Talk:Ruy Lopez

The Open Games link (4th link under History) goes to an open source software Wiki entry instead of Open (pawn structure) Chess games, which is an entirely different thing (2. Nf3 3.d4 is the "Open" Sicilian, having nothing to do with open source software code). Open games are sharp with complex variations in most lines. I can't find an Open Games (chess) entry in the project yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.202.139 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 9 September 2009

How about this move? i believe previous world champion spassky played this move a couple of times in '88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrussianDream (talk • contribs) 11:20, 29 July 2009

The Morphy defence seems to be quite long — long enough to be its own article. Jguywiki (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jguywiki: I just split out Closed Defence, any thoughts? I've also noticed that the name "Morphy Defence" is unjustified for 3...a6, as he only played it in a handful of games and 3...a6 becoming popular due to him isn't supported by any evidence. He also always played 4...Nf6 in every game of his with 3...a6 that I looked at. I kind of want to make a second level header with 3...a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 in this article and avoid a single 3...a6 header to further reduce unnecessary nesting. Dayshade (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether you think an opening name is "justified" or not. You don't get to decide popular usage, which is well established. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, sadly, the well established but unjustified name became popular due to the propagation of a mistake at that time, like with the propagation of mistakes due to chess.com/etc today. Dayshade (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

He played it frequently at a time when other moves such as 3...Nf6 and 3...Bc5 were more popular. It was rarely played before him, and he played it in a de facto World Championship match against Anderssen. There is no question that he deserves to have it named after him. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm seeing some reasons for why it's undeserved at , but there are lots of worse names I guess, also probably would work better if it were limited to only 4.Ba4 Nf6. I think it might be better to just stop grouping all 3...a6 together to solve the inelegancy of overnesting. Dayshade (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

"Overnesting" is a feature rather than a bug, and along with multiple transpositional possibilities it is highly characteristic of heavily analyzed openings such as the Ruy Lopez and King's Gambit. Spinning out a separate article only removes one level of "nesting", besides which there is nothing in MOS:LAYOUT or MOS:ACCESSIBILITY which says we can't have up to 6 levels of headings if we want. Yes it's more difficult for people accessing Wikipedia via a mobile, but any page looks better on a PC and mobile users typically only read the lead section anyway. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:47, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Probably the world championship thing is why it became associated with him. I also read it didn't actually get popular compared to alternatives until many years after the match, but not sure, could you check? Dayshade (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Chess.com is showing this as twice as common as 3...d6 and 3...Nd4, so I wonder if it being implied as less common than those two is outdated? Also, does anyone have ideas for getting rid of the fifth level headers? Maybe spin off 9.h3 into its own article ("Keres Variation"?) as it branches a lot after that move? The Sicilian and King's Gambit have lots of spun off articles, so I think this would work. 7...0-0 could also be made its own third level header just like how 7...d6 8.c3 0-0 are. Although, part of me finds the sheer number of subheaders under Morphy Defence problematic, but nbd as long as fifth level headers are avoided. Dayshade (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Here is a current snapshot of OTB games played in the Ruy Lopez from the Mega 2025 database.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 (441,707 games; 100%)
3...a6 295,413 (66.88%)
3...Nf6 59,413 (13.45%)
3...d6 21,331 (4.83%)
3...Bc5 18,433 (4.17%)
3...f5 17,850 (4.04%)
3...Nge7 11,467 (2.60%)
3...g6 7,426 (1.68%)
3...Nd4 6,484 (1.47%)
3...others 3,890 (0.88%)

The Cozio Defense (3...Nge7) should be moved back to its own section.

Erukx (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Done. Yeah I wonder what to do about the current seemingly inaccurate claim of being the "least common" (aside from the non-notable defenses). Dayshade (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll look into it. The phrasing of "least common" is inaccurate. The Cozio Defense is one of the less common defenses to the Ruy Lopez.

Erukx (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I preferred the previous structure, a bit of nesting does no harm. 3...a6 and 3...Nf6 are clearly the main moves and both are extremely common in grandmaster play. The other moves are all quite rare, hence their classification under "other". None of the "other" moves need more than a paragraph or two for an overview, and giving them sections of their own makes them look more important than they are. I don't see an issue with giving the Cozio a short subsection, but there is no requirement that moves be listed in order of database frequency (which might after all depend on which database you're using). My own preference is to group thematically similar lines together. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Just put Cozio Defense back to its own section. Idk, it felt really weird to me to have the berlin with no subheaders there but then all those ones in that section that barely had any text under main header before the start of Jaenisch Gambit (not sure if it needs its own page, but it's fairly notable and some much less notable ones like Irish Gambit have their own page), plus I'm planning to write more about the Jaenisch and probably others soon. Also planning to fix up Giuoco Piano. If you really really want to revert then go ahead I guess but I like it split out and it'll make more sense once I add more, and I don't see the original kind of structure paralleled on any other pages. Dayshade (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Never mind about "other stuff" arguments. Seems to me the Irish Gambit article only exists because nobody has got around to nominating it for deletion yet. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne2: Here are some other deletion/merger candidates I found for you, do you think any of these should not be deleted? If not I could do some merging for you. I'd say Göring Attack (merge into Evans Gambit); Sicilian Defence, Chekhover Variation and Sicilian Defence, Katalymov Variation (make into headings in Sicilian); Tennison Gambit and Lisitsin Gambit (merge into Zukertort Opening, but I guess less dubious than Irish); Swiss Gambit (merge into Bird's Opening, def deserves own page less than From's); Balogh Defense (merge into Staunton Gambit as a declined line? not sure); Maróczy Gambit (not very notable, but not any more problematic than McDonnell Gambit/Rice Gambit (also, these could be merged into King's Gambit, Classical Variation easily) I guess); Jerome Gambit (literally 5 games in the chess.com database?? merge into Giuoco Piano I'd say, Italian Gambit could also get merged); Konstantinopolsky Opening (maybe? very stubby and never heard of it); Modern Defense, Norwegian Defense and Modern Defense, Monkey's Bum (merge back into Modern Defense as all three articles are short). Plus I've never heard of Devin Gambit but the article is pretty long so I'd keep it. Dayshade (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. I can't answer all of these right now. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I proposed a couple for merger. Should I do any of the stubbiest (ie unlike Jerome, more like Irish) without asking or wait with the merge template on and if so for how long? Dayshade (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I think Ruy Lopez, Closed Defence (or Defense) could be a good place to spin off a new article (an alternative would be 9.h3 but it seems the Keres Variation being used for 9.h3 in general rather than being used to name at least two different ninth Black moves in response to 9.h3 (confused lol, apparently one might be meant to be Karpov) might just be a chess.com thing. The relevant nested bullet point lists could be kept with new links to the new article. With this changed, we'd have a big reduction in nesting and the general extreme length of the article in general/the Morphy section, plus the main line would be at the top which I think would be preferable. I'd say something like this:

• 4.Ba4 Nf6 Morphy
  • 5.0-0 Be7 Closed
    • 7...d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 mainline
    • 7...0-0 8.c3 d5 Marshall
    • anything else famous that's important to have a header on this page instead of just the spun off page
  • 5.0-0 Nxe4 Open (also split off candidate)
    • foo (it has a lot of eco codes)
  • 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3
    • Bb7 Arkhangelsk
    • Bc5 Neo-Arkhangelsk
  • 5.0-0 Bc5 Møller (?)
  • 5.0-0 d6 Russian/Deferred Steinitz
  • 5.d3 Anderssen
  • 5.d4 Mackenzie
  • 5.Qe2 Wormald Attack
  • 5.Nc3 Tarrasch
  • 5.Bxc6 Bayreuth (not that notable, but much much more than the next most common move)
• 4.Ba4 b5
  • 5.Bb3 Na5 Norwegian/Taimanov/Counterthrust
  • 5.Bb3 Bb7 Caro
  • 5.Bb3 Bc5 Graz
  • others
• 4.Ba4, other lines (see my latest comment)
  • Neo-Steinitz (also split off candidate, lots of ECO)
    • Siesta
  • D.Cozio
  • D.Classical (Nge7 is super common)
  • D.Schliemann (White should go 5.d4)
  • D.Fianchetto
• 4.Bxc6 Exchange (or could be its own second level header, with the second level header for Morphy only having 4.Ba5)
• Berlin
  • see Berlin Defence draft
• Jaenisch/Schliemann (split candidate)
  • 4.Nc3 (main line)
  • 4.d3 ("quiet"?)
  • 4.d4 ("Schönemann")
  • 4.Bxc6 ("exchange")
  • 4.exf5 ("accepted"?)
• Classical/Cordel
  • 4.0-0
    • 4...Nd4 5.Nxd4 Bxd4 6.c3 Bb6 7.d4 c6 (or 5.b4)
    • 4...d6 5.c3 Bd7 6.d4 Bb6
    • 4...Qf6 5.c3 Nge7 6.Re1
    • 4...Nge7 5.c3 Bb6 6.d4 exd4 7.cxd4 d5 8.exd5 Nxd5 9.Re1+ Be6 (5.c3 > Central) (or 5.Nxe5 Nxe5 6.d4 c6)
    • (4...Nf6 > Berlin Beverwijk)
  • 4.c3 "Central"
    • 4...Nf6 5.0-0 transposes to "Zukertort Gambit" in Berlin
    • 4...Nf6 5.d4 (5...exd4 6.e5 Ne4 (or Nd5), or 5...Bb6 0-0, or 5...Bb6 6.Nxe5 forcing line)
    • 4...f5 "Cordel Gambit"
    • 4...Nge7, 4...Qf6
• Fianchetto (4...Nge7 transposes to Cozio, but perhaps Black playing ...Ng6 should be considered Cozio and ...g6 as Fianchetto)
  • 4.c3 (lots of overlap with deferred)
  • 4.d4 exd4 (main line in most common order: 5.Bg5 Be7 6.Bxe7 Qxe7 7.Bxc6 dxc6 8.Qxd4 Nf6 9.Nc3 Bg4, then 10.Nd2 c5 11.Qe3 0-0-0 or 10.0-0-0 Bxf3 11.gxf3 0-0; 7.0-0, then 7...Nf6 or 7...Qb4/7...Qc5 (usually then queen swap); 6...Ngxe7 6.0-0; 5...f6; 5.Nxd4 Bg7; 5.c3;
  • 4.0-0 Bg7 5.c3 (usually then 5...a6, or 5...d6 or 5...Nge7 (> Cozio))
• Cozio (then 4.0-0, 4.Nc3, 4.c3, 4.d4 - this one is very confusing in terms of what is assigned to it vs fianchetto vs delayed cozio; eg MCO has lines that can easily be reached from either cozio or fianchetto listed under both it seems to me)
• Old Steinitz (problem: less played than Neo-Steinitz but would have its own full header, but Neo-Steinitz would be another good one to split out like Exchange and Marshall though) (main: 4.d4)
• Bird's (main 4.Nxd4 exd4 (or ...a6 Ba5))
  • some cute lines

In the new Closed spun off article, I'd say something like this:

• 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 main line
  • 9...Na5 Chigorin
  • 9...Nb8 Breyer
  • 9...Bb7 Zaitsev
  • etc etc
• 9.d3 Pilnik
• 9.d4 Yates/Bogoljubov
• 7...0-0
  • 8.c3 d5 Marshall (brief due to own article and summarized version remaining on this ruy page)
  • 8.a4 Anti-Marshall
  • 8.h3 Anti-Marshall
  • 8.d4 Anti-Marshall
  • 8.d3 Anti-Marshall
• 7...Bb7 Trajkovic
• 6...d6 (avoiding 6...b5) Averbakh
• 6.d3 Martinez
  • 6...b5 7.Bb3 d6
  • 6...b5 7.Bb3 0-0
  • 6...d6 7.c3 0-0 (> Anderssen)
• 6.Bxc6 Doubly Deferred Exchange (any other name?)
• 6.Qe2 Worrall Attack
• 6.d4 exd4 Center Attack/Center Variation (usually transposes to Mackenzie)
• Other lines

Also I am not seeing the name "Morphy Defence" being used in some books I looked at (Hooper/Whyld and MCO, but it is as 3...a6 in FCO), so I wonder if we should just remove that Morphy second level header entirely, and have "Closed", "Open", "Classical", "Arkhangelsk" etc be second level headers, and have a summary header above the variation headers that explains and has the bullet list of links thing. Dayshade (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could split most of this page out to a new Morphy Defence page and have this be a relatively short page, in the same way Italian Game is (although that one currently avoids even having any nested analysis, which is why there are stubs for some of the gambits I guess). Dayshade (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, the fact that the non-deferred lines will come after the deferred in the article is a kind of an issue and be at a different nesting level is awkward. So I do think splitting out Morphy would address this issue. it would have several second level headers with "4.Ba4 Nf6 5...[move]", probably avoiding 4...Nf6 as a single header to avoid unnecessary nesting. Dayshade (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for starting a new section for this, but other sections are very long.

The spinout to Ruy Lopez, Closed Defence was a good faith attempt, but it doesn't work in Wikipedia. The main Ruy Lopez article must contain everything important about the subject. Spinouts can provide extra detail, but they can't be used to remove essential facts from the main article. The effect of this spinout is the entire coverage of the Closed variations is three paragraphs totaling nine sentences. The main article now does not mention the Zaitsev, Smyslov, or Chigorin. There's also no mention of the anti-Marshall lines. That simply doesn't work. This would be fine in a book, but in a Wikipedia article it's a failure. It diminishes the importance of the omitted lines because they've been completely disappeared from the main article, and artificially and falsely elevates the importance of insignificant lines that remain. The spinout is well intentioned, but it must be reversed. Quale (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

The old version was also quite problematic, with the vast majority of the article and too many subheaders under the single 3...a6 header, excessive confusing nesting (also the deeper nested lines in the Closed coming later in the article didn't make sense, especially since it went essentially like: middle depth spinoffs, higher depth spinoffs, main line, lower depth spinoffs - when either lower, middle, higher, main line or the reverse order would make sense) and one other person just this year alone requested a split. Isn't a better solution just to fold back in more of the spun out article? And the more I think about it, probably just generally splitting up the article in a comparable way to what is being done for Italian Game might be ideal, especially because I can't think of an elegant nesting structure that avoids both overnesting and confusingness. Dayshade (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

@Quale: I also think that more could be done to condense some of the unimportant lines into "other lines" sections or change the nesting to give more prominence to more notable lines like the Open. The Open probably deserves its own second level header or spinoff article. I almost want to make a nesting structure where 3...a6 doesn't have it own header at all, as it really doesn't add much to the article, whereas something like Closed, Open, Neo-Steinitz, Berlin, Schliemann/Jaenisch, etc all having their own headers seems preferable. However, it would also be elegant for the 3...a6 branches to be bunched together, so having the the 3...a6 main lines, followed by alternative Black third moves, and then rare 3...a6 side lines seems like it would be weird. Maybe all of this is just a good reason to split the whole article up further in the way Italian Game is? Dayshade (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Anyway I added back what you listed as concerning; go ahead and add any more/request me to add any more from the old page in a simplified way. But I'm down to do some further splitting or potentially rework here in a way where the entire Closed Defence gets at minimum its own second level header in order to avoid fifth levels, which I strongly think should be avoided, and even excessive numbers of fourth levels (or very long fourth levels. i.e. having a reasonable density of third levels for readability is desirable) should too. Also the importance is maintained by the Closed now being the first variation to appear in this article and the text stating how common the Closed main line is, and can be further emphasized by expanding on those words. And very curious if you have any other ideas (other than revert everything). Dayshade (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Another idea I had is to make the line through 8.c3 0-0 its own header called "Main line", which would then have the same benefit as the split in terms of denesting, but still would leave this article excessively long (particularly once appropriate depth is added to e.g. Jaenisch/Schliemann, which I still need to do). Then the headers below might run something like "Closed Defence, other lines" (Marshall Invitation could get its own too if desirable), "Open Defence", "Morphy Defence, other lines" (maybe Neo-Steinitz and others get their own section), etc. Or maybe after the "Closed, other lines", "Other fifth moves for Black", "Other fifth moves for White", and "Other fourth moves for Black" (maybe "Other third moves for Black" can come back, but Jaenisch/Schliemann (along with Berlin) really deserves its own second level header if not its own article). Lmk thoughts. I do quite like having the Closed be at the top instead of middle now like in the old version. Dayshade (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

(You should indent replies on talk.) While everyone agrees that all chess pages can be improved, as far as I can see you're the only one here who thinks that current articles are "quite problematic" and thinks that they must be changed to be exactly the way you think they should be. Extensive changes to a poorly developed article might be warranted, but they are more questionable on an article that has had substantial work over many years such as this one. Your most recent edits to try to fix the damage caused by spinning out Closed Defense have the undesirable effect of splitting coverage of 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 lines across noncontiguous sections

• 3.2 Open Defence: 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4
• 3.6 Steinitz Defence Deferred: 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 d6

That can be fixed, but I think the root issue that the spinout didn't improve this article would remain.

Thinking about the organization of this article a little more, I think the only good solutions are to leave it roughly the same as it was or alter it much more radically. A radical reorganization would make the entire article much shorter as a summary of the main options to roughly the depth of coverage you gave the Closed Defenses after the spinout for all lines and spinout almost all the detail to multiple spinout articles. I'm not sure this would work well and I think it would be far too hazardous to start with those major changes in the article itself so the work would need to be done in sandbox first to demonstrate that it's a good idea. The advantage of trimming the main article to a summary is that it would be much more accessible to people who are not experienced chess players, but the disadvantage is that the spinout articles would lose context how they fit into the Ruy as a whole. (You might reasonably say that the complexity of the current article makes that context hard to grasp the context now, and I don't disagree.) Overall I think I'm skeptical that a small main article would be better, but it might be. Quale (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

(Fair but didn't think it improved anything to use it in that case) Oh yeah, 3.6 should be moved up to 3.3. That's just an oversight on my part. I'm really not happy with the original structure of the article for the various reasons I gave (although I liked some aspects of it) and as I said, someone else requested a split just a few months ago. A wide variety of ideas I'm eager to discuss is not the same as "exactly the way [I] think they should be". Would you say you disagree with any of these criteria I'm using to base revisions off of: Most common/notable (sub)variations (such as a main line) should appear closer to the top of an article/section, overly long sections (like the old Morphy one) should be avoided (ie a header that contains close to half or more of a longer article's text on variations is not very useful), fifth level headers should be avoided, overly long single sections should be avoided (in particular, an overly long fourth level caused by avoiding fifth levels), having many many subheaders within a single header should be avoided, a reasonably logical flow should be maintained (for example, having a main line and then going from deeper to shallower alternatives).

What do you think of the idea I mentioned in my last of my four original replies to avoid any split? Something like this below (only listing second level headers here to avoid making it too long). A possible problem I can see is that the text commentating on why 3...a6, 6.Re1, etc are played is a bit more awkwardly placed, but I don't think it's a big deal.

• Analysis (folds in the current Basics and can have commentary on the purpose of 3...a6 (etc) added, has links to anchors)
• Main line (or "Morphy Defence, main line"/"Closed Defence, main line"?)
  • (third level headers including Zaitsev, Smyslov, Chigorin)
• [optional: Marshall Invitation, etc]
• Closed Defence, other lines
• [optional: fifth moves for Black that deserve their own second level header like Open Defence and maybe 5...b5, but they could still work without this]
• Other fifth moves for Black
• Other fifth moves for White (nothing here needs its own second level)
• [optional: fourth moves for Black that deserve their own second level header like Neo-Steinitz, but this is less deserving than Open]
• Other fourth moves for Black
• Exchange Variation
• Berlin
• Jaenisch-Schliemann
• etc (could bring back an "Other third moves for Black")

Basically would be more similar to the original version, but without putting the main line halfway down the page and reducing the problematic nesting. I think the main benefit to the old structure I'm critical of was that you could have more commentary move-by-move within the progression of the main line (which was being done for 3...a6 4.Ba4, but then not 4...Nf6 5.0-0 Be7, but then was done for 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3, but then not for 7...d6 8.c3 0-0), but Closed having its own article allows the commentary to work better without the negative effects. Still, even keeping it all as one article with my reorganization allows the commentary to just be placed in paragraphs in the Analysis and Main line sections, with commentary on why alternative moves are played being placed in their appropriate sections. Dayshade (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

In short: I think it's ideally nice to be able to go relatively move-by-move to give commentary, but in order to simultaneously avoid both overnesting and confusing structure (such as the main line being pushed too far down the article, as in the old article), I think you need to either split or use a less move-by-move reorganization like that above that is still logical in another way, by using showing side lines from deepest to shallowest instead of going move-by-move. Not being move-by-move is at low (but non-zero) cost, I think, especially if we use the Analysis section with anchor links to compensate. Dayshade (talk) 05:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Btw, just noticed Queen's Gambit Declined actually uses a side line-first ordering (btw should it be sideline or side line?), but the overall trend seems to prefer main line-first, what do you make of that? Dayshade (talk) 05:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

At first I (and I think other chess editors as well) were overwhelmed by your nearly instantaneous attempts to radically alter a half-dozen mostly well established chess opening articles at once, with walls of talk page text skipping through a dizzying number of ideas. Recently you seem to be taking a slightly more deliberate approach which makes it much easier and more inviting to engage with some of your suggestions. This is good.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that the main line should be covered earlier, and I have thought about that in the context of this article. The problem I had is that the traditional main lines in the Ruy are rather long, and it seems difficult to me to sensibly start coverage of variations with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bb5 a3 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0. That seems to require some buildup to me, because it's hard to motivate starting there and once you're there, a dozen other lines require backtracking. But your suggestion that the main line Closed could be motivated in the Basics (or similar) section could work. As a small note along those lines, comparing the old organization of the article before you started reworking it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ruy_Lopez&oldid=1305646451 I see that you've moved the Exchange V. to the end of its section where I had placed it first. It's better first, for multiple reasons. Often if you have a1, a2, a3, ..., a11, b, it's better to swap a and b so you have a, b1, b2, ..., b11. The one thing that is different (4.Bxc6) gets lost at the end of many 4.Ba4 lines. Here it's particularly important to discuss 4.Bxc6 first because if the Exchange is good for White then none of the 4.Ba4 variations would matter. This is I think an example that there are more subtleties to good organization than might be apparent at a first glance.

At first I wanted to say that I liked the original organization of the article better than the current state after you reworked it a bit, but looking at your proposal here I think that could be promising. Would you like to experiment with that kind of organization in a user sandbox page such as User:Dayshade/Ruy Lopez? You can invite others to also work to refine it, and once it's in semi-decent shape we should be able to judge whether we think it's better than what we have now. I can't guarantee that editors will find a substantially reorganized article better than what we have now or what we had before, but it would be a good way to demonstrate the possibilities without danger of disruption. Quale (talk) 02:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@Quale: how does the current version look? Particularly the Basics section. Not sure how I feel about combining the fourth moves for White/Black and fifth moves for White/Black into single sections, but helps cut down on the number of headers and gets Exchange Variation at the top of its subsection. Still some kinks to work out. Thought about doing the sandbox but I think it'd prob just get ignored until I try to publish it. Dayshade (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

It's a lot of change so I will need some time to look it over closely enough to have an informed opinion. I appreciate the large amount of effort you've put into chess opening articles even when I have a different opinion.

I don't know if Basics works as currently constituted as I don't consider many of the variations listed (Cozio Deferred, Wormald, etc.) to be part of the basics of this opening. Additionally, I don't favor this sort of presentation

The most common next move is the solid 5...Be7, the Closed Defence. Alternatives include:

• 5...Nxe4 (Open Defence)
• 5...b5 (Arkhangelsk Defence)
• 5...Bc5 (Møller Defence)
• 5...d6 (Russian Defence)

because the most important line is the Closed which is buried in the running text while less important options are in the list. The list items have much higher visibility and impact which seems backwards from what we want to do as it draws attention away from the important bit and toward the less important bits. There are several examples of this antipattern in the Basics section.

Also anchoring Closed Defence to a diagram in the middle of a section is weird. This will be very confusing to anyone who clicks on it even from inside this article, and heaven help the poor sap who might click from a different page to land on that anchor (if in fact it is used anywhere outside this article).

The Basics section has a long list of insignificant variations (Cozio Deferred, Wormald, etc.). Truly important variations in the closed aren't summarized in a list any longer at all. This is very easily fixable if we decide we want the list. Quale (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I was also thinking about that issue (most important being in the running text) with the Closed, which is why I added that diagram to help emphasize it a bit, but idk if it's enough. An idea I had is to add a third-level header for it inside the Basics section. Could also change the name of the Basics header to something else ("Analysis", "Variations", etc) and/or break it into two sections. Could also put it into the bullet list with something like:

• 5...Be7 (Closed Defence, the most common move)
• 5...Nxe4 (Open Defence)
• 5...b5 (Arkhangelsk Defence)
• 5...Bc5 (Møller Defence)
• 5...d6 (Russian Defence)

As for the insignificant variations, maybe could add another sentence to emphasize in the running to text to emphasize their rarity? But I think it's nice to have the list for quick navigation to the rest of the article. As for truly important variations, do you want me to add a bullet list for the variations in the main line (Zaitsev, etc) and so on too? Dayshade (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, I like when the third-move alternatives are listed earlier in the Basics section cause then the "Deferred" variation names make more sense. The current version mentions e.g. "Jaenisch Gambit Deferred" before "Jaenisch Gambit". But this isn't a big deal. Dayshade (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

"when you have A (9...Be7) which is short and in one small para and B (9...Bc5) which is longer and has a subsection of its own then for the love of all that is holy discuss the short part A first" - this goes back to the same issue we've discussed with Exchange Variation, right? But in this case for something that doesn't need its own section (although 9...Be7 definitely could get expanded further into its own section). There is a really an unfortunate clash of patterns where one antipattern (either less notable above more notable (A B1 B2 B3), or the B1 B2 B3 A patterning) sort of has to occur, it seems, thoughts? Dayshade (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@@Quale: Are you sure about removing the extra headers within Zaitsev? I'd prefer to keep them, since otherwise it feels like a wall of text (A diagram would help too, which I'll add), and now that they aren't fifth levels, there isn't an issue from that. Dayshade (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

1000% percent sure. I don't think the Zaitsev is a wall of text. In the decades before Twitter made people unable to digest text longer than 280 characters, us ancient folks called that mode of writing "paragraphs". There's a lot of things that should be obvious about good communication that apparently aren't because Wikipedia editors routinely ignore even basic principles.

Similar sections at the same nesting depth should have similar weight, breadth, and importance. Obviously subsections under Basics (if the article had any, such as Strategic aims for White, Strategic aims for Black, Tactics, etc.) would be broader than a section on a single variation. But when practical, subsections on variations should have roughly equal weight. The Zaitsev is important, but giving it four subsections on White's move 12 options when the Chigorin and Breyer have zero subsections is just too much visual weight. It's also very strange in this article to have subsections for subvariations that don't have names. If we put in subsections for move 12 options for every variation of the Ruy this article will be unreadable.

Generally I think that third level subsections in this article should be avoided. At first I was concerned about your reorganization of this article, but I've grown to appreciate it and want to do a little more polish in the same direction. If we want to go into enough detail about any variation that it requires more subsections that suggests to me that that detail should be spun out into a separate main article for the variation and a brief summary should be provided here. I like the work you did on the Schliemann, but 11 Schliemann subsections is at least 7 or 8 subsections too many. That gives the Schliemann 11 times the visual weight in the article as the Zaitsev (to be fair it was only 2.5 times before I removed the Zaitsev subsections), 11 times the visual weight of the Marshall Attack It gives the Schliemann 3.6 times the visual weight of the Berlin, and that's simply insane. Quale (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Probably I wrote too much in reply. Let me try something much simpler. It's very useful to consider the sections and subsections of an article to be an outline of the topic. Would a good outline of the Ruy be structured like this?

10 Berlin Defence: 3...Nf6

10.1 Main line: 4.0-0

10.2 Anti-Berlin: 4.d3

10.3 Other lines

11 Jaenisch Gambit: 3...f5

11.1 Dyckhoff Variation: 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 d5

11.1.1 Classical Variation: 6.Nxe5 dxe4 7.Nxc6 Qg5

11.1.2 Möhring Variation: 7...Qd5

11.1.3 Other lines

11.2 Tartakower Variation: 5...Nf6

11.3 Quiet Variation: 4.d3

11.4 Exchange Variation: 4.Bxc6

11.5 Schönemann Attack: 4.d4

11.6 Jaenisch Gambit Accepted: 4.exf5

11.7 Other lines

I hope I'm not spoiling it by revealing the answer is "no". Quale (talk) 06:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree it wouldn't be structured like that, but I guess I see it as more of an invitation to expand more in the other sections that don't have enough weight/a consequence of when splitting calls are made, but yeah, I definitely see the problem. Dayshade (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Right, sometimes the best way to fix article balance between topics of lesser and greater importance is to expand discussion of the topics of greater importance. Here I think a lot of expansion wouldn't work very well as this article is already rather long and I think it should remain a high-level survey. The discussion of the Zaitsev is probably slightly too detailed to fit comfortably. But I wouldn't remove it until I found a place for it in another article. Similarly, the sections on the Schliemann are also probably too much detail for this page. If the lines with greater importance were given proportionate treatment to the Schliemann, the article might grow to three to ten times its current size. A lot has been written about the Schliemann so I think it would be possible to give it its own standalone article and include more detail there. Quale (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

What else should be split? Probably the Open, idk about the Arkhangelsk. And yeah, the longness does concern me but you weren't a fan of splitting out Closed. But we can give a more abbreviated overview of the Closed lines here and keep other stuff in more detail on the split article. It's a bit funny/odd how Italian Game is very very split up but this article is the polar opposite. E.g. I'm inclined to merge Rousseau Gambit and Blackburne Shilling Gambit and Semi-Italian Opening (while adding some summarized info from Giuoco Piano and Two Knights Defence) into Italian Game. Dayshade (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Potentially any named variation could be split. I possibly wasn't clear on the issues I had with the split to Ruy Lopez, Closed Defence. I think that split is potentially fine, although it might be better to split selected individual variations such as the Chigorin and the Zaitsev. My concern wasn't what was in the Closed D. article, it's how much was completely excised from the main Ruy article. You completely erased any mention of the Zaitsev and Chigorin from this main article. I think the coverage of the Chigorin is barely sufficient for this main article now and it shouldn't be reduced. If we want to add more about the Chigorin it could go into a split article but we shouldn't impoverish coverage of it here. Personally I'm fine with relatively short split articles but I know if you split your nice contribution on the Schliemann to a standalone article some numbskull would tag it to be merged back into this article with an idiot rationale such as "topic will never become an FA". Some topics don't require FA-level coverage but are awkward to jam into parent articles as they can unbalance the coverage in the parent. The Schliemann is important but not that important compared to other lines in the Ruy and currently the Schliemann coverage is out of proportion to its minor importance in the Ruy as a whole. One solution is to beef up the discussion of more important lines and we definitely should do that, but I don't think making this article much longer would make it better. Instead the expanded coverage should go into split articles and there should be light trims to the Zaitsev and the Schliemann to keep the relative attention given to the lines in better proportion. The Arkhangelsk would be a good spinout as it could be expanded. Regarding the difference in treatment of variations of the Italian compared to other openings, you've stumbled across a historical oddity that I've seen noted by at least one chess writer. Old kings pawn openings were named as separate openings when today they might be considered variations. The opening names are well established so they aren't going away, but I see a definite trend with modern writers on openings to consider for example the Italian Game as a single opening encompassing the GP and the Two Knights as variations. Quale (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The theory is hard to read and follow because it has so much rambling about x player from x year playing x move. I wish the wikipedia article would stick to the opening theory and if they have interesting tangent information to talk about behind a move, link the source and put it under 'Further reading'. It's like, Ok, dumbledorf from 1869 played the move and won 5 games in a row with it. So what? It's 2025 now. This isn't the movie 'searching for Bobby Fischer', this is an article about a chess opening, can't we just give usable and factual information? Danielkirk2023 (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

We're not here to give advice or even reflect "correct" analysis according to the chess engines, we just report what has been previously published. Basically unless it has been published before, it shouldn't be on wikipedia. With this in mind, historical information is relevant. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne2: An aside - is there any version of explaining why 4.Ba4 is the best retreat that you wouldn't object to? I think it's nice to note why 4.Bc4 is a mistake (which is why it's not mentioned in books, even though it's only a slight inaccuracy according to the engine, because why wouldn't a player just play the Italian instead if 4.Bc4 is their retreat plan?). Dayshade (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

If you can source it go ahead. Yeah 3.Bc4 is obviously better than 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bc4 because "common sense" etc, but is this mentioned in any reliable sources? If not, we don't need to mention it either. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I can look for something although I'm not confident I have any sources that address 4.Bc4. The Opening Game in Chess (Pachman, 1982 English translation of Eröffnungs-praxis im Schach, 1076), has some discussion near this point but not precisely about it. Page 74 says, "Usually after 3...a6 White plays 4.Ba4." Pachman mentions that Black can play 4...b5 to drive the white bishop to b3, the same diagonal it occupies in the Italian, but that this move is rarely played. Pachman notes that the bishop is safer on b3 than on c4 because it is protected by pawns if Black plays ...Na5 and it is not subject to attack if Black plays ...d5. He then gives a continuation in which Black plays in an Italian style with 4...b5 5.Bb3 Bc5 6.c3 Nf6 7.d4 exd4 8.cxd4 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Nbxd2 d5 11.e5! as White's bishop is not attacked. Quale (talk) 10:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

There's also a strong possibility that some of the games with 4.Bc4 (e.g. Polgar-Beliavsky 1991) have been misrecorded, since Beliavsky seemingly didn't take advantage of the extra move and just transposed into a standard ...b5 Bb3 line. To me it is more plausible that Polgar actually played 4.Ba4. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I've actually found a source, Chernev's Logical Chess Move by Move (1957), in his notes to game No. 9, Znosko-Borovsky - Mackenzie, Weston-Super-Mare, 1924. This book, aimed at improving beginners, makes a point of annotating every single move. To Znosko-Borovsky's 4.Ba4 the note is:

"This is in the spirit of the opening as it maintains pressure on the Knight. The alternative withdrawal to B4 (i.e. c4) is inferior, as White could have reached that position in three moves instead of four."

Having said that, I'm still not inclined to add it to the article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Most of my friends that I've shown opening articles to seem to quite like the history stuff. Is there any specific part of the article you find particularly objectionable? Dayshade (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the desire to have a good reference to current opening lines, but as Max says that isn't the purpose of Wikipedia. Even if WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE material was allowed, Wikipedia isn't really the best place. Better would be an Internet chess site such as Lichess since you really want integration with a games database and chess engine. Quale (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I think we def shouldn't be recommending specific lines, but we can still add more about commonly played lines and have something for everyone's purposes. And yes, lichess analysis (or lichess openings), or chess.com (click "explore" in the upper right of a chess.com game analysis to see the opening database) are great for this, Daniel. Dayshade (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Like, I would say that policy is more getting at that Wikipedia shouldn't be giving recommendations, not that it can't list the theoretical/common lines, common mistakes, etc. Dayshade (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Using an online database and then writing "most common is", "White usually plays", "Black usually plays" on wikipedia is in fact the very definition of original research. This was very clear when you thought it necessary to mention 4.Bc4, a move so obviously inferior that no opening book bothers to mention it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Something something WP:PRIMARY something something. Gotta add those citations to my PDF books though. Just so hard to get motivated since it feels like there's so much more important work to be done on other opening articles. At least I added one. Dayshade (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

"4. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's why you don't see it in top level games anymore. It's been analyzed to death and all the main lines are draws. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes. So, for example, I saw a lower rated White player allowing Magnus to play it, who then played a Breyer instead. Dayshade (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2026 (UTC)