Originally posted by JDChessyes its unanswerable because after 3.Bb5 black has the choice, morphy, closed, open, steintiz, steinitz deferred, schlieman, berlin, blah de blah. I think a better question might be, what do we feel comfortable with.
If anybody does I'd love to hear it. Seriously though based on how the question is worded I'd have to say it's unanswerable.
1 edit
My recommendation is to identify a GM who plays the Ruy, and whose style you appreciate and enjoy, and see what they play. I've found that studying a favorite GM's approach to a particular opening is an easy and enjoyable introduction to any opening. You will see a pattern and consistency in their play, and if you play through the games in chronological order, you will learn from their mistakes and see how their approach varied and grew over time.
By studying complete games, you will also begin to recognize the types of middlegame tactics common to the opening in question (sometimes in the notes in GM games), and you will also see the most common and standard types of endgames that result from that particular opening.
Paul
Originally posted by Paul Leggettthis is an excellent suggestion, for what one does is see the historical development of a system and can understand why moves are made and why others are rejected.. i myself have been utterly enthralled with the Najdorf, seeing the early attempts of the Argentinians and Najdorf himself, refuted by the Russians, brought back to life by Fischer etc etc.
My recommendation is to identify a GM who plays the Ruy, and whose style you appreciate and enjoy, and see what they play. I've found that studying a favorite GM's approach to a particular opening is an easy and enjoyable introduction to any opening. You will see a pattern and consistency in their play, and if you play through the games in chronologic ...[text shortened]... e most common and standard types of endgames that result from that particular opening.
Paul
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAgreed.
this is an excellent suggestion, for what one does is see the historical development of a system and can understand why moves are made and why others are rejected.. i myself have been utterly enthralled with the Najdorf, seeing the early attempts of the Argentinians and Najdorf himself, refuted by the Russians, brought back to life by Fischer etc etc.