Originally posted by Dodger11I have seen this discussed many times, and I am very new here.
It's a beginners opening used by 10 year olds, and an insult to anyone that knows how to play the game.
How can any opening be an *insult* to anyone?
If you really hate to play against the opening, discuss this with your opponent before playing them. Helpful examples for people not capable of understanding this:
"Hello. Wanna play hide and seek?"
"Sure. If you agree too count to 50 instead of 100 and we agree to only hide outdoors."
Any 10 year old kid understands this.
In fact, standing around whining about playmates not playing the game the way you want them to is one of the more juvenile things I can think of. Right up with:
"Requesting money for a thing you were going to throw out anyway."
and
"Holding ones hands over ones ears and screaming to indicate 'I dont wanna listen to you' "
Stop whining!
Play chess!
Originally posted by Mephisto2There are no blunders by black. But he did play passive and was just screwing around (passive play->draw). In any case, thank you for the game. This is a very instructive demonstration on dealing with 2 Qh5.
Of course most people will agree with that principle. But don't be too categoric. Look here:
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 Bx ...[text shortened]... this 'bad' opening that forces him to go for repetition to draw?
Originally posted by Dodger11No one is making a case for the Scholar's Mate being a legitimate opening. But it IS a way to open a chess game, and it's something most of us learn when we first start out at chess. If you are so offended by an opponent who tries to beat you with it, then maybe you should take it upon yourself to try and set them straight. Ask them what they learned about the game the last time they beat someone with it. Show them the proper way to defend against it. And most importantly, suggest a better opening for them. After all, they're only using the Scholar's Mate because it's what they've been taught.
Folks, if it were a legitimate opening, then you would see it's use in tournament play by masters and above. Do you? Ever see an annotated game between grandmasters in which this childish opening is used?
Well now it's odd that you would say that natsci, because people have been defending the opening and trying to make a case for it all over this post. What have you been reading? Hey, I know a good way to open for beginners....a5 or h5, freeing up the rooks for early development.....hahahahahahaha....that's on a level with the scholars mate opening, which is the case I'm trying to make.
Originally posted by Dodger11*sigh*
Well now it's odd that you would say that natsci, because people have been defending the opening and trying to make a case for it all over this post. What have you been reading? Hey, I know a good way to open for beginners....a5 or h5, freeing up the rooks for early development.....hahahahahahaha....that's on a level with the scholars mate opening, which is the case I'm trying to make.
Why. Oh why, does it bother anyone, how someone else opens a game of chess? Mind your own opening. If you feel you can't do that against the scholars mate, then maybe you don't know the game as well as you think you do.
And all this talk about what the GM:s do and how they play... It's not important!! You don't get to be a GM just by studying their games and memorizing their responses. If you don't understand why they make this move and not that one you are not in a position to tell others that this or that move is bad just on the fact that some GM in this situation did not make it.
I agree that it might not be a good way to open a game of chess since it's pretty easy to defend against. But, by [blasphemy], let people learn this by playing. I hope you dont raise your kids with this philosophy.
"If you cant do it perfectly, don't even try. Just do it the way I told you."
Very nice...
Just stop complaining ok?
We're just trying to get the pinheads who play the opening to admit what a suck way it is to begin a game. I don't like playing against it because it's a red flag that I'm playing someone with a child-like grasp of the game and it'll be an easy win. Too easy to be a worthwhile way to spend my time.
I think the main reason why ppl here hate scholar's mate, and I do aswell, is it is a true insult to the intellect of yourself as a chess player. When your opponent plays a scholar's mate against you, it's like he assumes you are dumb and doesn't give you any respect. It's the kind of opening that depends on hopingly obvious blunders to get wins off of. Chess, in some ways, is very much like sports, in sports, ppl don't take too kindly to showboasting and taunting, and this Scholar's Mate opening is the equivalent of that.
Originally posted by Dodger11I'm sorry (well a little anyway) to have made that a part of my argument since I didn't want to belittle (spelling?) anyones playing strength. I myself being a mediocre (at best) player.
By the way chasparos nobody here said they had a problem meeting the turdy scholars mate opening, why would you even make that part of your argument? Anyone who has a problem defending against is an idiot.
But to call people idiots for either using or being defeated by any particular opening is wrong. I know that I can beat the opening if all other things are equal. However, if faced by a much stronger player wanting to experiment with it I would be crushed. Not by the opening but by the player. I don't know your strength, but do you think you should be called an idiot if beaten by someone using the opening?
Say Kasparov plays this for fun against you? Perhaps to give you a sporting chance, would you feel you deserved to be called an idiot if he won?
Turn it around. You play someone way below yourself in strength and decide to play it just for kicks... Is it impossible for you to win such a game? I bet you could beat a player rated below 1000 with any first two moves on the board.
As for the insult part. It's just ridiculus to feel insulted over a chess move. Say you play a GM and launch a tactical attack which he finds quite easy to defend against. Is it allright for him to accuse you of insulting him for not playing the "correct" moves and trying to get in a cheapshot (in his opinion)?
For crying out loud. Treat your fellow man as you would like to be treated yourself.
Basic. Fundamental.
Especially so in fun and games, like chess.
good point, well made chasparos! its gd to see someone who isnt so petty. also get off ur high horse ppl who are 'insulted' by the way someone plays chess. when i play 2.Qh5 i dont expect my opponent to fall for the mate anyway (i prob wdnt even take the mate if they did - that wd b dull) i like the kind of game that tends to follow the opening, which is surely the reason for choosing any opening.
marcussucrammarcussucrammarcus