In retrospect, I would like point out, that I understand and sympathize with the views of both parties, ie: KWCorona vs rest.
I too, grow tired of the Qh5 on move 2 in many Yahoo games, and yes, even on UChess, it's quite common. It really effects my play for the worse, especially my play in timed games against stronger opponents who do not play Qh5.
IN RHP, however, I have only seen Qh5 ONCE, and my rating is about 300 pts higher already, in so few games, then in Yahoo or Uchess. What does this mean? It could mean, that:
A) I am simply a bad player, for whatever reason, against 2Qh5
B) The rating system here is flawed in some way
C) That, Qh5, really does hamper your development in becoming a better chess player, and that not seeing 2Qh5 in RHP has slowly developed me into a better player.
Again, I am relentless to talk about this, as many will see this thread and play Qh5 in spite (which would frustrate me a lot), and I wouldn't be surprised if I start losing routinely again.
I just started a game where my opponent played 2 Qh5 against 1...c6
I'm no master, but I don't think he has enough tactical potential in this position to justify the time he has lost developing. Time will tell though.
Brian
Game 686404
I think the question to ask is:
Is 2.Qh5, like the GM's say, really a "terrible blunder" when it comes to average tournament players like ourselfs?
Many argue it's bad because it allows black to "equalize immediately" with proper play, but is that it? Black can only equalize from this move, not gain a leg up? If that is what is considered, then I'll argue 2.Qh5 is a really strong move, it gives white an equal position with several tactical shots available ASAP, tactical shots that black does not have.
It's time to think outside the box a bit and perhabs analyze Qh5 a bit further. Sure it may break all convensional rules, but so did Alekeine's and Reti's hypermodem openings when they first came out in the 1930's. To be honest, although I have seen a lot of Qh5 lately, when I was a kid, I never saw it. Scholar's mate was generally done with Qf3 back in the 1980's, nobody even thought of Qh5, this makes a big difference, as Qh5, the move generally used today, seems like a much better move then Qf3.
Originally posted by BLReidNo pun intended to your opponent, but playing Qh5 against the Caro Kann is beyond stupid. The point of Qh5 is to gain a tempo, as well as think of a mating attack, by attacking e pawn (when black plays e5) or c pawn, when black plays c5. With no pawns on that rank, white has no attack, and is simply met with g6, like you played, and he just moves his queen back to f3, where it probabaly should of been on move 2 if he wanted to even attempt Scholar's against the Caro. White just lost 2 moves.
I just started a game where my opponent played 2 Qh5 against 1...c6
I'm no master, but I don't think he has enough tactical potential in this position to justify the time he has lost developing. Time will tell though.
Brian
Game 686404
If you are a big Qh5 hater, like I am, perhabs you should consider the Caro, although, if ppl do not play Qh5, I really don't understand the principle of this opening. I find it hard to memorize, understand, comprehend, etc. . . it seems passive and like black is looking for a draw in a very simple, timid position, through exchanges. It just doesn't seem logical, it's as if black is playing not to win, but not to lose.
I agree with this opinion (not that mine is any more qualified). Consider, most of us "class-level" players are really wasting our efforts to get worried about opening theory anyway, since we all make horrendous tactical blunders, they just aren't all taken advantage of. If you want proof of that, try running one of your "brilliant" wins through Fritz or a similar engine and let it show you how many mistakes you made. This opening simply creates tactical opportunities earlier. If it was such a weak opening, then why are so many class level players complaining about it? I am no fan of the move either, but just because the bad move comes on move 2 instead of move 6 (or whenever someone runs out of book and has to start making their own moves) shouldn't really matter. Knuckle down and prove that it is bad!
Is 2.Qh5, like the GM's say, really a "terrible blunder" when it comes to average tournament players like ourselfs?
Many argue it's bad because it allows black to "equalize immediately" with proper play, but is that it? Black can only equalize from this move, not gain a leg up? If that is what is considered, then I'll argue 2.Qh5 is a really strong move, it gives white an equal position with several tactical shots available ASAP, tactical shots that black does not have.
If you are a big Qh5 hater, like I am, perhabs you should consider the Caro, although, if ppl do not play Qh5, I really don't understand the principle of this opening. I find it hard to memorize, understand, comprehend, etc. . . it seems passive and like black is looking for a d ...[text shortened]... logical, it's as if black is playing not to win, but not to lose.[/b]At my level, I consider the real point of the opening is to get to a reasonable middlegame against stronger competition without having a bankrupt position. The Caro is very solid, if not so aggressive, and suits my needs in this area. as far as playing not to lose, well, 1/2-1/2 is better than 1-0, from black's perspective.😉
The thing that frustrates me the most about a Qh5er, is as ppl have admited here, even through proper play, it merely equalizes. I think part of the reason I do badly against Qh5 is because I think I can find a way to get a winning position as black, and it's simply not there! (Why wouldn't I think that? Considering every GM shuns Qh5). Not only that, the frustration comes from realizing Qh5 is merely an equal game for black, and in that game, you will have to defend, TACTIC, AFTER TACTIC, AFTER TACTIC, and I don't need to tell you what happens if black misses one of those tactics.
It's the kind of game were white makes a pile of little mistakes, but if black even makes ONE mistake, he's done. Qh5 just doesn't do chess justice! LOL! 😞
Originally posted by mateuloseThe thing that attracted me to the Caro Kann was the solid structure it provides for its user. It's pretty much devoid of weaknesses, and if you can stave off some ealry pressure, you'll be fine, and actually may have some winning chances in an endgame thanks to your panw structure. The other thing that attracts me to the Caro Kann is that it seems like a lot of people at my level of play just don't know how to properly play against it. They most often play the Advance Variation (3.e5) and then allow me to trade off my light-square bishop, after which time I have no problems whatsoever. Or they'll try some sort of crazed wing attack, as if I'm bound by Caro Kann doctrine to castle on the kingside.
No pun intended to your opponent, but playing Qh5 against the Caro Kann is beyond stupid. The point of Qh5 is to gain a tempo, as well as think of a mating attack, by attacking e pawn (when black plays e5) or c pawn, when black plays c5. With no pawns on that rank, white has no attack, and is simply met with g6, like you played, and he just moves his queen ...[text shortened]... hanges. It just doesn't seem logical, it's as if black is playing not to win, but not to lose.
Originally posted by mateuloseim gonna come out as a blaspheming heathern, and admit that i quite like Qh5. I agree with what mateulose was saying (although his standpoint seems kinda changeable). it tends to make a fun game, gives u sm nice attacks, and lets u push black around. also i like having my Q on f3. if u think its stupid, then fair enough. beat it into the ground and improve ur rating. unless u cant, in which case u have to admit that i have opened effectively.
It's time to think outside the box a bit and perhabs analyze Qh5 a bit further. Sure it may break all convensional rules, but so did Alekeine's and Reti's hypermodem openings when they first came out in the 1930's. To be honest, although I have seen a lot of Qh5 lately, when I was a kid, I never saw it. Scholar's mate was generally done with Qf3 back i ...[text shortened]... a big difference, as Qh5, the move generally used today, seems like a much better move then Qf3.[/b]
in other news, as 2.Qh5 has no name, i have decided to name it; the bitchqueen, for the queen is bitchy
marcussucrammarcussucrammarcus
Originally posted by KWCoronaIf you can't defend against it properly, you suck.
I 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.
I sometimes even try it, to make sure my opponent is paying attention to the opening as well. Sometimes i win because they aren't paying attention to such a mate. They assume i won't try that because they are rated higher then 1300. They expect me to realise they know that mate, and therefore it'd be pointless to try.
But they still fall for it sometimes.
White: Woody HarrelsonI personally dislike 12...d5. I think that black should have moved his Queen and put his Bishop on e2.
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. Bx ...[text shortened]... . Kc3 Ke6 27. f4 Nd4 28. Rd1 Ne2+ 29. Kc2 Nd4+ 30. Kc3 Ne2+ 1/2-1/2
Now that I think of it, I am questioning 6...d3. The whole idea behind the "weakness" of the Scholar's Mate opening is that White loses a ton of tempo without achieving anything. Black needs to follow this plan by moving the Queen and attacking the White Queen with his Be2. As soon as the White Q is off h5, the Black Q can move, and this is not a loss of tempo if she for example moves to c5 or b4, forcing White to sacrifice tempo as well. c5 seems the safer move, but b4 makes an attack on the e4 pawn concievable.
I agree however that the opening isn't the end of the world, and it is pretty obvious that the man with the (at one time? I haven't been keeping up) highest chess rating ever and (former?) World Champion can play a solid game with it. It's not awful, it's just giving up tempo for no reason.
As lucifer pointed out, maybe 3...Qe7 was the blunder. Maybe it should have been 3...g6.