
{| style="float: right; margin-right: 1em;" | |} The Ruy Lopez, sometimes known as the Spanish Game, is a chess opening characterised by the moves 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 (in algebraic notation). The Ruy Lopez has such a vast number of variants that in the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings all codes from C60 to C99 are assigned to them. ==History== The opening is named after the 16th century Spanish priest Rúy López de Segura (pronounced ROOee LOpeth). He made a systematic study of this and other openings in a 150-page book on chess written in 1561 (which also included some more esoteric suggestions, such as setting up the board so the sun shines in one's opponent's eyes). However, although it is named after him, this particular opening was known earlier; it is included in the Göttingen manuscript, which dates from 1490. Popular use of the Ruy Lopez opening did not develop, however, until the mid 1800s when Jaenisch, a Russian theoretician, "rediscovered" its potential. The opening is still in active use as the double king's pawn opening most commonly used in master play; it has been adopted by almost all players at some point in their careers. ==Basics== At the most basic level, White's third move attacks the knight which defends the e5 pawn from the attack by the f3 knight. It should be noted that White's apparent threat to win Black's e-pawn with 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.Nxe5 is illusory — Black can respond with 5...Qd4, fork (chess)ing the knight and e4-pawn, and winning back the material with a good position. 3.Bb5 is still a good move, however: it develops a piece, prepares castling, and sets up a potential pin (chess) against Black's king. However, since White's third move carries no immediate threat, Black can respond in a wide variety of ways. ==3...a6 (Morphy Defence)== By far the most commonly seen is 3...a6 (the Morphy Defence), when the game can take a number of paths. In a few notable games, Bobby Fischer played the Exchange Variation — 4.Bxc6 — with White; the normal follow-up to this is 4...dxc6 5.O-O f6, although there are alternatives. The Exchange Variation, however, is generally considered to not present enough difficulties for Black. ===Main Line=== In the main line, White normally retreats his bishop with 4.Ba4. The normal continuation is now 4...Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 (again, there are reasonable alternatives for both sides). Now 7...d6 8.c3 O-O 9.h3 (preventing 9...Bg4, which can be awkward for White) is the so-called "closed" Ruy Lopez, which can be considered the main line of the opening. Many hundreds of top-level games have reached this position. Black has a variety of choices here, the most commonly played options being 9...Na5 (the ''Chigorin'' variation, freeing the pawn to go to c5), 9...Nb8 (the ''Breyer'' variation, rerouting the knight to d7) and 9...Bb7 (the ''Zaitsev'' variation). An alternative to 7...d6 is 7...Bb7. This is known as the Trajkovic variation. Black may sacrifice a pawn with 8. c3 d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Rxe5 Nf4 === The Marshall Counter-Gambit, Worrall Attack and Open Variation=== One of Black's more aggressive alternatives is the Marshall Counter-Gambit: after 3...a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3 Black plays 8...d5, sacrificing a pawn with 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5. In exchange, Black has an attack on White's king: 11...c6 12.d4 Bd6 13.Re1 Qh4. This attack can be quite treacherous for White. In game 8 of the World Championship in 2004 between Vladimir Kramnik and Péter Lékó, Kramnik succumbed to Black's attack. A number of anti-Marshall systems have been developed, such as 8.a4 (instead of 8.c3). An earlier alternative for White is 6.Qe2 (instead of 6.Re1), the ''Worrall Attack''. The idea is that the queen will support the e-pawn, while the rook slides across to d1 to support the advance of the d-pawn (there isn't always time for this to happen, however). Paul Keres played the line several times. More recently, Sergei Tiviakov has played it, as has Nigel Short, who played it twice in his 1992 match against Anatoly Karpov and won both games. A black alternative is 5...Nxe4 (instead of 5...Be7), the ''Open Variation''. It should be noted that Black cannot safely hang onto the pawn — play usually continues 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 and material balance is restored. This is a sharper line than many others in which Black has more freedom for his pieces than the closed variations. The variation has been adopted by a number of players, perhaps most notably by Viktor Korchnoi. ===Arkhangelsk and Norwegian Variation === The Arkhangelsk Variation(ECO C78) was invented by Soviet theoreticians in the city of Arkhangelsk. The variation will often lead to sharp positions. White has several options which include building an ideal pawn center with c3 and d4, defending the the epawn with Re1 or simply developing. The notation follows after 3...a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5 0-0 b5 6.Bb3. The Norwegian Variation, also called the Wing Variation, is an agressive but time consuming alternative for Black. The game follows 3...a6 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 Na5. The goal of the opening is to eliminate the white bishop. A speculative sacrifice is now 6.Bxf7+?!, which drives the black king out, but with accurate play, Black is supposed to be able to consolidate his extra piece. ==The Berlin and other defences== Alternatives for black on move three are less often seen, although Vladimir Kramnik successfully used the ''Berlin Defence'' (3...Nf6) as a drawing variation against Garry Kasparov in their 2000 World Championship match. Other defences include the ''Steinitz'' (3...d6), the ''Schliemann'' (3...f5), the ''Cozio'' (3...Nge7), the ''Smyslov'' (3...g6), the ''Bird'' (3...Nd4) and the ''Classical'' (3...Bc5). Chess openings
Re: The Blind Shiekh Its a rather sad day when someone cannot describe someone as a terrorist (when he was convicted of such an act) because it is considered non-neutral. That is political correctness gone crazy. I won't change the article back, or become embroiled in petty squabbling over it, except to say that I am disappointed in you for having been brainwashed by the political correctness police. I would be willing to tolerate a discussion on Osama bin Laden as being considered a "freedom fighter" by Islamicists, but not being able to label the Blind Shiekh a terrorist?!?!?! The Shiekh is and will remain a terrorist in my mind, and in the minds of the majority of people.... ==Placeholders== Hi! Just so you know, extremely short articles that are little more than placeholders for external links are candidates for speedy deletion. Thanks. - User:Lucky 6.9 01:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Looks better. Thanks for fixing it! Might have to look at that site closer just for the heck of it. Just when you thought every variation of a Wiki site had come along...there's Anarchopedia!! Have a terrific weekend. - User:Lucky 6.9 01:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Anarchopedia == See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anarchopedia. As an article that was VfD'd, it can be speedy-deleted if recreated. -- User:Curps 17:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==User:Xed== Are you the same person as the banned user Xed? User:Rad Racer 02:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Osama bin Laden== Hi Ruy, I saw you made this edit to the intro: "Privately, he has attended weddings with family members and kept in contact with his mother." Could you supply a reference for this please? I've looked around for one, but can't find anything. Many thanks, User:SlimVirgin 06:46, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC) :Thanks for your reply. I wouldn't delete anything from Wikipedia that was accurate or properly referenced. The references you gave don't support the edit you made, that's the problem. "He has attended weddings with family members." So far as is known, he has not attended any since September 11. The one wedding your link [http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/House-Of-Bin-Laden12sep02.htm] referred to (though it did not make this clear) was in January 2001. And he has "kept in contact with his mother." Again, so far as is known, there was a telephone call from someone to the mother just after 9/11 saying that bin Laden was alive, according to one of his brothers [http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/03/18]; and then according to (as I recall) Vincent Cannistraro, the mother was sent once to meet him by the Saudi govt as an emissary after 9/11 to ask what bin Laden's intentions were toward the Saudis. The sentence does need to be rewritten to reflect what the references say. Do you agree with that? User:SlimVirgin 05:39, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC) ::I really don't care. Wikipedia is controlled by people of a particular political slant, including Jimbo Wales, and I gave up months ago on the idea that it's articles will contain anything contrary to what its commissars will allow, I've moved on to other wiki's for the most part. The article says he was disowned by his family in 1994 - yet he attended a wedding with family members in 2001. You have just said he met his mother after 9/11. The references to this which you said you couldn't find I found within a couple of seconds. Both of these stories which are buried in the news's back pages contradict the story that his family disowned him after 1994, which is still constantly repeated on the news, on American television anyhow. But as I said, I am through with worrying about Wikipedia articles. You obviously want to wipe this out, and I don't care. I am not going to waste hours digging up references to (attempt to) prevent you from removing this. It's obvious Wikipedia has an editorial slant, and these facts contradict the lie that Osama was disowned after 9/11. So remove them if that's your desire. I'm not spending any more time than the few minutes I already have on this. This discussion is over - do what you want. User:Ruy Lopez 17:21, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) I'm sorry you feel that way. I won't bother you with it again, but just want to point out that the references I said I couldn't find, were references that supported your edit. And I still haven't found them. User:SlimVirgin 17:24, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC) == Weathermen == If it was just a rumour, I agree with the removal rather than qualifying it as "speculation" or similar wording. Thanks. — User:Saxifrage | User talk:Saxifrage 18:54, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC) Your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weathermen&curid=33984&diff=0&oldid=0 recent reversions] without discussion on the talk page are in violation of your Arbitration. Please use the talk page for its intended purpose and stop abusing the edit summary. — User:Saxifrage | User talk:Saxifrage 21:28, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) == American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property == Hi, can you cite sources for your addition to The Vagina Monologues that the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property ''"has connections with Latin American death squads"''. It seems logical to me that if they ''did'' have connections to death squads (latin or otherwise) its the kind of thing they might keep quite secret. Cheerio, User:AnnaAniston 05:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Republican text== User:Meelar User talk:Meelar 01:52, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) ---- If you do anything like that again I will report you for vandalism and ask that you be blocked. User:Adam Carr 06:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) == hola == Thanks for your help with Pablo Neruda. I suspect the battle isn't over yet. -- User:Viajero 21:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Removing facts from Wikipedia == Please do not remove facts from Wikipedia to suit your POV. The world, strangely, isn't that black-and-white and neither your edits will make it so. User:Pavel Vozenilek 02:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) : Seeing more of your recent activity I asked for block on you. Most of your contributions are highly biased POV, always get reverted yet you do not seem to be bothered by this at all. This behaviour doesn't bring anything useful to Wikipedia, only chaos and more work for people on RC check. If you really feel the urge to create your own verion of the world, please fork the Wikipedia or join some other online encyclopedia. User:Pavel Vozenilek 02:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) :: I agree you are deliberately POVing articles to suit your own personal opinion.--User:198 06:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::Hi again :) Just figured I'd you that I reverted here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vyacheslav_Molotov&diff=0&oldid=12911017]--User:198 02:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==List of Stalinists== Could you take a look at the list as it has developed since vfd and reconsider your vote? User:Gazpacho 01:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC) ==Wikipedia== Sorry for the late reply. Thanks for the comments! I've been beginning to notice a lot of the patters that you bring up. There are quite a few contributors willing to work toward neutrality, though. BTW, please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Trey Stone. User:WebLuis 01:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC) == Vyacheslav Molotov == I don't compromise with Communists--User:198 02:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC) :I came up with a compromise so-to speak with Humus ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vyacheslav_Molotov&diff=13813330&oldid=13813131]), mind you I don't want to compromise with you, I'm only willing to deal with Humus and I hope you are willing to accept his version. Mind you Ruy I founght in 'Nam against Commies like you (and there's some stuff I did I ain't proud of that I did in Hue (city)); nonetheless I'd be glad to fight commies again (especially in Nepal or Russia).--User:198 03:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC) ==Khmer Rouge== I also don't compromise with Communists, particularly ones who front for the mass murderers of the Khmer Rouge. You may fool Rangek, who appears not to know much about Cambodia, but you don't fool me. User:Adam Carr 00:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC) :The Royal Governement and Khmer Rouge were allies; Sihanouk was as much of a commie as you are. Look at my current revision on Khmer Rouge [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khmer_Rouge&diff=0&oldid=13997414], frankly the only truly democratic non-communist leader was Lon Nol--User:198 23:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC) Well, no, Sihanouk was not a commie. See the KR talk page. User:Adam Carr 00:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC) What are you doing? What the heck are FUNK, CPNLAF and GRUNK? This article is about Khmer Rouge, not these other terms. User:RickKUser talk:RickK 05:22, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC) ==VFD page== Hi. We haven't interacted yet, but I've seen your work and you seem to be one of the more influential progressive contributors on this site... You might find this page on the VfD interesting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/New_College_Democrats] This is an article on a Democratic organization affliated with the socialist United for Peace and Justice umbrella. While I doubt that you are too impressed by the Democratic Party in the U.S., perhaps you may be interested in voting to keep this article, as it is the only organ of one of the two mainstream parties in this country officially taking on a progressive, socialist orientation. (The vote's real close now so I'm looking for support.) Thanks. User:JMaxwell 18:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Vietnam Medal Template Images== Please be careful about mass deleting images without discussing it first. Your huge alteration to Template:VietnamWarMedals affected Awards and decorations of the United States military. I changed the template name in repsonse to your concern about north and south medals. I have no opinion if you want to remove the template from Vietnam War. Just please don't change the template itself as this affects other articles. Also, if you are concerned about North Vietnam medals, please visit Military decorations of the Cold War. There is a section over there that needs writing. -User:Husnock 02:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Hi== Thanks for the comments. From looking at some of the discussion threads, especially the Khmer Rouge page, I'm beginning to notice some of the things that you are noting. It's a shame that things are the way they are here, since you seem to have been doing so much good work. So I'll have to ake a look at Anarchopedia. User:JMaxwell 21:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) == North Vietnamese victory == In your edit of Vietnam War, you wrote: :North Vietnamese victory? What about the NLF? To which it might be noted that it was uniformed troops of the North Vietnamese regular armed forces who occupied Saigon and received the surrender of Big Minh, and it was the government of North Vietnam that subsequently suppressed the South Vietnamese insurgents following the capitulation of the South. Moreover, despite public protestations to the contrary, it was North Vietnam—not the NLF or any other "local" revolutionaries—that initiated and controlled the action of NLF partisans throughout the duration of the conflict.
However, because I can see how a good-faith argument exists to name the NLF and/or other South Vietnamese revolutionary groups as at least co-victors, I changed the wording of the appropriate sentence to mostly avoid the issue. —User:Ryanaxp 20:47, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC) : The idea that the DRV initiated resistance in southern Vietnam is absurd. If anything, the DRV in the first years of its existence tried to get the southern communists and nationalists to lay low while it was busy shoring up its new government. The DRV was especially adamant to not engage in armed resistance. From 1954 until at earliest 1959, the southern communists and nationalists were always chomping at the bit to resist Diem, while the DRV was urging caution. By 1959-1960, the situation for communists and nationalists in the south had reached what was perceived to be a dire level, and the DRV had firmed itself up, and at this point the DRV stopped trying to rein in the southern communists and nationalists. The initiative was in the south, where it always was. : As far as the surrender of Minh, when I look at this picture[http://www.fallofsaigon.org/tanks02.gif] of the tank smashing through the presidental palace gates in Saigon, I see an NLF flag, not a DRV one. I would agree that after over twenty years of being shot at by the ARVN, US Army, and Phoenix Program operatives, so many PLAF soldiers had been killed that the PAVN/PLAF ratio changed. Nevertheless, as that picture shows, the NLF was given the honor of taking the palace, and an NLF flag was flown from the palace. No one received Duong Van Minh's surrender, Minh was told he had no connection with the Republic of South Vietnam and he had no authority to surrender anything. User:Ruy Lopez 21:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia has decent articles on scientific topics such as quantum mechanics, but as far as political and historical articles it is hopelessly biased, and in my opinion will always remain so. The primary reason for this is embedded in the question, who runs Wikipedia? The answer is the millionaire Ayn Rand devotee Jimbo Wales, and to a lesser extent his various lieutenants. Also, Wikipedia contributors are English-speaking and have access to the Internet, and those two things alone already make the majority of people contributing here part of the world elite, especially if one considers half of the people on earth have never made a telephone call. Contributions to articles like the History of Brazil from this group are modifications on an history summary which was originally written by the U.S. State Department, as all of the country history articles on Wikipedia are. Wikipedia may look open and mutable at first, but it is not. Most people learn this the hard way, get discouraged and stop contributing to wiki encyclopedias altogether. I am/was very involved in Wikipedia over the past year, and say this from experience. Hopefully the painful frustration around this discovery will not prevent people from contributing to wiki encyclopedias other than Wikipedia. Unfortunately, most people begin getting frustrated, think they can beat the system, then disappear from Wikipedia and every other wiki encyclopedia altogether, which is unfortunate. Even Wikipedia administrators like User:172 and User:Secretlondon have been badgered off of Wikipedia, not to mention a host of users. While Wikipedia itself will always be the way it is, articles are licensed under the GFDL, which is one positive thing. Unfortunately, most of the articles are garbage. Even the well-written articles have other people come in later and introduce the same bias you can find in the corporate media. It is like gold surrounded by dung. If I transfer a Wikipedia article to another wiki, I almost always use an old version of it, before people came in and started modifying it. Good wikis to check out are: *[http://eng.anarchopedia.org Anarchopedia] - a general wiki with an anarchist bent (and run in an anarchic fashion) *Red Wiki - a general wiki with a somewhat socialist and Marxist bent *dKosopedia - a "left/progressive/liberal/Democratic" wiki *Demopedia - the "liberal/progressive" Democratic Underground's wiki *Sourcewatch - a good progressive wiki with a focus on think tanks, lobbyists, public relations firms and so forth I urge you to contribute to these wikis for historical, political, economic and other such subjects, as Wikipedia is hopeless for these topics. The views reflect the owners, which is as it almost always is. Thus, you will feel better building the new society within the shell of the old in these other places, where you will be part of a welcoming instead of hostile community. And of course, especially since Wikipedia uses the GFDL, continue to contribute to pages on the Brontosaurus and such, but realize that Wikipedia will always have biased historical articles, and trying to fight it is pointless, the deck is stacked against you. We'll write our history on these wikis, the conservatives will write theirs on Wikipedia and other wikis, and that's how it is.
== pronunciation == hey, can anyone tell me how the name Ruy is pronounced in English? -User:Lethe | User talk:Lethe I'd pronounce it "roo-ey" User:GCarty 11:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) The British say rooey, Americans say roy, and Spanish say something in between.
Ruy López could refer to one of several things: * Ruy López de Segura, 16th century Spanish priest and early chess master * Ruy López de Villalobos, 16th century Spanish navigator * Ruy Lopez Opening, A popular chess opening, also known as the "Spanish"
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Ruy_Lopez:
Ruy_Lopez
Ruy_Lopez
Ruy_Lopez
Ruy_Lopez
Ruy_López
Ruy_Lopez/Arbitration_election_endorsements
Ruy_Lopez_de_Segura
Ruy_López_de_Segura
Rúy_López_de_Segura
Ruy_Lopez_de_Villalobos
Ruy_López_de_Villalobos
Ruy_Lopez_Opening
Ruy Lopez
{| style="float: right; margin-right: 1em;" | |} The Ruy Lopez, sometimes known as the Spanish Game, is a chess opening characterised by the moves 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 (in algebraic notation). The Ruy Lopez has such a vast number of variants that in the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings all codes from C60 to C99 are assigned to them. ==History== The opening is named after the 16th century Spanish priest Rúy López de Segura (pronounced ROOee LOpeth). He made a systematic study of this and other openings in a 150-page book on chess written in 1561 (which also included some more esoteric suggestions, such as setting up the board so the sun shines in one's opponent's eyes). However, although it is named after him, this particular opening was known earlier; it is included in the Göttingen manuscript, which dates from 1490. Popular use of the Ruy Lopez opening did not develop, however, until the mid 1800s when Jaenisch, a Russian theoretician, "rediscovered" its potential. The opening is still in active use as the double king's pawn opening most commonly used in master play; it has been adopted by almost all players at some point in their careers. ==Basics== At the most basic level, White's third move attacks the knight which defends the e5 pawn from the attack by the f3 knight. It should be noted that White's apparent threat to win Black's e-pawn with 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.Nxe5 is illusory — Black can respond with 5...Qd4, fork (chess)ing the knight and e4-pawn, and winning back the material with a good position. 3.Bb5 is still a good move, however: it develops a piece, prepares castling, and sets up a potential pin (chess) against Black's king. However, since White's third move carries no immediate threat, Black can respond in a wide variety of ways. ==3...a6 (Morphy Defence)== By far the most commonly seen is 3...a6 (the Morphy Defence), when the game can take a number of paths. In a few notable games, Bobby Fischer played the Exchange Variation — 4.Bxc6 — with White; the normal follow-up to this is 4...dxc6 5.O-O f6, although there are alternatives. The Exchange Variation, however, is generally considered to not present enough difficulties for Black. ===Main Line=== In the main line, White normally retreats his bishop with 4.Ba4. The normal continuation is now 4...Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 (again, there are reasonable alternatives for both sides). Now 7...d6 8.c3 O-O 9.h3 (preventing 9...Bg4, which can be awkward for White) is the so-called "closed" Ruy Lopez, which can be considered the main line of the opening. Many hundreds of top-level games have reached this position. Black has a variety of choices here, the most commonly played options being 9...Na5 (the ''Chigorin'' variation, freeing the pawn to go to c5), 9...Nb8 (the ''Breyer'' variation, rerouting the knight to d7) and 9...Bb7 (the ''Zaitsev'' variation). An alternative to 7...d6 is 7...Bb7. This is known as the Trajkovic variation. Black may sacrifice a pawn with 8. c3 d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Rxe5 Nf4 === The Marshall Counter-Gambit, Worrall Attack and Open Variation=== One of Black's more aggressive alternatives is the Marshall Counter-Gambit: after 3...a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3 Black plays 8...d5, sacrificing a pawn with 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5. In exchange, Black has an attack on White's king: 11...c6 12.d4 Bd6 13.Re1 Qh4. This attack can be quite treacherous for White. In game 8 of the World Championship in 2004 between Vladimir Kramnik and Péter Lékó, Kramnik succumbed to Black's attack. A number of anti-Marshall systems have been developed, such as 8.a4 (instead of 8.c3). An earlier alternative for White is 6.Qe2 (instead of 6.Re1), the ''Worrall Attack''. The idea is that the queen will support the e-pawn, while the rook slides across to d1 to support the advance of the d-pawn (there isn't always time for this to happen, however). Paul Keres played the line several times. More recently, Sergei Tiviakov has played it, as has Nigel Short, who played it twice in his 1992 match against Anatoly Karpov and won both games. A black alternative is 5...Nxe4 (instead of 5...Be7), the ''Open Variation''. It should be noted that Black cannot safely hang onto the pawn — play usually continues 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 and material balance is restored. This is a sharper line than many others in which Black has more freedom for his pieces than the closed variations. The variation has been adopted by a number of players, perhaps most notably by Viktor Korchnoi. ===Arkhangelsk and Norwegian Variation === The Arkhangelsk Variation(ECO C78) was invented by Soviet theoreticians in the city of Arkhangelsk. The variation will often lead to sharp positions. White has several options which include building an ideal pawn center with c3 and d4, defending the the epawn with Re1 or simply developing. The notation follows after 3...a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5 0-0 b5 6.Bb3. The Norwegian Variation, also called the Wing Variation, is an agressive but time consuming alternative for Black. The game follows 3...a6 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 Na5. The goal of the opening is to eliminate the white bishop. A speculative sacrifice is now 6.Bxf7+?!, which drives the black king out, but with accurate play, Black is supposed to be able to consolidate his extra piece. ==The Berlin and other defences== Alternatives for black on move three are less often seen, although Vladimir Kramnik successfully used the ''Berlin Defence'' (3...Nf6) as a drawing variation against Garry Kasparov in their 2000 World Championship match. Other defences include the ''Steinitz'' (3...d6), the ''Schliemann'' (3...f5), the ''Cozio'' (3...Nge7), the ''Smyslov'' (3...g6), the ''Bird'' (3...Nd4) and the ''Classical'' (3...Bc5). Chess openings
Ruy Lopez
Re: The Blind Shiekh Its a rather sad day when someone cannot describe someone as a terrorist (when he was convicted of such an act) because it is considered non-neutral. That is political correctness gone crazy. I won't change the article back, or become embroiled in petty squabbling over it, except to say that I am disappointed in you for having been brainwashed by the political correctness police. I would be willing to tolerate a discussion on Osama bin Laden as being considered a "freedom fighter" by Islamicists, but not being able to label the Blind Shiekh a terrorist?!?!?! The Shiekh is and will remain a terrorist in my mind, and in the minds of the majority of people.... ==Placeholders== Hi! Just so you know, extremely short articles that are little more than placeholders for external links are candidates for speedy deletion. Thanks. - User:Lucky 6.9 01:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Looks better. Thanks for fixing it! Might have to look at that site closer just for the heck of it. Just when you thought every variation of a Wiki site had come along...there's Anarchopedia!! Have a terrific weekend. - User:Lucky 6.9 01:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Anarchopedia == See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anarchopedia. As an article that was VfD'd, it can be speedy-deleted if recreated. -- User:Curps 17:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==User:Xed== Are you the same person as the banned user Xed? User:Rad Racer 02:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Osama bin Laden== Hi Ruy, I saw you made this edit to the intro: "Privately, he has attended weddings with family members and kept in contact with his mother." Could you supply a reference for this please? I've looked around for one, but can't find anything. Many thanks, User:SlimVirgin 06:46, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC) :Thanks for your reply. I wouldn't delete anything from Wikipedia that was accurate or properly referenced. The references you gave don't support the edit you made, that's the problem. "He has attended weddings with family members." So far as is known, he has not attended any since September 11. The one wedding your link [http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/House-Of-Bin-Laden12sep02.htm] referred to (though it did not make this clear) was in January 2001. And he has "kept in contact with his mother." Again, so far as is known, there was a telephone call from someone to the mother just after 9/11 saying that bin Laden was alive, according to one of his brothers [http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/03/18]; and then according to (as I recall) Vincent Cannistraro, the mother was sent once to meet him by the Saudi govt as an emissary after 9/11 to ask what bin Laden's intentions were toward the Saudis. The sentence does need to be rewritten to reflect what the references say. Do you agree with that? User:SlimVirgin 05:39, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC) ::I really don't care. Wikipedia is controlled by people of a particular political slant, including Jimbo Wales, and I gave up months ago on the idea that it's articles will contain anything contrary to what its commissars will allow, I've moved on to other wiki's for the most part. The article says he was disowned by his family in 1994 - yet he attended a wedding with family members in 2001. You have just said he met his mother after 9/11. The references to this which you said you couldn't find I found within a couple of seconds. Both of these stories which are buried in the news's back pages contradict the story that his family disowned him after 1994, which is still constantly repeated on the news, on American television anyhow. But as I said, I am through with worrying about Wikipedia articles. You obviously want to wipe this out, and I don't care. I am not going to waste hours digging up references to (attempt to) prevent you from removing this. It's obvious Wikipedia has an editorial slant, and these facts contradict the lie that Osama was disowned after 9/11. So remove them if that's your desire. I'm not spending any more time than the few minutes I already have on this. This discussion is over - do what you want. User:Ruy Lopez 17:21, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) I'm sorry you feel that way. I won't bother you with it again, but just want to point out that the references I said I couldn't find, were references that supported your edit. And I still haven't found them. User:SlimVirgin 17:24, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC) == Weathermen == If it was just a rumour, I agree with the removal rather than qualifying it as "speculation" or similar wording. Thanks. — User:Saxifrage | User talk:Saxifrage 18:54, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC) Your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weathermen&curid=33984&diff=0&oldid=0 recent reversions] without discussion on the talk page are in violation of your Arbitration. Please use the talk page for its intended purpose and stop abusing the edit summary. — User:Saxifrage | User talk:Saxifrage 21:28, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) == American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property == Hi, can you cite sources for your addition to The Vagina Monologues that the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property ''"has connections with Latin American death squads"''. It seems logical to me that if they ''did'' have connections to death squads (latin or otherwise) its the kind of thing they might keep quite secret. Cheerio, User:AnnaAniston 05:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Republican text== User:Meelar User talk:Meelar 01:52, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) ---- If you do anything like that again I will report you for vandalism and ask that you be blocked. User:Adam Carr 06:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) == hola == Thanks for your help with Pablo Neruda. I suspect the battle isn't over yet. -- User:Viajero 21:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Removing facts from Wikipedia == Please do not remove facts from Wikipedia to suit your POV. The world, strangely, isn't that black-and-white and neither your edits will make it so. User:Pavel Vozenilek 02:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) : Seeing more of your recent activity I asked for block on you. Most of your contributions are highly biased POV, always get reverted yet you do not seem to be bothered by this at all. This behaviour doesn't bring anything useful to Wikipedia, only chaos and more work for people on RC check. If you really feel the urge to create your own verion of the world, please fork the Wikipedia or join some other online encyclopedia. User:Pavel Vozenilek 02:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) :: I agree you are deliberately POVing articles to suit your own personal opinion.--User:198 06:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::Hi again :) Just figured I'd you that I reverted here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vyacheslav_Molotov&diff=0&oldid=12911017]--User:198 02:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==List of Stalinists== Could you take a look at the list as it has developed since vfd and reconsider your vote? User:Gazpacho 01:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC) ==Wikipedia== Sorry for the late reply. Thanks for the comments! I've been beginning to notice a lot of the patters that you bring up. There are quite a few contributors willing to work toward neutrality, though. BTW, please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Trey Stone. User:WebLuis 01:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC) == Vyacheslav Molotov == I don't compromise with Communists--User:198 02:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC) :I came up with a compromise so-to speak with Humus ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vyacheslav_Molotov&diff=13813330&oldid=13813131]), mind you I don't want to compromise with you, I'm only willing to deal with Humus and I hope you are willing to accept his version. Mind you Ruy I founght in 'Nam against Commies like you (and there's some stuff I did I ain't proud of that I did in Hue (city)); nonetheless I'd be glad to fight commies again (especially in Nepal or Russia).--User:198 03:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC) ==Khmer Rouge== I also don't compromise with Communists, particularly ones who front for the mass murderers of the Khmer Rouge. You may fool Rangek, who appears not to know much about Cambodia, but you don't fool me. User:Adam Carr 00:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC) :The Royal Governement and Khmer Rouge were allies; Sihanouk was as much of a commie as you are. Look at my current revision on Khmer Rouge [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khmer_Rouge&diff=0&oldid=13997414], frankly the only truly democratic non-communist leader was Lon Nol--User:198 23:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC) Well, no, Sihanouk was not a commie. See the KR talk page. User:Adam Carr 00:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC) What are you doing? What the heck are FUNK, CPNLAF and GRUNK? This article is about Khmer Rouge, not these other terms. User:RickKUser talk:RickK 05:22, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC) ==VFD page== Hi. We haven't interacted yet, but I've seen your work and you seem to be one of the more influential progressive contributors on this site... You might find this page on the VfD interesting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/New_College_Democrats] This is an article on a Democratic organization affliated with the socialist United for Peace and Justice umbrella. While I doubt that you are too impressed by the Democratic Party in the U.S., perhaps you may be interested in voting to keep this article, as it is the only organ of one of the two mainstream parties in this country officially taking on a progressive, socialist orientation. (The vote's real close now so I'm looking for support.) Thanks. User:JMaxwell 18:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Vietnam Medal Template Images== Please be careful about mass deleting images without discussing it first. Your huge alteration to Template:VietnamWarMedals affected Awards and decorations of the United States military. I changed the template name in repsonse to your concern about north and south medals. I have no opinion if you want to remove the template from Vietnam War. Just please don't change the template itself as this affects other articles. Also, if you are concerned about North Vietnam medals, please visit Military decorations of the Cold War. There is a section over there that needs writing. -User:Husnock 02:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Hi== Thanks for the comments. From looking at some of the discussion threads, especially the Khmer Rouge page, I'm beginning to notice some of the things that you are noting. It's a shame that things are the way they are here, since you seem to have been doing so much good work. So I'll have to ake a look at Anarchopedia. User:JMaxwell 21:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) == North Vietnamese victory == In your edit of Vietnam War, you wrote: :North Vietnamese victory? What about the NLF? To which it might be noted that it was uniformed troops of the North Vietnamese regular armed forces who occupied Saigon and received the surrender of Big Minh, and it was the government of North Vietnam that subsequently suppressed the South Vietnamese insurgents following the capitulation of the South. Moreover, despite public protestations to the contrary, it was North Vietnam—not the NLF or any other "local" revolutionaries—that initiated and controlled the action of NLF partisans throughout the duration of the conflict.
However, because I can see how a good-faith argument exists to name the NLF and/or other South Vietnamese revolutionary groups as at least co-victors, I changed the wording of the appropriate sentence to mostly avoid the issue. —User:Ryanaxp 20:47, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC) : The idea that the DRV initiated resistance in southern Vietnam is absurd. If anything, the DRV in the first years of its existence tried to get the southern communists and nationalists to lay low while it was busy shoring up its new government. The DRV was especially adamant to not engage in armed resistance. From 1954 until at earliest 1959, the southern communists and nationalists were always chomping at the bit to resist Diem, while the DRV was urging caution. By 1959-1960, the situation for communists and nationalists in the south had reached what was perceived to be a dire level, and the DRV had firmed itself up, and at this point the DRV stopped trying to rein in the southern communists and nationalists. The initiative was in the south, where it always was. : As far as the surrender of Minh, when I look at this picture[http://www.fallofsaigon.org/tanks02.gif] of the tank smashing through the presidental palace gates in Saigon, I see an NLF flag, not a DRV one. I would agree that after over twenty years of being shot at by the ARVN, US Army, and Phoenix Program operatives, so many PLAF soldiers had been killed that the PAVN/PLAF ratio changed. Nevertheless, as that picture shows, the NLF was given the honor of taking the palace, and an NLF flag was flown from the palace. No one received Duong Van Minh's surrender, Minh was told he had no connection with the Republic of South Vietnam and he had no authority to surrender anything. User:Ruy Lopez 21:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ruy Lopez
I think Wikipedia has decent articles on scientific topics such as quantum mechanics, but as far as political and historical articles it is hopelessly biased, and in my opinion will always remain so. The primary reason for this is embedded in the question, who runs Wikipedia? The answer is the millionaire Ayn Rand devotee Jimbo Wales, and to a lesser extent his various lieutenants. Also, Wikipedia contributors are English-speaking and have access to the Internet, and those two things alone already make the majority of people contributing here part of the world elite, especially if one considers half of the people on earth have never made a telephone call. Contributions to articles like the History of Brazil from this group are modifications on an history summary which was originally written by the U.S. State Department, as all of the country history articles on Wikipedia are. Wikipedia may look open and mutable at first, but it is not. Most people learn this the hard way, get discouraged and stop contributing to wiki encyclopedias altogether. I am/was very involved in Wikipedia over the past year, and say this from experience. Hopefully the painful frustration around this discovery will not prevent people from contributing to wiki encyclopedias other than Wikipedia. Unfortunately, most people begin getting frustrated, think they can beat the system, then disappear from Wikipedia and every other wiki encyclopedia altogether, which is unfortunate. Even Wikipedia administrators like User:172 and User:Secretlondon have been badgered off of Wikipedia, not to mention a host of users. While Wikipedia itself will always be the way it is, articles are licensed under the GFDL, which is one positive thing. Unfortunately, most of the articles are garbage. Even the well-written articles have other people come in later and introduce the same bias you can find in the corporate media. It is like gold surrounded by dung. If I transfer a Wikipedia article to another wiki, I almost always use an old version of it, before people came in and started modifying it. Good wikis to check out are: *[http://eng.anarchopedia.org Anarchopedia] - a general wiki with an anarchist bent (and run in an anarchic fashion) *Red Wiki - a general wiki with a somewhat socialist and Marxist bent *dKosopedia - a "left/progressive/liberal/Democratic" wiki *Demopedia - the "liberal/progressive" Democratic Underground's wiki *Sourcewatch - a good progressive wiki with a focus on think tanks, lobbyists, public relations firms and so forth I urge you to contribute to these wikis for historical, political, economic and other such subjects, as Wikipedia is hopeless for these topics. The views reflect the owners, which is as it almost always is. Thus, you will feel better building the new society within the shell of the old in these other places, where you will be part of a welcoming instead of hostile community. And of course, especially since Wikipedia uses the GFDL, continue to contribute to pages on the Brontosaurus and such, but realize that Wikipedia will always have biased historical articles, and trying to fight it is pointless, the deck is stacked against you. We'll write our history on these wikis, the conservatives will write theirs on Wikipedia and other wikis, and that's how it is.
Ruy Lopez
== pronunciation == hey, can anyone tell me how the name Ruy is pronounced in English? -User:Lethe | User talk:Lethe I'd pronounce it "roo-ey" User:GCarty 11:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) The British say rooey, Americans say roy, and Spanish say something in between.
Ruy López
Ruy López could refer to one of several things: * Ruy López de Segura, 16th century Spanish priest and early chess master * Ruy López de Villalobos, 16th century Spanish navigator * Ruy Lopez Opening, A popular chess opening, also known as the "Spanish"
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
R
RA | RB | RC | RD | RE | RF | RG | RH | RI | RJ | RK | RL | RM | RN | RO | RP | RS | RT | RU | RW | RX | RY | RZ |Words begining with Ruy_Lopez:
Ruy_Lopez
Ruy_Lopez
Ruy_Lopez
Ruy_Lopez
Ruy_López
Ruy_Lopez/Arbitration_election_endorsements
Ruy_Lopez_de_Segura
Ruy_López_de_Segura
Rúy_López_de_Segura
Ruy_Lopez_de_Villalobos
Ruy_López_de_Villalobos
Ruy_Lopez_Opening
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
