Talk:Ruy Lopez, Exchange Variation

message: Is 5. 0-0 called the Barendregt Variation, as this page states, or the Barengt, as the main article Ruy Lopez states? Whom is it named after? 91.105.62.211 (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's named after the late Dutch IM Johannes Barendregt. Hushpuckena (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had never heard the main line 5.O-O called the "Barendregt Variation" before I came across this article. The term appears to originate in Fischer's 60 Memorable Games, where Evans states in the intro to Fischer-Gligoric "...(the line)... was promptly dubbed 'The Fischer Variation.' Of course, sticklers will insist that it should be called the Fischer continuation of the Barendregt Variation." In his notes Fischer says "The text was favored by Emanuel Lasker, Bernstein and also, in recent years, by the Dutch master Barendregt". The term "Barendregt Variation" does not appear to be in common use, nor does it appear to be historically justified given that 5.O-O has been common since the 19th century. . I propose simply calling the section 5.O-O without giving the variation any specific name. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK found an earlier reference, Robert Byrne proposed the name, I don't see any evidence that it has been widely adopted outside of Chess Life magazine.  - "This form of the Exchange Variation of fhe Ruy Lopez was certainly not played first by the Dutch master Barendregt, but I think it can quite reasonably be named after him because of his revival of it with some key nuances vital to its employment." MaxBrowne (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the name has been used when discussing Fischer's use of the line, with some commentators suggesting that it be named the Fischer Variation instead of the Barendregt.  Barendregt gets a mention in My 60 Memorable Games where Fischer writes in the notes to Fischer–Gligorich, Havana 1966: "5. O-O! ... The text was favored by Emanuel Lasker, Bernstein and also, in recent years, by the Dutch master Barendregt."  This is perhaps most notable as a rare example of Fischer getting his chess history wrong, since Lasker never played this line.  Quale (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Chessgames.com he did: E. Lasker vs. James Mortimer, London 1892. --IHTS (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, shows what I know.  Apparently Lasker favored 5.0-0 for the mighty James Mortimer, but instead used 5.d4, 5.Nf3 and 5.d3 for lesser opponents such as Capablanca, Steinitz, Tarrasch, Bogoljubov, Teichmann and Marshall. (Kidding, of course. I was wrong, I didn't know Lasker had played 5.0-0 Lasker playing C68 as White on chessgames.com) Quale (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Added . Thx. --IHTS (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Barendregt"? 

message: It's never been played by any strong players as yet so is definitely not worth a mention in the article but after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dc 5. Qe2 delaying castling and contemplating castling queenside is a practical idea which players of this line might like to try.
It's been played a lot by amateurs on the Internet Chess Club and is vaguely known as the American variation.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 17:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  An idea 

message: Yes, but can't White survive by giving back the piece with 8.g3? (Granted, probably not fun to play with an open h-file aimed at you after 8...gxf3 9.Qxf3 Qd7.) Double sharp (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "If the knight moves, 8...Qh4 threatens checkmate" 

message: 2409:408A:3E98:AC3B:0:0:E4C8:1808 (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruy Lopez theory