black only has to move his queen's bishop and he can castle already.
Thanks sooo much for the reply, one more additional to that. Even if black wins pawn back, isnt equality still maintained?
It's equal or a minor advantage for black, because he has the bishop pair.
21 Oct 05
Originally posted by Natural ScienceYes, and with the abovementioned line, black has at least equality (eg after 6.Nf3 Qxe4+ 7.Qe2 Bf5 or even QxQ), and white doesn't achieve the goal of having a healthy kingside pawn majority.
White doesn't necessarily want to "free" the center, he wants to control it. And taking the pawn has the opposite effect, because Black just plays Qd4 (or Qe7 if he had recaptured bxc6 a move earlier), wins back the pawn, and now has full equality. What White is actually trying to do in the Exchange Variation, is to steer the middlegame into an ...[text shortened]... have a healthy 4-3 pawn majority on the kingside, vs. Black's clump of pawns on the queenside.
21 Oct 05
Originally posted by schakuhrWhite certainly doesn't get a lead in development in the Exchange, because all of Black's minor pieces are ready to come out, while White still has to move the d pawn to get his bishop out. White has just one advantage, and that is Black's pawn structure. But it's an endgame advantage, and Black is sure to have an advantage through the middlegame with his two bishops and the half-open d-file. That's why the Exchange is rarely seen in Grandmaster circles these days.
Well, black has a comfortable game, and it's sure that white doesn't have an advantage. I thought the point of the Ruy Lopez Exchange was to get a lead in development, but black only has to move his queen's bishop and he can castle already.
It's equal or a minor advantage for black, because he has the bishop pair.
21 Oct 05
Originally posted by Natural ScienceThere is nothing wrong with the exchange variation as such. And it is being playd by GM's. Kasimdzhanov uses it from time to time. And the young Kasparov used to play it too. It is the taking on e5 which is the bad idea.
That's why the Exchange is rarely seen in Grandmaster circles these days.
21 Oct 05
Originally posted by Mephisto2Well, maybe "rarely" is a bit of an exaggeration, but it certainly isn't as popular as it once was at the top levels due to its drawish nature. A quick look at the stats available on chesslab.com show only a 32% winning percentage for White, with 40% of the games being drawn.
There is nothing wrong with the exchange variation as such. And it is being playd by GM's. Kasimdzhanov uses it from time to time. And the young Kasparov used to play it too. It is the taking on e5 which is the bad idea.
29 Nov 05
White has a definite long term strategical plan in the Ruy Lopez Exchange variation. Without the pieces but just the pawns (and kings) on the board, you will notice there is a 4 versus 3 pawn majority on the kingside. This will make a creation of a passed pawn much easier than it is on the queenside where there are double pawns on the c file.
Black has the two bishops and it's objective is to use these pieces to hindered this creation of a passed pawn on the kingside whilst trying to create one on the queenside by eliminating one of the double c-pawns first.
29 Nov 05
Originally posted by Oddjob291Thanks for digging up threads from months ago. Repeatedly.
White has a definite long term strategical plan in the Ruy Lopez Exchange variation. Without the pieces but just the pawns (and kings) on the board, you will notice there is a 4 versus 3 pawn majority on the kingside. This will make a creation of a passed pawn much easier than it is on the queenside where there are double pawns on the c file.
Black has ...[text shortened]... ide whilst trying to create one on the queenside by eliminating one of the double c-pawns first.