I play the gambit continuations, the Icelandic and the Pol. I don't think they are completely sound, but they make for very fun games with a minimal amount of theory. It's not something I would play in CC though.
But I would guess it would be fun OTB. Who seriously books up against rare gambit lines of a usually inferior defense?
Originally posted by pwnguin I play the gambit continuations, the Icelandic and the Pol. I don't think they are completely sound, but they make for very fun games with a minimal amount of theory. It's not something I would play in CC though.
But I would guess it would be fun OTB. Who seriously books up against rare gambit lines of a usually inferior defense?
Originally posted by badivan1 Hey, guys! I was wondering what is your opinion on the Scandinavian Defense (1.e4 d5), regardless of whether you play this opening or not.
I use it sometimes otb..it's solid..top gms have been beaten with this opening...like Anand. The opening itself seems to defy the amateur rules, like don't bring your queen out to early, but this opening has stood the test of time. It's one of those opening where both sides have to know what they're are doing,or they will get crushed..
As black, the Scandinavian Defense is a great opening, indeed, it was at one time a required part of any GM's repertoire. It was popular during the "romantic" period of chess, when the Danish and King's Gambits were common, but it has stood the test of time much better. At one point it was considered a bit stodgey, half-hearted, and out of date, but it is a very active, fighting response to 1.e4, and against a player unfamiliar with it, it can be devastating.
It roo00OOOOLZ.
I should mention that the queen recapturing the pawn on move two is not the best response, let the pawn stay and go with 2...... knight f6, (Marshall variation)don't let your queen get pushed around the board. You'll get the pawn back eventually, have a good lead on developement and a big open game.
I would seriously recommend finding books other than the Schiller one on the gambit variations, as the back half of "Gambit Openings for Black" is utter crap (the ones with defenses to d4), and the first half (Scandi) has so many typos I have to hand-check the analysis before I play the lines.
Anyway, sorry for misremembering the name, the two main gambits are the Icelandic and the Portuguese. One thing I don't like about it is after a very common move sequence against unbooked opponents, 1 e4 d5 2 exd Nf6 3 Nc3 Nx 4 Nx Qx, you have a reasonable advantage but it is very hard to prove it and rather boringish, nothing compared to the fun you get from the above gambits. Sample games for you:
Icelandic
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1130254
Notice move 9 black has all his pieces in nice positions, excepting his rook, while white only has his knight in a nice spot. Then black hunts the king and mates.
Originally posted by Sam The Sham I should mention that the queen recapturing the pawn on move two is not the best response, let the pawn stay and go with 2...... knight f6, (Marshall variation)don't let your queen get pushed around the board. You'll get the pawn back eventually, have a good lead on developement and a big open game.
That is, of course, a matter of opinion. I think 2. ... Qxd5 is best and the move that annoys White the most. Topov recently lost to the weird 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 line earlier this year, whereas he slaughtered Kamsky last year when the latter tried 2. ... Nf6 against him.
Originally posted by Fat Lady That is, of course, a matter of opinion. I think 2. ... Qxd5 is best and the move that annoys White the most. Topov recently lost to the weird 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 line earlier this year, whereas he slaughtered Kamsky last year when the latter tried 2. ... Nf6 against him.
In his "Ideas Behind the Modern Chess Opening: Black", IM Gary Lane recommends the 3...Qd6 line. The old "Player's Chess News: Theory and Analysis" once had an article on the 3..Qd6 line called "The Third Evil."
Originally posted by pwnguin I would seriously recommend finding books other than the Schiller one on the gambit variations, as the back half of "Gambit Openings for Black" is utter crap (the ones with defenses to d4), and the first half (Scandi) has so many typos I have to hand-check the analysis before I play the lines.
Anyway, sorry for misremembering the name, the two main gambit ...[text shortened]... essgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1455251
Not as impressive but still a good attacking game.
I started to say that it seems like Schiller's books are proofread by an eight-year-old, but then I realized I was unfairly demeaning eight-year-olds.
Actually, "Gambit Opening Repertoire for Black" has pretty decent coverage of the Icelandic and Portugese Gambits. I agree, the section on the Tarrasch Defense is pretty spotty, to say the least.
Speaking of spotty, in "Gambit Opening Repertoire for White", Schiller recommends 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3, but amazingly doesn't give a continuation against 2...Nf6!
OTB, I generally play the Qd6 line of the Scandi as black against 1e4. The good thing about it is it's a simple system where you only need to learn a few basic concepts and there's not too much theory to get bogged down in (though I'm sure if you want to you can - it's getting more and more popular, I understand). I learned the basics of it in an afternoon.
I usually get a passive but solid position where I am slightly worse but with nothing very obvious to go at. Pretty unambitious I know but I get to the middlegame every time without having to learn reams of theory. If I tried the Sicilian, which is objectively better I'm sure, I would get annihalated by some kid who's learned the latest novely by Kraklypov from the Ulan Bator Masters 2007. If I had the time to learn something better I would ditch it like a shot, but I don't and it's ok. If you already have a functional knowledge of the Sicilian, French, Caro-kann, Pirc, 1..e5 systems or Alekhine, then I would work on improving that rather than take this up, to be honest.
Incidentally, unlike some of the rarer openings, you don't get much of a bonus for surprise value. Although white is likely not to be familiar with the theory, there aren't many exciting traps, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to formulate a plan of sensible development which involves the QB going to f4 to hit the queen and develop with tempo, which is basically what the theory tells you to do.
Originally posted by hbogyt I think it's great. It gives white no chance to transpose, so I don't have to read too much before a tournament. Otherwise this opening is no good.
....nonsequiter detected.....system shut down, fatal error .....this does not compute.....warning, Will Robinson.......WTF??
Originally posted by hbogyt I think it's great. It gives white no chance to transpose, so I don't have to read too much before a tournament. Otherwise this opening is no good.
False, I can easily transpose into the Tennison gambit if I so desire.
1. e4 d5 2. Nf3!?
As pointed out your sentence makes little sense, but to contradict the last part, the opening is solid (i.e. see references to Topalov losing to it).
Scandinavian Defense
09 Jul '07 15:25
Back to Top