Advocating the use of Scholar's Mate

Hi all...Newbie to Chess.com but not to chess.

Most of us have encountered online opponants that whip out Scholar's Mate or variations of it. I was surprised to even get a game here with that started that way. I have even seen a few websites that even go so far as to recommend it as an opening repertoire against beginners. I just wanted to get a general feeling of how you would feel about your son or daughter being taught this as a recommended opening for beginners.

Short sighted.  New players should be taught how to defend against it, not to use it themselves.

pointless.. the child will either beat unknowledgable players with it and learn nothing, or get hammered with it against stronger players and get discouraged. 

I think it's more instructive for kids to play regular openings, even if they win less than if they played the scholar's mate. I mean, if you beat a beginner in 3 moves you will learn nothing at all. There is no point in winning like that, it will just take away opportunities for real learning. 

I agree with all above its like learning traps great so you avoid them but against stronger players they just get you into trouble, problem is kids love that stuff they find it exciting

GM Nakamura sometimes plays 2. Qh5, but it's not recommended by current theory. It's probably not a recommended opening for beginners, but it can work out well. I was at a junior tournament one time and saw a game that looked something like the following (can't remember exactly):

Not sure that you can extol the virtues of a dodgy opening by showing an even dodgier game.

Well, there is a variation that somewhat contains the idea of the Scholar's Mate, though it's by no means as early or easily deflected as the trap itself. The Monkey's Bum (Deferred) is a strong and respectable line against the Modern Defense!

How often when trying to find out if someone I just met has any chess accumen do I hear the story of "this guy had mate in 5 moves.." err something like that.  Instantly knowing they know relatively little of chess I try and explain something to the effect that that is not really a skillful win but a mistake, blunder if you will on the losing party.  It will teach little of chess.  If however the player persist and this position is played very often the player will of course become so familiar with the positional aspects that some degree of usefull tactics will be learned.  Any budding chess player would learn a great deal more from the study of classical systems, before trying derive postions from otherwise failed openings.  All of this of course in mute if the mate in 5 is against the Bird Opening in which case, Rock ON!

but if playing bad opening such as scholars mate means that people enjoy the game, why not? they will soon realise that it isn't good but have gained tactics and somewhat piece play. like the 2 knights where u play Ng5 to attack f7 with similar motive

I believe it has its purpose and should be learned the same as with Legals mate and other classical mating patterns. Their not practical for serious players, but great at emphasising the importance of piece coordination in mating patterns and so on. As well in the case of Scholars mate, you are able to also teach the defence and why it is not practical as an over all attacking opening.

very simple.

for kid.

I think thats my aversion to it, and its purely psychological. Its not that the opening can't be handled. Its just a mindless opening and I feel almost insulted at seeing it played against me.

I teach children (and other beginners) to avoid scholar's mate, and I teach them to play Legall's pseudo-sacrifice. Both aim at a quick knock-out, but Legall's mate proceeds from sound positional moves. Admittedly the Italian is not the most dynamic opening, but it is a useful place to begin one's chess journey.

Due to my low rating, it gets tried on me a lot. The last time it happened the fool resigned on the twelfth move when it went south on him. People like that are obviously not interested in actually playing a chess game. They just get a silly ego boost by quick checkmates. They need to get lives.

Scholar's Mate and other lame efforts are good as teaching tools to show what happens when you try to attack without really being ready to do it. It also shows the proper use of defensive moves. In the end, you should reinforce the need to be prepared to meet odd surprises and hasty, one-piece attacks.

I think in the case of Nakamura, this method is loaded with psychological motif.

Basically he's subcommunicating this: "I believe you might fall for this one, daft as you are, and even if you don't, I know ten million ways of making you pay for making the mistake of NOT falling for it..!"

I fell for this opening twice when I first came here, one directly and one indirectly. Since then I discovered a hidden Dragon and it hasn't really been much of a problem ever since i started filtering for players above 1000 anyway.

But I think it's daft playing for a quick win in a game that takes its base in something elaborate, elegant, even artistic like that. Tricks, indeed, are for kids.

No, it's not conceivable that Nakamura was hoping to Scholar mate an experienced GM like Sasirikan. However, he was probably hoping to surprise him into misplaying the opening. 

Also, Nakamura is firmly committed to the idea of playing "non-conventional chess"; whether this did good to his rating or not is probably debatable.

You're most likely right, I know practically nowt about pro chess, however... Do you believe there's no psychological motif behind it?

I realise a GM wouldn't fall for it, mind you, but that's not the point.

The only psychological edge I can see from this lame-o opening is giving Black a disproportionate sense of safety from move 2.