Anyone know a better name for this opening and victory?

A real 2 00 quick game!

Also what is the consensus on chess.com about publicizing games?

I wouldn't want to embarrass anyone.

The consensus on publishing games- you stick well within parameters. All games may be posted, just keep your opponent anonymous. That's all we ask. 

Not an astounding mate, but well done nonetheless. 

Is that the consensus, actually? I think if someone were to post a game against me, I'd prefer it if I were named. Even the very stupid losses. But I agree that when I've posted games, I usually make the other player anonymous.

Has this been discussed before?

Scholar's Mate...any variation of it...just not worth posting a game containing it, ever.

The first move is the old benoni opening (in the modern benoni, Nf6 is played first).  The point is that after dxc5 the pawns can't be held onto without far too much effort (it's acquisition can be forced with Qa5).  And if white simply gives up the extra pawn, he will end up with one less central pawn.

The most common, and best variation for white instead is advancing the pawn forward with d5, gaining a space advantage.  So you will rarely see this variation.

The scholars mate?  Not an opening, simply a trap used by beginners.  Stronger players would have just avoided the mate with Nf3, and gain time attacking the queen later (or at least threaten to) with Nd5, while gaining a well placed knight. 

Honestly, we can't help you analyze 2 minute games that end in scholars mate.  First because the very fact that you are using scholars mate means that you are crossing your fingers and saying "I hope he doesn't see that" as you play chess, which is no way to get good at chess (your rating caps at about 1600 IMO).  Second, the lower ability somebody is (and you are at a lower ability during 2 minute games) the harder it is to analyze, and I could list reasons for it but I don't want to go off too far on a tangent.

Goldendog, you have an interesting profile: wonderful forums.  Especially the one with the pictures...so many views...

I wanted to check out your game portfolio though and couldn't find any...

I wanted to see if I thought correctly: People making your comments on games like what I've shown, have an above average rating.  If so, please stop snubbing us little guys! 

"My dreams are all I have

Be careful where you tread."  Keats (paraphrased)  Anybody can find me the original?  Much appreciated.

Well, ok, that is your opinion. Some people may find particular games embarrassing. At any rate, permission should be asked before posting your opponents username.

And yes, this has been discussed before- probably in a case where someone didn't want their name posted! 

I think it's W.B. Yeats, not Keats, and the line is (as I recall - haven't got the book handy) 'Tread softly, because you tread upon my dreams'. I think the poem it's from is called 'He Wishes for the Cloths of Heaven'.

 The best advice, then, I could give a beginner is to stop playing for the ultra-cheapos and you won't be tempted to show them off. Better to play the game with the expectation that the opponent won't be falling into a one-move mate. It's a recommended practice and we end up with better play in the long run. Besides, Scholar's Mate is the epitome of beginner vs. beginner--it's best to move on from such ploys asap.

I don't know the Keats, but I don't want to crush your dreams but insist it is possible to move on to much more worthy ones, easily too.

Keats died so young and was so brilliant, he's like some of our chess men who shone brightly and went suddenly out. I got a degree in English--meaning I studied Literature and Writing, and also the language--and Keats made a powerful impression.

Ok.  Thank you very much friends!

By the way though...

This is not "showing off."

This is learning: if it works for those with a rating of 1200 or lower (and here it worked with someone with almost a 1400 rating quick! - which is precisely why I thought it worthy to show) then it can be used - it has a place...whether as offense or defense.

If you don't like it, don't comment.  What is wrong with that guy?

I am sure, more people by far will appreciate my point here than yours.

We need more vocal humble people, who can learn from things like this, than arrogant treaders like...

Oh please...lol.

the person you played has a quick rating of 1383 now

his blitz is somewhere in the 1500s

I thought this was an interesting variation of Scholar's Mate because of the unexpected quality behind it.  My taking the pawn with bishop and my moving the queen where seen more as reactions to my opponent's moves than in the ordinary Scholar's mate.

The VERY fact that my opponent has a "high" (relatively) rating I believe shows this point.

 I agree, but I too would almost always ask permission before I used somebody's name.

Sincere questions about this.

1.  Why?  It is common in chess literature to include all names as chess games are public and not subject to copywrite laws.  Analysis?  Yes.  Game scores, not private.  The real consensus in the chess world is "as much info as possible."

2. Who is "we"?

You don't feel some would be embarrassed to have there blunders publicized.

You don't think one should protect those, out of manners/etiquette/SPORTSMANSHIP?

No. 

Legally any one may publish a chess game without permission form either player and it is time hnored convention in chess to include names whenever known.

This bizarro social construct about saving people from embarassment is silly.  It is a game.  People make mistakes.  Even GM's.  People need to stop creating these pseudo-protective enclaves when there is nothing to really be protected from. 

If one does not want to use names they can do so, but compelling others to follow this is simply wrong and defies the convention of the game.  What is next, I am not allowed to look at games in progress because a person might be embarassed when they blunder?

I have had my games published in magazines and have had comments made that did not make me look sharp.  The solution is to get better at chess while not being bothered by other people's opinions.

Publishing the game is one thing.  But using a game score to attack a person is wrong and I am not condoning that.  It is ok to critique and can do that without being vicious or personal and should be encouraged for all players.

Embarassment is not harmful. 

It is not an injury.

It is an 'eye of the beholder' phenomena and it is just simply wrong to try to prevent people from being embarassed by others because in the end it cannot be accomplished anyway and becomes more about the people trying to enforce such a rule than it does the people they are 'saving.'

Thank you for your important feedback.  Could you please explain a little more what you are not condoning...I'm not sure what you meant "using a game score to attack a person."

Thank you.

Stating a move is not the right move for the position is a valid form of critique.  OK

Stating a person is an idiot for making the move is an attack on that person.  WRONG

***********************************************************************

There is the line.  Literally and figuratively.  It is that simple.

So long as comments are about moves and not the people making them, it is kosher and a part of the chess experience and should be encouraged.

Teach people the correct way.  Do not patronize them with this "no names" nonsense.  Elsewise when they go out into the "real world" and leave the little comfy Chess.com nest they will be smacked by reality and will be poorly prepared to act like normal folk in these common scenarios.

Even sillier is that here on this site we are not even talking about real names and identities!