So playing against this defense this is a common line I see:
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qe5+
To defend, what do you think about playing Qe2? I find that players who play this defense (at least at my level) do so because they want to get their queen involved as early and aggressively as possible, so why not do what you can to take it off the board as soon as possible?
After 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qe5+, I think that 4 Qe2 is good for White if Black exchanges Queens. But, if Black instead refuses to trade Queens and plays 4...Qa5, he's playing a "normal" Scandinavian a tempo down, but White's "free" tempo was spent playing 4 Qe2. I don't think that the Queen belongs on e2 here.
ditto what gaychessplayer said, except with Be2. black plays a normal scandinavian after Be2 except white put his bishop on an inferior square... this opening actually has a name, called the Patzer Variation. I've actually seen a site dedicated to this opening, some strong player picked this line up and swears by it since white is forced to stick the bishop on a worse square; black can follow up with ...c6 and ...Qc7 getting into a normal scandinavian setup where white is a little more passive.
Originally posted by ResigningSoonI agree that e2 is not the optimal square for the KB. But Black will lose another tempo after White plays Nf3. Then White can relocate the KB at his leisure. The "patzer variation" doesn't seem to be all that bad for Black, although I don't think ithat 3...Qe5+ is an improvement over the normal 3...Qa5. IMO, 3...Qe5+ is probably only slightly worse than 3...Qa5.
ditto what gaychessplayer said, except with Be2. black plays a normal scandinavian after Be2 except white put his bishop on an inferior square... this opening actually has a name, called the Patzer Variation. I've actually seen a site dedicated to this opening, some strong player picked this line up and swears by it since white is forced to stick the ...[text shortened]... ...c6 and ...Qc7 getting into a normal scandinavian setup where white is a little more passive.
The Patzer Variation
http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_bits_pieces/053003_patzer_var.html
Moves like 3...Qe5+ on the surface look bad but White has to play
well to prove it.
Andrew Martin puts forward an interesting case backed up with games.
He is not too fond of 4.Qe2.
He writes:
WHITE GIVES UP HIS MANHOOD
A loss of face, almost a pathetic move. Maybe some might see the
Queen exchange as a drawback, but after 4...Qxe2+ 5.Bxe2 c6 Black
is completely equal and against any decent player one should be
satisfied with that on move five."
Unquote.
The trouble is that Martin is a good player. What is good for an
over 2200 may not be playable for an under 1500.
But an entertaining and instructive article from a good writer.
His book on the KID is very good.