Man some of you are whiny jackasses. There's a simple solution to both encountering the opening too often (such that you don't learn how to play against other openings), and to the "insult" you think is implied. Get to know it so well that you beat it so consistently and resoundingly that your rating goes up to the point where people stop playing it so much. If someone "insults" you on the chess board with inferior play the solution is to humiliate them by whooping their butt, and then offer to instruct them on opening principles - or at least suggest that they stop using that opening and tell them why it's not sound. Coming here and whining about it is just pathetic.
It's just an opening that is effective at a certain level of skill, and which focuses on developing tactical mastery for both players. It has great value at the level of play it's encountered. If you are better than that level of play, get the hell out of it and you won't see it much. I don't think people use it to "insult" anyone. People use it because they think it's an intelligent choice of opening for their level. It's your own damn fault if you stay at that level for long.
By the way, I invite anyone who wants to play me Scholar's Opening either as White or Black to challenge me, rated. Make sure I know that that's the opening you want to play.
Of course if I start getting whipped too much I may withdraw the challenge after a while.
Originally posted by Dodger11I personally think the opening is bad (sucks might be too strong a word) - and I would certainly bet on my chances against any player playing it.
It's amusing to see all the dickheads complain that we are "whining", when the question that started this thread was "what do you think about players that use this opening". The straightforward response of experienced players who think that people who use the opening suck is hardly whining.
Grow up and stop YOUR whining.
That said, it's not an "insult" to me if a 1000-1200 rated player plays it against me. I would probably feel offended if a 1500-rated player plays it against me.
Originally posted by chasparosNot if the first two moves are f3, and g4! 😀
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.
Originally posted by Dodger11I've been reading the same thread you've been reading, although clearly I've been interpreting it differently. No one on this thread has made the claim that it is a sound way to play. All they've been saying is that using it doesn't mean certain defeat. It's nowhere near as suicidal as, for instance, playing 3.....fxe5 in Damiano's Defense. If a GM made that capture against an amatuer, there'd be no way for him to stave off defeat as long as the amatuer knew what he was doing. But that same GM could bring out Scholar's Mate against that same amatuer, and end up dusitng him off.
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, fr ...[text shortened]... the scholars mate opening, which is the case I'm trying to make.
About the worst thing that Scholar's Mate does is squander White's first-move advantage, and give Black a slight advantage, if any. The feeling that it gives its user a wholly unplayable position is an illusion. That illusion is brought on by the fact that the Scholar's Mate is primarily employed by beginners, who end up looking like real duffers at the hands of much more experienced players. Also, I feel that the inherent badness of this opening is greatly exaggerated by teachers and chess authors, so that their beginner students and readers will never dream of putting their queen on h5 in the opening. However, bring this opening into a game between two experienced players of approximate equal strength, and you'll see a different picture. But the reason this opening isn't seen in advanced circles is obvious: Players don't like to give away the first-move advantage that comes with White.
Originally posted by lucifershammerSo you basicly admit you would be offended aswell. Breaking news bud, play in any timed chess site, and you have 1500 plus raters playing scholar's mate on ya, and it happens often. It gets frustrating and annoying.
I personally think the opening is bad (sucks might be too strong a word) - and I would certainly bet on my chances against any player playing it.
That said, it's not an "insult" to me if a 1000-1200 rated player plays it against me. I would probably feel offended if a 1500-rated player plays it against me.
Good point, Dodger. This post did ask that question, so I guess it's the appropriate place to criticize such players.
Such criticisms are very whiny, and I think people who get insulted over an opening are jackasses. The post didn't ask how I felt about such people, but I feel free to offer my opinion nonetheless.
I feel that if you want your opposing players to respect your strength enough that they know they shouldn't use this opening, you need to prove it to them by beating them. People use it because it works. If it didn't work, they wouldn't use it. If you're really good enough that it's suicide to try this against you, you will advance to the level where it doesn't really see use.
It's no insult to use your best attacks against a superior player. If anything, it's more of an insult to your opponent to play below your level and then criticize people for playing weaker than you would.
Originally posted by mateuloseLook kiddo, we've all debated at high school and in uni - so save your brownie points for when you'll need them.
So you basicly admit you would be offended aswell. Breaking news bud, play in any timed chess site, and you have 1500 plus raters playing scholar's mate on ya, and it happens often. It gets frustrating and annoying.
If 1500+ players on a timed site play the SM against you, then either you have a low rating (and hence they believe they can end the game quicker that way) or a 1500 on a site like Yahoo isn't the same as a 1500 on RHP.
If you can refute it, refute it. If you can't, figure out how to.
Originally posted by lucifershammerThis is what I was trying to get you to see earlier in this post...I am not upset with novices who use this and need to be taught better. I get ill with those who use it knowing how to play better and do it because they see the posibility of scoring a cheap win against someone who might not be that well versed in it and exploits it for the sake of their scores...they are basically telling you they can beat you with one hand tied behind their back...Because that is what Scholar's Mate does to someone who uses it against someone who knows the defense for it.
I personally think the opening is bad (sucks might be too strong a word) - and I would certainly bet on my chances against any player playing it.
That said, it's not an "insult" to me if a 1000-1200 rated player plays it against me. I would probably feel offended if a 1500-rated player plays it against me.
Originally posted by KWCoronaI said *I* would feel offended (as a 1400-odd rated player) if a 1500-odd player plays it against me. It's not a generalisation for all players.
This is what I was trying to get you to see earlier in this post...I am not upset with novices who use this and need to be taught better. I get ill with those who use it knowing how to play better and do it because they see the posibility of scoring a cheap win against someone who might not be that well versed in it and exploits it for the sake of their sco ...[text shortened]... s what Scholar's Mate does to someone who uses it against someone who knows the defense for it.
OTOH, if I were playing a 900-1100 player, I might play the SM and risk coming out of the opening with an atleast equal position so that I can end the game in 18 moves - rather than playing the Ruy Lopez and get dragged into a 40-50 move game (which, in CC, could take months!)
Just as, if I were playing Ironman tomorrow, I would probably expect him to start off with simple, tactical openings like the Piano rather than something complex and positional like (say) the Reti. Is he giving me his best shot? Probably not. Should I feel insulted? Of course not - he may not be showing the best of his positional play, but he certainly is giving me his best tactically. If I'm good enough to refute that, then I can be sure as hell he wont hold back the next time around.
If I'm not - then I probably wasn't going to learn much from a 40-move positional defeat either.
I expect to be given the respect my rating and performance deserves - no more, no less.
Originally posted by KWCoronaAbsolute rubbish. 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 will not lead to a significantly worse position for White unless White then goes on to badly misplay it. It will however give Black easy equality - the reason that no experience d player will use it in a serious game.
they are basically telling you they can beat you with one hand tied behind their back...Because that is what Scholar's Mate does to someone who uses it against someone who knows the defense for it.
As I said much earlier in this thread, I've played variations of this for fun against expert and master opposition in 'friendly' blitz games with reasonable results. I've also played the Smith-Morra in serious tournament games, as well as Cochrane's Gambit in the Petroff, both of which are very rare at GM level as they also allow Black relatively easy equality (though with more significant problems to solve first).
How you play the middle game and end game is far more important than how you play the opening unless you are already a master. Just enjoy your chess and don't whine about 'disrespectful' openings.
(KW, sorry I flamed your message rather than any of the others - it was the best written of the anti-scholar's posts 🙂 ).
Originally posted by KWCoronawell, once again: either they can in fact do so, in which case the insult is justified, or they can't, in which case the insult is punished. So where's the problem?
they are basically telling you they can beat you with one hand tied behind their back...Because that is what Scholar's Mate does to someone who uses it against someone who knows the defense for it.
Newbies doing SM on me doesn't bother me, they are trying to learn, what bothers me is players rated way higher then me who play it. They think a 1600 rated player can't stop a scholar's mate? Yes, I know it's probably been a while since 2000 plus players have been 1600, but surely they must know 1600ers are not rookies, show a little more respect, we don't suck THAT bad. . .
Originally posted by mateuloseYou're talking Yahoo ratings, aren't you?
Newbies doing SM on me doesn't bother me, they are trying to learn, what bothers me is players rated way higher then me who play it. They think a 1600 rated player can't stop a scholar's mate? Yes, I know it's probably been a while since 2000 plus players have been 1600, but surely they must know 1600ers are not rookies, show a little more respect, we don't suck THAT bad. . .