01 Feb 09
Originally posted by ArrakIf I can split hairs here: techincally it's the Scandinavian Defense, not the Scandinavian opening.
is this a good reply to e4? is it positonally sound for black and or is it a good postional opening?
I've been successfully playing the Scandi for about two decades. It's probably not "objectively" as good as the Sicilian, French or Caro-Kann, but it's relatively easy to learn. There's no known forcing variation that gives White anything better than a slight advantage going into the middlegame. If you're familiar with the Scandi's main lines and ideas, you'll probably do quite well with it.
02 Feb 09
How boring. Its a defensive opening where black aimes for a lot of moves in a game. White if he doesn't know the lines will do terrible. If they know the lines then black will be defeneding a lot. Its not highly revered at the higher levels. Why learn something that doesn't offer the best chances of winning? c5!
02 Feb 09
The scandinavian is a solid opening, though can be passive if your opponent is familiar with it. Grandmasters don't play it all too often (Tiviakov being one of the few) because the positions resulting from it are often very simple, which suits lower rated players but GM's need more complications.
02 Feb 09
Originally posted by kmac27out of 37 tiviakov games on chessgames.com, he lost only 3, won 11 and drew the rest. to me that seems like white has huge problems getting anything against a well-versed scandinavian player.
How boring. Its a defensive opening where black aimes for a lot of moves in a game. White if he doesn't know the lines will do terrible. If they know the lines then black will be defeneding a lot. Its not highly revered at the higher levels. Why learn something that doesn't offer the best chances of winning? c5!
02 Feb 09
Originally posted by wormwoodIf that well-versed Scandinavian player is Tiviakov! Did you check who his opponents were wormwood? I haven't checked myself, just curious? It's an excellent score anyway.
out of 37 tiviakov games on chessgames.com, he lost [b]only 3, won 11 and drew the rest. to me that seems like white has huge problems getting anything against a well-versed scandinavian player.[/b]
In the Kasparov-Anand game, Kasparov completely mis-played the early middle-game and had to resort to a murky piece sac (which of course won him the game - murky piece sacs always win, just ask greenpawn ; )
I wouldn't touch the Scandinavian as black with a barge-pole, but that's just me. It is a very solid way to play as black, just deathly dull in many cases.
02 Feb 09
Originally posted by streetfighterwhy go 1....c5? or 1....d5? when you can play 1....Nf6!
If that well-versed Scandinavian player is Tiviakov! Did you check who his opponents were wormwood? I haven't checked myself, just curious? It's an excellent score anyway.
In the Kasparov-Anand game, Kasparov completely mis-played the early middle-game and had to resort to a murky piece sac (which of course won him the game - murky piece sacs always ...[text shortened]... ut that's just me. It is a very solid way to play as black, just deathly dull in many cases.
02 Feb 09
Originally posted by streetfighterthere are names like
If that well-versed Scandinavian player is Tiviakov! Did you check who his opponents were wormwood? I haven't checked myself, just curious? It's an excellent score anyway.
In the Kasparov-Anand game, Kasparov completely mis-played the early middle-game and had to resort to a murky piece sac (which of course won him the game - murky piece sacs always ...[text shortened]... ut that's just me. It is a very solid way to play as black, just deathly dull in many cases.
cheparinov (drawn)
stellwagen (drawn)
grischuk (drawn)
svidler (drawn)
kamsky (0-1)
anand (drawn)
svidler (1-0)
most of the rest were 2500s, maybe eight 2600s and I think maybe three 2200-2300s. I'd guesstimate the average opponent was very close to 2600.
I tried scandinavian for a while, and even somewhat liked it. but in the end it just wasn't for me. -haven't tried Qd6 much though, so maybe I'll return to it some day... I didn't get a single draw I think? but then again I never do, I'll rather crash down in flames than draw. 🙂
03 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by kmac27First of all, I don't think that the Scandinavian is any more or less "defensive" than, say, the Caro-Kann.
How boring. Its a defensive opening where black aimes for a lot of moves in a game. White if he doesn't know the lines will do terrible. If they know the lines then black will be defeneding a lot. Its not highly revered at the higher levels. Why learn something that doesn't offer the best chances of winning? c5!
Secondly, so what if the Scandinavian is "not highly revered at the higher levels?" Unless you're planning a match against a Grandmaster anytime soon, the Scandinavian isn't significantly better or worse than any other mainline opening.
Thirdly, I suspect that the Sicilian is probably the optimal defense to 1 e4 at master level and above. At amatuer level, I don't think it matters which mainline opening one chooses, as long as one undestandings the basic ideas and the main lines. The Scandi requires far less memorization than the Sicilian, allowing the amateur to spend more time studying tactics, which will probably net him or her many more rating points than learning the fine points of the Sicilian.
If I was desirious of becoming a GM, and had the time and talent to do so, I would almost certainly play the Sicilian Defense. But since I find many things more interesting and productive than studying opening variations, I'll continue to play "inferior" defenses like the Scandinavian.
BTW, another opening that I play, the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, is virtually never seen at Grandmaster level. But that doesn't stop amatuers like me from winning game after game with it!