just play normally and develop knight to f6...white's queen is misplaced and will need to move again and his knight has the best square robbed from him because of Qf3. It's no problem for black...in fact, black should be relieved to see white play this crap, novice attempt at an opening (i've assume 1 e4 e5 2. bc4 nf6 3. Qf3)
Originally posted by hypermo2001Of course, if WHite plays Qh5 first, you'll want to play Nc6 first to defend the e-pawn. Or you could go lucifershammer's route and give up that pawn. I'm sure that with best play by White, he can quell Black's initiative and keep the pawn, but I'm also pretty confident that anyone foolish enough to try for Scholar's Mate won't play anywhere close to the best possible moves.
just play normally and develop knight to f6...white's queen is misplaced and will need to move again and his knight has the best square robbed from him because of Qf3. It's no problem for black...in fact, black should be relieved to see white play this crap, novice attempt at an opening (i've assume 1 e4 e5 2. bc4 nf6 3. Qf3)
Well...my feeling about the subject is this. I want to learn to play chess well. If half the games I see start with such amateur openings, How can I ever expect to get better at difficult openings? Its just insulting to be thought of as not worth your best game from the outset. Thats all I am saying.
Game 590798 demonstrates the gambit idea. In the actual game, 11. ... f5? was a mistake weakening the K-side. Mephisto's suggestion was 11. ... Re8! keeping the pressure on e-file.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOf course most people will agree with that principle. But don't be too categoric. Look here:
My opinion is that they are novices. To stop seeing this opening, you play somewhere that has a rating system, like here, or Yahoo! Chess. Once you've destroyed everyone who tries the Scholar's Mate, your rating will go up to the level where people no longer use it.
White: Woody Harrelson
Black: Gary Kasparov
Prague 1999
1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nc6 3. Bc4 Qe7 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Qh4 d6 6. d3 h6 7. h3 Be6 8. Nc3 Bxc4 9. dxc4 Nd4 10. Nxd4 exd4 11. Ne2 c5 12. f3 d5 13. cxd5 Nxd5 14. Qxe7+ Nxe7 15. Bd2 O-O-O 16. O-O-O g6 17. Nf4 Bg7 18. c4 dxc3 19. Bxc3 Bxc3 20. bxc3 b6 21. c4 Nc6 22. Kb2 Rhe8 23. Rxd8+ Rxd8 24. Nd5 h5 25. a4 Kd7 26. Kc3 Ke6 27. f4 Nd4 28. Rd1 Ne2+ 29. Kc2 Nd4+ 30. Kc3 Ne2+ 1/2-1/2
Admitted, this was only a consulting game. But where are black's blunders against this 'bad' opening that forces him to go for repetition to draw?
k, i dont mean to bitch, and this is off the subject, bt when posted a game a little while ago in which i used 2.Qh5 mephisto2 was somewhat derogatory. howsever in the game posted earlier in this thread he uses that 'weak' opening. if im missing the point and that was a test game or something, then ignore me.
marcus
Originally posted by OuermyhteNo problem. The game that was referred to was a setup game played as a consequence of the discussion in that thread, to test out the idea of 2. ... Nf6 agianst 2.Qh5.
k, i dont mean to bitch, and this is off the subject, bt when posted a game a little while ago in which i used 2.Qh5 mephisto2 was somewhat derogatory. howsever in the game posted earlier in this thread he uses that 'weak' opening. if ...[text shortened]... nt and that was a test game or something, then ignore me.
marcus
I still don't recommend to try for Scholars' mate, or 2.Qh5. The above game is only meant to show how relative this all is.
Originally posted by OuermyhteYes - that was a test game to see if Black could sacrifice a pawn for speedier development.
k, i dont mean to bitch, and this is off the subject, bt when posted a game a little while ago in which i used 2.Qh5 mephisto2 was somewhat derogatory. howsever in the game posted earlier in this thread he uses that 'weak' opening. if im missing the point and that was a test game or something, then ignore me.
marcus
Originally posted by KWCoronaWho are you to judge people that use the opening? It's a perfectly legal opening, and therefore it will be used.
Well...my feeling about the subject is this. I want to learn to play chess well. If half the games I see start with such amateur openings, How can I ever expect to get better at difficult openings? Its just insulting to be thought of as not worth your best game from the outset. Thats all I am saying.
Has it occured to you that many players don't know more then 2 or 3 openings?
Originally posted by TheMaster37I will judge whoever I want. I don't have to be sensitive to anyone if I don't want to. Scholar's Mate preys on beginners and is a joke to anyone else. It may be perfectly legal, but it is a roadblock not only to the opponant that has to put up with defending it, but it also to the poor dolt who uses it thinking he/she is so smart, when in effect its the most remedial opening there is.
Who are you to judge people that use the opening? It's a perfectly legal opening, and therefore it will be used.
Has it occured to you that many players don't know more then 2 or 3 openings?